Justice is often portrayed as a blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice. The usual interpretation of blindness in that case is that judges need to look past their personal feelings and prejudices and uniformly apply the law. The Merchant of Venice is also concerned about blindness. Lancelet Gobbo, for instance, plays a trick on his "sandblind" father who cannot recognize his own son. Jessica, when she meets her lover Lorenzo after escaping her father's house, declares that: "But love is blind, and lovers cannot see / The pretty follies that themselves commit," (2.6.37-8). Some characters, like Morocco and Aragon, make poor judgments based on the appearances of things. While other characters, like Antonio, warn about confusing appearance and reality. He claims that Shylock, for instance, "Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, / A goodly apple rotten at the heart." (1.3.109-10)
What is this play telling us about the human ability to discriminate and discern? Our ability to go beyond appearances to the heart of things? What does it tell us about the law's ability to render fair and just decisions?
The play tells us that the human brain thinks logically and quickly when deciding and discriminating, and that trials are complicated and difficult to win.
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Merchant of Venice, humans think with logic and reason rather than with their hearts. Even Morocco, who says that all he wants is Portia, still dives deep into the meaning on the poem, focusing on what he thinks is most important. He says “‘Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire.’ Why, that’s the lady! All the world desires her” (II.3.42-44). Morocco doesn’t consider any alternative factors, such as the tricky placement of the picture in the drab box rather than the shiny one. Shakespeare portrays this decision maker as very calculating, looking at facts rather than using emotional judgement. In discrimination, The Merchant of Venice points to snap judgements based on cultural identifiers when judging something. Solanio, quoting Shylock, says “‘My daughter, O my ducats, O my daughter! Fled with a Christian!’” (II.8.15-16). He is most concerned with his daughter’s husband’s Christianity than anything else, a sentiment that still has equivalents today.
In the law area of the play, the trial of the chests, it seems clear that there are a few issues about the justice system being commented on. The rules of the trial being written long before their use, so there is little room for debate. Also, the confusion of the labels is similar to having a lesser lawyer in a trial: the incorrect interpretation of the hints led to Morocco and Aragon losing the trials. Bassanio also proves that feeling rather than thinking works better when he says “Hard food for Midas, I will none of thee. Nor none of thee, thou pale and common drudge ‘Tween man and man. But thou, thou meager lead, Which rather threaten’st than dost promise aught, Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence, and here choose I. Joy by the consequence!” (III.2.105-110). His out-of-the-box thinking helped him win, just like a lawyer who is well trained helps a client win.
The Merchant of Venice points out the quick judgement people have in decision making and of others, and of the pitfalls of the law system through the vehicle of the trials of the caskets.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Merchant of Venice, is not a very good novel for people to base their beliefs of justice and righteousness. At the heart of the novel there are two main story lines, one of which follows the romantic pursuits of Portia, and the other follows the trials of Antonio after his life’s savings are lost. In each of these scenarios, the “protagonists” are regarded as benevolent for a multitude of subjective reasons, but looking into their personalities, it is arguable that they should be regarded as such. Firstly there is Antonio, who is facing the possibility of death (from Shylock) due to the inability to repay a loan. Now it is important to note how Antonio fell into this fate. Shylock requested a bond of one pound of flesh from Antonio and refuses to accept money because, as he puts it, “If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”(Act 3, Sc.1, Line 65) This brings to light the underlying reasons why this story line exists. Shylock was wronged and treated as a deplorable person simply because of his heritage, and as a result of this he seeks revenge. This shows that humans grossly discriminate against others for their culture, and in this case treat them as an animals because of it. However, the Shylock vs. Antonio story line does show that the law is upheld and served in a just manner, and Antonio and Shylock are both legally judged throughout act four by the written law and agreements, and nothing else. Next there is Portia, who by every sense of the word, is racist. She receives a Moroccan Prince, named Morocco, as a competitor for her hand in marriage. His lines, which begin Act 2, are a plea towards Portia against any predispositions she may have against his ethnicity. The trial which Morocco goes through is fair and just, because he is and is allowed to choose his fate freely and without outside influence, and he does so in a very thought out manner. However he fails and must leave, which he does so with grace. As he departs Portia utters a curt good riddance by saying, “Let all of his complexion choose me so” (Act 2, Sc. 8, Line 87). Not only is this obvious discrimination, but it also shows that Portia is unable to look past Morocco’s skin color to see the care and flattery he took in his trial and general behavior. It is clear in both of these cases that The Merchant of Venice depicts humans as beings who discriminate and are unable to look past the shell of culture or ethnicity. However, it also shows that humans have a pleasantly impartial justice system, which allows for fair judgment and just decisions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Merchant of Venice reveals that the rule of law does not always provide a just outcome, but it still must be followed to prevent the erosion of the its legitimacy. After Antonio is unable to repay Shylock for his loan of three thousand ducats, Venetian regulation dictates that the “bond is forfeit, / and lawfully [] the Jew may claim / A pound of flesh, to be by him cut off / Nearest the merchant’s heart” (4.1.239 – 4.1.242). The rule of law guarantees that every bond, regardless of its stipulations, must be repaid, or else the borrower must suffer the consequences. In this scenario, Antionio’s friend Bassanio pleads with the Duke that he should “wrest once the law to your authority. / To do a great right, do a little wrong” (4.1.224 – 4.1.225), because the bond’s conditions are likely to kill Antonio. Except Shylock, everyone else present clearly views the penalty as morally reprehensible and unjust. From this perspective, most would believe that the law does not provide the justice that it strives to uphold.
ReplyDeleteHowever, calls for mercy fall flat when Portia, disguised as a lawyer, and the Duke consider the effects of letting Antonio go on the legitimacy of the law. Doing so “will be recorded for a precedent / And many an error by the same example / Will rush into the state” (4.1.228 – 4.1.230). Since court decisions frequently look towards past precedence established in a similar case, allowing Antonio to leave would only create an array of similar cases where borrowers face no penalties after forfeiting a loan, which is especially dangerous in a city that prospers from trade and finance. The rationale behind this decision seems distinctly utilitarian, in which the extreme suffering of Antonio is preferred over the potential harms done to the legitimacy of law that could affect hundreds of court cases over the years to come.
Every single court case will have its intricacies that make it unique. However, as the old adage goes, justice is blind. It signifies the complete objectivity of the rule of law, always making the same decision on the same issues with no exceptions. This impartiality provides the law with complete legitimacy. However, sometimes, like in the case of Antonio, the inability for the law to go beyond the court case and assess the moral consequences of punishments can lead to immoral decisions. At least in this case, everything turned out all right.
The Merchant of Vince has thus far created a unique combination of commentary on discrimination and justice. The play tells us that the human ability to discriminate and discern is quick, natural, and universal. Whether entering a marriage competition or business deal, discrimination is present and influencing a wide variety of decisions effecting many different aspects of life. Even when speaking of marriage, discrimination and pre-determined assumptions drive Portia to rule out love with the Prince of Morocco. She says, “If I could bid the fifth welcome with so good heart as I can bid the other four farewell, I should be glad of his approach. If he have the condition of a saint and the complexion of a devil, I had rather he should shrive me than wive me” (1.2.127-131). In this case, Portia, and people like her, are completely intolerant of anyone who does not share their ethnic or religious background regardless of income or status to the point where she rejects the notion of marrying the Prince of Morocco because he has dark skin. Furthermore, discrimination roams free in all parties, whether they are the oppressed and the oppressor creating a situation where the law invariably will be forced to uphold a deal or situation crafted with discriminatory intent. Shylock indirectly makes a deal backed by the laws of Venice with Antonio and his allies even though his opinion of Antonio is low as shown when he states, “How like a fawning publican he looks! I hate him for he is a Christian” (1.3.42-52). Unfortunately, this underlying bias and discrimination present throughout the society makes it impossible for humans to act like rational beings that have the ability to render fair and just decisions. Rather, the play shows that while the law must be just by following legal precedent and the current statutes, they may not be fair. In the trial, Portia correctly rules that “There is no power in Venice can alter a decree established. ‘Twill be recorded for a precedent…” (4.1.208-210). While the ruling of the court is a just one because it follows the precedent and is legally correct, it is not fair as the usury is extreme and deadly. In our own history, we have seen the Supreme Court of the United States make similar rulings in Dred Scott v. Sanford that followed precedent and at the time was viewed as legally “just” but was not fair to any of the millions of Americans that were oppressed and abused as a result. Overall, the play tells us that the prevalence of discrimination in all facets of life shows that the human ability to discriminate is universal and has the potential to harm the laws ability to create rulings that are both fair and just for the parties involved.
ReplyDeleteThe Merchant of Venice very clearly emphasizes the significant role that appearance has on human judgement, and also underlines the importance of a ‘blind’ court. As much as people might refuse to admit it, appearance plays an enormous role in how humans interact with each other – The same goes with how humans judge different people and objects, and The Merchant of Venice demonstrates this concept repeatedly throughout the play (in the Trial of the Caskets with Morocco, Aragon and Bassanio; in the Trial of Antonio vs. Shylock, and much more). The Merchant of Venice also presents the ability to see beyond appearances as one which is rare and honorable among humans - The Trial of the Caskets, for instance, searches for one’s ability to find the beauty in things that are ugly and the ugliness in things that are beautiful – Such as when Morocco unlocks the Golden casket: “All that glisters is not gold – Often have you heard that told. Many a man his life hath sold but my outside to behold. Gilded tombs do worms enfold” (l. 73-77). Additionally, since this is the case, it only makes sense for justice to be blind. While judges aren’t necessarily blindfolded (literally) in court proceedings, it is up to them to assess the entire situation justly. Overall, The Merchant of Venice shows that the law is capable of rendering these fair and just decisions, as long as it can separate prejudices of appearance from the actual situation at hand.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was first contemplating this question, I initially found it extremely difficult to come up with an overarching idea or message that Shakespeare is trying to convey in these examples of blindness. But, I have begun to believe that this lack of clarity is a deliberate choice and message all in itself. The ambiguous nature of blindness and discrimination is purposefully incorporated into the play as a way to mimic the unclear and split role of these abilities in human nature.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Shakespeare clearly exhibits that humans are undoubtedly capable of differentiating one thing from another. Shylock recognizes this natural ability for men discern (and often times, emphasize) the differences between good Christian men and the bad, evil Jews: "Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as Christian is? (3.1 59-63). During this very famous speech, Shylock criticizes his oppressors for so easily pointing out what makes them different, but so blind to the very things that they share. So, is Shakespeare trying to say that humans have a tendency to find disparities between people where they are not necessarily important?
While there are many instances where characters accentuate the differences between two individuals, there are also examples of when people seem blind to the realities that lie beneath deceiving appearances. And, while both Lancelet and Jessica are great examples of how appearances are accepted at face value, there is another instance that is not as obvious: Portia during the trial of the caskets. Although her father has set up an unbiased, fair system to win her hand in marriage, I believe that Portia cannot resist her emotions and decides to help fudge the outcome by dropping not-so-subtle hints for Bassanio, a man who she loves and trusts completely. And although their love seems wholesome at first, Portia soon learns that Bassanio has more love for his friend, Antonio, than for herself. In court, Bassanio reveals, “Antonio, I am married to a wife/…/I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all/ Here to this devil, to deliver you” (4.1 294, 298-299) Therefore, Shakespeare is trying to convey that Portia is blind to the hidden identity and motives of her husband, who she believes is the “just” and morally right man to marry. But, would it have been better and more just to follow her father’s order and maintain this blindness to internal vs. external realities? Or, was Portia right in leading Bassanio to answer in an attempt to undue the over-simplified and morally-blind trial?
Overall, I believe that Shakespeare demonstrates that humans obviously have the ability to discriminate, but also that this ability does not usually surpass surface level. That is, people easily point out the physical and highly visible characteristics that separate them (appearance, religion, gender, language, social class), but discerning the external versus internal realities of an individual is much harder. And, therefore, it must be asked: should the legal system discriminate on both the surface AND deeper level, or should it be blind to one and not the other? As shown, the justice system tries to be blind to the superficial differences, but this mentality is much more controversial when regarding deceiving appearances. And although the law tries to cement this ideal of “blindness” throughout the judicial system in order to establish unbiased precedence, this may not always be the most just solution. In Shylock and Antonio’s contract, the law is blind to the fact that Shylock is a Jew and Antonio is a Christian. But, it is also blind to the ideals and personal emotions motivating Shylock as well as the fact that Shylock practically has the ability to kill Antonio – all while being protected by the law.
In the Merchant of Venice Shakespeare argues that the law shouldn’t be evaluated in absolute sense, but imbued with circumstance and the quality of mercy. When Antonio is forced to pay his cruel bond to Shylock, Solanio remarks that the Duke would never let such a heinous act be carried out, to which Antonio replies, “The duke cannot deny the course of law,/For the commodity that strangers have/With us in Venice, if it be denied,/Will much impeach the justice of his state” (3.3.29-34). The goal of the law as Antonio states is to uphold ‘the justice of state’. Yet, when the law is applied in its unconditional state, the Duke is powerless. Even though Shylock’s bond is cruel, excessive, and a definite miscarriage of fair justice, strict interpretations of the law prevent it from being altered. When Portia is pleading for Shylock to show mercy on his bond, she states, “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” (4.1.190-193). Unlike the law, mercy is not ‘strained’ it’s flexible in its use and discernment. Therefore it would a preferable succor in determining judgement as it would allow for cases like Antonio’s to be dealt with in a fair matter. Additionally, mercy comes from heaven and is blesseth as if it is a gift from God upon men. As such it would be foolish for people to neglect this gift and if God uses mercy to judge others, one should do their best to mirror God and use this quality in the same way. When Portia flips the scales and excessive punishments on Shylock, Antonio shows him mercy declaring, “So please my lord the duke and all the court,/To quit the fine for one half of his goods/ I am content, so he will let me have/The other half in use to render it” (4.1.396-399). Throughout the novel, the reader is obviously supposed to sympathize with and act more like Antonio than Shylock. Therefore, while Shylock continued and pushed for a strict interpretation of the law, Antonio shunned it and showed mercy upon Shylock.
ReplyDeleteHumans will always discriminate and judge others. It is a subconscious effect, almost a survival instinct to a degree. We size someone up, and categorize them based on how much of a threat they are. This is very pronounced in the play. All of the suitors are sorted up based on who they are because Portia sees them as potential “threats”, or people of importance that she should keep track of. Shylock is also given some characteristics due to his religious views. Along with this idea is how much we value outside appearances. We say to not judge a book by its cover, and yet we base so much of our knowledge of a stranger within a few minutes of starting a conversation. It takes a lot of time to get to the real truth of something, owing to the fact that we often need trust to do so. The last bit of this question talks about the law. The law is always based on subjective interpretation. We may say that the law says this, but then we encounter situations that are made too specific for the law, or are twisted about by the very wording of the prosecutor. Thus there is a need for someone, in most cases a judge, to decide where the differences stop. But how much does this influence a fair or just decision? I would suggest quite a lot considering that in many cases people have gotten out of their crime with minimum punishment due to how they presented their side of the case. In that sense it is vital in how you give your side of the story to sway the law on your side. In that case, I draw the conclusion that the law cannot be just and fair if two sides are vying for its favor, since one will benefit while the other will not.
ReplyDelete