Assignment: Law and Literature

Discipline: English

[An Assignment submitted to Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla]

Course In-charge Submitted by

Dr Ruchi Thakur Savvy Thakur

102020213

(B.A. LL.B. 1st Semester)

HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

16 MILE, SHIMLA-MANDI NATIONAL HIGHWAY, GHANDAL

DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH-171014

Ph. 0177-2779802, 0177-2779803, Fax: 0177-2779802

 Acknowledgements

I wish to take this opportunity to offer my sincere gratitude to my academic supervisor, Dr.
Ruchi Raj Thakur (English Prof) Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla. Without
her kind direction and proper guidance, this study wouldn’t have come to fruition.

I would also like to show my gratitude to my batchmates for their insight and reviews that
greatly assisted me through my writing this paper.
The study was undertaken with the help of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla,
and I am very thankful for having been given the opportunity.

Last but not the least; I would want to thank everyone who guided me throughout the process of
making this study a successful venture
Introduction

Interdisciplinary study allows synthesis of ideas and characteristics from various disciplines. At
the same time it addresses their individual differences and helps settle them.

This inter- disciplinary approach has extended to interpreting the law and legal institutions in
light of the most unlikely of themes; this being evidenced by ‘legal history’, ‘law and
economics’, ‘film and law’ and the subject of this note, ‘law and literature’. This growing
interest in ‘law and’ is premised on the notion that “the legal world is not to be understood on its
own terms, but requires the application of some method or substance provided by other
disciplines” 1

Pontificating regarding the relationship between law and literature ignites a vast array of ideas.

Law and Literature are both the same yet very different. Both of them are manifestations of the
human experience stemming from the society. Law helps in bringing justice to the people while
Literature helps capture the essence of what it’s like to be those people. The methodology
adapted by both subjects might be different, while law takes a practical approach and looks at the
facts of the cases literature tends to dig deeper into the crevices of human experience. Albeit this
they stand afoot on the common ground of society which has them entwined even if it might not
be apparent.

Apart from a common source of origin and function even the method of study adopted by both
disciplines is the same. It is thus revealed in the way that they both use words and rhetoric. They
gather human experiences and stories. Beneath the sheen of strict language, they simply reflect
what it is to be a human.

Anne Coughlin says it over and over—there are certain legal spaces where it’s very hard to get
information about what’s taking place. To get into those legal spaces, she asserts, “Lawyers and
law professors almost have to turn to narratives to understand how our system is functioning.”

1 Marc Galanter & Mark A. Edwards, Introduction: The Part of Law Ands, wis. L. Rev. 375, 376 (1997).
Apart from that it’s believed that certain judgements such as that of Lord Denning and a few
other legal luminaries hold literary merit.

The same holds true the other way around too- literature has been influenced by law, for various
works of literature has had mention of law in them. The Trial by Kafka, Merchant of Venice by
Shakespeare, How to kill a mockingbird are a few such examples.

One thing appears recurrently in many works treated as literature and that is the element of
drama. Which is where the interconnection with law becomes so obvious. Nothing could
possibly be more dramatic, or attractive, than the setting of a courtroom trial. An adversarial
system, foe placed against foe, the slow build-up of tension between the parties — all of these
are irresistible to a literary mind with dramatic proclivities.

To understand the relationship between law and literature through this paper I’d be dissecting
The Trial as well as Merchant of Venice and the various aspects of law they wish to capture.

The Trial

This book deals with Kafka’s vision of law. A law is expected to be fair and just. And if it is not,
it is expected that we work in unison to overturn and rectify that law. But Kafka’s vision is: Law
is abstract. Law Kafka’s views throughout this novel make it allegory as it does not point
towards a specific law, but THE LAW in general. The novel also shows the corruption and lust
of the judges in Courts.

Throughout the novel one can feel K’s frustration with the legal system. On his 31st birthday he
is ambushed and gets told that there are proceedings going on against him. The reason for which
is kept unknown throughout. Instead of presumption of innocence which is vital for any trial
there’s a sense of presumption of guilt against him. Which places him at a disadvantage from the
beginning and the end where he gets executed without a proper trial solidifies the twisted nature
of the so called “Justice” system in Kafka’s world.

The book reminds one about the slow pace of Indian Judiciary and its inability to deliver justice
within a reasonable period of time. Very often under trials fail to get bail and serve more time
than the maximum punishment that has been stipulated by law. It appears as though Josef K is a
literary representation of an average litigant in India.

K’s experience can be synonymous to several people who have to go through the legal system
unaware of their rights due to systematic inequalities. Or people who face problems due to
corruption and delays that court cases are often fraught with. Even though Kafka employs a
bizarre and surreal method of storytelling, the tales are unnervingly real.

The Merchant of Venice

Underneath the literary richness of this play by Shakespeare, lies a message about legal culture,
legal history and the concept of Justice.

Justice is one of the play’s biggest themes; throughout, characters demand and receive justice—
and some characters are even trapped by it. It makes sense, then, that the other big theme of this
play is mercy— justice and mercy go together like yin and yang. The idea of mercy seems to
follow all the moments of justice in this play— Shakespeare won’t give you one without the
other.

Portia is trapped by an odd sense of justice. Before her father’s death, he made a strange rule—
she could only marry a man who could pick the right casket out of a choice of three; and any
man that picks the wrong casket has to swear to leave and never marry anyone. It’s odd, but
Portia is trapped by it; even though her father was dead, his word is law. We can see that she has
every intention of following her father’s wishes.

When Bassanio finally arrives at her house, after a series of buffoonish suitors, Portia urges him
to wait a while before choosing a casket; she tells him that “in choosing wrong I lose your
company.” Even though she clearly loves Bassanio already, she plans to honor her father’s
wishes— even if it means she has to lose Bassanio forever.
She holds her other suitors to a high standard of justice, too. When each one chooses the wrong
casket— one silver, one gold— she tells them that they must leave her forever; and, beyond that,
they can never again woo another woman. Their prospects for marriage are completely over. It’s
a harsh penalty to pay, but since they agreed to it beforehand, justice dictates that they have to
abide by those rules. In this instance, there’s a conspicuous lack of mercy. We can’t help but
wonder how Portia’s father, and Portia herself, could punish these men so severely without any
kind of forgiveness. One strike, and they’re out; no more chances for them. Shakespeare seems
to be setting the stage with these lighthearted scenes for heavier examples of the powers of
justice and mercy.

The most obvious example of justice within The Merchant of Venice makes for one of the most
interesting stories in all of theatre. We watch with amazement and horror as Shylock demands
his own twisted justice; he demands to be allowed to cut out Antonio’s flesh as a punishment for
an unrepaid loan. Throughout act 4, Shylock references justice so many times that we lose count.
He demands, over and over again, for his “bond;” that is, Antonio’s flesh. He refuses to listen to
any pleas or supplications. Shylock believes that justice is the highest power to which he can
appeal. His absolute certainty in the rightness of his cause is astounding to watch: how, we
wonder, can someone be so set in his ways that he has no concept of mercy? The duke, who acts
as judge to this transaction, says that Shylock is “uncapable of pity, void and empty from any
dram of mercy.” This really isn’t an exaggeration. Shylock’s unrelenting sense of justice is his
way of seeking revenge on everyone who has wronged him in the past (and there have been
many).

It is the other members of this melodrama who continue to bring up the theme of mercy
throughout the trial. They beg for it, and they cannot believe that Shylock has none. After all,
even when Bassanio offers Shylock three times the amount of money lost, Shylock still refuses;
he “crave[s] the law, the penalty and forfeit of [his] bond.” And it’s here that Shylock practically
condemns himself; he says, “my deeds upon my own head.” In denying Antonio any mercy, he is
inadvertently denying himself any future mercy from anyone.

It’s in this exciting scene that we get one of the most beautiful monologues in all of Shakespeare.
In it, Portia explains what mercy is and why it’s important. “The quality of mercy is not
strained,” she explains. “In the course of justice none of us should see salvation.” And she’s
right. Without mercy to temper it, justice quickly becomes something tyrannical, swift, and
incredibly harsh.

When Shylock again refuses to show any mercy, he becomes condemned. In one of the most
exciting courtroom revelations in theatre, Portia declares that Shylock can take his pound of flesh
— but he cannot take a drop of blood. If he does, his lands, his money, and even his life are
forfeit to the law. Now it’s Shylock that is, ironically, at the mercy of justice. And this time,
Portia refuses to give it to him. Interestingly enough, though she seems to believe very much in
the qualities of mercy, she herself has none to spare for Shylock. So, in the end, Shylock is
powerless to the demands of justice. It’s only because of the small mercy of the duke and
Antonio that Shylock even keeps his life; beyond that, though, he loses all of his possessions,
and, in a particularly cruel punishment, he is forced to abandon his lifelong belief system and
become a Christian. In a way, his very soul becomes forfeit to the bounds of justice to which he
so fervently clung.

Though throughout the play most of the characters constantly talk about the virtues of mercy, it
seems that none of them are merciful enough to forgive Shylock. Overall, the only mercy
Shylock receives is being able to escape with his life. Mercy, apparently, is not as easily given as
it is taken. Every single character demands justice for others and mercy for themselves.

All of this is quite similar to the inconsistencies of the real justice system and human nature. The
self serving ways of the characters and their hypocrisy when it comes to being merciful is an
example of the same. We talk about human rights vehemently yet countries have capital
punishment, despite of studies repeatedly saying it doesn’t lead to deterrance. It is almost as if
one’s propagating vengeance in the name of retribution.