a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries From Genuinely Interested Students 3.15.97: Top | Help
Order in the Court!
In Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, a rich Jew, lends money to a Christian merchant. The Jew, however, draws up a contract which says that if the Christian fails to repay him by such and such a date that he would have the legal write to claim a pound of flesh from the Christian. The Christian ,certain that he will be able to meet the deadline with time to spare, signs the contract; however, several unforeseen events prevent him from repaying Shylock on time.Claiming he wants justice to prevail, Shylock seizes this opportunity and takes the Christian to court. The courtroom scene, as it is known, is one of the most famous scenes in all of Shakespeare. In this scene, Portia, the wife of the Christian defendant, disguises herself as a wise and learned doctor of law who is summoned to decide the difficult case.
To make a long story short, She uses the letter of the law to turn the tables on the Jew. By the end of the scene the Christian is not only excused from wrongdoing, but he is also reward with a large part of the Jew’s estate. The Jew, originally the prosecutor, ends up begging for mercy as he attempts to defend his own life which, by law, could be terminated.
When I first read this scene several years ago, I thought nothing of it. "The Jew had it coming," was probably my reaction. When I taught the play a couple of years ago, I glorified Portia as an intelligent, witty, and eloquent woman who showed the men how to play hard ball in a court of law. I certainly had my reasons for both interpretations. In the first, I was an immature reader. I followed the plot and accepted the outcome without questioning anything. In the second case, I was determined to give the girls in my literature class a character they could look up to. As you know, it’s difficult to find heroines in literature.
The beauty of a work of art is that it never remains static. As one matures and reflects on those black marks on the page, new insights replace old meaning and as a consequence the work of art begins to change…to take on new forms…hence to life. Those same black marks on the page, which are still in the same order as you left them the last time you closed the book, seem to reshuffle and reconfigure themselves. It’s amazing. How can our meaning change when the same letters, words, phrases, and clauses appear in exactly the same order as they did before?
This is what happened this week when I was reading a thought provoking little book by Mary Shaughnessy entitled Ethics and the Law: A Teacher’s Guide to Decision Making. On page 16 of the book, Shaughnessy states that "The law is not the only consideration in educational decision making. Teachers should exercise prudence and sound professional judgment in their choices." Although I always believed this to be true, I never stopped to think about this until today. Yes, we are bound by the law, but our Christian conscience also binds us.
Are we ,like Shaughnessy says, capable of reaching decisions which are both legal and ethical? Every time we make a decisions must it be both legal and ethical? Is there a time when we should act ethically but illegally? Are there appropriate situation when we should act unethically but legally? ----I fear I’m not making sense.
After reading Shaughnessy’s mighty little book, the simple snow white interpretation I once held about Portia’s courtroom scene melted and a blacker more cynical view replaced it in its stead. Portia may have had the law on her side, but she acted unethically and in a manner unbecoming a Christian. She is charged with several "crimes." Her first mistake was to impersonate a doctor of the law. She intentionally misguided Shylock, the defendant, and the court. She was also merciless in her relentless pursuit to bind the Jew. Obviously if she were to follow Christ’s example, she would have forgiven Shylock an infinite number of time instead of giving him several chances. We could even claim that she maliciously entrapped him. In legalese, I believe this is called misfeasance, the improper performance of some act which a person may lawfully do. I could be wrong.
Shylock, on the other hand, is not entirely innocent. He too was using the law to punish the Christian. As he himself says in one of his speeches, he seeks "revenge." Even before he presented the Christian with the contract, Shylock already had this deadly plan worked out. Even when he had an opportunity to recover, with interest, the money which he lent the Christian , he cries out with "My deeds upon my head! I crave the law, the penalty and forfeit of my bond."
Like I said before, it’s amazing how the same black marks on a page can take on a totally different meaning.
In my opinion, both characters erred. Both pursued the letter of the law and both were unethical. We’ll learn from their mistakes though. Although the law has a hold on them, we’ll forgive them. After all, Shylock, in act 3.1, reminds us in his "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" speech that we are all human in the end. We’ll also forgive because as Portia reminds us, "The quality of mercy is not strained./It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven/Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:/It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
Posted by Alfred M. Meneses on March 18, 1997 at 23:04:43
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries From Genuinely Interested Students 3.15.97: Top | Help