By the end of the trial scene, do you think true justice and mercy was achieved? Reflect and write on the following questions:
1. Is there true justice? Why?
I believe true justice was not served in the trial. However, I would like to clarify that there is no "true justice", due to the fact that the opinions of many have to be taken into account, as well as religious practices and beliefs, morality and different moral concepts. Therefore, the "justice" we believe in is merely a righteous moral concept reinforced and applied by the law and in the court. In the case of the trial, the matter of justice being served is all a matter of perspective.
From the viewpoint of the self-righteous Christians, justice was meted out along with a healthy dose of mercy- Shylock's sentence was lightened, his life was spared, and he was converted to Christianity (which might have been doing him a favour, from their point of view). This was an obvious show of leniency as Shylock had repeatedly turned down alternate offers and Portia's beseechment to show mercy. The Christians probably believed that Shylock deserved whatever punishment that he got, as his thirst for vengeance was glaringly obvious throughout the trial (the New Testament discourages vengeance), and that the scales of justice were in balance as Shylock's flat refusal to show mercy and insistence on justice (for the sake of his vengeance) eventually backfired on him, courtesy of Portia.
However, to consider the trial from Shylock's perspective would show a drastic and shocking change in one's opinion and stand taken with regards to the whole event as well as the issue of justice. Shylock comes to court seeking the rightful payment of his bond, but instead loses his job, dignity, religion, friends, and wealth. Furthermore, the majority of the court of Christians was already prejudiced against him as a Jew, tipping the scales in their favour. Even the "noble" and self-righteous Duke who is supposed to be impartial is obviously sympathetic towards Antonio, and makes attempts to dissuade Shylock from wreaking vengeance. Besides, it was Portia's intention from the start of the trial to bend the law and manipulate the court (and even Shylock himself) into convicting Shylock, invoking an obscure Venetian law and taking everything away from him, even his life. If I were Shylock (vengeance aside), seeking payment for my bond, but eventually being unfairly convicted and sentenced to a miserable existence following a faith I do not believe in, then I want no part in this "justice".
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
Again, the issue of mercy is another grey area- a matter of perspective. By converting Shylock to Christian, Antonio could have thought that he was doing him a favour by sparing him from the infernal hell he believed Shylock would go to, converting him to a Christian, which, in his eyes, was the ideal faith to follow. However, to Shylock, Antonio was further exacerbating his situation by ripping away from him the one thing that he loved most, the thing that gave him his identity and made him who he was, despite attacks from people around him- his faith. Mercy is to sympathise with and to show compassion and forbearance towards an offender. Further aggravating the situation by robbing him of his religion- is this mercy? Furthermore, Antonio's motives for converting Shylock remain obscure, thus it is difficult to discern if Antonio is using his opportunity to show mercy as an opportunity to take revenge while Shylock was vulnerable.
2. Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?
Again, the issue of mercy is another grey area- a matter of perspective. By converting Shylock to Christian, Antonio could have thought that he was doing him a favour by sparing him from the infernal hell he believed Shylock would go to, converting him to a Christian, which, in his eyes, was the ideal faith to follow. However, to Shylock, Antonio was further exacerbating his situation by ripping away from him the one thing that he loved most, the thing that gave him his identity and made him who he was, despite attacks from people around him- his faith. Mercy is to sympathise with and to show compassion and forbearance towards an offender. Further aggravating the situation by robbing him of his religion- is this mercy? Furthermore, Antonio's motives for converting Shylock remain obscure, thus it is difficult to discern if Antonio is using his opportunity to show mercy as an opportunity to take revenge while Shylock was vulnerable.
Also, we must not turn a blind eye to the ambiguity in line 380, "To quit the fine for one half of his goods". This can mean two things: Antonio is beseeching the court to renounce its claim to half of Shylock's wealth (maybe even the fine), OR that he agrees that the fine should be paid instead of the full penalty (half of Shylock's wealth). Antonio also states that the half of Shylock's wealth that now belongs to Antonio be returned to him and bequeathed "upon his death unto the gentleman that lately stole his daughter". This obviously is a reference to the Lorenzo, whom Shylock probably hates for being a Christian and stealing his daughter. This again can be seen as a double-edged blade of mercy and revenge.
From Shylock's perspective, Antonio is inflaming the situation by increasing Shylock's losses, which greatly outnumber the mercies displayed to him and his punishments lightened. On the other hand, the Christian court may observe much (maybe even too much) mercy being displayed to Shylock: The lightening of the state's claim as a fine, Shylock being able to keep half of his wealth which was originally Antonio's, and even his conversion to Christianity. This one-sided mercy, behind which may crouch the malicious intent and thirst for vengeance against the Jew, may have some direct connection to the plot. This is due to the fact that Shylock is the main antagonist who gets his just desserts, yet mercy is still shown to him by the "righteous" Christians, contributing to a happy ending in which the Christians go home with clear consciences and Shylock with heavier burdens (added by the Christians) weighing him down.
One-sided mercy that may be used to exact revenge instead of showing compassion is not mercy at all, however it depends on the characters' intentions, especially Antonio's, which remain obscure and ambiguous.
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
The matter of Justice and Law being bent by powerful people crops up every now and then. In the Merchant of Venice, Portia (as a lawyer) manipulates not only the bond and the court, but also the law, to convict Shylock by invoking a deadly Venetian law. Likewise, figures of authority and power such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, ex-minister and director of the Inter-Monetary Fund, a global financial organization, are able to bend the law to their advantage, in Strauss-Kahn's case, possible dismissal of felony charges may allow him to get away with his vile act of sexual assault. Although people in power and politicians have always been a target of conspiracies and scandals, efforts to tarnish their reputations, obvious cases in which justice is warped by figures of authority to their advantage (such as said case of sexual assault), are evidence of how people in power evade the law- but most of the time, the long arm of the law catches up with them.
3. Justice and Law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.
The matter of Justice and Law being bent by powerful people crops up every now and then. In the Merchant of Venice, Portia (as a lawyer) manipulates not only the bond and the court, but also the law, to convict Shylock by invoking a deadly Venetian law. Likewise, figures of authority and power such as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, ex-minister and director of the Inter-Monetary Fund, a global financial organization, are able to bend the law to their advantage, in Strauss-Kahn's case, possible dismissal of felony charges may allow him to get away with his vile act of sexual assault. Although people in power and politicians have always been a target of conspiracies and scandals, efforts to tarnish their reputations, obvious cases in which justice is warped by figures of authority to their advantage (such as said case of sexual assault), are evidence of how people in power evade the law- but most of the time, the long arm of the law catches up with them.
Hey James,
ReplyDeleteThat is one neat post there. You managed to consider points from different perspectives, something which I have not seen, even in my own blog :)
There is no point for me to criticise, seeing your effort in creating an extremely concrete and well-thought out post. I really had fun reading your post. Great analysis.