Mercy versus Justice

As the play progresses, the question of what constitutes justice becomes more and more prominent. In the past, Shylock has been wronged by Antonio, and in act 3, he insinuates that revenge is a just action. Shylock holds the idea that one receives what one gets, and his intended revenge is one version of this kind of justice. The fact that Antonio loses his ships throughout the play provides even more evidence to Shylock that Antonio deserves his penalty for defaulting on the loan, and Shylock is all too eager to dispense the corresponding punishment. 

Further, justice is a function of the law, which seems to be Shylock’s primary argument in act 4; as long as the contract is honored, justice will be served. In this way, Shylock’s insistence in taking Antonio’s flesh is doubly just: not only does it serve the karmic function of returning the cruelty that Antonio had previously shown Shylock, but it is also legally stipulated that he should take Antonio’s flesh. Throughout the trial, he continues to appeal to justice as his rationale for following through with the contract. 

However, the opposing claim—that mercy is greater than justice—is also argued throughout the play, especially in act 4. The first time mercy is referred to in the play is when Launcelot speaks with Jessica in act 3, telling her that there is no mercy in heaven for her kind. When Portia speaks of the divine qualities of mercy in act 4, it seems as though she is at least partly responding to Launcelot’s claim. 

Mercy, she argues, does not follow the logic of kings, laws, and justice. Were that the case, Shylock might be killed—or at least ruined—by the end of the play. In fact, it is Shylock’s claims to justice that ultimately prevents him from getting his way; that is, while he is legally and justly allowed to take the pound of flesh, Portia asserts that he has no just claim to any blood that may fall during the transaction. Through this outcome, the play privileges mercy over justice.

Interpretation

Throughout the play, Shakespeare calls attention to the variable nature of interpretation. The play contains numerous instances in which a statement or situation presents multiple interpretations, resulting in complexity and conflict. In many cases, these instances produce a comedic effect. For instance, Launcelot’s puns at the end of act 3 frustrate Lorenzo, because he cannot seem to convey the simple idea to the clown that he wants to eat dinner. We also see how context can influence interpretation; in act 5, Lorenzo and Jessica, as well as Portia and Nerissa, describe the ways that certain attitudes and environments may affect the ways that one interprets the beauty of music. Taste, then, relies on ever-shifting interpretations that may change within one individual given their state of mind or location.

While these puns and discussions of music offer comedy and levity, the act of interpreting also carries heavier implications. It is, for instance, an interpretation of the Bible through which Shylock justifies his charging of interest, and this leads to a dispute between himself and Antonio. The test for Portia’s hand is an act of interpretation—those who do not correctly interpret the engravings on each chest are doomed to leave and never marry. It is arguably interpretation that leads to the dispute about rings at the end of the play; neither Bassanio nor Gratiano understood the meaning behind the rings that their respective wives gave them. Finally, it is through interpretation of a legal document that Antonio is saved by Portia. Indeed, while interpretation...