Another aspect that we can see here is that the treaty itself should have been void from the outset, because it is contrary to public morality and also contains an illegal act; This is the “murder of a person.” And suppose this clause was accepted in Venice at the time. Portia`s interpretation of the judgment itself is erroneous. If Shylock is entitled to the flesh, then he must have the ability to take it. Every right has a legal remedy to enforce the law. Here, the Shylock`s right to meat is annulled by the court. What is at the moment is not given by the court. It makes sense to understand that when meat is taken, blood comes with it. Shylock`s legalism is an offensive caricature of Judaism, which also teaches forgiveness and mercy as core values. (By the way, Portia`s antinomianism is a distortion of Christianity, which also values the law, and the behavior of Christians in the play belies their praise of Christian mercy.) Perhaps Shakespeare, who had apparently never met a Jew, misunderstood religion. Perhaps he was simply an anti-Semite – although Shylock, unlike other Elizabethan Jews, has redemptive qualities and Merchant`s Christians, like the fortune hunter Bassanio, fare quite badly.
In his great essay on the play “On Christians and the Jews,” Allan Bloom suggests a more plausible explanation. Shakespeare exaggerates the differences between Christianity and Judaism because he has something to say about the limits of tolerance in a political community. The Christians` ugly treatment of Shylock of the play makes contemporary audiences cringe. Trading is also problematic for another reason. This legal game revolves around a legal absurdity. Shylock`s contract would be void from the start – invalid from the start. A treaty providing for the death penalty for an offence would be inapplicable against good faith and public order; The deal could also be seen as a joke that ignored law enforcement, which was suggested by Shylock`s own initial characterization. Portia`s intention is also absurd. A reasonable interpretation of the treaty would allow Shylock everything inherently irrelevant to its fulfillment – and you cannot take flesh without shedding blood. Portia`s judgment is not wise (“[a] Daniel comes to court”), it is an obvious ruse. Merchant of Venice critically shows many key aspects of law throughout the play.
It shows when laws can be unjust, how words can be distorted. It shows the gaps associated with the laws. Again, this shows that the pen is more powerful than the sword. Literature is wonderfully used here to represent the legal system of Venice. Here we will analyze the legal aspects of the piece. We will also focus on how Shylock suffered injustice throughout the process. In the court scene, Shylock stubbornly defends Antonio`s sentence because the debts were not repaid on time. Shylock asserts: “I defend judgment” (4.1.103) and “I defend the law here” (4.1.142), demonstrating a ruthless interpretation of contract law. For Shylock, the original agreement between two men is always in accordance with the law, regardless of the brutal effects of the contract. He uses a kind of justice found in the Book of Exodus, where an “eye for an eye” defines politics.
Shylock is vengeful, but Portia asks for mercy and understands the contract differently. When her appeals to the New Testament influenced everyone but Shylock and the duke, Portia reversed the diction of the treatise to incriminate Shylock. Portia terminates Shylock`s contract due to a formal formulation in which Shylock can only take “one pound of meat” (4.1.324), not blood. The trial scene shows how a contract between two men can be at once a legal agreement, a social promise, a weapon and a method of mercy. The various usages and meanings extracted from the contract seem to thwart the objective of enacting uniform laws within a society. The law aims to define rules and norms for a population so that relations between citizens are peaceful. However, due to Shylock`s failure in court and his final death, it can be concluded that Shakespeare did not support the rigid application of contract law. Shakespeare, who otherwise shows a thorough knowledge of the law, certainly understood all this. But he had other goals in this game.
Even though Shylock`s case against Antonio makes no legal sense, it is grand theatre and gives Shakespeare the opportunity to explore an ongoing and often bitter theological debate. Moreover, it allows him to reflect pessimistically on the ability of law to overcome cultural differences and unite antagonistic worldviews in a common community.
