Shakespeare in Law.
“The Merchant of Venice” and “Measure for Measure”: A legal historical perspective
“The Merchant of Venice” and “Measure for Measure”: A legal historical perspective
Outline:
15.03.2009:
Who was William Shakespeare? Legends and exaggerations vs. historical investigation.
16.03.2009:
Equity and Discrimination.
17.03.2009:
Usury and Liberty of Contract.
Suggested readings:
Who was William Shakespeare? Legends and exaggerations vs. historical investigation.
16.03.2009:
Equity and Discrimination.
17.03.2009:
Usury and Liberty of Contract.
Suggested readings:
Daniel J. Kornstein, Fie Upon your Law!, in “Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature”, 5.1 (1993): A Symposium Issue on “The Merchant of Venice” (Spring, 1993), pp. 35-56.
Jay L. Halio, Portia: Shakespeare’s Matlock?, in “Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature”, 5.1 (1993), A Symposium Issue on "The Merchant of Venice". (Spring, 1993), pp. 57-64.
Susan Oldrieve, Marginalized Voices in “The Merchant of Venice”, in “Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature”, 5.1 (1993): A Symposium Issue on “The Merchant of Venice” (Spring, 1993), pp. 87-105.
Stefania Gialdroni's curriulum vitae (*12.08.1977)
On February 11th 2009 she received her PhD “en cotutelle” between the Universities Milano-Bicocca (Private Law and History of Private Law Legal Science) and EHESS, Paris (History and Civilisation). The title of her PhD dissertation is: “A Legal History of the East India Company. Limited Liability and Majority Principle in 17th Century England”.
48 commenti:
Hi all,
Today was a very interesting and exciting lesson!
Particularly, if we reflect on the dealt themes and appear this lesson with the preceding lessons held by Prof. Skills - as today Prof. Conte has suggested us - we notice how the same person supplies to us an impressive quantity of point of reflexion according to the perspective in whom it is analysed.
Today Dr. Gialdroni has led us in an enchanting world, the historical analysis of life of william shakepeare and does not matter if shakespeare was Sicilian or not, but not in order that it is not important to know the truth about a so important personage, simply because result very difficult to demonstrate the historical certitude of such supposition. For example shakespear might readed somewhere all that news and fact about Italy!
Anyway, I think that in the base of each legend there is always a little bit of truth, so can be probable the idea of an Italian shakespeare, at least if we think what often a too rational study of the history can deceive! I do not know which is the truth , but the alone fact that shakespeare was knowing - as emerged in the lessons with Prof. Skills - many problems about law or relative procedures, cannot demonstrate that he has been a lawyer!
Contartese Antonio
Hi!
Escape for Jewish persecution, he arrived in Stratford, and housed in porterhouse managing by his relative. Host begin to love him, because he resemble to his son, William, died. So, he beginning to ask him William…at this point he translate in English surname’s mother…from CROLLA LANZA to shake the spear… this is one interpretation of Shakespeare’s name. Some of this aren’t true…but they’re very enigmatic and curios.
If we believe at this interpretation, we can found reason that in MoV he describe Shylock betrayed and scoff. He compare the character to Judaism. So, I’m agree with the reading of MoV give by Susan Oldrieve for this case: surely the Judaism influence Shakespeare stile of writing. But I think also that Shylock isn’t only a Jewish man. He embody fault and merit of all. Probably, his religion is only umpteenth way for justify his conduct with Antonio and during the trial.
See you tomorrow!
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi everybody ,
today the dr. Gialdroni has played a very interesting lesson, focusing our attention on the life of shakespeare and the legends that exist around it, the importance of knowledge of the sources from which stem some of his works and the legal approach that can be found in them.
-As regards the first point is indisputable that Shakespeare was influenced by the historical period in which he lived :"the golden age of Elizabeth".
The most contentious issues are in relation to his private life, if he were really Sicilian or a lawyer and and we still have some doubts about this.
As we said dr. Gialdroni ,seems that he was the son of a Glover and an Alderman, he left the Grammar school very soon at the age of eleven years and it seems curious that it has not taught his children to read and to write.
-About the second point and the importance of the sources I was very surprised of the similarity of some
works of Shakespeare with some Italian ones.
The "Pecorone" written by Sir Giovanni Fiorentino in 1378, was a work to which Shakespeare was inspired to write:” the merchant of Venice “.Also in the “Pecorone” we can find references to a “pound of flesh “as penalty or about a woman dressed like a judge.
-About the last point in the “Merchant of Venice” we find a different legal approach compared to Common law procedure and Equity procedure. These are both two separate procedural stages, the first one is oral , public and with a jury; the second one is written and secret. Shakespeare didn’t respect this distinction, in the “Merchant of Venice” ,Portia first required a strict application of law and then she asked the mercy for his friend Antonio.
Alessia Colorizio
Hi everybody
I would like to write just a short comment about today's lesson. First of all I have to say that it was a great pleasure to meet directly Dr. Stefania Gialdroni, I say it onestly.
The very passionate way she exposes her studies made the lesson very interessing and easy to attend today.
Very important then what Professor Conte said about the different approaches to Shakespeare's works we experimented. I don't know if it's because Dr. Gialdroni's one was a more "continental" approach or (more probably) because it was an approach influenced by her specialization in the history of law but I found her intervent more "accademic" and exaustive. Infact if Professor Skeel's lectures about Shakespeare were very influenced by a pragmatical and, in some way, economic point of view (typical of a professor of corporative law) and Dr. Magnus' ones were lectures with a strong literary guideline (more than giuridic, I think) Dr. Gialdroni has set up her lecture in a more familiar way for us (or probably only for me...).
I think it was for this reason that I probably found today's lesson more pertinent to our giuridic studies (and for this I said "more familiar").
Obviously with this affirmation I don't want to say that I didn't find the past lectures interessing!!!
Good night!
Francesco Mambrini
Hi all,
today prof. Gilardoni has played a very exciting and interesting lesson about William Shakespeare, about his mystirious life analysing it from an historical poin of view.
I never immagine that such legend can exist around the Shakespeare's life... maybe the greates dramatist of ever shoud be Italian.. it is shocking and fantasting at the same time.
But Dr. Gilardoni has also talked about the sources and their importance explaining to us that there aren't any scientifc sorce to prove the italian orogin of Shakespeare.
Today I've also discvered that Shakespeare has not invented anything, he took inspiration from some italian novels like "Pecorone" that have a plot very similar to the MoV.
Anyway, i think that the next two lesson will be very interesting becuose i like this pragmatic approach of studing law and Shakespeare.
Pasquale Neri
Today, Professor Conte has suggested an interesting point of reflection: to think about the difference between the approach of Prof. Skeel lectures and the L&H's point of view suggested by the Dott.ssa Stefania Gialdroni. I think in the approach realized by Prof. Skell, law is used as a key to understand literature plays like MOV; instead in the approach of dott.ssa Gialdroni, literature is used as a key to understand law; especially the law of Shakespeare's period. Today we underline several times, the importance of the sources, in historical and scientific analyzes of ancient law or ancient literature. Without sources we couldn't study nothing in a serious and scientific way. So I think that this part of the course may be interesting for us, especially when – as we have made today – there are discussions about the life of Shakespeare, or discussion about some legal argument described on his plays.
For example an important - and the first - legal argument we have met in the play is the “strange loan” guaranteed by a cruel penalty : a pound of Antonio's flesh to cut up near his hearth. I would to underline the importance of this loan as a key to read a little aspect of English common law in the period of Shakespeare. This loan enforced by the cruel guarantee, is a literary invention, and this is clear. The most hard penalty was represented by the arrest for debs. But any people could use a piece of body as a bond's guarantee.
But this contract is important for an other point of view: if we read the Act I scene III, the transaction between Shylock and Antonio is full of terms freely agreed. So a loan freely agreed that emphasize the role of Liberty of Contract that “helped to overcome the economic inertia of feudalism” (Daniel S. Kornstein, Fie upon your law!) and was very important for the Trade's need. And Venice represent a crucial meeting point of European trades. We know that in Trade context, contract terms must be flexible end free. So I think that the loan described by Shakespeare is a reflection of the contracts theory made by English Courts during the 16th century: especially the cause's theory of contract based on the “Blackstone's consideration”. For this conception of cause, contracts could be made freely because the important requirement wasn't the “vestimentum”, the external formality, the absoluteness of formal elements, but the typicalness of the “Cause”. In 15th century, Giason del Majno saw that “pacta nuda” needed the “causa”: “causa” as the function toward the wills of the parties are directed to. So a deal without formal and solemn elements, but with new and atypical elements needed the “causa” and with “causa” could be admitted and protected by the Law. In a diachronic point of view, an important development of this legal theme is represented by the “Blackstone 's consideration”. In 16th century, English Courts used the “consideration” as an crucial element for admit informal and unknown contracts, using the Roman Law's sources represented by Aristone's and Mauriciano's conception of cause - described in D. 2.14.7: an informal agreement could be a contract when a part curry out his bond by the performance to the other part, and this performance's execution is the cause of the contract that forces the other part to execute his bond. This cause was named “consideration” by Blackstone.
The contract between Shylock and Antonio is “strange”,freely agreed, and made with an informal procedure. It's surely a literary invention; but the dynamic reflects some legal elements used by lawyer and judges of Shakespeare time.
Good Night!
See you tomorrow!
Giuseppe Cacciotti
Hi to everybody!!!
Today we have attended the lesson of the Dott.sa Gialdroni, this has been very interesting and enthusiastically.
Dott.sa Gialdroni has still spoken of Shakespeare, particularly of the merchant of Venice.
The thing that I have found interesting is that we have talked of Shakespeare to a new perspective. In fact Dott.sa Gialdroni,otherwise from Prof. Skeel, has turned our attention to the biographical aspects of the author, in a particular historical vision.
I think that the point of view of the historian is typical of the jurist of civil law, this it serves for also understanding the way to look at the right of Shakespeare.
Besides this lesson has shown not only the differences among civil law and common law but also of the present differences in the procedure of common law and the procedure of equity.
The procedure of common law is oral, public and with the jury;the procedure of equity is written and secret.
Then I have found very curious the treatment on some dark sides that surround the figure of Shakespeare,as for instance if he can be a lawyer; or if he can be of Italian origin.
Looking well at his works indeed a lot of sets are developed in the Italian city and besides he seems to also know very well the history of the ancient Rome ; But I don't believe that these elements are enough to attribute the Italian citizen to the author, even if all of us would like a lot this.
Surely Shakespeare is a big expert of the Italy, of our culture and probably of our right.
I have finally found very interesting the comparison with one of our great authors of every time;in fact "the Venetian lawyer "of 1748 Goldoni, that speaks from a part of the trial bolognese from the other of the Venetian trial, it seems to trace the characters of the Merchant of Venice.
However waiting for to examine together other materials to the respect, I confirm that I have found very stimulating the method of interaction of Dott.sa Gialdroni and of her points of view.
See u tomorrow.
Federica Meglio
Hello,
yesterday was a very interesting lesson. Dr. Gialdroni we proposed a different analysis of Shakespeare: a historical and legal point of view.
The first point that Dr. Gialdroni has stressed is the importance of the sources because as copyright did not exist in Shakespeare’s time, it was possible to copy other writers without any legal consequences. Even Shakespeare seldom invented his plots, but borrowed them from all kinds of ancient or contemporary sources, for example Plutarch’s Lives, the Italian works of Matteo Bandello, Giraldi Cinzio and Sir Giovanni Fiorentino. In his hand, however, the original material was transmuted and so deeply infused with his poetry as to assume new meanings and values.
William Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright in the reigns of either Queen Elisabeth I (1559-1603) and James I (1603-1625).
Paradoxically, the life of England’s greatest writers is also one of the least documented. We know little about him and many were the legends.
One of them claimed that Shakespeare in contrast to Marlowe and the other University Wits never attended either of the two universities. This fact led to the theory that he was not learned enough to have written his plays. This theory may be easily dismissed because when in London, Shakespeare had many opportunities to improve on the little education he had received at school. His friendship with the Earl of Southampton, for example, must have given him access to the Earl’s great library, where he could read such authors as Plutarch, Seneca and others.
The ascent to the throne of Elizabeth, five years after the tragic reign of Mary the Catholic, is characterized by a consolidation of Protestantism and the development of an important trade and territorial conquests of the kingdom. The detachment by the Holy Roman Empire, with the defeat of Philip II of Spain and his Invencible Armada (1588), the largest economic prosperity due to expansion of trade across the Atlantic, sealed the triumph of Elizabeth and Birth of England Modern. A new merchant class buying power, and with the trade also increased cultural exchanges with foreign countries. It increased the interest in the humanae litterae and then to Italy, where intellectuals who fled from Costantinopoli (1453) had brought with them the ancient manuscripts of the great Greek and Latin classics which caused an unprecedented interest for the antiquity greek – Roman.
Regard to The Merchant of Venice we must say that this comedy is based in part on Ser Giovanni Fiorentino’s “Il Pecorone” and in part on a story from Richard Robinson’s version of the Gesta Romanorum (an ancient collection of stories in Latin), the play is actually the result of two interwoven plots.
Very emblematic is Portia’s legal ability in the trial. In fact because of various misfortunes, Antonio is unable to repay his loan, and Shylock applies to the court to have his bond respected. During the trial, Portia arrives disguised as a lawyer and with very subtle legal quibbles (Shylock can take his pound of flesh, but without shedding a drop of Antonio’s blood), she rescues Antonio from the Jew’s revenge and provides a happy ending.
Portia represents the new Renaissance girl advocated by Thomas Moore: educated and prudent but at the same time also emancipated and straightforward, who shoes intelligence, self-confidence and disregard for conventions.
D'Antona V.
I read something really interesting in the introduction of the MOV about the sources that Shakespeare 's creative manipulation transform to write this incredible and sophisticated play.
Besides "Il pecorone",probable source of the play(like we said yesterday),for the bond and casket themes in the MOV we may trace a long lineage.The most immediate source must be assumed to be "The jew of malta".Barabas and Abigail,the jewish father and daughter in Marlowe's play,are the complements rather than the parallels to Shylock and Jessica.Barabas is urbane,witty;the motive of his religion conflict with the autorities of malta is hatred of christianity rather than a positive adherence to jewry.Shylock is a jewish puritan,whit little of Barabas's sophistication;his faith has a positive prophetic quality,strengthened by supernatural sanctinos.
The two daughters are opposed in quality.Jessica is Lorenzo's gentle infidel,siealing easily and lucratively into a casually christian alliance;Abigail on the other hand takes at least temporary refuge in a convent from tha bizarre pressures of her father's intrigues.
Behind the immediate influence of Marlowe's play lie the more precise sources of the MOV,the long traditions of the bond of fresh and the casket choise,in some of the versions anticipating Shakespeare's union of the two themes.
Shylock's bond has sources in both fantasy and legal fact.In some tales we frequently find a surety in the form of contract to give up a portion of the debtor's living flesh.Some versions are so old as the indian compilation,the"Mahabharata",wich contains the legend of the noble king Usinara who gave up his flesh to save a dove from a falcon,the two birds at the conclusion of the tale revealing themselves to be the gods Indra and Agni.
And there are more sources where the bond and casket themes are linked(like "Gesta romanorum").
Giulia Giacomini
Hello!
Unlike the lectures by Professor Skeel and Prof. Magnus who had a legal and literary approach about William Shakespeare, the historical analysis of the life of the author, the sources from which derive some works and the different interpretations of the character addressed a lecture by Dr Stefania Gialdroni were in my opinion the most interesting and showed us how difficult it is to be sure about some questions regarding W. Shakespeare. There were in fact different interpretations of the author's name such as Michel Agnolo that becames William (Guglielmo) Shake-speare (Crolla-lanza), after his mother's name.
Michel Agnolo is supposed to be the author of a "tantu scrusciu pi nente."
Many people have asked if Shakespeare was Sicilian or was a lawyer .... but they are only questions that can't give a clear and precise answer, because for example the fact that the author knows well some Italian cities and the history of ancient Rome, are not sufficient to have certainty.
A very interesting point was the similarity between "The Merchant of Venice" and "Il Pecorone" written by G. Fiorentino (1378, printed Milan 1554).
In "Il Pecorone" the character of Ansaldo is similar to Antonio in the "MOV", Giannetto is similar to Bassanio and a Jew from Mestre to Shylock and than there are very similar steps between the two works as the phrase in "Il Pecorone" in which reference is made to the pound of flesh.
Lesson very interesting!
Giorgia Ciucci
hi everybody!
I attended these two lectures of dr. Gialdroni with great interest. Yesterday was a surprise discover how many legends and how many theses are developed around the figure of shakespeare!
Today, talking about the figure of woman in shakespeare, dr.Gialdroni pointed out that, especially in M x M ,Shakespreare assigns roles to women of exclusion and provides them to the realization in marriage. This is a hint that I like to deepen.
I never reflected on the Shakespeare's thought about women. But before following this course, I would think him misogynist, especially referring to the not flattering terms he uses in "Bisbetica domata".
However, if we look at its true heroines, Ophelia, Juliet, Portia, Isabella, we see that Shakespeare does not fail to give them more wisdom than men.
See you!
Fabiana Lanfranconi
Law and discrimination against women:
Women were not given the respect they reserved in Shakespearian times. Women did not have the freedom to make their own decisions for example Portia being controlled by her father's will. Men who decided to marry were entitled to all of their wives fortunes and everything which belonged to them like when Portia married Bassanio, he became entitled to all of her money. Men did not think that women could ever be as smart as they were, and did not listen or take advice from women, like when Portia had to dress up as a man just to get the men to listen to her. In The Merchant of Venice women did not have any power and were highly discriminated against men. Portia was being controlled by her father's will, who did not give her the right to choose her own husband. Portia disagreed very much with this will, " . . . I may neither choose who I would / nor refuse who I dislike; so is the will of a living / daughter curbed by the will of a dead father." (act I scene II) In these times women did not have much choice over anything.
See you tomorrow,
M.Petriccione
Hi all!
Shakespeare was italian? I like "Voyager" but sometimes they say someting very strange, (like the report about Dr. Frankenstein). Shakespeare life is mysterious but I don't think he was italian.
About the question professor Conte ask us yesterday, I think that the main difference between litteral and historical approach to law and literature are the sources. Dr. Gialdroni said that they're important to make a theory more belivable. Our previous reader just reported opinions without quote the sources. It's not a bad thing but just a different way to face the problem.
I think that the discussion we had today about discrimination in Shakespeare's works was very interesting because we noticed a little but important theme in the novels we read in this period.
See you tomorrow!
V. Russotto
Hello
What interests me is the focus method of approach of these lessons.
Skeel has considered a method of teaching that is based on different views and different studies.
Stefania has a way of approaching the study of the Merchant of Venice by W. Shakespeare, not only in terms of historiographic playwright, but also taking into account historical, social context etc..
Skeel has a way of weighing his speech in the views of scholars and generally moves in an environment that closely examines the study of the work of W.S., focusing primarily on the fact that law and humanities in his country has a strong influence especially in judicial decisions.
Instead, S. Gialdroni, which derives from studies totally opposed, has a way of seeing the law, which was brought by Shakespeare, much more detached, but did not forget how historically has had in England and Europe, especially with an eye on the condition some groups of people (see Jews and women), if referring to the Merchant of Venice and Measure for Measure.
We will examine the lesson today.
We first discussed the plot of Measure for Measure, even if we focused more on key issues involving the law.
We know that in the first work we are talking about a ban, which the authorities had been violated, for fornication. Is treated and then the position of women in 1600. While in the Merchant of Venice to keep the chassis is the theme of anti-Semitism. What instead emerges from the two works, is that both suggest the will of the author to treat issues of Law and Equity.
It should be noted that, as I said in a past action, while in the Merchant of Venice, Shylock, which calls for a rigid and inexorable justice is won, the paradigm of an extreme application of the law fails against an expert (Portia) has the right, but can not, as has already confirmed S. Gialdroni in the classroom, be to damage or even take away the lives of others in the field of bonds and contracts. For this reason, we can say that Portia, excellent doctor, apply the law rigidly.
In the second work, however, is exactly the opposite: the strict and legal justice is even "mocked". First, the story takes place in Wienna, a city which at that time was under the political control of monasteries. People, like the Duke, then have little influence within the administrative sphere. They suffer from the influence of the Church. In fact, coming to conclusions, that the Duke can be convinced by persuading and saving words of Isabel, sister and future sister of Claudio, sentenced to death for fornication. From this step shows a principle, if one can call, taken from De Officis of Cicero, pointed out in class with a very strong words: "Summum ius, summa iniuria, which just sums up the criteria and conditions expressed by Shakespeare in two work. That is to say that the total rigidity in applying the law, or observance of any rules and conditions may, paradoxically, often lead to unfair results, twisted, and often contrary to the goal: justice.
From this point of view, we moved to address the issue in which the two opposing spheres: aequitas and common law, and history of their development. It has been seen on the one hand, medieval times, when, at a time of legal uncertainty, not knowing which to choose the legal system, has opted for equity, because it was noted that the Roman law and were similar and did not exhibit striking antinomy. And we have also seen how the mercy matches the equity in Shakespeare, according to the tradition of common law. The latter system was introduced prior to completion of both works, however, contrasted with the ambition to absolutism of Henry VIII (Greenwich, 28 June 1491 - London, 28 January 1547), to become supreme leader of the Anglican church also. It was decided then to return to 'Equity.
Leaving aside the various phases of the history of common law and dell'equity, the part of the lesson that has concerned me most, is when Stefania talked about Shakespeare and his analytical mind, on the issue of women (in Measure for Measure), and Jews (in the Merchant of Venice). In particular, in the second issue, the arguments are much more dense, and the atmosphere more "rarefied". Because as Portia, in representing the Law and Justice, manages to save the life of Antonio, the merchant of Venice, and the friend of his love Bassani, reduces the requirement of Shylock, the rich usurer jew, a condition in of semi-precarious. I still come back to mind the words of the lesson of St. Gialdroni, who recalled events of anti-Semitism, which occurred (or facts happen) before the Second World War and the Nazis, and that the Nazis themselves had just taken over from medieval times and the Renaissance. And here emerges the saying "Summus ius, summa iniuria. The excellent knowledge of legal Portia and the rigid and technical interpretation of the law, does not benefit to a social equality. But if we think well, it would not be beneficial even if the winner was Shylock: the pound of flesh demanded by the latter fact, if obtained would have taken away his life for a debt, which was as expensive as all other non - could claim an injury or even death of the person himself, in this case of Antonio. So this is not Shakespeare in-process, meant to demonstrate that there is no process for a claim for damages or compensation in exchange for a human life. And 'This is the limit of the law, this is the price that men must pay for living in a state of (semi) living together.
A.Festucci
By!
Today our lesson started with one comparison : MERCY=EQUITY. Today I think no…
Mercy call to mind, in etymology point of view, CORDIS…the hearth. So, with this definition we means a moral or ethic bases and religious, too. Instead, equity has judicial foundation. In art. 113 c.p.c, peace officer decided by equity, pay attention to singular situation. But also in this case, judge makes reference to objective principle like “danno emergente and lucro cessante”, for example. In spite of judge uses interpretation, it’s not only subjective reading but has rule on the base. When there’s a link between mercy and equity( in general with law) run out layman’s state. Like in Islamic law or in Shakespeare’s time. It proves that the question that Bulgaro underline against Martino(to use his personal equity) isn’t completely solved. It’s possible that an excessive link between this two element became extremely subjective.
Moreover..
Portia: I think that P., during the trial, makes use of equity not only like impartial and proper way but she uses restrictive interpretation of the contract. Contrary to Isabella who asks Angelo to save her brother, Portia acts personally: she hasn’t need men for achieve outcome. She not got for the part of “ woman sad and submissive”..she’s a rebel!
Shylock: I’m disagree with the opinions that describe him like a victim..I think that he pay effects of his actions, like all man. Also, he’s a father afraid for his daughter, run away for home..another woman, rebel too…
Is possible that Shakespeare was predecessor of sexual equality? surely, both this women aren’t standard women .
See you tomorrow!
Daniela D’Annibale
hi everybody!
This is The History of the Jews in England (1066-1655)…
1066 This is when the Jews enter England, following William the Conqueror.
1144 The first case of blood libels (Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.).
1189 -This is the year in which the Third Crusade was launched
1194 -This is the year in which the Crown establishes Exchequer of the Jews.
1217 -This is the year that English Jews were made to wear yellow badges to identify them as Jews.
1255 This is the year in which Jews were once again accused of a case of "blood libel"(This case involves the death of Hugh of Lincoln. The facts of the case are that Hugh, a young Christian boy, ran after a ball and fell into a Jewish cesspool. He drowned there and his body was found 26 days later, during the Jewish wedding ) .
1265 This is the year in which the rising influence of Italian bankers begins to make the financial services of the English Jews superfluous.
1269 -This is the year in which Jewish rights are gradually restricted.
1290 -This is the year, under reign of Edward I, that all Jews are expelled from England.
THREE AND A HALF CENTURIES OF EXILE FROM ENGLAND
1589 -This is the year in which a famous drama by Marlow, entitled The Jew of Malta, was performed.
1594 -execution of Roderigo Lopez (he was implicated in a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. He was convicted and executed, but not before he was tortured quite savagely. During his interrogation and torture, the fact that he was Jewish become known. Before this time, no one knew that Lopez was Jewish.)
1597 -Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice (During the 1600s in Venice and in some other places, Jews were required to wear a red hat at all times in public to make sure that they were easily identified. Jews also had to live in a ghetto protected by Christians, supposedly for their own safety. The Jews were expected to pay their guards. )
1655 - This the year in which Manasseh Ben Israel begins to negotiate with Cromwell for re-admission of the Jews into England.
See you tomorrow,
F . PISCHEDDA
first of all yesterday afternoon I had a flashback and I remembered I had the exam of medievale e moderno with dr. gialdroni 3 years ago!
About her legal approach and way to explain I've found it more interesting and exaustive than mr skeel's one I think because of her education and way to analyze issues typical of a civil law system teacher obviously more easily understandable from us.
I really appreciated the historical introduction as the best point of view from where starting both lessons and discussing about law and literature.I think that talking about the golden age of Queen Elizabeth,the reign of James I,the birth of anglican church with Henry VIII and the "fight" between the chancery and the common law courts(or better the fight between king's attempt to increase his power against the parliament)is the most correct way to organize and introduce a lesson about shakespeare and his mainworks.I liked the theory on the presumed sicilian origin too even if it seemed a bit strange,crazy and artificial and the last part of today's lesson about discrimination of women and jews.
The final message about the ambiguity of justice in Shakespeare is remarkable especially in our university.
see you tomorrow
Hello
My intention is not to determine which are winners or losers, victims or executioners. Surely Portia and Isabella are two women out of the ordinary. But what I mean is that both have to deal with an imperfect justice.
It is true: Portia has defended the right to life of Antonio: the process could not even define that. But it is also true that Shylock has fined a very severe penalty.
As for Isabella: It is true that she saves his brother. But it is also true that mockes the Duke, who represents the law.
So for me the point is not to say that Shylock is a victim, because he asked for a pound of flesh of a man who had asked a simple loan, or to say that Isabella was the winner because she saves the life of Claudio.
The point is different, and probably have been misunderstood by someone ...
The law, however well implemented, has some serious limitations, especially when applied in an overly restrictive (Cicero).
Indeed, as far as the Merchant of Venice, in the end I said that if Portia had given reason to Shylock, and most likely would tilt the balance on a decision absolutely imponderable.
See you
A. Festucci
About usury and banking praxis, in my personal opinion, not more is really changed since 1598, when William Shakespeare wrote “The Merchant of Venice”: I think that, today exactly as yesterday, the weak border between usury and banking praxis isn’t always very clear.
For example in our country, till 1999, Banks practised the three-monthly capitalization of interests derogating the art. 1283 c.c. about anatocism, that said: “In mancanza di usi contrari, gli interessi scaduti possono produrre interessi solo dal giorno della domanda giudiziale o per effetto di convenzione posteriore alla loro scadenza, e sempre che si tratti di interessi dovuti almeno per sei mesi”.
So, in banking praxis till 1999, after only three months due interests were be added to the capital, producing other interests!!!
It was usury or not?
For Banks not, because in our Civil Code the art. 1283 admit “gli usi contrari”.
But really, in the case of the three-monthly capitalization of interests we don’t have two important conditions: the normative character of the uses and the “opinio juris ac necessitatis”.
Also the extension of the discipline of “conto corrente ordinario” (art. 1823 c.c.) is not convincing because in the art. 1857 c.c. (“operazioni bancarie in conto corrente”) there isn’t a reference to the art. 1823 c.c.
So, the three-monthly capitalization of interests was a particular case of LEGALIZED USURY, before the brave Supreme Court’s decision in 1999!
And it was only an example: I think also to the banking practice of the “maximum overdraft”, etc.
Really, not only in Italy but everywhere, the border between usury and banking praxis – I repeat – isn’t always very clear…
See you
Valerio Marinelli, pessimist
Hi all...
I was thinking about what we said today about Portia's "indipendence" and I noticed something...
If we see both Portia and Isabella as indipendent women who go against law and tradition we can also notice that they have an "happy ending", (Portia marry the duke and Isabella has tha man she loves).
I find out some others female characters who try to affirm their indipendence but without the happy ending...
First of all I think about the main character of the book "Una donna" by Sibilla Aleramo: she divorced,(it was a terrible thing for a woman in the period where the novel is setted), but she had to leave her son with her husband.
The other one is Emma Bovary. I don't like her but I think sheis a good example. She looked for her trie love and betrayed her husband. She went mad when her lover went away.
There is also Hester Prynne,the main character of "The scarlet letter". She had a daughter with a man who wasn't her husbandand she didn't want to reveal her name. She was condemned to wear a scarlet letter that was he symbol of her "sin".
And there is also the monaca di Monza. She wanted to get married but she had to become a nun, then she fell in love but she was sad and had to betray Licia to keep her relation secret.
I think that Portia and Isabella are lucky indipendent women, who have advantages from their way of life...the others are quite unlucky and become victimes of their time.
I hope that this comment is clear.
Bye
V. Russotto
Hy to everybody,
I'm very sorry not to have been with you in this days but unfotunately I'm sick! I'm reading all you comments on the blog and as I can read it was really a great lessons and for this reason I'm really sorry! I'll try to give my poin of view about the role of the women in the shakespeare's works even if I dind't come to the lessons!
According to me the women in shakespeare's works are not so discriminated! we can always understand their point of view, their feeling, they are take in consideration in all their aspects! they are not always passive, but they can do something, they do something to solve the situations, to turn in their favor the situations! even if we read what they say we can understand that their speach are not silly, but also very smart!What I always loved of Shakespeare is that through his works we can find the real man and the real women! So in Portia we can find a very smart woman, in Giulietta we can see a girl in love, how silly can be a woman (but also a boy, Romeo) can be,in Ophelia we can see how desperate can be a women losing her affects!
This summer I hade the chanche to visit the house of Shakespeare and I found out that he was married with a woman of about 7 years older that him, and a guide told us that maybe "Shakespeare" it was only a name of a publisher, but I never heard that Shakespeare could be italian, it won't be so strange, even if I prefer to think about him as the englad brilliant writer who changed the literature and who gave us all his wonderful works!
I also wanted to say something about MERCY! Everytime that I think about mercy I think about God, I think about a kind of justice that is always very far from us! to have mercy according to me is something that only a God can have, even if in our codes we have the word "mercy" according to me it 's just a word that can't spread out the real meaning of the word!To have mercy according to me it means to cancel all our debts, for me when we have mercy of someone we can't say "guilty" or "not guilty", beacause when we have mercy we give up to our power to judge and we all know that in our justice, in the human justice, is quite impossible to give up to the power of judge!Maybe we can say "not guitly" when the reo is guilty, but we have to judge to do this, we almost need to judge and sometimes also to judge the judgement!
I don't know if my point of view is correct or wrong because unfotunately I couldn't be with you in these days! right of wrong I hope you will take it as it is: a personal point of view!
Maria Buonanno
By!
I want speak about usury.
In Sant’Ambrogio we found a definition of this one:” usury consist in demand more of what you give”; and in the decretale of Graziano we read:” usury is all money further capital “. Ambrogio says that usury mustn’t be doing against our brothers(broadly speaking)…and so, who are “brothers”? each people who lives your religion and respect roman law-explicate Ambrogio. Is evident that the church condemn this practice, at least after 12 century. In Europe, Carlo Magno given rules about this problem with the “admonition generalis” in which he prohibited to use it. Born the idea, during centuries, that usury=Jews. And, this is the same opinion that we found in Shakespeare’s time, particularly in MoV. Shylock embody not only Judaism but also moneylender. He thinks, first of all, at money. It’s true..but Antonio signed the contract, and accepted his condition. It’s could be not just or immoral or out of proportion but both of them accepted it. So, formally, it’s correct. I think that the first and cruel punishment for Shylock, isn’t Portia’s interpretation of their contract but the decision of his daughter: marry a Christian… and remove the Shylock’s jewels, pointedly! This interpretation is deny of the painting by Maurycy Gottlieb( 1856-1879) who painted Shylock like all-loving and protective father, who embrace his Jessica.
I’m agree with prof. Conte when he says that Portia, for finds a solution for Shylock and Antonio’s question doesn’t refers to invalidity of a contract. She could contend that obligations aren’t “equity”…this support my thesis that Portia isn’t a justice.
See you..
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi
Today I was watching again the movie based on "The Merchant of Venice" interpreted by Al Pacino. Thinking about what we said today at lesson I tried to focus my attention on the differences between the Shakespeare's text and the screenplay, especially in the trial's act.
Obviously the sequence of some scenes is sometimes modified in order to have a better narration for the different exigences that a film movie has. Moreover the director included a prelude where are narrated some facts whom the protagonists only refered to in the other acts of the original novel.
It's clear that there is an interpretation of the story that represents Shylock as the victim in some way, eliminating as possible (more of the times only with the suggestive interpretation of the characters, especially of Al Pacino) the most antisemitic aspects.
About the trial's scene (that is the less modificated scene anyway) we can giustificate the reason why some dialogues are cutted away because of the necessity to eliminate some repetitions that could have made this essential part of the movie not so fluid and in some cases repetitive. But sometimes this expedient too is useful in order to smooth the most antisemtic parts. Debatable for me the decision to eliminate the comments of Portia and Nerissa after their husband's speeches about their will to give the jew everything they have, also their wifes, if this could be useful to save Antonio. This comments are sostitued with the shot of their black look.
I conclude saying something about the debate introduced today about the decision of Shakespeare to use "strict interpretation of law" solution to the case in spite of the much more easy and linear about "liberty of contract".
For me it is because, as I said, this interpretation was too "easy". We don't have to forget that this is a drama, with all its characteristics; Shakespeare is a dramatist.
Could have been the same if Portia has entered in the court just saying: "oh, by the way the contract isn't valid. That's all, this is the 'consilium'. See you"?
Where would have been all the "pathos"?
See you the next week.
Francesco Mambrini
good morning!
In the Movie of MoV, Shylock is before victim, after executioner and at the and victim again. And the person who maked this changement is Antonio. First of all, he despises Shylock; in fact when the Jews pass on the street, Antonio ask him “dog” and split on his jacket. In a second time Antonio asks Shylock money for his friend, and they concluded a contract: on the hand Shylock, the “monster” because wants “a pound of your good flesh”; on the other hand Antonio, bourgeois gentleman and Christian, first of all. Shylock is a victim of the contempt of all, executioner when want Antonio’s flesh and victim again, at the and of the trial.
My modest opinion about Shylock in a movie…
I sympathize with Jews Shylock, but not for man Shylock, because the obligation that asked to Antonio is only a revenge. From the trial Shylock became an ordinary man; in those moment lost a Jews and arrive a bloodthirsty man.
Have a good day
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi all!!
I couldn't restist...I went on youtube and I watched Voyager talking about Shakespeare's sicilian backgrounds!As Dr Gialdroni said in our class this theory is very attractive but where are the sources??I was thinking that this hypothesis is very curious but it's impossible to think the most important english writer was italian because how could he knows so good english?Anyways...it was funny to listen all the coincidences in Michel Agnolo Florio's life and S.'s plays.
In the last lesson we talked about liberty of contract in MoV and I was reading also Daniel J. Kornstein's article and I found very intersting the part in which he was talking about the validity of Shylock's contract.The "pound of flash" penalty must be void because it is agaisnt public policy:Portia could invoked the public policy against absurd contracts such as Shylock's.I'm perfectly agree with this point of view also because it was possible to declare void a conctrat because it was attempended someone's life also in that period (as Prof Conte said).
These three lesson's were very exhaustive, I think they made much more clear the main themes of Mov giving us also a legal historical perspective.
See you next week!!
The Merchant of Venice (The Movie):
Michael Radford has done an excellent job bringing this difficult play to the screen. He has taken a play with a reputation for anti-semitism, and shown us that Shakespeare knew quite well the humanity of the Jews. Radford said after the screening, and I agree, that Shylock is his first tragic hero, the first of his characters to be undone by a driving, compulsive need for revenge. He also points out, quite rightly, that a man who was anti-semitic could not have written Shylock's speech of "If you prick me, do i not bleed?" Radford is himself of Jewish descent and he has picked out the good and bad of all characters with delicacy and honesty. No character is free from flaws; no character is evil. Radford has placed the play in the 16th century, which gives a lush background of Venetian politics and decadence on which to project Shakespeare's words.
If you get a chance to hear Radford speak about the film, I highly recommend you take it, since he gives details about life in 16th century Venice that illuminate a lot of the choices he made and give considerable extra depth to the viewing.
Jeremy Irons does a gorgeous portrayal of Antonio, a man who resigns himself to bearing the burden of his past misdeeds. Lynn Collins, gives us an absolutely flawless, stunning, and detailed job as Portia.She also gives Portia layers of intelligence and humor prior to the trial scene. The rest of the cast also does a terrific job, with a notable performance by Kris Marshall as Gratiano, and a beautifully subtle work by Allan Corduner as Tubal, playing the foil to Shylock. Finally, while Al Pacino pulls out his usual strong (and loud) performance, his best moments are when the camera focuses on him and he says no words, but you can see all the emotions and madnesses flowing into and out of him as he perceives his fortunes changing.
See you next week!
M.Petriccione
Hi everybody,
This week we spoke about a lot of issues regarding Shakespeare's life and about the subjects of his masterpieces which we studied through this course's lectures.
While Professor Skill was more concerned about an economic point of view, the analysis of these points has been made in a particular and singular way: we spoke about Equity, Discrimination, Usury and Liberty of contract by a historical-legal point of view or better watching the historical period and then the historical development of the legal problem (like dott. Gialdroni says).
I agree with this method, because it is very interesting to understand reasons of Shakespeare's subjects studying the historical and legal contest (as we also made with Kafka in “The Trial”).
Shakespeare lived in a period of changes: close to the Lutheran Reformation, during the continuous expulsions and readmissions (under Cromwell) of Jews from England, during the period where usury was made legal... this period could not leave him indifferent...
In my opinion the characters who better represent these themes are Shylock and Portia in “The Merchant of Venice”: I have already told about them, I'd like only to add that in my opinion is not correct to consider Shylock niggard, like somebody saied during the lectures: in fact, during the trial, he refused not only money, but also even the tripled of the obligation to kill Antonio! (Act IV, scene I, 224-226). So I think that Shylock was inspired only by an instinct of revenge versus Christians (Antonio), revenge that he has learned by the same Christians: “Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction” (Act III, scene I, 67,69).
In order to theories about the meaning of Shakespeare's pseudonym I have heard, during the lectures, a lot of possible answers, but I consider it like a fun, because there are no proofs...
Maybe for this reason I'm getting curious regarding this argument: after a search I have discovered that in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Golden Age of pseudonyms, almost every writer used one at some time in his career and I have found that, according to authorship researcher Mark Anderson, “Shake-speare” is another example, alluding to the patron goddess of art and literature, Athena, who sprang from the forehead of Zeus, shaking a spear...
Maybe this theory is the most fanciful about the meaning of the (probable) pseudonym Shakespeare, but we can't leave out it too because we haven't elements, like for others theories, that support or exclude the validity...
See you soon...
Pierluigi Oddone
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html
Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens believes the works ascribed to William Shakespeare actually were written by the 17th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
fcm
Hi everybody!
I want to thank Dr. Stefania Gialdroni for her way of argue these three lessons. She demonstrated to be prepared and to be passionate in what she does.
In Dr Gialdroni's lessons and in Prof Skeel and Dr Magnus'lessons we analysed the same arguments but with Dr Gialdroni we saw them in a historical prospective.
In these last three lessons we spoke about
-LAW VS EQUITY. I found interesting Cicerone's sentence that means: "if you apply the law in a very strict way sometimes it becomes injustice". With Dr Magnus we saw this with Claudio's condemnation in "Measure for measure" felt like injustice.
- DISCRIMINATION OF JEWS. We spoke about their life's conditions (durin Roman empire; in Venice from1152-1516) and their persecutions also during the 2nd world war.
With Prof. Skeel we interpreted the figure of Shylock under different points of view also seeing him as a winner in the way he respects the contract.
-DISCRIMINATION OF WOMEN.With Prof. Skeel and Dr.Magnus we presented Portia and Isabella like sensible, with the duty of mercy while with Stefania we said that on one side they are indipendent but in an other they are alienated and marginalized, seen only in a prospective of marriage.
-USURY.Usury was a problem in the history condemned by the church(lateran council in 1139)
- LIBERTY OF CONTRACT. With Prof. Skeel we didn't consider the contract as invalid because of its object(a pound of flesh)while with Dr Gialdroni we said that Liberty of contract has limits in particular in a civilian society in which a "pound of flesh" as penalty must be void because it is against public policy.
See you soon
Bye
Giorgia Melia
Hi Everybody!
I would like to write something about some of the topics of these very interesting lesson of Dr. Stefania Gialdroni.
Law and Equity
During the lessons someone said that equity could be identified with arbitrariness. I disagree with this opinion: equity is a set of rules that is complementary with common law ("equity follows the law). It acts not to break the commo law but just to temper its "rigor iuris" when it could be very unfair (Cicero's summum ius summa iniuria).
From the beginning equity is not a self-sufficient system of rules and obviouvsly it has its basis on common law ("Equity without common law would have been a castle in air" , Maitland).
Of course from the start equity was characterized by some discretion (there was no right to get Chancery Court's decision) and by some religious feeling (The Head of the court, Lord Chancellor, was a clergyman - Keeper of king's conscence- who certaily knew canonic law procedure. It's very interesting what Portia says in ACT IV, SCENE I: "...Mercy is above this sceptred sway, it is enthroned in the hearts of kings, it is an attribute to God himself...") but with the flow of the time it began rigid as common law; The office of Lord Charcellor from 1673 was devolved upon jurists, not clergymen anymore; Judicial decision started to be gathered in reports and to follow principle of "stare decisis".
In civil law history, equity from the beginning was used to apply bona fides in the contracts ("Bona fides, quae in contractibus exigitur, aequitatem summam desiderat", Trifonino).
Now equity has apparently very small role in judicial statements, because the ancachonistic forma mentis of civil lawyer coming from code napoleon, but I think sometimes some jugdes apply silently equity (or what it is for them equity), expecially in criminal law processes.
In Venice, equity (arbitrium iudicis, that doesn't mean arbitrariness) was applied after statutes and consuetudo.
Discrimination and usury
About the discrimination of jews, It's interesting that these people were often kicked out by the door and came back by the window. Once banned, once readmitted. A sort of pendulum's swing. This tension between pro and against jews feelings happended, I think, because their ability with the money.
Every community needed them. Of course, every commercial city, as Venice was, every businessman needed cash for his affairs and only jews can give it to them. Jews were discrimineted, forced to wear some clothes to recognize them, accused of making human sacrifices (well-known the simonino's case) but nothing was more important then money. Shakespeare of course describe this dualism in Shylock's character (ACT I, SCENE III: "Signor Antonio, many time and oft in the rialto you have rated me about my money and my usances (...) Well then, it now appears you need my help. Go to then. You come to me and you say,Shylock we would have moneys, you say so...").
To solve both of these "problems" (Jews and money), Christians who were not allowed to lend for interest because of S.Luca's Gospel, invented "Monti di pietà" which lent for a very small interests, just to face business expenses.
Shakespeare was Italian?
That's a very interesting and funny (Shake-speare= (S)Crolla-lanza) Theory, it would be very fascinating if it's true,but unfortunately I don't think so, there are no crucial proves.
Certainly he seems to know very well italian locations but in fact, he doesn't seems to know Venice law procedure: In Venice the judges were not jurists, but nobles, and decided collectivly. Belleario's call seems to be more the roman way to solve cases.
Liberty of contract
It's very strange that Shakespeare didn't mention, as prof.Conte said, that the penalty was void. Of course in medieval age, but also in roman age from nexum disappearence, a contract with a penalty of a pound of flesh couldn't be enforced.
This topics trascends simple legal problems, going further to some ethics problems of course.
By holdind legal arguments, our legal latest history had a sort of mistrust of private penalty, as it was a way to make private justice (autotutela), and confined it in a very small sphere of application.
It's very interesting that art.1384 c.c. allowed the judge to decrease the penalty when it's too high for creditor's aim.
It seems a sort of mistrust in authonomy of the parts.
Bye bye
Andrea Marangoni
Hi everybody,
This week in class we talked a lot about the role of equity as in Shakespeare’s masterpieces as in the historic development and I have considered several questions all around this problem of right. According to me it’s true that the risk of using equity in the courts gives arbitraries decisions, and law will not be sure, and this is a problem especially for citizens because the certainty of law is a warranty for them against the abuses. Probably for these reasons in a lot of states equity has a residual role. Besides: how can we check a decision based on equity?
But, first at all, if is unsure what equity is, how is it possible to apply it?
When I studied international law, I remember a dispute between equity like a source of international law and equity like an “opinio iuris sive necessitatis”: in that debate equity was not considered as a source of law but only as the procedure to make “consuetudine”. This is only an example where the nature of equity is discussed.
Maybe today, very often, we have omni-comprensive laws… everything is present in the codes or in” leges extravagantes”, legislator tends to regulate every situation; but sometimes, it isn’t a good solution because suddenly these laws are voids! Literary and strict interpretation isn’t always synonym of a good application of law: a good jurist can make the law say everything and the opposite of it! I think that in a certain way it is also important to use equity in the courts, in some cases it could be necessary a “quid pluris” , like in “Measure for Measure”! Maybe it is possible only in the anglo-saxon system! Is important to find the equity’s bases (general principles etc…) so that through a control of equity law will not be influenced by the politicians.
I want to thank Dott.ssa Gialdroni for these exciting and interesting lectures!
See you soon!
Silvia Faranca
…Law VS. Equity…
In the legal dictionary of shakespeare the word equity is often identified with the mercy, as we can also be read in M x M, according to my point of view it’s not wrong but can be interesting to see how this concept can be updated.
In fact beginning from the Roman’s right the equity has always had a central role in our juridical system but also in those of common law,as England of the 17 century.
A lot of they are the sources in which the edicts of the Roman magistrates are present which offered the different guardianships judging really according to equity, and so they kept on making centuries after the English in the Court of Chancery as it testifies turns on him debate that there has been between Edward Coke and Francis Bacon.
Actually I believe that in reality the Roman right and the common English laws are very more similar than you are often imagined.
Today in Italy the art.113 of the code of civil procedure enact the principle of “the pronunciation according to right” close to which however the hypotheses are foreseen in which the judge can decide the cause according to equity when the law allows you him.
From this it is drawn according to my point of view that to identify the mercy with the equity is a limitative and perhaps superficial , I think that this assimilation mostly estranges the law from the equity. In fact I think that the law and the equity are the lapel of the same medal, and you are not go considered in opposition, because it would be paradoxical to consider the law it deprives of equity as it would be it equally to consider the judgment according to equity deprives of every canon of reference.
Actually I don't think that equity is goes identified with the arbitrariness, as instead someone has thought during the last lesson.
Rather I believe that equity is a very near concept and tightly connected to that of the good faith, as besides we can be read in the PECL of the errand Ole Lando.
Is consolidated by now in the doctrine the idea that good objective faith constitutes source of integration of the contractual duties, besides those assumed by the parts, with the purpose to realize the improvement of the contractual program and to carry toward the real realization of the affairs in game to avoid that the lex contractus can mark the hegemony of the most cunning part.
According to the Roman jurist Trifonino in fact the good faith it implicated the entrance in scene of the equity: "..Bona fides, quae in contracibus exigitur, aequitatem summam desiderat"; in this footstep the Roman jurist would seem to individualize the equity with the equality of the affairs.
During the age of the codifications this formulation came less. However in conclusion looking at the Italian juridical arrangement can be arranged that good faith has assumed a central role in comparison to the equity, which really in the logic of the civil code of the 1942 don't seem to have at all a role contrary to the law; as it also shows the art.1374 c.c. “Il contratto obbliga le parti non solo a quanto è nel medesimo espresso,ma anche a tutte le conseguenze che ne derivano secondo la legge,o in mancanza secondo gli usi,e l’equità.”
So it is not recognizable in the equity a creative function of extraneous new rules to the encoded right. The Good faith becomes parameter of reference dominated by the equity, it is this to give concreteness to the good faith.
See u
Federica Meglio
Equity:
Equity has in Italy a residual role.
My point of view is that our codes are not so related to religion and the authors focused on the certainty of the law.
Maybe that's the reason why equity is applied only if the parties request it or if it's the law to allow its application.
The judge has the faculty to apply equity (moral code "written in the stars") only if there's no doubt that he will make a wise and fair decision.
Jews discrimination:
the colours thing we've been talking aboutreimnds me the colours that nazis assigned to the prisoners in the lagers.
Yellow for Jews, pink for gay people, gipsy too had thei colour...
It's sad to notice how much the church so strongly influenced the worste tragedy of humanity.
Women discrimination:
I haven't read enough about W. Shakespeare, but I remember Lady Macbeth who could only gave birth to male children.
Hi everybody!
First of all, I would like to comment, as prof. Conte asked, the differences between the way of having lessons of our speakers. While prof. Skeel used a method including our partecipation, prof. Harreman surely did a kind of "frontal lesson", like the ones we have in our university. Prof. Ryan used a very comunicative language, infact he didn't need the "help" of a power point presentation. Dr. Gialdroni had a different style, including something of the three professors cited above. Maybe she has used her very skilled foreign experience.
The lessons of the last week have been very interesting, because now we know the importance of using an historical approach. Infact, the reconstruction of the historic period of the Merchant of Venice has made me conscious about a lot of important things. First of all, the importance of Venice in those years, surely for the law, for the economy and for the commerce. Besides, the situation of jews and women was very bad, because they were totally discriminated, even by a "charitable istitution" like the Church (you can look at the IV Latern Council as an example of this).
I think that the work of Shakespeare can be very useful even to know something more about this difficult situation. The merit of the author is in his capacity to let us feel the emotions of a charachter, so we can feel Shylock's feelings against a discriminatory society.
About the "legend" of the italian origins of Shakespeare, well, according to Dr. Gialdroni, I think that to prove something like this, an historian must found a lot of sources. Because of lack of sources, I don't think that this legend is true, so I prefer to believe in an english Shakespeare!
In the end, a short consideration about equity. I am a supporter of the strict interpretation of law, and I think that only in cases where the laws don't work, equity can be helpful for the judges.
Have a nice day, see you wedensday!
Andrea Severini
Hi all,
I want to say something regarding the (inevitable) differences between the book and the movie: “The Merchant of Venice”. The movie is nice and well interpreted but I think that Shylock has been not faithfully represented: in the movie Radford's Shylock in my opinion becomes too human: of course an evil man, but becomes evil for reasons that are not in him, discriminations versus Jews, injustices and abuses suffered. For this reason watching the movie it's difficult to feel aversion versus Shylock and to accuse him...
Besides Radford doesn't deviate from the masterpiece, he is too faithful to the text, there aren't original ideas! I think that for this reason Radford's movie can't be compared to Zeffirelli's Hamlet or Luhrmann's Romeo and Giulietta or to the Laurence Olivier's representations.
Of course Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino save theirselves, and the same is for the wonderful monologues, but certainly we don't need Radford's opera to know that Shakespeare was an excellent writer!
See you soon, bye...
Pierluigi Oddone
Dear all,
I’d like to spend some word about the lesson I heard to on Thursday (16th April), that I found very interesting and full of “starting points” to reflect on.
The Conference was attended by the L.L.D. Stefania Gialdroni who is a Doctor of Laws specialized in Medieval and Modern Legal History. It was very interesting to see her strictly legal kind of approach- because the other Professors that were speaking in last weeks are Masters of Arts.
The L.L.D. Stefania Gialdroni started her speech talking about the “Law and Equity“ system getting start from some of Shakespeare’s plays: I mean, “the Merchant of Venice”, “Measure for Measure”, and “Henry the VIII”. She continued examining the contrast between the Shakespearian concept of “Equity” and some of the narrated facts in these same plays: for example, the Jewish persecution or the women’s exclusion from the society narrated in the play “Measure for Measure”. Then she made a comparison among the concept of “equity” and Different Systems of Law: the Roman Law, the 17 th century English Law, and the Actual Italian Law .
“THE SYSTEM OF EQUITY AND THE ITALIAN LAW “
During her speech the L.L.D. Gialdroni quoted these Cicero’s words: “SUMMUM IUS, SUMMA INURIA“ (“De Officiis”, I, 10-33), and this passage attracted so much my attention. This words of the Roman Author mean that sometimes a too much strict application of the Law could breed a social injustice. It could seem a paradox: but I think it is the Truth. And I also think that Cicero has somehow recognized the importance of the concept of Equity in the Italian system of law.
The concept of Equity takes up a not very important space in Italian System of Law : according to our Tradition, Law has to be codified to be known by all the citizen, because that is the only way to make everyone distinguish what it is possible to do (the possibility) from what we must do (the duty). Unfortunately, the concept of Equity doesn’t always leads to a real certainty of the Law: according to it every judge can use its own discretional power to the point that the same case could have different ends if it is brought in front of different courts. In our system instead (ex code of criminal procedure, paragraph 39) it is not allowed having two different solutions for the same case, and it is not possible that the same case could be decided by different judges. Concluding, I think that the concept of Equity would be the best to decide not so important cases because, according to it, the judge has been permitted to value in a “more free” way. Because of think that, in Future, the system of equity could be more used.
See you soon
Laura Di Bartolomeo
According to me the use of equity is not the only way to adapt the laws at the common sense of justice..
Also in our legal system ,in our codes, we dont't leave much space to equity but the judges in their decisions got the liberty to apply the law in a flexible way. Any law can not be read in just one way so is our interpretation that give sense to it. Judges, looking at the specific case ,give the law the meaning most pertinent, and according to me this way to act is not so different to the meaning of equity.
Good morning!
Yesterday I seen MoV with Al Pacino.
The part of the movie that stun me is the trial…during the contradictory I seen Antonio- in it’s own way batter than Shylock, and the Jews- vindictive and cruel…”I want MY flash” said spoke of Antonio.
Antonio, during all trial was sad, unhopeful almost. But, at the end of the trial he asked conversion of Shylock…maybe the moment more ruthless of the scene. Also in this moment the passion and the emotion be came stronger than rationality. Like in Shylock.
There are many religious notes…
This trial is control by fury and pique, in witch “impartiality” of the court is a silence like Pilato, in the gospel. And Antonio embody Christ, specially when Shylock approached him for executed is revenge.
Emblematic also Shylock casted out his home…like Jewish out of their land. The movie confirm my opinion of Antonio and Shylock. The first is only appearance generous and the second is really vindictive but at the and, pays all his actions…and Portia. She isn’t justice: she’s only in love with Antonio and very foxy!
See tomorrow!
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi everybody,
This week we analyzed Shakespeare from a historical point of view, and we told about law vs equity and discrimination.
1)LAW VS EQUITY:
Shakespeare doesn’t use the term “ equity “ (moral dimension of justice) but he uses “ mercy ”, because according to him equity and mercy are the same thing.
He knows the dispute between Edward Coke and Francis Bacon and the difference between common law court and court of chancery.
According to Coke, the most famous jurist of XVII century, it is important to apply the strictum ius , because he wants to defend the common law against the encroachment by the ecclesiastical doctrine, that it’s inspired by roman law.
While, Bacon thinks that when it is impossible to resolve an issue the equity must prevail; he supports the court of chancery, that applies the equity as in roman tradition: the trial is secret and written.
2)DISCRIMINATION:
The discrimination of Jews emerges from “ The Merchant of Venice”.
In particular, in classroom, we saw that this discrimination is not a novelty of Nazism, which represents his climax. Since 306 were prohibited mixed marriages and sexual relationships.
The Jews could not occupy public offices, they couldn’t have Christian servants and they couldn’t be doctor at university (iurisdiction ) or lawyer.
Pope Innocent III imposed a coloured sign to distinguish Jews from Christians (yellow, red and green). The Jews were expelled from England (1290), French (1394) and Germany (1388).
The discrimination of women is treated in “Measure for Measure”.
In this play all women are alienated or marginalized, the status of women is determined by marriage.
Indeed, in act V scene I, the Duke asks Mariana if she is married or widow or maiden, and when she answers no, he says her that she is nothing.
See you tomorrow...
Vanessa Malizia
Hi everybody,
first of all I want to thank Dr. Gialdroni for all her lectures, as all my colleagues. She underlined the historical side, describing the period in which Shakespeare has been living and writing his works.
We analyzed different problems like: hypothesis about Shakespeare’s life and identity, the relationship between law and equity. Moreover we studied the figure and the condition of the Jews in that period. It ‘s not a case if it was Venice to be the theatre of the opera “The merchant of Venice”. It is the city of merchants, symbol of a world based on power and commerce. Here in Venice the word “ ghetto” has been coined, because here has been built the oldest Ghetto of the world story. In fact the city, since old times, let jews have different professions, they could be money-lenders and doctors. Thus their presence was tolerated, also if at a certain hour of the evening they were closed with a big lock in the area where they were leaving, in an old steel foundry called “getto” than changed into the word “ghetto” .
As we already underlined during the lectures in analyzing our comments posted on the blog, I’ m agree with those who think that the distinction of Shylock is not his avidity, but his revenge. The theme of the revenge makes the comedy a sombrely revenger’s tragedy.
From the beginning of the work he become a thirsty victim of justice but separated from avery kind of clemency. His revenge doesn’t originate from a personal revenge, but from a feel of justice for all the injures that has been done by Antonio to the “holy people” (I,3,46) ( III,1,51-55).
Really interesting has been also the fact that Shakespeare took its cue to the work “Pecorone” to realize his opera, adding the figure of Shylock and the Launcelot Job. Shakespeare departs from the Pecorone for a significant particular : the choose of the chests. And It’s the wish of the dead father to constrain Portia into the choice of her husband.
Riccardo Varano
Dear all,
this week- end I watched the MOV’s movie and it was interesting to compare an another point of view about the same story.
I found the movie well- structured and really very faithful to the play; the cast was great! Maybe, Shylock’s character was less ambiguous then in the play, the movie director stressed in the whole movie, from the very beginning up to the end, Shylock’s feeling of revenge . Nevertheless, at the end, even if there’s a happy ending, I was stricken by the Shylock’s last image, as the director chose to let us see him damned by the sentence of the same judge he had appealed at first, crying for justice.
The other protagonist of the story, Portia, seems to be more binded to her husband: according to me, her wish of independence is less clear in the movie than in the play. In fact she said: “ I’ll prefer become perjurer rather than marry a sponge!”
Besides, the reverence to her father’s will ended, in a certain way, when the consequences of them could be too much heavy. At once, perhaps, the movie director shows her female strength to set herself against the male decision.
Bye!
Silvia Faranca
Hi everybody,
I found these lessons very interesting. In particular I was fascinated by the method used in the analysis and in the discussion of the object of these lessons: a method not based only on a literary analysis, but also historical, which consider the context of the Shakespeare’s works and which consider also the author’s life, moreover, very uncertain and mysterious. I found very interesting especially the illustration of the theory that Shakespeare was a Sicilian immigrant (I think from Messina),a theory based on a series of clues that I think very convincing (for example the fact that Scrollalanza was the author of "troppu trafficu pì nnenti", considered by some people the “Much ado about
nothing” original; or also the fact that he took the inspiration for "Otello" by a news happened in Sicily at that time). Another clue for this thesis could be, I think, the fact that Shakespeare has often drawn inspiration, in the drafting of his works, by Italian texts never translated in English (like the same "Il Pecorone" by Giovanni Fiorentino which inspired "The Merchant of Venice"): in fact I think that it shows a sure Shakespeare’s knowledge of Italian language (as only an Italian could have at that time!).
About the other arguments discussed in these lessons, I really enjoyed the debate about equity. Especially I believe that in the "Merchant of Venice" there is no place for equity: to avoid the execution of the contract, at a first time the audience asks Shylock to have mercy (a concept very different from equity) and then only in the end issue is solved by Porthia which forces Shylock to give up its claim through a strict interpretation (far from equitable) of the contract. The same considerations should be done for the other works discussed in class ("Measure for Measure"), in which Angelo can avoid the death penalty if he marries Mariana. But is this decision really fair, or rather it is a decision based only on mercy?
See you later
Enrico Veri
Dear all,
when Dr. Gialdroni held the lecture about "Law vs Equity", she quoted the phrase from Cicero "summus ius, summa iniuria", stressing the evidence of the fact that you can apply law without realizing justice. As regards this aspect, I’d like to remind you of another paradox of justice in “Measure for Measure”, Act II, Scene I, when Angelo says: “ What’s open made to justice, that justice seizes” and it’s “ because we see it; but what we do not see, we tread upon, and never think of it”. This means that, even if we apply the law strictly, and it happens when we know the facts and the person who committed the crime, we can’t realize justice at all if , at the same time, something similar is happening and we’ll never know and never punish it. Escalus continues on this point by saying: “ Some run from brakes of ice and answer none, and some condemned for a fault alone”. So, we can’t see and we don’t care: this is not only a problem for our justice, but it represents a big paradox of the current social problems and human relationships!
Thank you!
Alessandra Simeoni
Hi all,
The history of “The Merchant of Venice” has been faced in the course of several lessons by the professors Gialdroni, Skell and Ryan (in minimal part).
Stefania Gialdroni has quickly analyzed the historical period of Shakespeare to better make to understand the thought and the biography of the writer.
The likeable, provocative questions that the university professor has made are: “Shakespeare was a historian?” and “Shakespeare was Sicilian or Italian?” Those questions (that apparently seem eccentric), open to numerous points of reflection. The first is: Shakespeare when he wrote his novels, lend much attention to the details, inspiring himself, sometimes also true stories (for example: “Romeo and Juliet”) to modify it to adapt it to the theatre. This characteristic can make him to seem a historian, but, in reality, it is not thus. He was a theatric writer, a dramatist; his first worry was to fill up the theatre, therefore he sacrificed the history (truly happened) for script requirements and to appeal to his public much more. In this way the truth gets confused with the fantasy so we can make a question; the second point of reflection is: Shakespeare wrote many stories happened in Italy. Among the most important are: “Romeo and Juliet” and “The Merchant of Venice”.
As for the characters, professor Gialdroni analyzed the character of Shylock by introducing the theme of wear and the theme of anti-semitism. Also in the lesson has already talked about two women: Porzia and Isabella.
The first (Porzia), submitted to the wishes of his father, allows us to analyze the status of women, while the second (Isabella) shows her wickedness, because she leaves his brother to die rather than give up his desire to become a nun.
Skell more directly addresses the problems associated with Shylock saying that this character is heartless, avaricious, and describes it as a stereotype of jew stingy merchant.
The conclusion of his lecture, we can give a double valutation of the personality of Shylock: the first is that he is cold and empty, the second is that in the historical period in which he lives we have the Jews that hate the Christians, because the Christians persecuted Jews, making them live in ghettos and prohibited them the public life.
Professor Ryan, however, had limited his lesson by summarizing the plot of “The Merchant of Venice”, to analyze more generally all the characters of the story. The lessons that have been more detailed include: “Measure for Measure”, “King John” and “King Richard”.
LORENZO LIBRANDI
"THE MERCHANT OF VENICE" BY Massimo Civica
"Teatro Contemporaneo" represents a new way of approaching theatre in our days and "The Merchant of Venice" by Civica is surely an expression of it and a personification of it’s aim.
The situation we face off at the beginnig of the play, peacefully sat down in this beautiful theatre, Teatro India, was completely extravagant to the majority of us. The common experiences of The Merchant of Venice we had were the one we had some years ago watching the ridondant scenography of the Merchant of Venice by Michael Radford or just the tipicals illustrations of the mean carachters freely available on internet or in the books we had the ocasion to take a look. We surely weren’t ready to see what we were going to watch!
When the play started, in front of us there only was a black stage, without curtain, without set design. Suddenly three actors, dressed in black, and an actress, dressed in red, appeared and sitted on four stark chairs on the right side of the scene. All these elements belong to "teatro contemporaneo" that we can also define experimental theatre or avant-garde theatre.
"Teatro contemporaneo" has been growing up from the beginnig of 20th century until today.It has been a reaction against the then-dominant conventions governing the writing and production of drama, against the attention to details, also to scenography, against the adherence to truth.
Massimo Civica specifically, as a contemporaru director, don’t want to show us the reality but he want to create a separation between the immediately perceptible and the theatre truth. He wants to return to a pure kind of art and to a moral purpose of theatre expecially considering the enigmatic function of the Merchant of Venice.
Truly the play rises a lot of questions to be interpretated. There is a vice, or a original sin inside the common desires to explain and to interpret the enigma.
Why are we thinking about the enigma like a question to answer ? Are we sure that the enigma could offer us an answer or a resolution ?
For the director the “ enigma “ isn’t a question, or something to understand or to contemplate, but is a “ certification of reality “.
This play offers a lot of questions without any certain solutions. How would you interpret the play ? Who is the main character : Antonio or Shylock ?
What does the three trunk ‘s test mean ?
Is Belmonte a dream reign and Venezia the city of commerce ? Are the two cities fighting against each other or not ?
Is Antonio homosexual ? Is perhaps Portia the real main character of the play ?
Here is the vortex of questions merging from the play.
Concerning the stage , it is dull. There is no scene, neither elements that can create a context.
There are only four chairs, differents characters acting by wearing or taking off the mask.
They don’t wear any particular or ridondant costumes, and they are simply dressed in black,making an exception to Portia, who wears a red dress.
The characters always keep the same tone of voice.
The director’s intent was to keep the audience distant from the play, like a watcher looking from above and during the representation the audience is not involved.
The distance is a trick used to rise a lot of questions, especially in the end.
Thus we can assume that the director maybe deleted every scenic and decorative element with the purpose of making the audience focus on the events and the story of the play.
The key of the rehabilitation work by Massimiliano Civica is the stylistic choice to reduce actors, mime and art director to the minimum, so at the end of the show the public remains face: how it was possible to follow carefully the skein of the inextricable relationships between the many characters? In fact at the poverty of the means corresponds a dense narrative structure.
In addition, there is a feeling of the existence of two different scenes, noticeable for the scenes' differents characters and tone: one takes place between Venice and Belmont, and in which it is not easy to understand if it is the tragedy of Shylock, the tragedy of Antonio or the comedy of Portia. The other is the subplot represented by the couple of lovers Jessica-Lorenzo. This scene hasn't an ambientation, just to emphasize the utopian and escape tone in the dream represented by their idyllic love.
In this context reigns the silence, caused by the characters and respected by the audience. Indeed, even lovers tell about their love whispering. Front and keeping the hands seem to depart from the logic of the market, of arrogance, of the injury and of money.
According to the majorities of criticals that have been producing a lot of materials, journalistic and novelistic as well, about the MOV, Shylock is the real protagonist of the all play. No one can see the drama without sympathizing with him. To the contrary of all other characters (especially Antonio) in fact, he’s the only one who honors his promises and appears free from duplicity, even if he suffers all kind of humiliations from the start to the end of the story (for example the kidnap of his daughter or the forced conversion). All his monologues clearly prove the prejudices of the Christians in his regards. After all, we know that he’s condemned by the society from the beginning not for his behaviour, but for being a jew. The only hold he has to revenge from this tragic situation is the law, and this is the reason why he claims the strict application of the contract. From this point of view the spectator can justify him when, in the trial, he refuses to concede mercy to Antonio. The humanity of Shylock is emphasized also by the fact that he’s the only character that breaks the recitative technique and all at a sudden screams his rage, proving his thirst of justice. Even if the director keeps a detached attitude during all the play, at the beginning he seems to have a hint of comprehension about Shylock’ situation. We can notice that when, in one of his monologues, the jew starts to recount the indignities he suffers from Antonio. The intensity of that monologue is one of the most touching parts of all the play. Intolerance of the jews was a fact in Shakespeare’s age, and so the representation of Shylock has followed the evolution and the sensitization of society of the problem of anti-Semitism. Nowadays the figure of Shylock clearly represents the situation of those who are (even in modern societies) victims of all kind of prejudices and discriminations (religious, racial, social in general) and who try to escape from the parochialism of the world.
One of the most relevant scenes of Civica’s MOV interpretation is surely the one characterized by the boxes election.
The symbolism and the minimalism of this scene directly recalls the bony contemporary theatrical representation: we don’t have boxes, we don’t have paintings, we don’t even have written prepositions.
We only have three people, Bassanio, Antonio and Porcia, acting togheter, orderly lining, methodically crouched down, giving life to 3 human being boxes.
Two differents princes make an entrance into the stage, doubtfully and hopefully looking at the boxes.
The first one, the gold one, has an inscription that says, “He who chooses me will get what many men want.”
The second one, the silver one, says, “He who chooses me will get what he deserves.”
And the third one is made of dull lead. It has a blunt warning that says, “He who chooses me must give and risk all he has.”
How will anybody know wich one will get the right thing?
No suggestions, no signals. Everybody is alone with his choice, completely not helped by the enviroment, not by the boxes voices, netiher by the fisical movements.
There is just one particular, not visible to the princes characters but available to spectators eyes: the lead box, the “right one”, is always played by Porcia.With a simple red dress she wants us to look at her and want us let know the truth..but this element is invisible to the majority, the majority really interested in.
A completely different representation we have in the moment of Bassanio’s choice. He goes around the boxes, trying to understand and recept any kind of signal that could let him have the woman of his life…The first box singing the same rhyme, the second box singing the same rhyme and…suddenly everything stops. People are no more speaking, characters are no more acting, the air is no more flowing. Bassanio and Porcia (playing the lead box) look into each others eyes just as two lovers can do.The world stops for a second: into this look there is the essence of love, the energy of a strong feeling, the power of an art attack. From Porcia’s eyes spreads the truth: her pupils irradiate love, her glance is full of feminity.
She, silently speaking, speaks to Bassanio and ask him to go beyond the appeareances and choose the right box, her life.
According to the director M.Civica the actor becomes the most important subject of the all play: whitout set design, whitout costumes, all the attention is focused on them ,on their gestures, on their movements and their expressions.
M.Civica studied in a traditional italian school of drama and in the meantime he has been interested in and influenced by experimental theatre.
In "The Merchant of Venice" he tries to create a relationship between the actors and the audiences by asking them questions and not giving them answers, thereby getting them to think for themselves. He doesn't want to show and decide what or who is right and what or who is wrong. And he got it, just for the fact that at the end of his performance we, all, felt that incredible feeling to talk about that representation as if we had the necesity to keep on creating the feelings that were flowing during the play.The elimination of any kind of filter, any kind of lent and the need to go straight to the point and let the public have it’s own point is the starting line of the Civica’s Merchant of Venice and his aim as well.
There is no point, there isn’t any sort of absolute and objective reality just because this is the contemporary theatre intention: to be aderent to the reality, the personal reality through the elimination of the architectural and visual obstacles that instead of letting us know the truth, obstaculate our path to it.
Laura di Bartolomeo
Giulia Giacomini
Fabiana Lanfraconi
Emanuela Hernandez
Massimo Manzo
Antonio Rosetta
Posta un commento