I agree with most of this except for the ring bit. Portia is very clearly displeased that Bassanio gave up the ring and tells him so in no uncertain terms. This man is basically asking that we ignore all of the dialogue about the ring in order to buy into the idea that Bassanio "passed" the test by giving it up.
Portia and we are in on the joke. She knows exactly why he gave up the ring and loves him for it. Her displeasure "in no uncertain terms" is love play. No other reading makes sense of her character.
Shylock is , in a sense, a tragic hero. When he was denied a single drop of Christian blood he was at his wit's end forgetting to say "I claim not any of shaded blood nor Care to own what spills over in the cut! A pound of flesh, will I here take, and leave Behind the spilled off blood - for him to mop! As 'ts his still, and not mine. Who on earth can Cut flesh without shedding sblood? This an Anatomical truth 's well understood. Therefore, most certainly, and silently Accepted, by both, while the bond got signed. But then if now thou mention it rather I should think it to be - so is it not Up to Antanio to hold on to His own hot blood and keep off from spilling? Law proclaims my fair share of his flesh by A pound and I leave it up to the Law To get it delivered fit as she finds." He should not have given up his claim. He forgot to hire a good lawyer. That's a shame. His conversion to Christanity a greater shame. He indeed is a tragic hero failed in his singular act of witty attempt for vengeance.
Perhaps my coming podcast on The Merchant of Venice will help clarify why Shylock neither could nor would have made such a case, and why Shakespeare did not give him that argument to make. Check out the playlist for "Appreciating Shakespeare with Doctor Rap" on this channel. Merchant will be up within a few weeks.
We are"railroaded" by modern producers into viewing Antonio as hypocritical instead of purely self-sacrificing? He is self-evidently and fruitfully hypocritical. He spits on Shylock and calls him a cur and shows absolutely no remorse. The contradiction is elementary to the play and the vision of an essentially commercial society in which the violent emotions between enemies are tempered by commercial cooperation. About the trial - the lecturer seems to think that there is Christian mercy at the end of the play which Shakespeare intends, and should be felt, as a triumph. So what was Shylock's invective against the Duke's hypocrisy ("You have among you many a purchased slave...")? It's self-evidently true, and no one in the play denies it, so what does this denunciation serve to do? That can be debated, but it undebatably complicates the purity of the Christian court's "mercy". You are right that Shylock's humanity makes him a more complex villain, but his arguments make the other characters more complex heros. Also, they do not actually give him mercy. "you take my life when you do take the means whereby i live". Shylock is an alien in Venice whose only ties to the society are commercial, he cannot have the kind of community that the other characters have. Killing Shylock in this remote way is typical of the conscience-sanitizing function of law in the play, in which Shylock also villainously engages. Of course the christian resolution to the trial is "as petty and legalistic" as Shylock's insistence on the language of the bond. She subdivides the pound of flesh into 1/480th oz pieces in order to make it impossible for the Jew to win in court - Shylock's status as Alien is the reason the law is being manipulated in this way against him, not "justice". The letter of the law is exploitable, as Shylock hopes, but only by those who enforce it. I will be honest, that's the first time i've ever heard someone take shylock's "i am- content" at face value. I'm tempted to entertain the thought because it's just so outrageous, but nothing in the play supports it. There are a number of other very strange misreadings of the play in here (denying Antonio's romantic love for Bassanio, implying Portia doesn't manipulate Bassanio's choice of the casket). What an oddly regressive and flat reading of the play, it's quite sad.
![MAF Teeski - Whole Thing (feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SHWEj-ndz6g/mqdefault.jpg)
A very different take than most. Interesting.
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with most of this except for the ring bit. Portia is very clearly displeased that Bassanio gave up the ring and tells him so in no uncertain terms. This man is basically asking that we ignore all of the dialogue about the ring in order to buy into the idea that Bassanio "passed" the test by giving it up.
Portia and we are in on the joke. She knows exactly why he gave up the ring and loves him for it. Her displeasure "in no uncertain terms" is love play. No other reading makes sense of her character.
Shylock is , in a sense, a tragic hero.
When he was denied a single drop of Christian blood he was at his wit's end forgetting to say
"I claim not any of shaded blood nor
Care to own what spills over in the cut!
A pound of flesh, will I here take, and leave
Behind the spilled off blood - for him to mop!
As 'ts his still, and not mine. Who on earth can
Cut flesh without shedding sblood? This an
Anatomical truth 's well understood.
Therefore, most certainly, and silently
Accepted, by both, while the bond got signed.
But then if now thou mention it rather
I should think it to be - so is it not
Up to Antanio to hold on to
His own hot blood and keep off from spilling?
Law proclaims my fair share of his flesh by
A pound and I leave it up to the Law
To get it delivered fit as she finds."
He should not have given up his claim. He forgot to hire a good lawyer. That's a shame. His conversion to Christanity a greater shame. He indeed is a tragic hero failed in his singular act of witty attempt for vengeance.
Perhaps my coming podcast on The Merchant of Venice will help clarify why Shylock neither could nor would have made such a case, and why Shakespeare did not give him that argument to make. Check out the playlist for "Appreciating Shakespeare with Doctor Rap" on this channel. Merchant will be up within a few weeks.
We are"railroaded" by modern producers into viewing Antonio as hypocritical instead of purely self-sacrificing? He is self-evidently and fruitfully hypocritical. He spits on Shylock and calls him a cur and shows absolutely no remorse. The contradiction is elementary to the play and the vision of an essentially commercial society in which the violent emotions between enemies are tempered by commercial cooperation.
About the trial - the lecturer seems to think that there is Christian mercy at the end of the play which Shakespeare intends, and should be felt, as a triumph. So what was Shylock's invective against the Duke's hypocrisy ("You have among you many a purchased slave...")? It's self-evidently true, and no one in the play denies it, so what does this denunciation serve to do? That can be debated, but it undebatably complicates the purity of the Christian court's "mercy". You are right that Shylock's humanity makes him a more complex villain, but his arguments make the other characters more complex heros. Also, they do not actually give him mercy. "you take my life when you do take the means whereby i live". Shylock is an alien in Venice whose only ties to the society are commercial, he cannot have the kind of community that the other characters have. Killing Shylock in this remote way is typical of the conscience-sanitizing function of law in the play, in which Shylock also villainously engages. Of course the christian resolution to the trial is "as petty and legalistic" as Shylock's insistence on the language of the bond. She subdivides the pound of flesh into 1/480th oz pieces in order to make it impossible for the Jew to win in court - Shylock's status as Alien is the reason the law is being manipulated in this way against him, not "justice". The letter of the law is exploitable, as Shylock hopes, but only by those who enforce it. I will be honest, that's the first time i've ever heard someone take shylock's "i am- content" at face value. I'm tempted to entertain the thought because it's just so outrageous, but nothing in the play supports it.
There are a number of other very strange misreadings of the play in here (denying Antonio's romantic love for Bassanio, implying Portia doesn't manipulate Bassanio's choice of the casket). What an oddly regressive and flat reading of the play, it's quite sad.
Antonio Bassino were gays 😂😂😂😂wtf