Barbier du Doré Anne Marguerite
Bellesini Carlo
Buonanno Maria
Cacciotti Giuseppe
Capece Minutolo Ferdinando
Caporaletti Roberta
Carafa Valentina
Carone Simone
Casini Ginevra
Ciucci Giorgia
Colorizio Alessia
Contartese Antonio
Cordani Flaminia
D'Annibale Daniela
D'Antona Valentina
Di Bartolomeo Laura
Faranca Silvia
Ferri Valeria
Festucci Alessandro
Fiengo Astrid
Filocamo Antonio Francesco
Fraia Andreina
Galanti Giuseppe
Giacomini Giulia
Giuliani Pietro
Graziano Flavia
Hernandez Emanuela
La Mantia Luca
Lanfranconi Fabiana
Librandi Lorenzo
Luciani Giulio
Luzietti Camilla
Malizia Vanessa
Mambrini Francesco
Manzo Massimo
Marangoni Andrea
Marinelli Valerio
Meglio Federica
Melia Giorgia
Neri Pasquale
Oddone Pierluigi
Petriccione Marina
Petroni Andrea
Pischedda Federica
Rosetta Antonio
Rossi Giulia
Russotto Valentina
Sangregorio Francesco
Severini Andrea
Simeoni Alessandra
Stabile Emanuela
Varano Riccardo
Veri Enrico
Vitale Valeria
Viti Michele
Westphal Caroline
Manzoni: Dr. "Azzeccagarbugli"
Picture by Francesco Gonin, 1840 edition of Alessandro Manzoni's "I promessi sposi"
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
2 commenti:
LAW vs. EQUITY
An interesting legal strand of “Merchant of Venice” is the relationship between law and equity. Today, in our discussion, we often emphasize this argument. So, I think it has a central part in this Shakespeare’s work .
Portia doesn’t use the equity to save Antonio. She uses a strictly application of law. But also, in the trial, Portia uses the law very suddenly; she catches Shylock off-balance. At first, she prays Shylock to use mercy – “I have spoke thus much to mitigate the justice of thy plea, […]” ; but, when Shylock confirms his request – a pound of Antonio’s flesh - , she declares the power of law, and deploys Antonio to prepare his bosom for Shylock’s knife! And after this moment, she uses the law for Antonio – “Tarry a little, there is something else. This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood; the words expressly are ‘ a pound of flesh’ […]”. So, she can use the equity. But if Portia had used the equity, if she had made a judgment against law, the justice of Venice would have been much impeached .
So, MOV underline the equity , many times represented with the famous Cicerone’s sentence “summum ius summa iniuria” , vs. the law’s justice represented by the Celso’s sentence “ius est ars boni et aequi”. Portia’s law application is an example of justice made by the law. So an “equity application” by the law.
Portia doesn’t say a sentence like “this is a particular case! Shylock ask his bond, but the penalty is very cruel. So, we must apply the equity, and consequently we can’t accept the Shylock’s request”. She use a strictly rules application; perhaps she has invented the law and the decree, because there isn’t a quotation of law’s source during her speech. Whatever, if Portia had used equity against the law, she would have denied the course of the law. If she had altered a established decree, that would have represented an important precedent; by this precedent “many errors” (as Shylock says) would have rushed into Venice’s legal system and the merchant’s trust to Venice’s justice would had been compromised.
Good night! See you tomorrow!
Giuseppe Cacciotti
The interpretation of the Jewish Shylock of the MoV made me consider that the Shakespeare's anti-Semitism is no more than a fable invented by the criticism.
Shakespeare put in Shylock, more humanity and understanding than he has put in all the other characters. Shylock is the worst,the most sinister,the most merciless one and he's derided by the author itself that had to make him the spokesman of the antipathy that people since that time fed for the Jewish usurers. By the way he is the only character that has some true feelings,that arouses reaction,some of which are also negative,but surely emotional as in a modern play. Actually, Shakespeare just reports the society that marginalizes the Jewish people, and that's not a derision of the Jew but a very sentence ot the society.
Marina Petriccione
Posta un commento