Module 11: Act IV to line 189
In your own words, explain why Shylock refuses to budge from the terms of his bond. Write a 3-4 sentence argument in which you DEFEND his stance, using at least one quote from the reading. Then write a 3-4 sentence argument in which you CHALLENGE/REFUTE his stance, using at least one quote from the reading.
When you respond to your two classmates, identify which argument of their arguments you think is more successful and why.
Defend argument:
ReplyDeleteShylock thinks that he is doing nothing wrong and compares his bonds with Antonio to the Christians owning slaves. Shylocks says that if he told them to free the slaves they would say, "The slaves are ours! So do I answer you: the pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly bought; tis mine and I will have it" (147). This speech relates back to his speech about equality and getting his revenge because he thinks if the Christians can own slaves then he can own Antonio, in this deal. He says Antonio is "dearly bought" meaning that he is valuable and didn't just cost him money but also his reputation, and he wants to get everything out of his investment. By arguing that there should be equality between the two religions and that this bond is valuable and not just about the money, Shylock makes a pretty good point.
Challenge/refute argument:
The bond between Shylock and Antonio has caused Antonio to be more vulnerable and turned Shylock more evil. When talking to the Duke before Shylock arrives, Antonio says, "My patience to his fury, and am armed to suffer with a quietness of spirit the very tyranny and rage of his" (141). This shows the contrast between the two of them, but also the contrasts between their religions. The words like "patience" and "armed to suffer with quietness" reveal that Antonio has become more Christian an innocent, and the words "fury" and the "tyranny of his rage" exhibit how extreme and Old Testament Shylock has become. This bond isn't good for Shylock's mental state, and if he takes Antonio's flesh he will reach an extreme evil that one can't come back from.
-Bradley
I like how in your challenge/refute argument paragraph, you compare and contrast the differences between the two religions very well. It helps show the dark side of Shylock and the shift in Antonio's character. Your final statement is also very well-stated and powerful.
Delete-Pippa Sims
I like your emphasis in the defend argument about how Antonio was compared to the slaves that were bought by the christians because I think that's a huge, very strong connection that is very hard to argue back.
Delete-Zoe Lee
I liked when you used Antonio's argument as a interpenation for Shylock's declining mental state and how it relates to the two of their religions from Antonio's attempt to appease the judge. Very good refute argument!
Delete-James
I definitely agree how you are saying that this is affecting Shylocks mental state. But do you also think that this is affecting Antonio's mental state as well?
DeleteI agree with the Challenge agreement, since Both of them did have negative emotional changes.
DeleteGreat points and great responses, everyone! Yes...Shylock makes a reasonable argument, as Bradley says, but you can also feel the emotion creeping in. Keep an eye on both the emotion and the religous allusions as they connect to specific theologies as we go forward.
DeleteI like how to brought back the contrast between religion.
DeleteTorin
Opposition
ReplyDeleteAntonio makes a good point by talking about Shylock as "obdurate" showing how despite the law, Shylock will not stop at nothing get Antonio's flesh and that he's determined to get that from Antonio to exact his revenge. Antonio also differences them, as if they haven't been differentiate enough due to their religions, from each other, saying that he had "patience" but Shylock had "fury" which shows Antonio trying to portray Shylock as a more aggressive and angry human and him as a calm kind person. He continues with his by comparing him to a tyrant, saying that he has "tyranny and rage" in comparison to him having "a quietness of a spirit" This furter creates a gap between them and makes out Shylock to be the bad person in the situation.
Defense
By comparing Christians owning slaves and him owning Antonio's flesh, Shylock makes a solid argument about why he should be able to take Antonio's flesh. He starts appealing to the Duke by saying that Christians can do what they want with the slaves because they "bought him" meaning that they have control of the slaves solely because they paid money for control over them (94). IF Shylock were to say "Let them be free," the slave owners wouldn't allow it because they "bought" the slaves. So using that same logic, Shylock "bought" Antonio's flesh and therefore can have his flesh because, like the slave owners, is "bought; (tis)" his and he "will have it" (101).
-James
I agree with your opposition and how you think of Shylock's "tyranny and rage" and his absolute "fury". Your comparison between the two is also quite smart.
DeleteWhich do you think is more convincing? Undermining Shylock in the way that he does, or Shylock's pointing out of the hypocrisy of those in the courtroom?
DeleteDefending argument
ReplyDeleteShylock uses law, justice, and equality of religions to try to get his bond. In terms of law, Shylock does have a right to take Antonio's flesh. Antonio understands this, as he says, "and that no lawful means can carry me out of his envy's reach," meaning that the enforcement of law is fair in his eyes (141). When debating with Bassanio, Shylock cleverly makes a connection between slavery and his bond. He states that Christians are allowed to have slaves, and Bassanio has rights over his slaves because they are his property. He then connects the slaves to his bond: "The pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly bought; tis mine and I will have it" (147). Shylock's statement is very clever and valid. He compares religions and equalizes them to elevate his point. Most importantly, his arguments are all very factual, and he does not use an derogatory words against his enemies, unlike Bassanio, Antonio, and Gratiano.
Challenge argument
Although Shylock's arguments are well-crafted and clever, they are driven by emotion, vengeance, and cruelty. It is clear that Shylock's character has dramatically shifted from reasonable and righteous to rash. Antonio is no longer in the place of power, and he has become more submissive. While confident before, he has become remorseful and quiet. When speaking to Bassanio, he says that "I am a tainted wether of the flock, meetest for death. The weakest kind of fruit drops earliest to the ground" (149). Antonio has lost all faith and is accepting the penalty of his actions. This puts Shylock into a position of power, which he seems to be abusing. He is shown sharpening his knife on his heel as he patiently awaits Antonio's death, and his manner is described by Antonio with words such as "rage" and "envy" (141). At this time, he appears to have no sympathy or moral compass. He is acting on emotion and revenge. Even the Duke, who has assisted Shylock in his bond, refers to Antonio as "poor merchant" when speaking of the penalty of the bond, telling him to be pitiful (143). While he could be biased, there is truth to his word. If Shylock is to give into his vengeful spirit, he will likely fulfill the role of the villain that he was labeled with from the start.
-Pippa Sims
I like your defending argument where you said that Shylock compares religion and uses that to equalize them and I also think you pointed out a lot of details that I didn't notice like how he doesn't use derogatory words against others.
Delete-Zoe Lee
I like how in you challenge argument you talk about Shylock and Antonio's shift in emotion and power. I also like your details about how Antonio is hopeless and other characters are feeling bad for him. I totally agree that Shylock has no moral compass and acting out of strong emotions.
Delete-Bradley
I definitely agree with your challenge argument. I feel the same way as he is doing it out of emotions rather than possibly pure hatred.
DeleteI agree with what you have to say about law in your defending argument, Shylock has every bit of the law on his and all Antonio has to argue is good vs bad.
DeleteGreat job, Pippa: you're right that Shylock is very clever, and I love how you've noted that even Antonio himself admits that the law is on his side. I also really like the way you examine both Shylock's emotional impetus and the attitude of the court toward Shylock and Antonio...your reading of the Duke calling Antonio "poor merchant" is fabulous evidence of that! I'll be interested to see if you all think that Shylock ultimately becomes the villain.
DeleteI like how you portrayed Shylock as intimidating.
DeleteTorin
Defend argument :
ReplyDeleteWith both many strong connections and the law backing him, Shylock has a very strong case. It is seen when he states “I stand here for the law,” that Shylock is very confident and knows that there nothing others can do except beg for mercy (144). According to the bond that they have made Antonio is now as good as a slave is to their master, and Antonio belongs to Shylock and can do whatever he wants to him. Shylock’s reasons are based on facts and are very clear, his use of the connection between the christians and slaves is very clever because it not only brings back their ancient grudge, but he knows that the others would have to insult their own religion and their own doings to argue back.
Challenge argument :
While Shylock has the law backing him, Antonio had everything else, he had the people’s favor and his case was driven by emotions such as mercy. The recurring theme or mercy is seen many times here as both the duke and many others argue and ask for mercy for Antonio : “How shalt thou hope for mercy, rend’ring none?” (89). However, it is seen that through the shift in Antonio’s character that he has turned from a confident merchant into someone that is much more quiet. When Antonio says, “the weakest kind of fruit drops earliest to the ground, and so let me,” he reveals that he believes that he is weak, and has given up trying to get out of the mess. While it is Shylock’s right to get the pound of flesh, if he does take it, he will prove to be the selfish and heartless person the christians believed he was because after all these different emotions shown from his opposition, if he is unable to feel sorry and show mercy, then he isn’t much better than how Antonio treated him. Because while the law is the law, people are driven by emotion and they will not hesitate to label Shylock as the villain of the story.
-Zoe Lee
I think that your defense argument are better than the offensive argument because it seems that in your offense argument, you made Antonio seem as if this is his final stand and that he's basically given up trying to stop Shylock. The defense argument actually argued strongly for getting Antonio's flesh because Shylock was relating to his audience.
Delete-James
I like how you described the role of mercy in Antonio's defense. It is a very good point against Shylock's bond, and it shows the shift in Antonio's character. Additionally, your argument for Shylock is very compelling.
DeleteI really like your defense argument and how you showed Shylock's confidence, and he knows he is doing nothing wrong, by following the law. I also like how you bring up his strategy in talking about the Christians and their slaves and compare it to the ancient grudge.
Delete-Bradley
I like your defense argument since it shows how clear-cut Shylock felt about the case, which explains is confidence.
DeleteI also love how you've emphasized the concept of mercy, which will continue to be so important in Act IV, and you make great points about Antonio's character shifting over the course of this scene. You also offer a nice contrast between laws and human beings...keep that in mind as we pick up on the mercy theme next week.
DeleteDefense argument:
ReplyDeleteShylock didn't budge since he believes he has justice and the laws of making a deal on his side; Antonio officially agreed to the deal and so Shylock has sole authority of what happens to him. He says their relationship is to that of a slave, which means that the people of Venice would be hypocrites since they own slaves themselves. Shylock is confident that the law has to be on his side that he said, "If you deny me, fie upon the law:There is no force in the decrees of Venice. I stand for judgment. Answer:shall I have it?"(147).
Offense argument:
Throughout the deal, Shylock as been becoming more aggressive, savage, and evil. Shylock went against everyone in the courtroom by not showing Antonio mercy. Before, he was able to get sympathy from other by using logic, but his lust for revenge has made him appear a "currish spirit governed by a wolf" whose "desires are wolfish, bloody, starved, and ravenous"(151). By trying to get revenge on Antonio he has corrupted his morals and reputation.
So he's corrupting his morals because he won't forgive Antonio? I definitely agree that he's corrupting his reputation, especially in front of this audience (good quotes from Gratiano), but I wonder if, in a weird way, he feels like he IS being moral by holding Antonio responsible for all the abuse he's doled out to Shylock over time? It will also be interesting to see if Shylock's belief in the law is valid.
DeleteShylocks defending case:
ReplyDeleteShylock has a case built around law instead of right and wrong. His case is solid because in the situation he has the law on his side. He also with a very fascinating quote points out another level of irony, the christians can own slaves but shylock has no right to own anyone. He on page 147 said "The slaves are ours! So do I answer you: the pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly bought; tis mine and I will have it." Shylock points out that there is simply no difference between the slaves the christians bought and Antonio because he was bought as well. By shylock being able to point another set of things unequal for jews he has cemented his case as important therefore giving him the high ground.
Challenging Shylock's case:
From a basic perspective, Antonio has become blind to Shylock's intent and action but Shylock, one to never forget his injustices, still strives for revenge. I think it could be well argued that Shylock has no intent of using Antonio for work or as a slave but for the sole purpose of revenge and destroying Antonio's life. furthermore Antonio described Shylock having a level of "rage" trying to procure Antonio as his which cements that why does Shylock need Antonio and why should through law it be allowed for him to buy Antonio to abuse him. (141)
I think that your best point is in the defense case. His view of the irony in the justice system is a very good point and makes his deal much more understandable. --Meredith
DeleteI agree with Meredith--you make a good point about the irony of individuals who would allow for slavery but want to protect Antonio. You support his logic well here. I also like that you're drawing a parallel between the emotional states of Shylock and Antonio: both are somewhat "blind" at this point in the play, but in different ways.
DeleteDefence:
ReplyDeleteShylock has made a deal with Antonio that Antonio accepted. The law should follow the facts and be unbiased because of slippery slope. Shylock asks Bassanio if "wouldst thou have a serpent sting thee twice?" (145) His fear of being hurt again shows how deeply he has been hurt by this man and wants the reward he agreed to.
Refute:
Shylock made an unreasonable deal out of anger and took advantage of someone who was financially vulnerable. The boat crash had nothing to do with Antonio's reliability or business skills, so the deal should be adapted or extended in order to be fair. Bassanio shows how irrational Shylock is being when he says, "This is no answer, thou unfeeling man,/To excuse the current of thy cruelty (145).
-Meredith
Great quotes to capture the two sides, Meredith. I like what you say about the slippery slope: as cruel as Shylock may be in his pursuit of Antonio's flesh, the law must be the law or, as even Antonio admits, it won't be worth anything. I also like your point about how the ships crashing is just bad luck, not a reflection on Antonio as a bad businessman. Early on Shylock says that he is "good" for the money, so he, the other good businessman in the play, feels that Antonio is a worthy investor.
DeleteDefense:
ReplyDeleteAs both Shylock and Antonio both agreed on this bond, it ,takes since how Shylock feels that he does not need to prove his point. With the evidence that he did use, it was factual and well thought. The evidence of "The slave is ours," is very precise(147). As Antonio agreed to this bond, he put up his life. Because of not being able to able to follow through with the payment, his life now belongs to Shylock, and he is Shylocks slave. The evidence of the Christians buying and having slaves is very well thought. If Christian's can have slave, why can't Shylock have Antonio?
Challenge:
What Shylock wants to do to Antonio is hateful, and ill-mannered. Shylock says "Let them(the slaves) be free," but as Antonio is now his slave, shouldn't Antonio be free as well(147)? As Shylock has become more "fury," I think the reason of this is party from Jessica(141). He's letting his emotions of what has happened with his relationship with his daughter run and control his life. As his emotions are now controlling how he feels, I don't think his wish of killing Antonio is purely out of hatred. Instead, it is his way of letting out the past of what has gone wrong, and is a way to start over. Lashing your emotions out on someone is bad and unfair.
-Caroline
Good points, Caroline...you're right that Shylock has a lot of logic in his claim, and I like how you're using the rhetorical question (a strategy Shylock uses as well!). Your word choice of "ill-mannered" is delightful...I like what you say there about how the experience with Jessica has contributed to his "fury," so, while his anger at Antonio is real and has a long history, at this point Antonio may be the scapegoat for all of the bad things that are happening to Shylock.
Deletedefending Shylock
ReplyDeleteShylock's refusal to change his stance of the deal, by now is about more than just the money and the flesh. He has now lost his daughter, and because of this his dignity as a man. He has stated on multiple occasion the injustice in other's actions towards him and proves that Antonio has caused him much more pain and grief than debt when he says that Antonio's flesh is "dearly bought," stating that to him it is worth a lot. It is also valid, that Shylock does own Antonio, and has a sentence over his life basically much like how the Duke and most of the Christians in the courthouse owned slaves and chose to use them for profit. Beyond external reasons, for shylock his internal conflict is still what he loves and wants to fight for more... his daughter or his money?
challenge against Shylock
Following this internal conflict of his, Shylock has constantly chased after money and vengeance, and Antonio and his friends have been on the receiving end of these cruel acts and see through his claims that what he is doing is only right. Antonio states that "I [he] do oppose my patience to his fury, and am armed to suffer with a quietness of spirit the very tyranny and rage of his," referencing his faith and how he has changed and is willing to test his faith instead of fight Shylock. This proves that maybe Shylock has gone too far and as Gratiano said is a wolf rather than a dog and was born to be evil. So naturally, the argument here is that Shylock is naturally evil and continues to do so but that if he were to begin to change and forgive Antonio people would begin to accept him more... which not only makes life better for the villagers but more peaceful for Shylock.
-Avery
Great focus on the "dearly bought" in your first response...that word "dearly" is so crucial, I think, to understanding all that Shylock is responding to at this point in the play. He also does a good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of those in the court who own slaves. I like that you also bring in the word "wolf" and the idea that Shylock is now being painted as innately evil while Antonio is becoming the opposite...we'll have to see how this plays out!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDefense:
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel religion has always been a common conflict and in this case it's no different. Shylock feels as if he's been betrayed by everyone all because of what he believes. He defends his case with a statement saying that if he were a Christian he would be allowed to have slaves and do whatever he wants with them. He compares that to this case: "you have among you many a purchased slave, which like your asses and your dogs and mules, you use in abject and in slavish parts because you bought them. Shall I say to you let them be free!... You will answer 'the slaves are ours!' So do I answer you: the pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly bought; tis mine and I will have it. If you deny me fie upon your law. His case is: if Antonio owes a debt he can't pay back, he should be allowed to take the pre-decided bond.
Challenge:
Shylock is always looking for ways to profit, including in this case: Shylock's profit is Antonio's flesh and Shylock won't let down his guard till he has it. This hatred for Antonio started out as a small clash of religion but has developed more than that because Shylock is so obsessed with power. I think at this point he is only acting on previous disagreements they've had and is fueled by the hate he used to have for him. Antonio isn't responsible for the ships sinking yet Shylock tries to make it seem as if it's his fault: "I stand here for law" (151). This shows he is acting based off the words written on paper rather than solving the issue off the circumstances. He knows it's not fair to take his life because of something inevitable like this but attempts to use it to his advantage anyways rather than do what he knows is right.
Good focus on religion and law in these two perspectives: you're right that if we take out emotion (which, ironically is impossible for both Shylock and Antonio), Antonio should just have to pay the bond. I also like that you've used the "I stand here for law" quote and argue that Shylock is actually using that as a cover because he knows that he's using Antonio's bad luck to his advantage, and you're arguing that he knows right from wrong, which is pretty important point, I think.
DeleteDefending: Shylock compares Antonio to the slaves owned by the Christians (93). Slaves, normally during these times, provided work to those they were in debt to. In this case, Antonio is in debt to Shylock, and thus is his 'slave.' Shylock states. "tis mine and I shall have it" (101). Of course, his anger is not only rooted from the loss of nearly three thousand ducats, but the loss of his daughter as well. He takes in upon the "wolfish" spirit Gratiano says he has (140). In this, Shakespeare clearly puts down the line between Shylock and the rest of the characters, as many up to this point have been against the Jew.
ReplyDeleteAgainst: Besides the fact that Bassanio is offering double the amount owed, Shylock still holds the forever lasting grudge between Antonio and his christian accomplices. His values ridiculed many times over: "Not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew...Can no prayers pierce thee?" (125 - 129). Gratiano pleads on the behalf of Antonio in believing Shylock is being quite ridiculous. Even the Duke is on the side of Antonio. In portraying Shylock in this state of rage, and Antonio in a righteous, 'more Christian' state of mind, once again draws the line on perspective of each religion. Their differences and hate for each other fueling their respective court cases. I believe Antonio and the Christians will win solely due to the fact that they are facing a Jew.
-Torin