Conflict of Law and Equity

The Merchant of Venice has a great deal to offer in the course of such a reading. The action of the play is concerned
with contract law, but issues of standing, moiety, precedent, and conveyance are also raised. At the most
fundamental level, though, the trial scene in Act IV illustrates the conflict between equity and the strict construction
of the law. Equity, in the legal sense, is "justice according to principles of fairness and not strictly according to
formulated law". The definition implies that one can have justice according to "fairness," or justice according to
"formulated law." Yet if law is not inherently fair, if there is need for a concept of equity, how can the law be said to
be fulfilling its purpose? And if "fairness" is not to be found within the confines of "formulated law," from whence
does it come? A contract, like the one made between Shylock and Antonio, was "fully enforceable at law" (Keeton
136). This means that any penalty stipulated in the contract would be automatically awarded if the contract were not
strictly upheld. A delay in repayment of even a single hour would result in any forfeiture that the debtor had agreed
to pay. It is this notion of "fully enforceable" contract that leads Portia to proclaim initially that "lawfully by this
[contract] the Jew may claim/A pound of flesh. The dichotomy between law and equity, between strict construction
and principles of fairness, is evident in Shylock's initial proclamations. The law is on his side, and he knows it.
When he states, "I stand here for law" and "I crave the law", these terms are meant in binary opposition to equity.
Shylock seeks a justice based upon vengeance, not "fairness." He comes armed with a contract strictly enforceable
and clings tenaciously to the most literal interpretation possible. It is evident that Shylock intends to wield the law as
a weapon against Antonio; when Portia pleads with him to have a doctor stand by to save Antonio's life, Shylock
obstinately refuses on the grounds that "'Tis not in the bond". In contrast to Shylock's reliance upon strict
construction, Portia urges the consideration of principles of equity. She delivers a passionate speech on the need for
considerations of humanity in the administration of the law, and asks for mercy. Mercy, or the imposition of basic
principles of fairness upon the strict letter of the law, lies at the heart of equity; a modern philosopher might refer to
such considerations as "situational ethics." Portia's famous speech on the qualities of mercy attributes this capacity
in mankind to a higher, divinely inspired form of law. Portia thus articulates the fundamental conflict between law
and equity; while justice can be found in each separately, there is a better form of justice to be obtained when mercy
and fairness become considerations in the administration of the law.

Shakespeare endeavours to include the correct legal terminology and procedures where possible in this important
transaction, Although the actual issue of the pound of flesh is a fantasy element in the play, the bond remains
unenforceable because of its illegal consideration, The fact that Portia later states that the bond is void, is legally
incorrect, as she should have dismissed this case on these grounds immediately, Because, she deceived Shylock into
believing that he had a legal right to claim h1s bond, and then later exposed that the bond was unenforceable, it will
be shown that Portia is guilty of entrapment.

The judicial system in The Merchant of Venice resembles two oi the central courts that were present at the time that
the play was written; Shakespeare prov'1des the audience with legal technicalities and terminology symbolic of
England's Court of Common Law, and at other instances, the Court of Chancery. The Duke should have dismissed
the case on grounds of it being against public policy. The court appears to be operating under a Chancery rule as the
Duke informs Shylock that they all expect a 'gentle answer', that is, one of mercy. Shylock is treated as an outsider,
which involves being referred to as ''the Jew''.

Religious Discrimination (Religious Victimization of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

Anti-Semitism and Religious Intolerance in Aristocratic Age English Literature
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice continues to smack of an anti-Semitic theme, as evidenced by Shylock’s
indirect characterization as a bigot. Shylock, a character, from the famous Shakespearean play, The Merchant of
Venice, would have immediately been seen as a villain, for one reason, and one reason only, he is a Jew. However,
if they had viewed Shylock as a normal human being, not as a devil, they would have noticed that Shylock is not a
villain, but a victim. The Christians in this play, particularly Antonio, a merchant, had abused, betrayed, and insulted
Shylock.   Antonio had kicked him and called him names. Shylock was also backstabbed by his own daughter, who
stole from him and ran away with a Christian. Shylock is a victim of harassment by the Christians, a victim of
betrayal by his own daughter, and a victim of prejudice because he had to give up his religion due to wanting
Antonio’s flesh. The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is the victim, because he is mistreated. The Christians, mostly
Antonio, mistreated Shylock, physically and verbally. Shylock says, “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, and
spet upon my Jewish gaberdine”. Antonio insults Shylock verbally by calling him names, like a cut throat dog, and
by spitting on his Jewish gabardine. Other Christians were also insulting Shylock’s Jewish religion. “If the Jew her
father come to heaven, it will be for his gentle daughter’s sake.” This was said by Lorenzo, who basically states that
Christianity is the religion that is powerful enough to make anyone go to heaven. Lorenzo insults Jews, saying that
Shylock and his religion are not strong enough to get a soul into heaven, which is extremely disrespectful. 

Shylock ultimately stipulates that “an equal pound/Of your fair flesh” (Shakespeare 1.3.149-150) be remunerated if
Antonio fails to pay the loan. This barbaric means of bartering depicts Shylock as savage, cruel and greedy; when
this general besmirchment is extrapolated to all Jews, it reflects anti-Semitic sentiment that pervaded fifteenth and
sixteenth century Europe, when Jews were shunned as unbelievers in the Protestant faith and branded scapegoats for
incidents such as the Bubonic plague and the crucifixion of Christ. Shylock’s Jewishness constitutes the basis of the
court’s dispute with him because one of the remedies the court prescribes for Shylock as a means for redress is his
conversion from Judaism to Christianity. Accordingly, the court connotes that Shylock’s indictable flaw that
requires correction is his being Jewish. Thus, indirectly, the passage surges with anti-Semitic feeling expressed by
the characters during the trial. Since Shylock is defined by his being a Jew and that fact is his salient characteristic,
any critique of him can be deemed anti-Semitic. Accordingly, the abusive behavior exhibited towards Shylock
during the trial reflects an anti-Semitic theme and exemplifies this type of prejudiced thought that permeated
England at the time, which favored unfair treatment towards Jews. Like Shylock, who is robbed of his freedom of
worship by Christians, Jews have also been repeatedly forced to convert by the sword throughout Europe,
particularly during the Crusades. Likewise, many Jews were not allowed to become a part of English society unless
they converted to Christianity.
Women as Objects of Men in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice"

The relationships between women and men and the broader social, judicial, familial, psychological or political
ramifications of this relationship. This description of patriarchy can usefully be applied in analysing a drama such as
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (1998)[1]. The female characters in this comedy are embedded in societal
structures of patriarchy. This can be seen in the influence of father figures, the economic principles which underlie
their existence and the final subjection to their husbands even though they actively participate. But eventually, they
remain in their traditional role, not being able to subvert the societal system effectively. Within the play The
Merchant of Venice, the female characters achieve amazing deeds to “clean up” the messes that their husbands had
made and achieve their own goals, only to return to their subordinate positions as wives. Portia, Nerissa and
Jessica’s assumption of the male form to move unnoticed between Belmont and Venice allowed them a glimpse into
the world of feministic ideals. The construct of feminism is based upon the woman’s struggle in society for social,
political, and economic equality with men. Feminism seeks to eliminate the notion of sexism, which is the
degradation, oppression, and subordination of women. The radical feminist perspective has a focus on gender
inequality, so to defy traditional societal norms of gender, for example, cross-dressing might be a physical action
that a woman could perform as a method of control, empowerment and activism to promote this ideal. The female
characters Jessica, Nerissa and Portia all engage in cross-dressing however, each woman uses this activity to achieve
different aims as well as possess varying opinions regarding its use.

Portia’s disguise as Balthazar the lawyer should be studied closely in order to understand how the concepts of
masculinity and femininity are constructed in a patriarchal society. In fact, the theatrical cross-dressing, Dusinberre
argues, exposed how such a society’s categorization of gender roles, activities and behaviours was based not on any
absolute quality or moral value, but on ‘acting’ or mimicking those rules and behaviours which signified masculinity
or femininity. Portia shows this awareness when 103 she talks to Nerissa about what people will think about her
when dressed in a male costume. Through this account of what makes up masculinity, Shakespeare hits a double
target - his critique of masculinity through Portia only re-asserts her femininity more firmly. Portia’s male disguise
in The Merchant of Venice is significant for one more factor which is absent in other cross-dressed female
characters like Viola or Rosalind. Portia’s appearances that she makes as a male lawyer are perfect, sustained and
uninterrupted 104 performances which never reveal the inner, feminine self. It is this inner, feminine self that
exposes the anxiety, dilemma and passion of other cross-dressed heroines of Shakespeare. Thus, Dusinberre
concludes: “Shakespeare arouses no special affection for Portia in her breeches and therefore has none to disengage
when he returns her to her gown.