The Law and The Merchant of Venice
Introduction
The law is impartial, supposedly absent of bias or prejudice. It is easy to equate this impartiality with universality. If the law does not discriminate, then should the same law apply to all, across cultural and national boundaries? The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare presents an interesting case study of how a ‘universal’ law functions in a multicultural society. As a Christian belief system occupies the legal and social spaces of Early Modern Venice, the play reveals the institutional bias that is embedded in the pretence of ‘universal’ fairness. In a modern globalised world, the play raises the question of how justice should be enacted when different cultural or national frameworks of the law collide.
Portia and the notion of a ‘Universal’ Principle
When tracing the law in The Merchant of Venice, it is easy to treat the (unapologetically biased) trial scene in Act IV as an isolated section of the play. However, earlier scenes in Act II more clearly demonstrate the hidden nuances of institutional bias. Portia’s caskets left behind by her father are inscribed with a riddle, as a means to determine who shall be her husband. The unassuming lead casket is the correct answer, while the flashy gold and silver caskets are didactic lessons that reveal the importance of invisible virtues over external appearances. Initially, this seems to be a universal test that elects the ideal partner for a successful marriage. However, this is the cultural rhetoric of a specific Christian belief system that only some, not all, would be familiar with.
The Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Aragon, both from different cultural backgrounds, fail this test. While Aragon is arguably also a Christian, Early Modern Spain was predominantly Catholic. His religion would have placed cultural importance on tangible objects that represent divinity, such as statues, icons, and portraits. While the same could be said about Italy due to the Papal presence in Rome, Venice, in particular, was, in fact, sceptical about Catholicism. The answers that Morocco and Aragon produce are representative of their cultural upbringing, which places them at a disadvantage in this supposedly ‘universal’ test. As scholar Stephen Greenblatt points out, although the ‘test’ “seems” fair, it rewards the dominant belief system.
This subtle bias is reified when Portia hints at the answer to Bassanio, by staging a short musical performance including words that rhyme with “lead”. It is clear that she explicitly favours Bassanio, even if he does not truly embody the rhetoric preached on the lead casket, as he demonstrates his materialistic nature through his frequent use of transactional language when referring to Portia. Later, when Portia intervenes in the trial of Shylock, this bias is transformed into a more sinister one. Much like Portia’s disguise, prejudice can easily be masked under the guise of fairness.
Conclusion – Universal Law and International Law
The idea of a ‘universal’ legal paradigm is enticing, especially in the modern world that is becoming increasingly interconnected. As each nation, or even each subsection of a nation, operates under its own legal system, some often contradict one another, leading to a “conflict of laws”. International law, a framework “applicable to all states,” was initially devised to provide a solution to such conflicts. However, its roots were derived from a colonial perspective, as the notion of ‘natural law’ emerged during European colonial expansion when European legal theorists wanted to “set the example of a superior justice”. Although it is difficult to determine whether there are such ideological remnants in modern international law, it is important to re-examine the structural foundations of the institutions that we rely on for enacting what we deem ‘universal’ justice. As Portia from The Merchant of Venice demonstrates, institutional bias rarely exists in plain sight.
By Isabella Jeong
