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.
Plus ultra. By consequence, A third argument trumps the previous case, which causes him to lose his estate. Shylock hath, in open court, made for the record, had finalized his decision, thus there was no going back to accept the principle, for it hath been forfeited by him. I disagree with your perception of the Christians in so far as the hypocrisy, for it readers thus in the text, "The LAW hath yet another hold on you." (Emphasis added.) Simply, it was the law which ordained it, and Portia simple carried out the law per his/her duty as a judge under the law.
Please edit with subtitles of the ending questions are mostly inaudible - otherwise brilliantly researched and presented seemingly without a TelePrompTer
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.
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.
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.
اللي جاي من طرف استاذ وليد يصف جنبي⛓️🤙🏼😜🤫
قدها يا غالي
انت من طرف استاذ وليد ولا استاذ وليد من طرفك؟
😂😂😂😂
4:54 start
Magnificent.
Plus ultra. By consequence, A third argument trumps the previous case, which causes him to lose his estate.
Shylock hath, in open court, made for the record, had finalized his decision, thus there was no going back to accept the principle, for it hath been forfeited by him.
I disagree with your perception of the Christians in so far as the hypocrisy, for it readers thus in the text, "The LAW hath yet another hold on you." (Emphasis added.)
Simply, it was the law which ordained it, and Portia simple carried out the law per his/her duty as a judge under the law.
It is such a pity that this very interesting event is spoiled by the inability to hear the interesting questions put at the end.
Please edit with subtitles of the ending questions are mostly inaudible - otherwise brilliantly researched and presented seemingly without a TelePrompTer
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.