Friday, November 8, 2019

Critically discuss the portrayal of constitutional Essay Example

Critically discuss the portrayal of constitutional Essay Example Critically discuss the portrayal of constitutional Essay Critically discuss the portrayal of constitutional Essay those of other nationalities shacking in Venice. Shylock, introduced in the phase waies as Shylock the Jew’ , is systematically set apart from the citizens of Venice with whom he does concern for his religion and his profession as usurer. However, he remains blameworthy under Venetian regulation of jurisprudence every bit much as the Christian citizens. In a universe structured by rigorous attachment to the jurisprudence to protect the financial involvements of both citizens and aliens, Shylock is undone by the actual reading of his ain contract. The Merchant of Venicenowadayss a series of conflicting manners of jurisprudence and socio-economic constructions. The confrontation in the drama between Shylock and Antonio can be interpreted as a struggle between viing systems of jurisprudence: old jurisprudence based on Old Testament commandments and pronouncements, and the new jurisprudence based on Christian morality.The Merchant of Venice, more so than any other of Shakespeare’s dramas, is saturated with scriptural mentions which indicate theological and legal principles dramatized in the struggle over the bond. [ 3 ] Shylock, as a Jew, is bound non merely by the Venetian regulation of jurisprudence but besides by Old Testament jurisprudence. Antonio, Bassanio, and the citizens of Venice are bound by the philosophy of New Testament morality every bit much as by Venetian legal codification. The Bible is the benchmark against which ethical and legal differences are judged, and attachment to Venetian regulation of jurisprud ence reflects non merely legal duty, but moral responsibility. Shakespeare’s drama highlights the convergence of economic sciences, the penal codification, and godly jurisprudence. WithinThe Merchant of Venicethere is an intersection between friendly relationship and jurisprudence which can be traced back to classical influences. Impressions of friendly relationship in connexion with the overpowering accent on trade and net income alongside the rigorous attachment to the regulation of jurisprudence appears contrary to a modern audience accustomed to friendly relationships based on pleasance and common involvement. Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethical motivesremained a prima influence on Renaissance impressions of friendly relationship. He outlines three types of friendly relationship: friendly relationship based on pleasance, friendly relationship based on goodness, and friendly relationship based on public-service corporation. It is this concluding type of friendly relationship which most clearly emerges from the relationships of the drama. All characters, irrespective of their station, are ruled by opportunism. Harmonizing to Aristotle, friendly relationship of public-service corporation can hold a moral or a legal dimension: Such a connection when on stated footings is one of the legal type, whether it be a strictly concern affair of exchange on the topographic point, or a more broad adjustment for future refund, though still with an understanding as to thequid pro quo; and in the latter instance the duty is clear and can non do difference †¦ The moral type on the other manus is non based on declared footings, but the gift or other service is given as to a friend, although the giver expects to have an equivalent or greater return, as though it had non been a free gift but a loan ; and as he ends the relationship in a different spirit from that in which he began it, he will kick. [ 4 ] Clearly, none of the relationships within the drama reflect the perfect love’ of Aristotle’s ideal of friendly relationship as described inNichomachean Ethical motives, but the more secular friendly relationship of public-service corporation. Aristotle’s description of such friendly relationships is in footings of concern and exchange ; nil is given without anticipating something in return. Such friendly relationships based upon self-interest are built-in to a politico-economic which maps to protect the chase of trade and net income. Thus the single relationships within the drama contribute to and continue the regulation of jurisprudence which governs commercialism and trade in Venice. All of the characters with the drama use their relationships with other characters to farther opportunism, to changing grades. Bassanio uses his close friendly relationship with Antonio to procure a loan he himself can non vouch, and when the bond is contested it is Antonio instead than Bassanio that must support himself. Bassanio goes so far as to inquire Antonio to see the loan as an investing, determining their relationship in concern footings instead than the more familiar footings of friendly relationship. I owe you much, and ( like a willful young person ) That which I owe is lost, but if you please To hit another pointer that self manner Which you did hit the first, I do non doubt, ( As I will watch the purpose ) or to happen both, Or convey your latter jeopardy back once more, And gratefully rest debitor for the first ( I.i. 146-52 ) Bassanio desires the money in order to court Portia, who is a lady amply left , and to procure her luck to pay off his ain debts ( I.i. 161 ) . Although Bassanio speak both of love for Antonio and the beauty and virtuousness of Portia, it is continually the economic factor of their relationships which is at the head of the addresss. I owe the most in money and in love he tells Antonio, And from your love I have a guarantee / To unburthen all my secret plans and intents / How to acquire clear of all the debts I owe ( I.i. 131-4 ) . Thus Bassanio’s relationships, though professed to be grounded on love and virtuousness, are clearly based on opportunism, reflecting a wider social accent on money instead than fraternal or romantic love. Shylock’s actions and demeanour towards Antonio are clearly motivated by net income, and as a friendly relationship based on public-service corporation is transeunt and unstable, rapidly deteriorates as Shylock argues that Antonio’s lb of flesh is deerely bought’ ( IV.i. 100 ) . Aristotle argues inPoliticssthat vigorish is, because it net incomes from money itself, contrary to nature and thereby incompatible with friendly relationship. Antonio himself argues for friendly relationship against vigorish: If thou wilt lend this money, lend it non As to thy friends, for when did friendship take A strain for bare metal of his friend? ( I.iii.126-9 ) Antonio clearly can non accommodate the contrary impressions of friendly relationship and trade and net income ; nevertheless, Shylock equates friendly relationship with Aristotle’s thought of friendly relationship of public-service corporation. He offers both money and friendly relationship to Antonio, inquiring in return that Antonio sign a bond to pay a lb of flesh. I would be friends with you, and have your love , Shylock professes, but his thought of friendly relationship is clearly bound up in net income and self-service. The love he shows to Antonio is in fact a lawfully binding understanding. This kindness will I demo, Travel with me to a notary, seal me there Your individual bond, and ( in a merry athletics ) If you repay me non on such a twenty-four hours In such a topographic point, such amount or amounts as are Express’d in the status, allow the forfeit Be nominated for an equal lb Of your just flesh, to be cut off and taken In what portion of your organic structure pleaseth me. ( I.iii.139-47 ) Usurer professes that he extend [ s ] this friendship to Antonio ; a all right friendly relationship so which demands a lb of flesh in return for a loan of money ( I.iii. 164 ) . Clearly Shylock is working from an Aristotelean impression of a friendly relationship of public-service corporation which serves opportunism and belongs in the kingdom of mercantile system and commercialism. The impression of friendly relationship in the drama is elaborately tied to the thought of justness. As a friendly relationship of public-service corporation belongs in the kingdom of commercialism, it is hence capable to legal power under Venetian jurisprudence. Aristotle states that the claims of justness besides should increase with the closeness of the friendly relationship, since friendly relationship and justness exist between the same individuals and are co-extensive in range. [ 5 ] Friendship, far from staying a private relationship outside the kingdom of judicial ordinance, is built-in to the socio-economic construction of Venetian mercantile system, and is hence capable to the regulation of jurisprudence. Shylock friendship’ with Antonio and Bassanio is tested against the justness of the tribunal, and finally found to be unsound. The Venice of Shakespeare’s drama is ruled by attachment to public jurisprudence, committedness to contracts, and overpoweringly the chase of stuff wealth. Despite the sometimes unscrupulous actions of the characters, the regulating rule remains the regulation of jurisprudence. This reflects the comparative stableness of the Venetian regulation of jurisprudence from the late thirteenth to the late eighteenth centuries, a politically stableness termed the myth of Venice’ for its widespread but mostly baseless repute for autonomy, societal harmoniousness, and just justness. [ 6 ] Ironically it is Antonio, who has the most to lose from the legal conflict over the bond which threatens his very life, is the most repetitive upon adhering to jurisprudence to continue commodity’ . Shylock hates Antonio non, as he professes, because of his faith, but because he refuses to bear down involvement on his loans: I hate him for he is a Christian: But more, for that in low simpleness He lends out money gratis, and brings down The rate of usance here with us in Venice ( I.iii. 38-40 ) . Shylock’s grudge against Antonio reflects a wider Elizabethan concern with vigorish and one which highlighted the struggle between spiritual philosophy and secular jurisprudence. Usury itself was condemned by Medieval and Renaissance churches, and is forbidden by New Testament jurisprudence: Owe no adult male anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. [ 7 ] The Bible condemned vigorish in no unsure footings, but spiritual philosophers such as John Calvin and Francis Bacon argued that, in a modern commonwealth, vigorish was inevitable’ . [ 8 ] Thus Antonio’s refusal to impart money on involvement reflects non a generous and altruistic character, but an attachment to the Christian jurisprudence of the clip. Antonio represents a rigorous attachment to jurisprudence and authorization. He voluntarily submits to the bond which would take his life because the jurisprudence which governs belongings involvements demands that it be upheld. Venetian jurisprudence stridently enforced bonds between persons, irrespective of nationality or ethnicity. Antonio explains why the contract must be enforced: The duke can non deny the class of jurisprudence: For the trade good that aliens have With us in Venice, if it be denied, Will much impeach the justness of the province, Since that the trade and net income of the metropolis Consisteth of all states. ( III.iii. 26-31 ) Venetian jurisprudence is the structuring component of Venetian society, and must be obeyed. The class of jurisprudence, nevertheless, instead than continuing a moral or ethical codification, is intended to keep trade and net income of the city. Thus, the regulation of jurisprudence is dependent upon the economic good. Janet Adelman writes of Antonio’s address that it implies a political economic system in which provinces exist to see trade conditions among nations conceived as political and economic units. [ 9 ] Antonio lives in a society wholly dominated by economic sciences and trade good, and his entreaty to the Duke to continue the justice of the state is a supplication made of opportunism. The characters of the drama all battle to accommodate the demands of secular behavior of jurisprudence with a spiritual morality. As made clear throughout the struggle of the bond, spiritual philosophy is non interchangeable with legal justness. Antonio warns Bassanio that The Satan can mention Bible for his intent, / An evil psyche bring forthing holy witness / Is like a scoundrel with a smiling cheek, proposing that Biblical Bible can be manipulated by work forces to warrant their ain purposes ( I.iii. 93-5 ) . This statement is clearly directed towards Shylock, who uses a actual reading of the jurisprudence to support his claims and further his ain terminals. However it is the stiff stringency of the regulation of jurisprudence which is his ultimately undoing. He tries to utilize the jurisprudence to accomplish a personal blood feud against Antonio, and because he seeks the usage the jurisprudence to accomplish unfair terminals he is foiled by Portia, who uses the jurisprudence t o accomplish a merciful judgement. Shakespeare’s Venice is a metropolis of aliens, brought together through common involvement in commercialism and net income and governed by the regulation of jurisprudence. The rigorous attachment to the official and public jurisprudence is overriding to keeping societal order because the jurisprudence protects the trade and net income which drive the city’s economic system. Shylock argues every bit much as he tells the Duke that the rejection of the bond will sabotage the legal authorization of Venice and the metropolis on a whole will endure as a effect. [ 10 ] Shylock says that, without support, the jurisprudence becomes uneffective and can non back up a society built upon commercialism and trade. However it is non merely Shylock who upholds the jurisprudence as the underpinning of societal order: Bassanio, Portia, and Antonio besides show a rigorous attachment to the jurisprudence despite the unsought branchings. I have already gestured towards the manner in which spiritual philosophy and established regulation of jurisprudence overlapped in Renaissance Venice ; because of this, the construct of Godhead clemency besides intersects with official opinion. Much unfavorable judgment has been devoted to Shakespeare’s determination to projectThe Merchant of Veniceas a legal struggle between Jew and Christian, but irrespective of deductions of antisemitism, Shakespeare points towards a larger struggle between Old and New Testament regulations of jurisprudence which influenced Renaissance legal philosophy. In the 4th act Portia, disguised as a immature adult male, appears in the Duke’s Chamberss to supply legal concluding important to the ensuing judgement. The courtroom scene confirms the domination of regulation of jurisprudence as Shylock follows the established protocol. Of a unusual nature is the suit you follow he tells the cloaked Portia, Yet in such regulation, that the Venetian jurisprudence / Can non impugn you as you do proceed ( IV.i. 173-5 ) . Shylock continues to utilize the missive of the jurisprudence in the face of Portia’s humanistic edict of Then must the Jew be merciful ( IV.i. 178 ) . The verbal exchange between Portia and Shylock reveal two different theoretical accounts of justness: Portia extends justness to include godly clemencies, while Shylock positions justness as a judgement determined by the written jurisprudence. Portia’s address on clemency delivered betrays the divide of Old and New Torahs harmonizing to differing theological systems. Sparing Shylock’s life through a Venetian jurisprudence which divides his goods, one half to the province, the other to the aggrieved party, Portia paradoxically cites Old Testament Bible to back up her construct of merciful judgement. The quality of clemency is non strain’d, she begins, It droppeth as the soft rain from Eden Upon the topographic point beneath: it is twice blest, It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes, Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes The throned sovereign better than his Crown. ( IV.i. 180-85 ) . Portia argues that we can non depend upon justness entirely ; that clemency is a god-like property and hence desirable. However, she besides uses the literalism of the regulation of jurisprudence to back up her statement and present judgement on Shylock. She urges Shylock to reconsider his suit, as the tribunal must follow Venetian jurisprudence, which has no topographic point in it for clemency. Portia’s address echoes the transition on clemency in Ecclesiasticus: And the Lord will non be slacke, nor the Almightie will non tarie long from the, boulder clay he hath smitten in sunder the loynes of the unmercifull, and advenged him ego of the pagan, til he have taken off t he battalion of the cruel, and interrupt the scepter of the unrighteous, til he give every adult male after his workes, and rewarde them after their devises, til he have judged the cause of his people, and comforted them with his mercie. Oh, how faire a thing is mercie in the clip of anguish and problem? It is like a cloude of raine, that commeth in the clip of a drouth [ 11 ] Comparing Venetian jurisprudence with the rigorous opinion usually associated with Old Testament jurisprudence, Portia therefore inverts the expected equation of Old Law with rigorous judgement, and the New Testament with religious clemency. [ 12 ] She is able to deduce justness from the missive of the jurisprudence, proposing that justness and clemency are non incompatible, but instead elaborately related. Portia’s address on clemency interruptions down the binary resistance between Old and New Testament biblical philosophy, proposing that the focal point of the drama is on justness instead than spiritual tenet. It is this relationship between justness and clemency which is the foundation of the drama and at the Southern Cross of the legal statement in the courtroom. Portia continues to trust upon godly jurisprudence to supply merciful judgement, Therefore Jew, Though justness be thy supplication, see this, That in the class of justness, none of us Should see redemption: we do pray for clemency, And that same supplication, doth teach us all to render The workss of clemency. I have spoke therefore much To extenuate the justness of thy supplication, Which if 1000 follow, this rigorous tribunal of Venice Must demands give sentence gainst the merchandiser at that place. ( IV.i.193-201 ) Mentioning explicitly to the Lord’s supplication, Portia proposes a rapprochement of justness and clemency. This thought is cardinal to modern-day spiritual arguments, and the struggle between the external irresistible impulse of jurisprudence, on the one manus, and the internal motion toward freedom from restraint, on the other is a uninterrupted one. [ 13 ] She emphasises the catholicity of the state of affairs ; if right action is non taken, no 1 will be the moral master. Ultimately Portia uses the jurisprudence to her advantage to obtain the merciful’ judgement for which she argues. The stiff authorization of the jurisprudence can non be denied, as there is no power in Venice / Can change a decree established ( IV.i. 214-5 ) . However the old and apparently inflexible jurisprudence is seen as uncomplete, incompatible with the elaboratenesss of single state of affairss. Portia’s statement is non an statement that the jurisprudence fails to present clemency, but instead reveals the true nature of jurisprudence capable of presenting both justness and clemency. The concluding judgement of the Duke reverberations Portia’s impression of merciful justness, but besides acts harmonizing to Aristotelian moralss based on equity: I pardon thee thy life before thou ask it: For half thy wealth, it is Antonio’s, The other half comes to the general province, Which unimportance may drive unto a mulct. ( IV.i. 365-8 ) Shylock has contrived to take Antonio’s life, and in an Old Testament regulation of jurisprudence the expected penalty would be in sort. However the Duke restores equality by plunging Shylock’s estates between himself and Antonio. Aristotle defines justice’ against the root beginning of the word significance in half’ , and therefore classical impressions of justness were grounded in the rule of equity instead than retaliation. [ 14 ] Thus Shylock’s Old Testament impression of justness as retaliation is revealed to be untenable in the judicial universe of Venice. The Merchant of Venicehas frequently been appropriated by modern bookmans in the statement for built-in human rights and equality. Within Shylock’s oft-quoted address reasoning for compassion, Shakespeare imbues the result of the courtroom’s judgement with the argument over a common humanity. I am a Jew. Hath non a Jew eyes? Hath non a Jew custodies, variety meats, dimensions, senses, fondnesss, passions? Fed with the same nutrient, injury with the same arms, capable to the same diseases, heal d by the same means, warm d and cool d by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we non shed blood? If you tickle us, do we non laugh? If you poison us, do we non decease? ( III.i. 52-60 ) However, the drama reveals a far more complex system of citizen rights and equity than the narrative of a wronged foreigner. Venice, as a booming economic Centre at the hamlets of Europe, depended upon the protection of private involvements of all dwellers, including strangers’ such as Shylock. In the presentation of Shylock and his eventual deserts, the accent lies non on Shylock’s position as foreigner, but the fact that he struck an immoral deal with a Christian merchandiser, and so efforts to pull out retaliation through the deal. The justness which is delivered by the Duke, harmonizing to the missive of the jurisprudence, bestows equity upon all characters. The logical thinking behind both Shylock’s hatred of Antonio, and the penalty which strips Shylock of his estate, are non racially motivated. All characters are uniformly motivated by the desire to protect trade and net income at all costs. Shylock continues his statement for common humanity: If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humbleness? Retaliation! If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian illustration? – why retaliation? The villainousness you teach me I will put to death, and it shall travel difficult but I will break the direction. ( III.i. 62-66 ) Shylock forcefully argues that he learned the necessity of retaliation from his Christian neighbors, but this is clearly non supported through the actions of the characters in the drama. Portia demonstrates the Christian values of clemency and equity in the face of an oculus for an eye’ Old Testament justness of Shylock. The Venetian tribunal is a site of legal authorization, and one where merchandisers may anticipate judgements independent of their nationality. Indeed one of the emergent subjects of the drama is the necessity of the regulation of jurisprudence to regulate the gradual slide towards the devotions of the market place, which Shylock, in his mercenary greed, represents. Portia finally is given the finding of fact for which she argues, and the finding of fact which provides audience satisfaction with the due penalty of the scoundrel of the drama, Shylock the Jew. Wealth, felicity and freedom are all at interest in the legal conflict over the result of the difference over the bond, but even more important is the inquiry of just justness which is continuously raised throughout the drama. Nevill Coghill argues thatThe Merchant of Veniceis, at its bosom, an fable of Justice and Mercy, of the Old Law and the New. [ 15 ] This position focuses on the struggle between Jew and Christian as an central struggle between justness and clemency. Ultimately, nevertheless, it is non a struggle of regulations of jurisprudence but instead the harmonious combination of them which consequences in a merciful judgement which bestows equity. The regulation of jurisprudence in Venice is revealed to be both merciful and merely, functioning to protect the involvements of its c itizens by confering equity. Plants Cited Adelman, Janet, Her Father s Blood: Race, Conversion, and Nation inThe Merchant of Venice Representations 81, Winter 2003, pp. 4-30. Aristotle,Nicomachean Ethical motives, trans. by Christopher Rowe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Coghill, Nevill, The Governing IdeaShakespeare Quarterly, 1, London, 1948, pp. 9-17. Danson, Lawrence,The Harmonies of The Merchant of Venice, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978. Nickel, John, Shylock in Washington: the Clinton crisis,The Merchant of Venice,and enjoyment of the law ,Textual Practice, 15:2, pp. 317-335. Shakespeare, William.The Merchant of Venice, erectile dysfunction. John Russell Brown for The Arden Edition of the Works of William Shakespeare, London and Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Stritmatter, Roger, Old’ and new’ jurisprudence inThe Merchant of Venice, Notes and Questions, 47:1, March 2000, pp. 70-72. Wheater, Isabella, Aristotelian Wealth and the Sea of Love: Shakespeare’s Synthesis of Greek Philosophy and Roman Poetry inThe Merchant of Venice in The Review of English Studies, New Series, 43:172, November 1992, pp. 467-487. 1

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.