Shakespeare 2016! with Quentin Skinner, “Judicial Rhetoric in ‘The Merchant of Venice’”
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 апр 2016
- Quentin Skinner, the Barber Beaumont Professor of the Humanities at Queen Mary University of London and an intellectual historian, gave two lectures at Washington and Lee University on April 4 and April 6. W&L’s Mudd Center is sponsoring both talks. On April 6, Skinner spoke on “Why Shylock Loses his Case: Judicial Rhetoric in ‘The Merchant of Venice.'" This lecture on Shakespeare is part of his weeklong residency at W&L under the auspices of the Mudd Center. Skinner is the author of “Forensic Shakespeare” (2014), “Hobbes and Republican Liberty” (2008), and a three-volume collection of essays, “Visions of Politics” (2002). His two-volume study “The Foundations of Modern Political Thought” (1978) was listed by the New York Times Literary Supplement in 1996 as one of the 100 Most Influential Books published since World War II.
اللي جاي من طرف استاذ وليد يصف جنبي⛓️🤙🏼😜🤫
قدها يا غالي
انت من طرف استاذ وليد ولا استاذ وليد من طرفك؟
😂😂😂😂
I don't know why several of the comments gripe about the supposed inaudibility of the questions at the end. The questions are quite clearly audible, even though they are not as loud as Skinner's own utterances.
The lecture itself is very interesting, though it contains a few dubious assertions and a curious omission (or set of omissions). First, on the basis of no evidence, Skinner suggests that Shakespeare was consulting a copy of Cicero in Latin as he wrote "The Merchant of Venice." Far more likely is that Shakespeare gained his knowledge of Ciceronian trial techniques through the lawyers of his day, for whom those techniques were the bread and butter of their craft. After all, one of the relatively few things that we know about Shakespeare the man is that he was involved in several instances of litigation during his lifetime. Moreover, numerous books on pleadings and other aspects of legal trials had been published in English by the time Shakespeare was an adult. Through any of those books and through his familiarity with lawyers on whose services he had to draw from time to time, Shakespeare could readily have gleaned the legal knowledge that he needed for the trial scene in Act IV of "The Merchant of Venice."
Second, Skinner maintains that the Archbishop of Canterbury in his disquisition on the Salique law in Act I of "Henry V" was engaging in black-letter interpretation. In fact, the Archbishop goes well beyond such interpretation with extensive references to history.
Third, Skinner twice states that the trial scene takes up the whole of Act IV of "The Merchant of Venice." In fact, there is a short second scene in which Gratiano conveys Bassanio's ring to Portia and in which Nerissa plots to obtain Gratiano's ring as well.
The curious omission is that the antisemitism of the play is not touched upon until the question-and-answer session. (By the way, the questions are generally of a high quality. A couple of the questioners get the better of Skinner.) Given the enormous importance of the difference between law and mercy (or grace) as a focus for the putative supersession of Judaism by Christianity in the New Testament and beyond, and given the centrality of that focus in the trial scene of Act IV of "The Merchant of Venice," the scene is the culmination both of the antisemitism of the play and of its critique of antisemitism. It is regrettable that such matters were not broached at all until Skinner fielded the questions from the audience.
Magnificent.
Please edit with subtitles of the ending questions are mostly inaudible - otherwise brilliantly researched and presented seemingly without a TelePrompTer
This just shows that Shakespeare was not a lawyer. Bassanio went to Shylock for the loan. Antonio was therefore the surety/guarantor, not the borrower. The bond is not the same thing as the loan agreement. When Bassanio (the borrower) offered repayment to Shylock and he rejected it, the Duke should have dismissed the case on the bond. Tender by the borrower is a defense to an action on a bond. Shylock did not violate Venetian criminal law. His intent to harm Antonio by taking the pound of flesh was under authority of law. The Court had clearly awarded it. When Shylock elected not to exercise the forfeiture, that also should have ended the case. The Duke’s confiscation and redistribution of Shylock’s estate was unlawful. The lesson of the play is that Shylock should have hired a decent lawyer.
Shakespeare didn't write an advert for the legal profession. American idiot
It is such a pity that this very interesting event is spoiled by the inability to hear the interesting questions put at the end.
I could not hear the questions as the questioners do not come up to a microphone and therefore are almost impossible to hear
He loses because it was in the script.
No he loses because he's Jewish.
@@hankreardenfan1019 That's also in the script.
Brilliant but the introduction needs editing and questions need amplification and the audience members firstly should identify themselves with their names and faculty
Why is the term “racist” thrown around constantly just like during the Q&A session as prejudice against Jews qualifies as racism when it’s rather religious prejudice. Why is being a Jew considered a race? Actually, there’s only one race, the human race, as we are all interconnected when you go all the way back to Adam. The problem with most Jewish folks is that they’re not connected to the second Adam as they reject the Messiah who ironically was of their ethnicity in His incarnation. That said they were needed in the nation society to lend money since Christians, or at least those who profess to be, could not lend money with interest. To do so is a practice called Usury which the Jews back then had no problem with, and of course, is very common in modern society. Just look at your credit card statement if you don’t pay the balance off every month.
luv me a schizo comment on youtube
What's wrong that Jewish people do not agree with your faith? Why must others accept your Messiah? Why does that give you the right to oppress them?
Whether they are a race or ethnicity or whatever- or not- is irrelevant. The fact is racists view Jews as a separate (and inferior) race and whether that is reasonable is not something that bothers or even occurs to them. The problem with 'Jewish folks' is that they don't believe what you do? Hoo boy... your boy Jebus will be rolling in his cave.
What an ego, full of empty meaning the first half, i guess mostly the people knew that of rethoric. Rather than to made think clear, he muddle everything. Boring.
Not at all. It was extremely interesting.