Heck, if I'd have been the judge, I wouldn't have punished him at all. I would have let him take his pound of flesh from Antonio and told off Portia for sticking to the letter of the law and not its spirit.
They were business rivals. However, Antonio's main business is that of a merchant, buying and selling goods and shipping them to other ports, whereas Shylock is a money-lender who makes money by charging interest on loans. This is not Shylock's job by choice--there were a limited number of jobs which Jews were allowed to do, and this was one of them. However, Antonio has been lending money to people without interest, which cuts into Shylock's business. It's rather like having a business competitor move in and start giving away the goods you are trying to sell. He's going to put you out of business. Antonio has other resources which enable him to lend money gratis, Shylock has not. On top of that, Antonio is rude and condecending to Shylock just because he is Jewish. He may not be the most rude and condecending person in Venice toward Jews, but the fact that he is lumps him in with the worst offenders in Shylock's mind
Shylock only relents and says he will take the money when it becomes clear that he will not be able to enforce the contract. Portia has pointed out that if he takes a gram more than a pound of flesh, or any blood at all, he is exceeding his legal rights and will be convicted of murder. Obviously this is impossible, so Shylock says that he will take back his principal instead, with no interest. Now, Shylock had earlier been offered the repayment of his loan with interest at a rate which would be illegally high. He didn't take it then because he hoped he would be able to cut out Antonio's heart, which would have satisfied him much more. (This clearly shows that greed is not a motivating factor with Shylock--it is revenge for the bigoted and cruel treatment he has received which he seeks) The principle that is advanced is a principle which still holds at law. If an offer of settlement is made before trial and refused, it cannot be accepted should the trial prove unsuccessful. Shylock elected to take the effect of the bond rather than the money and since this is unenforceable he is estopped from going back and taking his election again.
As a greedy money lender. Shylock, the Jew, the antagonist in Merchant of Venice is portrayed as a money lender, who asks the title character Antonio for a 'pound of his flesh,' in case the latter could not repay his loan. One can say that he is more famous than any other character of that Shakespearean comedy.
Firstly, Shylock isn't actually the merchant, Antonio is. Antonio has a fleet of trade boats out at sea, trading around the world for the better part of the play. Does this answer your question? Hope this helps.
Shylock is written in a sufficiently ambiguous way that he can be played not only as villain and as a victim, but also as a buffoon. It is believed that Shylock was first played as a comic character in the same way as Malvolio in Twelfth Night--an extreme character who is forced to take his lumps. In the 18th century, the great Shakespearean actor Charles Macklin started to play Shylock as a villain, so that the audience would be satisfied with his punishment, and the justice of the court and of Portia. Toward the end of the 19th century, another great Shakespearean actor, Henry Irving, chose to play Shylock as a sympathetic figure, highlighting the moving "hath not a Jew eyes" speech as a plea for his being treated as a human being, rather than simply as a cynical justification for revenge. Irving's reading, which has been standard (except in Nazi Germany) ever since, calls into question the justice of the court and of Portia, as well as the overtly anti-Semitic behaviour of Graziano and other members of the Christian community. Portia's speech on the quality of mercy seems somewhat hollow in the face of the merciless treatment of Shylock and other Jews. All of this is proof that The Merchant of Venice is a great play and Shylock is a great character, because he is an ambiguous character, and because the play raises issues which are not easily resolved.
They were business rivals. However, Antonio's main business is that of a merchant, buying and selling goods and shipping them to other ports, whereas Shylock is a money-lender who makes money by charging interest on loans. This is not Shylock's job by choice--there were a limited number of jobs which Jews were allowed to do, and this was one of them. However, Antonio has been lending money to people without interest, which cuts into Shylock's business. It's rather like having a business competitor move in and start giving away the goods you are trying to sell. He's going to put you out of business. Antonio has other resources which enable him to lend money gratis, Shylock has not. On top of that, Antonio is rude and condecending to Shylock just because he is Jewish. He may not be the most rude and condecending person in Venice toward Jews, but the fact that he is lumps him in with the worst offenders in Shylock's mind
Shylock is a Jew and as such has always been forced to live on the fringes of society. In effect he has an understandable chip on his shoulder. He is not looking for revenge he is just trying to outsmart him.
The Judge is not married. The Judge has never been married. He is not linked to any woman and hasn't been. He has no children.
Yes, in Shylock's speech about discrimination, there is imagery used to convey the idea of mistreatment and the feeling of being an outsider. He describes how he has been treated unfairly, likening himself to a dog that is kicked, emphasizing the pain and humiliation he has endured due to discrimination.
Yes, a former judge could run for president. I am not sure that a judge would even have to resign before running, but maybe so. I can not think of a judge who has been considered as a presidential candidate or that the question has come up.
Shylock only relents and says he will take the money when it becomes clear that he will not be able to enforce the contract. Portia has pointed out that if he takes a gram more than a pound of flesh, or any blood at all, he is exceeding his legal rights and will be convicted of murder. Obviously this is impossible, so Shylock says that he will take back his principal instead, with no interest. Now, Shylock had earlier been offered the repayment of his loan with interest at a rate which would be illegally high. He didn't take it then because he hoped he would be able to cut out Antonio's heart, which would have satisfied him much more. (This clearly shows that greed is not a motivating factor with Shylock--it is revenge for the bigoted and cruel treatment he has received which he seeks) The principle that is advanced is a principle which still holds at law. If an offer of settlement is made before trial and refused, it cannot be accepted should the trial prove unsuccessful. Shylock elected to take the effect of the bond rather than the money and since this is unenforceable he is estopped from going back and taking his election again.
The Judge is not married. The Judge has never been married. He is not linked to any woman and hasn't been. He has no children.
If you have been before the same judge on different matters can you request a new judge on your new case?
He is a former judge - the phrase 'Your Honor' would have been used while he was presiding over court, but not at other times. In the 'Judge Joe Brown' show he is acting in the role of arbitrator which receives no special honorific. He is not acting as a judge in this regard.
She was a judge for four years between 2007 and 2010.
Vanzetti did not believe that Judge Thayer had been fair and impartial
Vanzetti did not believe that Judge Thayer had been fair and impartial