Hi there!
As one of you suggested, considering that "The Merchant of Venice" produced a great impression in many of you, I'm creating this post to collect all the comments on "our Merchant", which definition is maybe not really appropriate as the protagonist of this play is certainly not Antonio...So, post your comments about Schylock and Portia here!
I remind you of the links that maybe you missed in the moltitude of the comments:
serious Orson Welles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa1IZ7ewdOwOr
and passionate Al Pacino: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmafewX-HCw
For the future: write your comments referring to the post that presents the professor you are referring to. In most cases I will create a post for the most popular topics.
Manzoni: Dr. "Azzeccagarbugli"
Picture by Francesco Gonin, 1840 edition of Alessandro Manzoni's "I promessi sposi"
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
36 commenti:
I write my MOV's comment again in this post, as dott. Gialdroni has suggests
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.
Giuseppe Cacciotti
Yesterday we talked about the figure of Antonio that, in some way, could be consider similar or comparable to the figure of Christ.
I think this one is a very interessing view that could help us in order to interpretate all the story because, for me, Antonio can be seen as the opposite of Christ.
We already talk, during the lesson, about his missed sacrifce and his wish to save his friend. But probably there is more, especially in a "figurative" way. Infact he is going to lose a pound of flesh: if we should imagine how does it would be representable this loss would be like the hurt of Christ made by the spear of the roman soldier.
Probably this interpretation can be too imaginative but we have to consider that in the popular culture of Shakespeare's time a mystic imaginary was very usual.
Another consideration is about the faith of Antonio/Schylock and, on the other hand, the faith of Christ/Jews.
When Christ had been crucified it seemed that he was the loser, he lost his life and the Jews were the winner because they killed an heretical but in the long time they (obviously in Christian view!!) have been seen as those one whom were in the wrong opinion and Christ as who prevails with his ideas.
Antonio is the contrary, he saved his life and Schylock has lost everything. But in the fifth act, as we have seen at lesson, the Antonio and friend's ethic seems fallimentary: everything is rappresented in a comic way but, observed in that way, a deeper grotesque view comes out.
Very probably, I think, Shakespeare did all this not in order to critic his society but only because he is a great writer who wants to comunicate a lot of ambiguous sensation to our unconscious in the key passage of the story.
Francesco Mambrini
Hi,
yesterday i found the last strand very interesting: Prof. Skells introduced economic crisis talking about MOV.
I want to introduce some reasons of this great crisis (sources: New York times and Sole 24 ore newspapers).
In 2008-2009 much of the industrialized world entered into a deep recession. The complex of vicious circles which contributed to this crisis included high oil prices, high food prices and the collapse of a substantial housing bubble centered in the United States, which sparked an interrelated and ongoing financial crisis. Around the world, many large and well established investment and commercial banks suffered massive losses and even faced bankruptcy. It has been argued that the huge increases in commodity and asset prices came as a consequence of an extended period of easily available credit and that the primary cause of the downturn was exceptionally financial. This has led to increased unemployment, and other signs of contemporaneous economic downturns in major economies of the world. In December 2008, the NBER (National Bureau of economic Resource) declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007, and several economists expressed their concern that there is no end in sight for the downturn and that recovery may not appear until as late as 2011.
The recession is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, so far many economists and politicians have avoided using the term depression, as it is generally recognized to refer to a downturn which lasts considerably longer and has a significantly higher unemployment rate.
In February 2008, Reuters reported that global inflation was at historic levels, and that domestic inflation was at 10-20 year highs for many nations. "Excess money supply around the globe, monetary easing by the Fed to tame financial crisis, growth surge supported by easy monetary policy in Asia, speculation in commodities, agricultural failure, rising cost of imports from China and rising demand of food and commodities in the fast growing emerging markets," have been named as possible reasons for the inflation.
In mid-2007, IMF data indicated that inflation was highest in the oil-exporting countries, largely due to the unsterilized growth of foreign exchange reserves, the term “unsterilized” referring to a lack of monetary policy operations that could offset such a foreign exchange intervention in order to maintain a country´s monetary policy target. However, inflation was also growing in countries classified by the IMF as "non-oil-exporting LDCs" (Least Developed Countries) and "Developing Asia", on account of the rise in oil and food prices. Inflation was also increasing in the developed countries,but remained low compared to the developing world.
Michele Viti
Hi to all of you!
It has been very interesting for me to read the Merchant of Venice, surely because i've never read it, and also because we have focused on particular meanings linked with law.
In particular, i think that the MOV can be a sort of manual for a lawyer, because it explains very well what to do in a trial. Let me explain. In Act three, Scene two, at the lines 74-76, Bassanio says:
"In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, but being seasoned with a gracious voice, obscures the show of evil?"
Weel, i think that this is what a lot of lawyers do in a trial, when they have to defend a guilty man: using their capacities of conviction, they can cover the real responsibility of their client. I must say, at this point, that i don't think that this is a bad side of the profession of a lawyer: it is simply his work!
Also, what Bassanio says in the lines that i've written before, is the same thing that Portia will do later, during the trial. With a gracious speech about "mercy" she reaches the attenction of the court and after this she can go on to defend a guilty. Because i think that Portia, in the trial, defends Antonio, without bringing the equity, as a lot of persons say (maybe they are right!). Defending Antonio, Portia defends a guilty because Antonio signed the contract with Shylock totally aware about the possible consequences; after losing his ships he couldn't give money back to the Jew, so it should be right to give him the pound of flesh.
This is the argument about i focused, reading the Merchant of Venice
Bye
Andrea Severini
Good morning!
I want to speak about character of Portia.
When arrive the day of the trail, she disguise from a lower and she succeed to frame-up Shylock: he can have his pound of flesh, but he mustn’t shed not a bit of Antonio’s blood, because the contract doesn’t envisage this possibility.
Now, Shylock become victim of his project against Antonio. Frankly, I don’t like Shylock because his revenge is ground on the elimination of Antonio. In this moment Shylock lost his sharable motivation, that Shakespeare narrate us in the monologue in act3,sc1,and became like some other men…vindictive and cynic, apart from their nationality.
During the trail, law turn into feeling. In particular rancor and hostility became the protagonists. The trail lost his objectivity and turn into a passion. This is an example of the influence that exteriority situation might be on a trail. I think that the trail isn’t a correct trail, because Portia outsmart influence of a passion and not using the reason and balance…and the law! So, I’m not agree with my colleague when they join Portia to the justice, because the justice mustn’t be control by passion: in this case isn’t justice, but revenge.
See you on Wednesday!
Daniela D’Annibale
Hello..
I think it's true that Shylock focuses his revenge on Antonio, and therefore might seem a bad character in all senses. It 'true that unlike Portia, Shylock demands a justice that more personal objective. And that Portia is the justice in understanding the reasons for him, but he was right to Antonio (which is the best friend of her lover), defending a law that prevented at the Venetian to cause bodily injury.
But we must also remember that the religion of Shylock was mocked unfairly by Christians, who first criticized the Jews, but then, when it was convenient to them, went to ask for money to the same people who had suffered those criticisms.
So, even if the character of Shylock may seem ruthless, Justice Portia represents, is never perfect, because if she had defended Shylock would have violated the law of corporal Venice. Having defended Antonio, has met the second but not the contract.
So she preferred to take an imperfect but respectful of life and human dignity.
I have already spoken of appearance feminist who lives in Shakespeare, disguised as a man, Portia provides a rigid interpretation of the Act.
Moreover there is another aspect I want to talk about.
If Shakespeare had actually known the law of Venice at the time in which it was set to work, the extraordinary thing is that even the Italian system of civil law had not yet been established, and that the law was "created" not only by the courts but also by lawyers, who with their plea literally held the right.
But we know that the birth of the common law and the 'Equity dates from 1066 in England .
Economic development and Merchant of italian Venice in the period of the work(Merchant of Venice: 1594-97), was in its full splendor.
But we also know from historical data that Venice had acquired the right of the Romans not the Common law system, known by Shakespeare. Because at the time of the barbarian invasions, people fleeing from the attacke provinces of the Roman Empire, managed to find shelter in the lagoons where today stands the city of Venice. Before going there, people used to consider lagoons as "thing of nobody(res nullius)".
So, at the time of the Merchant of Venice (written between 1594 and 1597), in my humble opinion, it was impossible that a lawyer could even create a precedent in case law, which was and should be typical of a system of Common Law, but only had to use the civilian law from Venice, especially the roman law.
A.Festucci
About Alessandro Festucci's and Daniela D'Annibale's comments: I think you both stressed an important aspect of Portia's character. From a certain point of view she can be seen as a "feminist" character as she is the most intelligent character of the play, the one who really succeeds in saving Antonio's life using her smartness. She is "the learned judge", the "Daniel" both for Shylock and for Graziano but, as a judge, she is absolutely unfair, being sentimentally involved in the trial, which has to be considered absolutely unacceptable. So she is at the same time the symbol of supreme justice (she is enforcing the law and everyone looks at her as a learned doctor) and supreme injustice.
First of all I want to thank Prof. Skeel for these two weeks of lessons in particular for his kindness and availability.
Then I want to speak about Portia and Shylock saying that the analysis of these two characters made me very surprise.
Infact when I red the play I didn't look to Shylock as a winner, as Weisberg wanted to show.
His point of view was dictated by the Shylock's respect for the promise in the contract while Bassanio and Antonio didn't respect their wedding promise about the rings.
Instead I thought to Shylock only as villain without mercy and interested only in his revenge.
About Portia I can say that the female way to resolve problems is very evident for her sensitivity and relational behaviour at the beginning of the trial("the qualityof mercy is not strained..")
I found very intelligent the way she interpreted the contract dressed as a judge also if it was a very strict literary interpretation : it made Shylock the loser of the trial and I think it was the right way to resolve the dispute(is not human ask a pound of flesh).
Have a nice week end!
Giorgia Melia
"THE DANGEROUS EYE".
During the last MOV’s lesson, Prof. Skeel suggested an interesting view to analyze this play: law – or trial – like a performance of play. So, a comparison between lawyers and play’s characters.
The Italian professor Franco Cordero, a famous exponent of Italian Criminal Procedure’s Theory, speaks about the “art. 147 att.”, an article of Criminal Procedure Code as important as so dangerous! He says: “The trial is like theatre, sometimes with a strong psico-dramatic effect”(1). So a dramatic play with different surprises. By the art. 147 att., the court could authorize video-recording of the trial, photos, broadcast on TV channels, in case of “relevant and social reason”, on condition that media doesn’t hurt the regular and normal trial’s course. But there is an inevitable disturbing effect : lawyers – especially Italian lawyers – became real actors! The “dangerous eye” provokes an incredible “storm” into the lawyer’s mind, and often incites a “narcissistic explosion”. They use high level of voice, grimaces, howls, excessive gesticulations, etc.. So, where’s a camera, lawyers became real actors. Could these trial’s effects be dangerous? Certainly, the publicity could make lawyers – also attorneys – drunk, and overpower the mind of shy witness. Sometimes lawyers, with good dialectical ability, touches on the theatrical performance. It could be funny, but very dangerous for the serious and important trial target: the procedural check of truth. If the camera and other media means, are able to influence the evidences or the judge’s objectivity, the truth could be contaminated. So, as Cordero says , “we hope that this article ( art. 147 att.) will stay at the paper”, therefore we hope that it’ll never be applied.
Giuseppe Cacciotti
1. Franco Cordero (2007), Procedura Penale, Giuffrè, pag. 931.
Hi!
At the and of the lesson, Friday, prof. Skeel spoke about lower jokes…
I think that the irony that he used, is the same that I found in “Philadelphia”, the film (Jonathan Demme, 1993). Particularly in the final scene. Andrew Beckett(Tom Hanks) was in the hospital and his lawyer(Denzel Washington) made a visit for informed him that they won the trial, Andrew said:” what do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? …a good star”…
In fine, I’m grateful to dott. Gialdroni for her advice to watch Al Pacino in the MOV…this is just I mean when I describe Shylock like a man vindictive and with angry look. Al Pacino is impeccable in this part. On the other hand , I don’t like(this is my humble opinion) the same part act by Orson Welles..he’s excessively unchanging, less expressive than Pacino.
Good Sunday!
Daniela D’Annibale
Good Morning,
i found MOV not a simple-definition play, because it interlaces different plots and theatrical kind in a perfect unity structure where the events take turn between two opposite and mirror place: Venice, king of reality, of morning, of certaninty; and Belmont, king of illusion, of night, of trasformations.
Dominated by two big antagonists, Shylock and Portia, the work reaches climax in the trial scene, when Shylock vindicates an Antonio's "piece of flash" for his vengeance against him, and Portia, in judge dress, destroies Shylock whith a thin and considered histrionism.
Great comedienne, manipulator of other's existance and young woman with clear faithfulness in her love for Bassanio, Portia concludes play in the magic night of Belmont: all the characters (except the tragic and beaten Shylock) shall come together around her, and she, as a unforeseeable magician in her wayward benevolence, will undo knots of a complicated and fleeing event
I think that what Stefania Gialdroni stressed out is the very 'core' of Law-and-Humanities: I refer to Portia's character as "supreme justice and unjustice" at the same time.
Studying Law and Humanities from all the perspectives that prof.Skeel deeply explained, is a good way to dig in Law, to figure out from what legal and HUMAN reasons rules of law arise.
Somebody may think that MOV is a literary work, a masterpiece yes, but nothing more. I think it would be wrong to give such an interpretation of MOV. Instead, it has something dealing with Law. However, unlike law codes, unlike judgments, unlike judicial opinions, MOV expresses (as any literary work) human feelings and human relationships, giving a concrete context to the legal framework, in the sense that it doesn't report merely facts and applicable rules (as any judgment)but says as well what the characters feel: who is in love with whom, who hates whom and would rather see him dead,how money damage human psychology and relationships. This is exactly the "quid pluris" of Literature and other Humanities, their power and their beauty. Then, all the Humanities can be read, studied, watched or listened to from any other subject's point of view
Giulio Luciani
Hi everybody!
Friday we talked about the possibles uses of MOV in american L&H scholarship.In particular there is a feminist movement that use Portia's figure as the symbol of women's behaviours.They say that women are more sensitivy and caring and this features are very important in law's world that is dominated by men's pragmatism.
Portia,as we said,at the very beginning of the trial, is talking about mercy(and this could be a female quality,the expression of caring) but then, when there's no solution to save Antonio's life, she uses a strict application of law.Also in order to be listen she has to wear a male clothe.So in a certain way she turns to be a male character.For these reasons I think Portia character has something controvercial that,of course, makes her one of the most famous and mentioned Shakespeare's characters but maybe she doesn't completely fit with who wants to see her like a tipical example of woman's behaviour.
The last thing I want to say is connected to the last part of the lesson in which Prof. Skeel taught us why L&H developed in 1960/70 in Usa.That was because in that period there were a lot of Phd students in history phylosophy and literature who didn't get a job and so they went to law schools.He said that,also today, most of the people goes to law schools after studying other disciplines.The fact that American people see law in a pratical way (they go to schools to learn the job) impress me so much,i really like this method to approach the law,I think is more linked to the real world and maybe less boring.
Hello everybody!
I agree with Giulio.Apparently MOV is a world divided into good and bad, innocent and guilty...Indeed it reflects the contradictions of reality, that of 1500 as one today... Love, jealousy,friendship,human envie, but also Venice's economic crisis, as opposed to the fabulous kingdom Belmonte.
At the beginning Antonio stresses the fiction inherent in all the characters "The hold the world but as the world, gratiano; in workshops, where every man must play a part, and mine to sad one. "But in the course of history each character contradicts, when Shylok shows its suffering asking to be treated as a human... The same Portia,camouflaged in Baldassarre,represents the supreme justice.However,she shows its woman weaknesses wanting to test her beloved husband,and after in making jealous.
F.Lanfranconi
in the last week we talked about "the Merchant of Venice", I think that Shakespeare's work is a mixture of different elements.In fact we can see the roule of the society in the life of people, the law and the importance of its interpretation, the love, the different values about pesonal life, way of think, about religion..Shakespeare shows to world the importance of dialogue, the ermeneuthic and its possible playes.In the plot is an important point tha law, but it isn't only because is comparated and mitigated with other experiences of life,the relationship is with all world and not only with the right!!!
Hi everybody!
About Shylock professor David Skeel said that he could be seen as typical law and economics man, because he cares olny about himself and he uses law (decretees of Venice) to reach his targets.
In my personal opinion, I disagree with this construction: it's true that Shylock is, as law and economics man, in a sort of "unsympathetic isolation", but he's not a typical rational man because he's moved by rage, revenge feelings and he's blinded by them.
About Portia, I think she didn't a good job, because:
1)First of all, obviously she wasn't such an impartial judge, because from the beginnig she wanted to free Antonio from Shylock's bound.
2)Someone said that she made an equity judgement but the relationship between equity and strict law is the same relationship between Ius civile and Ius praetorio in Roman Law, i.e. equity helps to mitigate strict's law rigidicity and formalism.
In this way, I think Portia didn't use equity because she followed the words of the contract that didn't mention "spilling blood", so she used the same Shylock's "weapons".
3)Also her judgement could have damaged the trade of Venice, by breaking the trust of other merchants.
Hi everybody!
I just wanted to point out some considerations on our analysis on MOV, thanks to Professor Skeel.
I particularly appreciated these lessons, also because I studied this masterpiece when I was at secondary school(english literature), so I knew a little bit about Shakespeare's way of writing plays: his being innovative by breaking classical rules (as unit of time) and respecting some of them (as the one related to the fact that a play must develop on five acts).
In my opinion we could read his behaviour related to the judges' one: their respect of rules and at the same time different interpretation of laws, according to passing of time and a different social background( they must respect rules of evidence and procedural rules, but at the same time they often create a new substatial rule, that better fits on the case).
Thus we could study law together with literature and humanities in general, so our perception of a legal question could be enriched by different points of view.
In MOV we can perceive Shakespeare's description of social problems, linked with the contrast between insiders and outsiders.
Portia represents not only an example in the contrast between law and equity: she's the heroine opposed to Shylock (she's christian while the "villain" is jew)
The author didn't give his solution: he just described the situation, as the reader (and the spectator) can judge on his own.
Shylock represents the outsider (the main one): he trusts law and a strict interpretation of rules, otherwise he's destinated to lose
(as it happens).
does this situation (the contrast between insiders and outsiders) fit with our social and historical background?
if it's so, How could we solve the contrast?
should we use a strict interpretation of law or use equity (according to each single case)?
But, first of all, how could we interpretate law if it's obscure and seems not to respect Justice?
I'm aware that I'm not going to answer these questions, but as they "torment" me, I just wanted to share them with you.
I also wanted to thank professor Skeel, because this experience of discussing all together about different and important subjects, deeply linked with our studies(even if at first we maybe weren't aware of it), "has opened the doors of our perception"...
Camilla
Hello everybody
The lectures of the Professor Skeel have been really interesting. I’ ve read the book and moreover I’ ve seen the movie about the Venice Merchant during these days. The movie gave realness to my imagination about the city of those days and about all the story contained in the book. In fact, as the Professor underlined, at that time Venice was one of the cities that maybe was more close to the life style of London, thus the atmosphere which Shakespeare was living in.
Porzia end Shylock are two characters really different from each other. I’ ve been impressed by Shylock’s wish of revenge against the world around him. Mocked and insulted
from the Christians and also by Antonio on the Rialt bridge, he meditates in a really rational way his revenge. To do this, he uses the contract stipulated with Antonio and the venetian laws.
He knows very well that the venetian laws cannot be infracted from the Doge otherwise Venice could lose its credibility and there could be inserted some exceptions into the system. This situation could have removed the merchants.
Shylock is a character very attached to the material world, who is more interested in his assets than in his daughter Jessica. Anyway, in the novel, Shylock is a complex figure, also able to have extreme reflexive moments as when he affirms how Christians and Jews are both equally human.
Completely different is the figure of Porzia. She is a character with some fabulous features. She lives in her feud in Belmont. An elusive figure. The only real thing inside her is maybe the love for Bassanio.
She is an able manipulator and an audacious calculator. She provides her substances to save Antonio. She disguises as a lawyer to help her Bassanio. In my opinion the choice to wear a mask doesn t answer to the real willingness to help Bassanio but it s a plan to test her husband and to see if Bassanio gives up of the ring she gave him.
Porzia e Shylock meet themselves in front of the Doge. In front of him she tries to solve the situation in a accommodative way and to bring it to equity. After the Shylock’s rejection she has the merit of succeed in addressing the contract in favour of the merchant, using cavils but also a too much literal interpretation. Moreover she is able to use the venetian laws to condemn Shylock to the sequestration of his goods like a revenge because he attempted on Antonio’s life.
Riccardo Varano
On friday professor Skells concluded his circle of lessons talking about the uneasy relationship between law and humanities in the US.
Talking about the law perspectives in Italy almost everybody said that we just approach studying law using internalist prespectives.
But I disagree about this point because if we consider our univerity carreer we can find a lot of coursees looking at the law from a different and external prespective and creating a link between law and humanities:courses about law and economics, about history and law, philosophy and law , social scienze and law. Also actually, the number of those coursees is increasing, so according to me the italian way to approach the law is changeling and I hope in the future we can open our minds even more.
Portia and the law.
The law and the interpretation of the law. The thing that really impressed me reading the Merchant of Venice is the role of the law. It seems to me that the author tries to tell us that the justice isn’t something connected with the law in itself, we don’t find a right law, but it’s something that we can find in an astute use of a law. We can see that at the beggining the Doge and also Portia ask to Shylock to have mercy: we could thing that to have mercy it means not to use the law or to give up to the law, but according to me asking to Shylock to have mercy means to apply a law that allow, to the same law, not to be applied. Portia asks to Shylock something that he doesn’t know:mercy !
According to me that’s the difference between Shylock and Anotnio: Shylock isn’t able to have mercy, he’s only focalised on the law that can be useful for his interest, and we found out that Portia isn’t different from Shylock, even Portia uses the law for her interts and at the end we found out taht there’s no place for mercy in using the law made by the human for the human.
The play and the trial.
According to me there are a lot of similarities between the play and the trial: just like in the play even in the trial we have different “characters”, in the italian language the similarity is more evident because we call “parte” the character in a play and even the sollicitor; in a play, and often in a trial, we can have a public and as a public we can only see what happen on the stage or in a tribunal, but we can’t take part of it, we can’t change something. In a play and in a trial we can see only a part of the story of the character.We know the character in relation with their role in the story, I mean, we know only what it is necessary to know to understand the reason why they are on the stage, the reason why the are in the story and their part in the play. Just like in a tribunal we know the story of the defendant only in relation with the reason why the defendat is in the tribunal, we don’t know all the life of the defendant, we only know what is necessary for the trial; is the trial a sort of play?!
Maria Buonanno
Hi, First of all I want to thank Prof. Skill who gave me the opportunity to read again, after years, the Merchant of Venice of Shakespeare, which I read for the first time after having seen the homonymous movie. At that moment it was a pleasant reading: funny and very pressing; I didn't think I could find something similar in a play! 5 years ago I was a fan of Shylock and I was almost sorry for his sad fate, because you can't be contrary to Al Pacino's character! (and Giannini's voice) and because at the end there is ever an identification in the bad character of the drama who is also the most intresting!
This time we have read it by a legal-humanities or better humanities-legal point of view, so I have to say that my conclusion is the same as the older one. Probably I will be the only but I keep on in beeing the best fan of Shylock and not to consider Portia as fairness and justice symbol.Why? Simple: Because I think that is due to Shilock the pound of Antonio's flesh, with everything that goes with it, including the death... And because (I agree with Ihering) Portia interprets the contract in a way that suit only her. Worthy of the best lawyers today!
"Therefore prepare thee cut off the flesh;Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more; But just a pound of flesh. If thou tak'st more; Or less than a just pound...Thou diest, and all thy goods are confiscate"
Paradoxically the conclusion should have been the opposite for the two characters: Portia should be accused of misleading disguise (and I don't think this is a thing that shoul be taught to future lawyers) and even if she was a judge she couldn't judge the case because Antonio is a friend of Bassanio (in Italy today we should immediately transfer the process). Shylock instead entitled to Antonio's pound of flesh, the contract is enforceable! (and the rich always win their legal battles!)
Shylock is the true king of "The Merchant of Venice", his image fully assumes the height of the tragic protagonist, taking upon himself a pitiful role: the accuser. With a pressing, dry, relentless rhetoric the jew overturnes the accusations, the insults and humiliations that the christians merchants have targeted to him and to his people. Using as argument the equality between Jews and Christians, which is the real cause of the peroration, he finally arrives to the statement that is clearly at the root of his famous oration (Act III, scene I): he has learned for his own revenge by the Christians themselves...
In my opinion a better ending for this drama would be one pound of flesh in less!
see you soon...
hello everybody!
About the Merchant of Venice, I would like to emphasize some points that for me are very interesting: As Shakespeare wants us to disapprove Shylock's behavior, describing him as an avid person, who just thik about money and has a rock-heart. Well I would like to say that in my opinion Shylock may be avid (who doesn't in current life?)but he still is a charachter that has suffer from discrimination and sincerely I feel sorry for him when he's condamned, because in our days that contract wouldn't be acceptable from the beginning as he violates the law (according to the law that forbiddens to pour a single drop of christian blood) and nobody defends that, as Shylock ignores the law!! So how can't we have pitty of Shylock? We know that "lex, sed lex" but that man had given his money to a stranger, and his right should be to have it back, unles he had donate it...
Let's think about how law at that time was unfair towards jewish poeple.
see you!
Astrid FIENGO
hello everybody
I just wanted to remind some few things about Mov and Shylock's character..
first of all Shakespeare presents us S. as an avid character who doesn't have human feelngs but is full of greed and whants absolutely his money back or vengeance. I think we should feel pitty fr shylock as he is just a poor jewish man that suffers from discrimination in Venice and whants "his" justice o become..Is it fair to lend money and then , just because of the one's religion, not to have your money back? The point is: whitch justice is just? Shylock's or Portia's (Shakespeare's)? In my opinion the contract should have been declared inacceptable (nor invalid) because it was violating a christian law (the one that forbidds a jew to pour one single chrisian blood drop), and Shylock's law ingnorance makes him loose the case.. Even if ignoring law does not excuse anyone, I feel sad for the only fact that we are in front of a big discriminating case and that the human rights of this man weren't respected as all. The fact is that the law itself at that time was unfair and descriminating stranegrs and jewish poeple.
see you!
astrid fiengo
I've found shylock the most interesting and complicated character of the whole shakespeare's play.I like his pragmatism and his respect to the law and rules as the only possibility to take shelter from a world that most of times tries to discriminate people like him, outsiders.In spit of his precarious condition he never loses his dignity,especially when he refuses antonio's proposal to convert to christianity at the end of the trial when he seems definetely defeated and he has no hopes to take his money back.About portia , i'd say she doesn't strike me because she's part of "good" characters and she's obviously meant to win against shylock,it's an essential ingredient of happy ending!Anyway she's the person who leads the entire play seggesting bassiano which casket choose,solving the trial and demonstrating her superiority to bassiano and antonio too,not so bad for a woman in the seventeen century!
Dear all,
I found our discussion on MOV really very interesting and I just wanted to point out my impressions about the relationship between female characters in this Shakespeare' s masterpiece.
I wanted to stress Portia's character, as, with Shylock , she's one of the most important figures all around the play, while the title mentions just Antonio (the merchant of Venice).
She's the winner because she's able both to save Antonio and to trick her own husband.
The main question is that in the end she uses a male way of behaving .
I think that Portia solves the situation in a substantial female way , let them believe that is a “Daniele” to judge and this is her power: with her won the fiction. The disguise she needs to get the power in her woman’s condition is the proof that Shakespeare wanted to highlight not only a particulary female carachters, but also the general women conditions.
Infact , Portia isn’t the only one to disguise herself as a man: Nerissa and Jessica , the other woman characters in the play , act in one or several scenes disguised as man to achieve their purpose.
See you tomorrow!
Silvia Faranca
Hi!
I think that the Merchant of Venice is a masterpiece both for the subjects covered and for how to address them
Hi,
I wanted to introduce a brief summary on Richard III. I also bought this book by mistake. It would be a pity not talk about it at all....
Historical drama written between the 1591 and 1594, Richard III belongs to the Youth works of Shakespeare. It reveals, especially in the complexity and inconsistency of the figure of the protagonist, the size of his genius.
the all-encompassing purpose of Richard is the achievement of the power and his evil is what allows him to get it: drow back not face any crime, pretend friend of those who will then murder, form the ambition and looks like a scrupulous of God man when texture most heinous crimes.
Richard is a sublime histrion which elevates the Sham to perverse art of the policy. It is in the masterly exercise of the fiction that enhances your ability to Machiavellian and shows that witty and cruel irony that is the basic psychological feature of the character created by Shakespeare.
But perhaps the real secret of the popularity of Richard III is in you put in scene a too often drama again from the history: in a damaging and terrible dictatorship, and have preserved intact over the centuries its distressing warning value.
Michele Viti
Hi,
First of all I'd like to thank prof. Conte for the great opportunity he give us by organizing this course.I very appreciate the lecture about Shake spear's merchantof Venice. I never thought before that it deals with a lot of juridical problems (like the relation ship between law and equity , or the nature of obligations etc.).Now I understand the reasons why this play is one of the most studies by the law and literature moment. I particular the character of Portia is interesting.In my opinion She represent justice as a good compromise between law and moral.
See you tomorrow
Lorenzo Librandi
Hi,
I wanted to insert a summary of important literary criticism de the merchant of Venice.
"Hath not a Jew eyes?". How many times heard say this sentence now into the common heritage of citations shakespeariane? When the pronunciation, Shylock, Jewish merchant, problematic character of the drama, claims the right to equality between men and above all stresses its right of vengeance: as Christians have ignored on the mantle and l' have despised, it is up to Shylock have its revenge.
And the revenge is cruel: a pound of meat cut close to the heart of the true moral hero as a whole operates, Antonio, merchant that s ' was indebted to friendship (or love?) of the Bassanio friend, a poor gentleman beloved to the beautiful Portia, a utopian place which Belmonte Madam.
As you can see from the simple hint that I have here following different issues's ' intertwined, bringing in scene now Venice - economic, strongly violent city - now Belmonte - mythical, place still bearer of feudalism, where the beautiful Portia is win as prize for the winner of a lottery which we are looking after.
In fact, the scenes are not separated as it seems: on the contrary, starting with stylistic choices and invasions of characters now of Belmonte in Venice and vice versa, the two worlds are complementary reality and, for some strokes, superimposables: the same economic mentality shall enter into on metaforica in the paradise of Belmonte, that preserves.
If we were to apply a label to this work, for many years has been called simply comedy, but we must not specify that the money-life equation (the we see in the criminal law as a pound of meat) port in scene where the risk of death on the stage is really top moments.
Also love theme for many years interpreted calmly, in the last act was uncertain by a series of literary quotes ' love unhappy. Therefore, nothing is slight as requested in a comedy. On the contrary, does not seem too believe that the Merchant of Venice, composed between the 1596 and 1598, already ads tragicomic of the last Shakespeare production where the theatre becomes time for fun but also to reflect.
Michele Viti
Hi,
do I upload a summary is Mauro Barberis of the University of Trieste about Law, Equity and Literature.
A recent collection of essays on the equity in the law and the English literature
provides an example could approach known as law and literature, and
characterized by cooperation between critical literary and lawyers. The operation
also worth three points which are the three sections of this dedicated note. Firstly, the literary criticism remains alien to the doctrine and the theory
legal: even if not compared to the history of the law.
Then, the equity example illustrates an important distinction between equity external, alternative to the
law, and internal, functional fairness to its application: even if, as shows the English case, the external equity almost inevitably tends to become internal law. Finally, just the equity suggests a history of the fairness other than that usually tells you: to tell, fairly good against right to bad, but exactly the opposite.
LAW, LITERATURE, HISTORY
The book "The concept of equity. An interdisciplinary assessment", conducted by Daniela Carpi, is an example successful studies - born in the North American law schools over thirty strand of years ago, but time landed on the old continent - known as law and literature (law and literature).
About twenty measures, critical literary and lawyers, especially comparatists, talk about the equity: sector of the English law developed as an alternative to the
common law and which came into collision course with this in the 17th century, then which in the same common law due to the Judicature acts of 1873-75, but
still influence in the English law both for institutions as the trust for the doctrine the statues of the equity that interpretation.
We must allude shortly to some of the speeches here published; first we should ask the sense the operation.
Current studies on law and literature may be traced back up the volume of James Boyd white the legal imagination (1973), which is raisingalready the proposal, the whole movement, to introduce courses feature of literary criticism in the North American, school law until then characterised
from a ferocious technicality.
The proposal included in the context of the various strands
relating to "law and..." - law and economy, or economic analysis of the law, law and society, or sociology of law, law and science, law and race, law and such... - but also in the broader sphere of American culture towards the continental Humanities: effective affected philosophical studies
even more legal studies. Only think of the us success of the poststructuralism French, but also to the choice of philosophers like Richard Rorty to move to departments of Humanities.
There is perhaps add that, from a point of view generally continental
and specifically Italian - these developments are really a sphere in the deprecative of the term meaning: not because they not there is nothing to learn, but because approaches continental re-imported on the continent
- After the first export to the States - are likely to produce the
curious effects of double translations.
To use an old joke of Giovanni Tarello: as the wording ‘ the spirit is strong but the meat is weak ', translated in another language, and then re-translated in English, is in danger of becoming ‘ the spirits are good but the meat is smelly ', cultural reasons considered regressive on the continent, at least from the Enlightenment, are likely to return
back, after the US, basin with a halo of post modernity.
The Italian legal culture in particular, there has always been such an abundance of literature (bad) - not only in the cultural, raw materials as Roman law, philosophy and history of the law, but also of positive law as civil, criminal, procedural right... - to fear the arrival of new literature: also good.
To the prejudices, in fact, beyond the disciplinary law and literature studies agenda is not reassuring: in both variants in which these studies arise, that is right in the literature (law in literature) and right as literature (law as literature).
In the law in the literature, variant less ambitious theoretically and which belong most of contributions to the here recorded volume, there is satisfied with to reflect on legal issues recurring in large and small storytellers: by Homer to Franz Kafka.
In the law as literature, variant, the theoretical ambitions are wider, but also more ambiguous. Of course, also the right, as any area of human culture that produce texts - philosophical treaties to the phone - lists is literature: but specific literature with rules its own.
A strengthening of the literary rules of "gender" legal law, code, judgment, judgment, wise doctrinal or theoretical, would certainly to the self-consciousness of lawyers: also of the theory of law such analytical, which often forget the literary nature, and then the requirement of the readability of their texts. ‘ So far, however, this ' literary self-consciousness has produced particularly dubious heuristic metaphors: as the novel applied by Ronald Dworkin chain to the case law of common law.
However, a more comprehensive speech should do for a particular literary genre:historiography, and in particular the history of the law. While items narrative and interpretation, or the technique of the storytelling - that is
one of the specific contributions of literary studies in law and generally Ethics - shall remain questionable in their nature and their scope, there is no doubt that they are immediately relevant to the historiography, also legal:historians narrate while always stories, and a number of problems of their literary genre rules could not that good.
The same might say, of course, the history of equity, and more generally the equity that is the subject of this note; fairness, in particular, you can tell a "contro-storia", as here sketch below.
If the history of the equity has a sense - in the history of English law and, more generally, in the history of Western or European law might be this: show with paradigms rise, triumph and fall of an alternative, right to form than the imposing in Europe and West type. It is a right so, at least in origin, that you may hesitate to call it right, the West; strictly would desire to assimilare_ forms of law sense, as the Justice of the Max Weber's cadì, or "pre-diritto" Louis Gernet, various forms of social adjustment - not a legal - professional but political or religious-traditional - speak comparatists as Pier Giuseppe Monasteri.
First to say it more, however,
You must add something on the relationship between equity and fairness, and two-way
very different to ‘ fairness '.
Although has finished to indicate a part of the common law and the English right ‘ equity ' belongs to a family of vocabulary - object in the volume here noted of sunny Francesca Fiorentini and Mauro Bussani, including the Greek ‘ epieikeia ', Latin ‘ aequitas ' and ‘ clementia ', the Italian ‘ fairness ' and the same English ‘ fairness ' 10 - which indicate different, phenomena but total amenables around two poles. The first pole, I propose to call external equity is a regulation of the alternative conduct to the law in respect close: no fixed rules, poor separation from the moral, a few formalities, no specification of a legal class.
Legal problems here, are resolved by the King - philosopher, from a wise, old or cadì, without laws or procedures or formalities: on the basis of conscience alone, or its only sense of justice. Second pole, I propose to call internal equity is a regulation of conduct not alternative but complementary law sense close, that indeed requires: ius strictum taking into account the particularities of the case of species and only in exceptional - cases in which summum ius would mean summa iniuria - can reach the waiver of the right and a fair judgement external application.
However, the events of the English equity seem to really draw this parable: born as purely commercial, alternative fairness to the common law and entrusted to the only consciousness of the Chancellor, the equity shall enter into conflict with the same common law, follows a Pyrrhic victory by decision of James I 1616 but, following the glorious revolution and the revenge of the common lawyers ends up having it absorbed
with the Judicature acts of 1873-75. As you know, the equity arises from appeals to the conscience of the King - the guardian
was the Chancellor, often an ecclesiastical - determined by the formalism of the forms of action of the common law and motivated by reasons of Justice material:
calls that determine the creation of an independent jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery, intended to conflict with the same common law, received in England as ius strictum and still as right par.
On the conflict erupted in the 17th century between equity and common law - parliamentarian of the lawyers - common aspect of the more general conflict between the absolutism of type continental Stuart dynasty and the reasons are particularly instructive literary texts as the merchant of Venice of William Shakespeare, finely analysed in the contribution of Josephine Restivo. The victory of Parliament and the reasons for the common law in the glorious revolution of 1688 mark the decline of the jurisdiction of equity, but not the same equity: some institutions which, as the trust, remain essential to English law. The end of the equity as jurisdiction if separate - although not of legal institutions also marked with this name - is marked by the acts Judicature 1873-75, delete the forms of action and rearrange the English courts. Today the equity is just part of the common law applied by the same courts apply the rest; external fairness has converted into internal equity: conversion well exemplified by the use of the word in terms as ‘ equity of the statues ', to indicate a type of allocation of the meaning less literal and formalistic than characterising always, the statutory interpretation.
If you wanted to draw a moral from this story might be it following.
In the West, moral or political institutions that legal, as the external equity originally left to the discretion of some authority and dedicated to the implementation of the material justice are intended to conflict with the paradigmatic form of the Western law: the rational formal law "à là" Weber. To survive allegations of arbitrary this conflict inevitably raises, institutions such as the equity - but never all autonomous from the ius strictum, if it is true that, as says Frederick Maitland, the equity has always assumed the common law -tend to imitate the law in the strict sense: so their fate will ultimately be elimination levy in the ius strictum referred to the maximum become complementary, subsidiary and subservient.
Michele Viti
Maybe Shakespeare didn't write anythng about his hometown because he refused his humble roots.
It would justify the fact that his children wasn't able to read and write.
My little opinion is that the poet was a very curious and ironic man, who pretnded to be a different man when he wrote his plays.
His curiousity was so deep that he had to know evry little thing, he couldn't miss a picture to make his work complete, just perfect.
He reached such perfection that after four centuries we still wandering if he was sicilian, if he was a lawyer, where did he lived.
Does he really existed?
He got the point!
he's like one of his characters: he invented a different author in every play he wrote.
Hi!
I slowly began to understand what means to participate and comment on a blog the topics discuss in class.
The course "law and humanities" was a new experience also for this ... so 'I want to express an opinion about the "MOV".
The comedy tells that Bassanio, for Porzia court, a rich woman of Belmonte, asks a loan to a friend: Antonio. Antonio does not have the money and asks a loan to a usurer jew: Shylock, and offers himself as the guarantor.
At this point there is a series of unfortunate events for Shylock and Antonio, and Shylock asks at the Court to assert hes rights in respect Antonio.
At this stage enters the scene the character of Porzia, disguised as a lawyer who manages to save Antonio,having convinced Shylock to accept money and have mercy.
The character of Porzia is for me the most interesting because it has two opposite profiles: a strict application of the law (when there isn't solution to save the life of Antonio) and mercy.
An important point for me is that Porzia dress herself as a man to attract attention! This can be a detail which shows the male society of the XVI century, for which the men were the only ones to be able to play the role of lawyer and the feminism of Shakespeare that gives to a woman the role,for me, more interesting of comedy.
Bye
Giorgia Ciucci
I write my Mov's comment again in this post, as dott. Gialdroni has suggests.
Law as seen in the Merchant of Venice:
David Skeel has an interesting thesis that links law with literature. "Judical opinions make law and also can be considered as stories". Shakespeare was a poet and dramatist, not a lawyer as Kafka was. Both "The Merchant of Venice" and "Measure for Measure" were re-elaborations of medieval tales already containing the legal aspects presented, and it is difficult to decide how much was genuine legal practice of the times. Law can make excellent theatre.
In "The Merchant of Venice" the legal question rests on a private agreement to a bond between Shylock, a jewish usurer and Antonio, a wealthy merchant, standing guarantor for his friend Bassanio who needs to borrow a large sum of money. Shylock, motivated by hatred and revenge, claims the right to a pound of flesh to be taken from the region closest to Antonio's heart, if he fails to honour the bond on the prescribed day. Antonio fails throgh mercantile misfortune (his ships are lost at sea) and Shylock claims his bond. Money is offered by friends to cover the debt but Shylock claims his bond by law.The DFuke of Venice, acting as judge, consels mercy and the acceptance of the money offered. The judge represents the State and cannot interfere without harming the commercial laws of Venice, where the practice of private bonds is common usage. Shylock is outwritted by the astuteness of the lawyer, Portia, who, while conceding that the law must stand, and that Shylock must be satisfied, applies the use of the language in which the contract was drawn up: a pound of flesh-but no blood. The Duke, as judge, then applies the law of the State against willfull bodily harm and Shylock is sentenced to pay the state penalty.
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
I have analyzed the scenes of “The Merchant of Venice” that, in my opinion, are the most significant:
THE CASKET SCENE
There are three inscriptions that influence the judgment.
The first gold casket has an inscription: “who chooseth me, shall gain what many men desire”;
The silver casket has another inscription: “who chooseth me, shall get as much as he deserves”;
The lead casket has another inscription: “who chooseth me, must give hazard all he hath”.
Inside one of the casket there is a Portia’s picture.
The judgment is influenced by the character of the pretender.
The first pretender looks at the external because he is superficial and he chooses the gold casket; inside this casket he finds a skull.
The second pretender assumes that he deserves Portia and chooses the silver casket; inside this casket he finds a portrait of a fool. He is a fool because he acted out of pride.
Bassanio is helped by a song which stresses the sound that rhymes with lead, so he chooses the lead casket because he knows that appearance can deceive. He finds the portrait.
There are three conditions that the pretenders of Portia must observe:
1) One pretender cannot reveal to the other pretenders what he had find in the casket that had chosen.
2) Can never merry
3) To leave immediately Bel Monte
WHEN BASSANIO ASKS THE LOAN
Bassanio is in law with Portia and whishes to try his fortune to win her in marriage. He has no money so asks to his friend Antonio to give him 3000 ducats. Antonio has no money because it is all bound in his business and will be four – three months. Shylock, the money lender, accepts if Antonio agrees to his contract of a pound of flesh from near the heart.
THE SHYLOCK’S DAUGHTER RUNS AWAY WITH LORENZO
Jessica, Shylock’s daughter is ashamed of her father and is in love with Lorenzo; she promises to become a Christian and to merry Lorenzo; before they run away she takes gold and jewels from her father’s house as her dowry.
WHY SHYLOCK DETESTS CHRISTIANS?
Shylock wants to avenge himself on Antonio because of his criticism of Shylock’s usury and his anti-Semitism and also because he was his direct business rival in Venice, landing money without interest.
WHY THE DUKE CANNOT INTERVENE?
Antonio is warned by Graziano of the loss of his ships. He cannot pay back his loan so Shylock has him imprisoned to await trial. The duke counsels mercy but Shylock insist on having his contract because he has put his faith in the law which the duke is obliged to keep. The contract could not be touched because all the merchant-commercial law was based on contracts.
THE ADVICE OF PORTIA’S COUSIN THAT IS A LAWYER
To help Antonio, the duke turns to an eminent law doctor in Padua how is cousin to Portia who asks his advice and receives it along with the disguises for herself and Nerissa to posed as trial lawyers instructed by the doctor himself.
BASSIANO AND GRAZIANO AGAINST PORTIA AND HER SERVANT
In payment for her work in saving Antonio, Portia asks for the ring that she gave to Bassanio on their marriage and which he has promised never to give away.
Both Bassanio and Graziano give the rings to the lawyer and his clerk (Portia and Nerissa). Portia accuses Bassanio of breaking his promise and tells him that she will do the same. Finally the situation his revealed and Antonio sees that he will give his soul as pledge for Bassanio’s fidelity.
I liked very much “The Merchant of Venice” and, in my opinion, is a masterpiece.
Lorenzo Librandi
Posta un commento