RV Station

Think of Shylock’s belief in the inflexibility of Venetian law and his position in the Venetian community (as a reasonably well-placed usurer, albeit Jew), and his virtual elimination at the hands of the very law. In this Shakespearean play, it is possible to see the transient phenomena of legal conflict- an eternal struggle between the ideal and the real -in a society that claims to thrive on material equality.

It makes me ask- Was there any legal correctness in Shakespeare’s climax for this tale?

Through this lens, Shylock appears as a pawn- someone whose moral existence was deliberately destroyed and sacrificed in an otherwise typical conflict between the majorities and minorities- the marginalized ones and the ones in power -to appease the theatre-going audience.

————————————————————————————————–

Two seemingly oppositional truths can co-exist. Shakespeare demonstrates this throughout The Merchant of Venice.

1. He uses anti-semitic stereotypes as a tool to his means. He also challenges them simultaneously.
2. He throws in the casual abuse of Shylock. He also gives agency to the marginalized Jew. He stresses how Shylock’s murderous rage and his personal sense of justice are a direct outcome of radicalization at the hands of the Christians.

His narrative pushes us to think not in the if/else or either/or direction but both/else.

Having said that, if I were to focus on the court scene solely, on the bond- not the symbolism of rings, the interfaith marriage and its consequences, the absent father, the maybe-closeted Christian, or the lackadaisical attempt at showcasing empowered women – but the judgment, the forced conversion, the confiscation of property, I see unnecessary brutalities.

————————————————————————————————

What begins as a civil case of Shylock vs. Antonio is quickly turned into a criminal case on Shylock- and sentenced- without giving him half the chances, the pleadings, or the perusal that Antonio received when he was being persecuted. What does that say about the law in Venice- a system supposed to uphold all communities living in the city on equal terms?

Furthermore, this is in a time when contracts like these were considered valid or pointless, depending on the region.

The bond would not become an exercisable right because it sought deliberate injury to another life- as per German law at the time. The bond would have legal grounds by the English law that allowed literal interpretation of contracts until much later, and certainly in the 16th Century. But, by the law of Venice at the time, around the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Centuries, agreements like Shylock’s bond would have been considered somewhat valid.

1. In the City Archives of Genoa, a Cologne record, and a Silesian document, all between 1250 and 1279, people have bound themselves to the penalty of death, loss of a limb, etc., if there were to fail the contract.
2. As we can find in many Middle Age legal guides, the practice had to be banned because of how common it had become.
3. There are occurrences of such cases- where one games away their life or limb to a creditor and the creditor demands the penalty – in the biography of Pope Sixtus V.
4. A similar tale appears in the book of legends Gesta Romanorum (13-14th Century.)
5. Shakespeare’s story also bears a much stronger resemblance to the Italian tale Il Pecorone.

———————————————————————————————

Considering all this evidence, I can say that the bond was not just a ‘merry sport’ or in jest, as we universally tend to believe, but a valid agreement that should not have fallen at the hands of an argument ‘flesh but no blood’- seemingly wise but legally unfound.

Maybe Shakespeare wanted to explore what such a creditor’s desire for retribution would lead him to. Perhaps he still wanted to challenge the belief about Jews but was bent on writing an ending that appeased his audience. The exact reason may evade us still, but it is evident that legal correctness is not the strong suit of the climax in The Merchant of Venice.

That makes Shylock an unnecessary tribute. Until the very end, he was the sufferer of another’s rage. That’s not saying that he was the noblest of people. Given the opportunity, he likely would have made an example of Antonio and shed his blood-there was enough darkness in his heart to do so. However, his own agenda does not make him worthy of the absolute nothingness he was reduced to by a misuse of power by the Doge, a unanimous decision to persecute him fueled by Portia, and a crowd that wouldn’t oppose the Christian judgment even if it made them uncomfortable.

Sadly, that is the state of the law in the present times as well- where validity and correctness are evaded by the popular sentiment many a time, especially when the punished party is of a group that dwells along the periphery and is not under the spotlight of the society.