May Portiaīs speech not also be viewed as reason against passion?
Printable View
May Portiaīs speech not also be viewed as reason against passion?
Another question where there might be more than one solid answer. Merry Christmas!
Romeo's line, "O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!"(ROM1.4.162), is clearly echoed in MV: "I can easier teach twenty what were good to be done........"(MV1.2.15). One might therefore argue that the author is himself a fan of Team Portia. Romeo's line is in the scene before the much noted second conversation between R&J where we find: "Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?"(ROM2.1.84). Most editors include the word "Aside" to tell us that Juliet cannot hear what he is saying. Shylock's "How like a fawning publican"(MV1.3.38) speech is also an "aside" as Bassanio and Antonio cannot hear it. This, then, is yet another detail that engenders sympathy for Shylock.
Shylock stands up lucidly against Jewish discrimination. Unfortunately I think this is not so noted, because it is overshadowed by his hateful behavior towards Antonio.
By the way, what do you think about Jessica? She is pictured as nice, mainly because she punishes her father and gets converted, but I donīt think her nice at all.
Best wishes for 2022!
I do agree with you and Professor Bevington that such lines from Shylock as "If I can catch him once upon the hip, / I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him"(MV1.3.43-4) are to be taken seriously. It is no less important to note that when the Duke says "How shalt thou hope for mercy, rend'ring none?"(MV4.1.87), Shylock's life is also in danger. We have therefore seen that the author regards Shylock and Antonio as co-villains or co-comic-villains. In due course, Capulet regards his daughter Juliet to be "young baggage, disobedient wretch!"(R&J3.5.159). Lorenzo's last line in the play reads: "Fair ladies, you drop manna in the way / Of starved people"(MV5.1.293-4). As this is a reference to the book of Exodus, one might wonder if he will be converting to Judaism. Happy new year.
The late baseball announcer Harry Caray(should we add "and clownish fool?") would exclaim "holy cow!" in response to something happening on the field. The phrase is helpful here as one reviews Act 3, scene 5 where Jessica, Lancelet and Lorenzo are talking. In the first scene of MND, Demetrius and Lysander are suitors of Hermia and later both reject Hermia in favor of Helena. We find Lancelet speaks the word "father" four times. Therefore, the author may again intend to refer to Chapter 8 of the Gospel of John. Jessica's reply to Lorenzo regarding Portia, "Past all expressing........for the poor rude world / Hath not her fellow"(MV3.5.63-73), might recall lines from Nick Bottom: "Methinks I have a great desire to a bottle of hay: good hay, sweet hay, hath no fellow"(MND4.1.30-1). At any rate, this follows comments from Charles D and Marchette Chute.
In Professor Bevington's notes we find: "'Shylock is a bloody-minded monster,' confided Henry Irving in 1879, 'but you mustn't play him so, if you wish to succeed; you must get some sympathy with him.' The paradox that Irving described is central to the history of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE in performance." One who has memorized all of Shylock's lines might say something like that. The clownish fool's monologue is such that we find "Certainly" at the beginning and at line 24 "Certainly the Jew is the very devil incarnation"(MV2.2.1-24). Professor Halio and most other editors gloss "incarnation" as follows: "Lancelot's malapropism for 'incarnate.'" He and Professor Drakakis add that in HENRY THE FIFTH we find a boy saying: "Yes, that 'a did; and said they were devils incarnate"(HV2.3.34). The lady replies: "'A could never abide carnation; 't was a colour he never liked." Little wonder that Drakakis quotes the OED over 700 times.
I'm sure that everyone will agree that Shakespeare's use of the word "Certainly" is ironic.
In Act 3, scene one, we find Solanio and Salerio speaking with Shylock. The play begins with these same two "Salads" speaking with Antonio. Solanio's comment, "And Shylock for his own part knew the bird was fledged, and then it is the complexion of them all to leave the dam"(MV3.1.25-7), contains the third time we find "complexion." Portia speaks the word twice, line 116 in Act 1, scene 2 and line 79 in Act 2, scene 7. Editors tell us that Portia is being clever as the meaning could be "nature, character, temperament, color or disposition." Professor Raffel glosses "dam" to mean "mother" and adds "Is there a wife and mother currently in Shylock's house? We learn, in 3.1.103, that her name is or was Leah." As in the first scene of the play, here the Salads exit and one or more characters enter and speak to the character who remains onstage.
"it is the complexion of them all to leave the dam" for me an unusual use of the word complexion.
And Professor Braunmuller noted in his introduction that "manna" is also found in Chapter 6 of the GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Yes, there are a lot of biblical terms in the play.
R&J then begins with an allusion or indirect reference to the GOSPEL OF JOHN and MV ends with one. Holy cow! It seems to me that though it is clear that Antonio's "Mark you this, Bassanio, / The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"(MV1.3.95-6), is a reference to the Gospel by the author, whether Antonio also has this in mind is uncertain.
In the second scene of ROMEO AND JULIET is a memorable line: "I must to the learned"(ROM1.2.44). One might recall that when considering Professor Bloom's comments. In the GOSPEL we find, in the translation that I have before me, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad"(GOSPEL OF JOHN 8:56). The context is such that one might suggest that this is another indication that Antonio's "Mark you this, Bassanio"(MV1.3.95) is an allusion to the Gospel.
It seems that here is a word missing:
"I must to the learned"(ROM1.2.44).
Prince Hamlet, if he were a real person, might say that the line is a "contraction"(HAMLET3.4.47).
Fans of Team Portia might recommend that President Putin appoint a modern day Team Portia to engage in parallel talks with a corresponding team from the other side. Back to the matter here, Professor Parrott wrote of Duke Orsino in TWELFTH NIGHT: 'It required no little skill in character portrayal to keep such a sentimentalist as the Duke from becoming a ridiculous, if not a contemptible, figure." Professor Greenblatt notes that "Viola, disguised as a boy and serving Duke Orsino, is assigned the task of helping him woo the countess Olivia.........Orsino is clearly attracted to the servant he believes to be a sexually ambiguous boy and Olivia falls madly in love with this same ambiguous go-between." Again, one might compare Antonio, Orsino and Sonnet 144.
I agree with you! Modern life is badly in want of the wisdom of Portia.
The challenge of single combat that Elon Musk offered to President Putin, in due course, recalls the first scene in HAMLET: "our last king, / Whose image even but now appeared to us, / Was, as you know, by Fortinbras of Norway, / Thereto pricked on by a most emulate pride / Dared to the combat; ........." In Act 2, scene 2 Polonius says to the King: "At such a time I'll loose my daughter to him. / Be you and I behind an arras then. / Mark the encounter. If he love her not, / And be not from his reason fall'n thereon, / Let me be no assistant for a state, / But keep a farm and carters"(HAMLET2.2.176-180). President Putin might then consider ordering his forces to withdraw then conclude his lengthy career of public service. One suggestion would be to follow Curt Gowdy's example and host a hunting and fishing program for television.
We recall that Romeo is "banished" by the Prince as the result of his single combat with Tybalt. The speech from Polonius above is prominently placed. Isaac Asimov agreed with Professor Wilson that Hamlet may be eavesdropping on the conversation. Therefore, the author is suggesting that Hamlet might have averted tragedy if instead of or along with "Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying"(HAM3.3.77), he suggested to his uncle the farmers life as it were. One might note that this is consistent with the work of Leo Tolstoy and Voltaire. Songwriters and pop musicians Ray Davies, Bob Marley and David Bowie wrote songs about "pressure." So it surely is also for President Putin.
Dear Stanley. Letīs keep to the ingenious play MV. It seems to me that there is a lot to be learned there
"If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches and poor men's cottages princes' palaces"(MV1.2.11-13). One will recall Isabella's famous speech from MM: "Could great men thunder / As Jove himself does, Jove would never be quiet; / For every pelting, petty officer / Would use his heaven for thunder, / nothing but thunder! Merciful Heaven, / Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt / Splits the unwedgeable and gnarled oak / Than the soft myrtle; but man , proud man, / Dress'd in a little brief authority, / Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd,- / His glassy essence- like an angry ape, / Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven / As makes the angels weep; who, with our / spleens, / Would all themselves laugh mortal"(Measure for Measure2.2.110-123). What else have we overlooked in MV?
Drshadow03's post(#31), where we find, "You seem to be suggesting that you can either; a) believe Shakespeares's play [is an artistic failure]....... or b) think it is a great work of art with wonderful aesthetic merit. But are those the only two choices?" and Hawkman's post (#50) where we find "I was hard pressed to identify a "hero" unless it is Portia who delivers Antonio" are together indications that MV is, by design, an invitation to further study.
In another thread I noted that the line "'Tis all one"(R&J1.1.20) is an allusion at once to DEUTERONOMY 6:4 and GENESIS 1:27. This lends credence to the idea that Antonio's "Mark you this"(MV1.3.96-7) is an allusion to both MATTHEW 4:6 and JOHN: 8.
And by the way, there is a minor error in the article by the late Father Oakes(see post #305). He wrote: "Shakespeare signals his agreement with these claims when he has Hamlet expostulate in these terms: 'In the corrupted currents of this world, / Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice, / And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself / Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above: / There is no shuffling; there the action lies / In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled, / Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, / To give in evidence'(HAMLET3.3.61-68)." The speech is spoken by Hamlet's uncle the King.
Good discovery, stanley2!
The last play Shakespeare is thought to have written all by himself is THE TEMPEST. In the epilogue we find: "Now I want / Spirits to enforce, art to enchant; / And my ending is despair / Unless I be relieved by prayer, /Which pierces so that it assaults / Mercy itself, and frees all faults. / As you from crimes would pardoned be, / Let your indulgence set me free." Professor Greenblatt wrote: "For Prospero[the character that speaks the epilogue], whose morality and legitimacy are repeatedly insisted upon, this guilt does not make entire sense, but it might have made sense for the playwright who peers out from behind the mask of the prince"(see post #302).
S.T. Coleridge said that Hamlet finds himself in "stimulating" circumstances. So too is the invasion of Ukraine. One might note memorable lines from HENRY THE FIFTH: "But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, 'We died at such a place'; some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of anything, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection"(HV4.1.140-153).
In the Signet Classic edition is an excerpt from William Hazlitt's comments on the play(1818): "When we first went to see Mr. Kean in Shylock, we expected to see, what we had been used to see,............We were disappointed, because we had taken our idea from other actors, not from the play..............so rooted was our habitual impression of the part from seeing it caricatured in the representation, that it was only from a careful perusal of the play itself that we saw our error. The stage is not in general the best place to study our author's characters in. It is too often filled with traditional commonplace conceptions of the part........" This is consistent with the idea that Shakespeare was himself well aware that his work is best understood by both seeing it performed onstage and in the study as such critics as Joseph Wood Krutch noted. Here in the Chicago area a group of actors have presented readings of the plays that have been very helpful.
Another passage from AS YOU LIKE IT is helpful: "Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile, / hath not old custom made this life more sweet / Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods / More free from peril than the envious court? / Here feel we not the penalty of Adam"(AYL2.1.1-5). The speaker's brother is one of the plays villains. The meaning of "court" here is not exactly the same as in the court scene in MV, yet there are echoes to the earlier plays. "Envious" might recall from R&J: "An envious thrust from Tybalt hit the life / Of stout Mercutio"(ROM3.1.167-8). There is irony too as the character who replies to Duke Senior's famous speech suggests: "Happy is Your Grace / That can translate the stubbornness of fortune / Into so quiet and so sweet a style"(AYL2.1.
18-20). Soon such lines as "I rather will subject me to the malice / Of a diverted blood and bloody brother"(AYL2.3.36-7), referring to the other comic villain of AS YOU LIKE IT, and Rosalind's echo of Portia, "O Jupiter, how weary are my spirits!"(AYL2.4.1) follow.
In Professor Bevington's 1988 introduction we have: "However much we may come to sympathize with Shylock's misfortunes........[he] remains essentially the villain of a love comedy." This is reasonable when tracking the implications the author has packed his play with. Portia's "Tarry a little" speech must also be noted as Professor Drakakis suggested twenty something years later: "The play turns upon the semantic instability of 'flesh' and 'blood'........Blood.........figures as the juridical absence that ultimately invalidates the Jew's bond." The Nurse in ROMEO AND JULIET says: "I saw the wound, I saw it with mine eyes..........All in gore-blood: I swooned at the sight"(R&J3.2.54-58). She is speaking of the death of Tybalt. One may find oneself regarding Tybalt as the sole villain in the tragedy, for a time. Further study of both plays reveals more implications. Antonio and Shylock are plainly co-villains.
For me Antonio can only be seen as a villain, in that he is a racist. The both sided racist conflict between Shylock and Antonio is one of the main causes of the absurd contract. The other cause, I think, is economical. Shylock hates Antonio, because his generosity ultimately lowers the taxes on the loans.Quote:
Antonio and Shylock are plainly co-villains.
Also of interest, if we return to Father Oakes' article(#305), we find him quoting lines from MEASURE FOR MEASURE: "Mercy is not itself that oft looks so; pardon is still the nurse of second woe"(MM2.1.292-3). This echoes the Prince in R&J(the name of the character in each case is Escalus: "Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill"(R&J3.1.199). Your comment, Danik, "in both cases there is much more involved"(#274) reverberates.
It seems to me that one could argue that Antonio's line, "I am a tainted wether of the flock / Meetest for death"(MV4.1.114-5), suggests that he himself feels that we should regard the two of them to be co-villains. One might review such notes here as page 6 where Hawkman says of Antonio: "he is delivered from an unjust punishment for the crime of arrogant stupidity by the letter of the bond and a quick witted Portia." In MEASURE FOR MEASURE(see above), Escalus is allowing the harsh sentence handed down by Angelo against Claudio. This is, once again, a stark contrast as Prince Escalus in R&J is simply banishing Romeo.
Portia's "Tarry a little" speech is also an allusion to the liturgy of the Eucharist. This rite is performed by clergy during church services. Study of this play might also recall from R&J: "It strains me past the compass of my wits"(R&J4.1.48).
In all probability, yes. After all, Shakespeare had the option of making this notorious lender a Neopolitan or Parisian or Londoner.
I wrote a post graduate seminar paper on MOV and reported its many legal flaws. For example, under the law, a presiding judge cannot have an interest or stake in the proceedings. Portia obviously did so as her betrothed was a litigant. As a judge she pronounced a death sentence upon Shylock as conversion to Christianity is considered under Talmudic law to be apostasy tantamount to death. As judge she was presiding over a court of equity, not a criminal court and had no right to pronounce a death sentence or to even charge anyone with attempted murder as she did with the claimant. At the end of the story she reports that the argosies (the ships) did come in safely so that there was no reason to render a judgment against Shylock. The fact that she rendered an unfair judgment on him was a terrible injustice as she and her future husband got all the money and the claimant did not.
In my research for my seminar paper I learned that there was a common phrase used in the theaters of that era in London which went, "I pray there is not a Jew among you". There were a few Jews in London but I'm sure none would attend a theater with that type of prevailing attitude.
One might quote Marchette Chute's introduction to LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST for young people: "The play is less a story than a game. The plot is as light as a soap bubble, and its charm lies in the kind of dancing light that it throws on some of the subjects which fascinated young men and women in Shakespeare's day. It is almost a Valentine of a play, half a love-Valentine and half a comic-Valentine, and has to be read in the spirit in which it was written............The story opens in the park of the king of Navarre, where he and his lords are discussing a highly idealistic project." This corresponds to Danik and Professors Bevington and Parrott's Antonio the idealist in MV, I should think. Not that any of this is unreasonable, as Professor Parrott said of LLL: "LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST remains the most original and the most delightful of Shakespeare's early comedies."
And again Lokasenna's comment(page 2), "The quandry is to decide whether, to borrow from another Shakespeare play, he is 'more sinned against than sinning,'" is apt. William Hazlitt noted the same line from KING LEAR in 1817: "he becomes a half-favorite with the philosophical part of the audience who are disposed to think that Jewish revenge is at least as good as Christian injuries. Shylock is a 'good hater; a man no less sinned against than sinning.'" Therefore, Antonio and Shylock are co-villains. Another noted passage from KING LEAR, "Ay every inch a king! / When I do stare, see how the subject quakes; / I pardon that man's life. What was thy cause? / Adultery? Thou shalt not die. Die for adultery! No: / The wren goes to it, and the small gilded fly / Does lecher in my sight. / Let copulation thrive"(KING LEAR4.6.109-116), is also apt as all the links to R&J, MND and the many sexual suggestions indicate.
Itīs now years ago that Lokasenna left. I used to like his posts.
The problem I see with Antonio is his antisemitism (which probably was generally shared by the Christian community. The Jews had to live in a ghetto).Iīd rather consider that Shylock was also, to a good extent, a victim of prejudice. Would the ill feeling between him and Antonio have existed, without racism? Maybe, because there was also an economic reason. By lending money without demanding interest, Antonio put the Jews in a bad situation, as they made their living out of the interest. And if I rightly remember, at that time Jews were allowed to work only as usurers.
For her introduction, Professor Crawford included a few notes regarding the historical moment: "Usury, the business of lending money at (often extreme) interest rates, was widely criticized in the period in such tracts as Miles Mosse's THE ARRAIGNMENT AND CONVICTION OF USURY (1595). Usury was in fact widely practiced in England, as evidenced by the fact that Queen Elizabeth officially set the rate of interest on loans at 10 percent." Historian Michael Wood's contention that there are too many unanswered questions left at the end of the play might be a clue regarding how Shakespeare's audience may have responded to the play. One might also note from Professor Bevington: "Shylock does indeed suffer from his enemies, and his sufferings add a tortured complexity to this play--- even, one suspects, for an Elizabethan audience."