The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 26.339  Wednesday, 22 July 2015

 

[1] From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 20, 2015 at 4:29:14 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: MV Dialog

 

[2] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 20, 2015 at 4:41:12 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: MV Dialog 

 

[3] From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         July 21, 2015 at 9:55:36 AM EDT

     Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: MV Dialog 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 20, 2015 at 4:29:14 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: MV Dialog

 

The bark/bay association that Jim Carroll points out is interesting. He also says:

 

Shakespeare habitually echoed certain consonants in association

>with certain words, including “Mantua”, which appears repeatedly in

>some plays, a total of 19 times by my count, not including the 

>emendation in Merchant. 

 

Based on the evidence he gives I think he is seeing significance where there is none. There are 109,220 through lines in the Folio. By my count 41,671 of them contain a word beginning with ‘m’ (other than Mantua itself). That’s 38%, so more than one in three. Therefore, given any line containing the word Mantua, it is not in the least surprising to find a word beginning with ‘m’ on that line or on the line above it or below it. 

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 20, 2015 at 4:41:12 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: MV Dialog

 

the point about “no power can alter a decree” and “’Twill be recorded for a precedent” seems to me a strong one.  The point is not what happens, it is what Portia says here. If no new legal proposition can alter a decree, it can’t become a precedent, good or bad.  Shakespeare here seems to be hesitating between two different legal systems (perhaps one Venetian, one English), or trying to conflate them through quick juxtaposition.  Again, Drakakis is missing the point.

 

There is no inconsistency here, and no need to postulate two legal systems.  Portia’s objection to altering a “decree established” was in response to Bassanio’s per vi argument “Wrest once the law to your authority: | To do a great right, do a little wrong.” The law referred to, I infer, was the principle that solemn contracts must be adhered to; or else, as Portia says, the mercantile basis of Venice’s wealth would be in danger.  Her solution ingeniously retains and, indeed, applies, the principle:  She awards Shylock all the flesh he was owed (no more, no less) but not a jot of blood, as it is not called for in the contract.  There is a world of difference between overruling a precedent and distinguishing it; and in this case the defense didn’t even have to do that, they just showed that the precedent was inapplicable, indeed, that it required a result contrary to the claim.  I am astounded that Mr. Blanton, who tells us that he is an experienced litigator, missed this point.

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        William Blanton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 21, 2015 at 9:55:36 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: MV Dialog

 

Many thanks to all who have responded to my post regarding contradictions in the play. I did not intend to trigger any controversy, although I am glad to read these diverse opinions. This is just the sort of dialog I had hoped for. 

 

Will someone please explain to me why the song with the verse lines that rhyme with lead is not a hint to Bassanio. I gather that “old chestnut” signifies that scholars have debunked this possibility. However, John’s footnote number 65 on page 296 indicates that the song is a hint. I’m confused.

 

Clearly I will have to address the Mantua/Padua issue sooner than anticipated.

 

Shakespeare has Portia send Balthaser (F1 spelling) to Bellario in Mantua. (3.4.49) Perhaps a sizable number of those in Shakespeare’s audiences would have remembered when a Balthazar was sent to Mantua in RJ. This self-reference helps to date the first performance of RJ to some time before late 1596.

 

Portia and Nerissa are to wait at the traject for Balthaser to return with notes and garments. (3.4.51-55) She and Nerissa then take the “common Ferry” to Venice. 

 

Shakespeare does not send anyone to Padua. Portia and Nerissa never meet with Bellario. Balthaser does not travel with them to Venice.

 

Salerio announces that a messenger with letters from Doctor Bellario is “New come from Padua!” (4.1.107-08) When Nerissa, disguised as a lawyer’s clerk, enters carrying a letter, the Duke asks (unnecessarily): “Came you from Padua from Bellario?” Nerissa then lies through her teeth: “From both! My lord, Bellario greets your grace.” Nerissa then hands the Duke the very important — although seemingly commonplace — letter.

 

Shakespeare’s audiences would have heard just moments ago the matters related in Act 3 Scene 4. They would have thought to themselves, “Hey! Wait a minute. I thought Bellario was in Mantua, not Padua, and I distinctly remember that Nerissa did not go to Bellario at either place but rather waited at the traject. WTF is going on here?”

 

Shakespeare got their attention. What’s going on is Shakespeare’s effort to highlight what appears to be nothing more than a simple letter of introduction. 

 

Consider closely what happens next.

 

While the Duke reads the letter to himself, Bassanio and Shylock engage in another slanging match (which no real court would tolerate).

 

The Duke then says, “This letter from Bellario doth commend /A young and learned doctor to our court./ Where is he?” (4.1.142-43)

 

Nerissa replies: “He attendeth here hard by /To know your answer whether you’ll admit him.” (4.1.144-45) I emphasize hard because it suggests that the young doctor has a hard-on.

 

While awaiting the arrival of the young and learned doctor, the Duke reads the letter a second time, this time out loud and to the entire court (and to the audience). (4.1.149-62)

 

When he finishes reading the letter, the Duke says: “You hear the learned Bellario, what he writes.” Yet another reference to the letter highlighting its significance.

 

When Portia enters (as Balthazar), the Duke says: “And here, I take it, is the doctor come. /Give me your hand. Come you from old Bellario?”

 

Portia replies: “I did, my lord.” She does not correct the Duke’s impression of her identity as “the doctor,” and she “of wondrous virtues” (1.1.163) lies to the Duke’s face. She was not the Balthasar (F1 spelling) whom Bellario described in his letter, and she certainly did not come from old Bellario.

 

Now, with all that focus on Bellario’s letter, just who is that Balthasar, what does Bellario mean, and where did Balthasar go?

 

It is unfortunate that editors do not use the F1 spellings of Balthaser (he to Mantua), Balthasar (he who met with Bellario), and Balthazar (she who appeared in court). Many readers believe that Portia did meet with Bellario, and that is how she came to know so much legal business. I know I did the first time I read the play (Norton, Greenblatt). No one on stage addresses her as Balthazar, but only as Doctor or Judge. That name appears only once, in the stage direction for her entrance.

 

Again, many thanks.

 

Bill

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.