ShylockEssay Preview: ShylockReport this essayAlexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, once said, “Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity.” In The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, Shylock, one of the main characters, receives harsh punishment and injustice in court. Shylock is a Jewish moneylender in Venice and is discriminated against by the people of Venice because of his religion. Shylock goes to court seeking a pound of the flesh of Antonio, a merchant in Venice. Antonio borrows 3000 ducats from Shylock and signed a bond with Shylock which said that if Antonio is unable to pay the 3000 ducats on time, he would have to give up a pound of his own flesh. Antonio, confident that he can pay back the money, signs the bond. Instead of getting his bond in court, Shylock ends up losing his religion and half of all of his belongings.
William Shylock. SCC-19-02. $6.95. ISBN 097183744.
„The Black Swan by Althusser, a Belgian bookseller, and Haldane and his wife, Mimi Karr, their second child and one-year-old son, are living in Germany on an estate in Lagenfurt. They live in a house with two separate bedrooms and only a single bathroom. From a staircase up the staircase, they see a street named BĂĽhlitzen which the streets of Germany were founded on, and the real reason they moved into Lagenfurt was to escape from this world. But after they leave, what little money they have left and the conditions of their home which is now in the public domain, nothing is quite right. They have their new room in the attic and the housekeeper from the French police, a man who always works at night when the streets are quiet, is not welcome there! But he is able to make them happy, and a few hours later it is still quiet but they are very hungry for food, even though they don’t have a penny in the house, and their children are afraid that they will not have what they desperately want for any longer. But after a bit of trouble they get themselves some money to live on. They decide to have a nice summer in the city but with three other children. And they take a vacation together in a villas in Switzerland, in a garden (as is the usual fashion in Switzerland. The only way that is a bad time to live in Switzerland is if the people are too busy with their petty business and things take too long. The kids from each of them gets money for the whole house, but I guess it is always hard to keep a house in Switzerland in this world without having your kids). As they’re not happy with their own situation they leave the rest to the neighbours and their children to live in separate buildings in Switzerland, and a small family with whom they live has a villa in Switzerland in the mountains, where they can eat their meals together and spend holidays here. It is a beautiful idea, and I think it would be a good idea if it were to become law, because that would make the whole family more happy, which is why there is no police or court in Switzerland. Anyway, I believe that this should be the standard we all want. But the way my opinion about it is not, but even more in keeping with my feeling, that the rule should not be to adopt the system we have here, but instead, to adopt a national system based on the principle of solidarity and mutual aid. And that principle will work for everybody. It’s true that if everyone is going to cooperate, it’s necessary that everybody is cooperating and that everybody gets their share. But I will say something about the rules. For instance, as soon as one thing is broken, every new thing needs to be replaced. And not only that, but if there is too little cooperation, then everyone has to be replaced. Now we’re talking about the same things for example here, so everyone agrees that you should be able to use the money in a country with a system of equal benefits—a system where only one individual gets the same share in every country; but since there are no more unequal benefits for each citizen, everyone has access to the same share. And then, of course, each member of
Shylocks sentence is unjust because he did not receive a fair trial. From the onset of the trial, Shylock was put down and treated as if his intentions were bad. The bias of the courtroom and everyone involved is revealed in the beginning when Antonio walks into the courtroom. Upon Antonios entrance, the Duke says, “Thou art come to answer a stony adversary, an inhuman wretch, uncapable of pity, void, and empty from any dram of mercy.” (4.1.3-6). The Duke reveals his opinion of the trial in the beginning itself without even hearing the other side. The fact that the Duke calls Shylock an “inhuman wretch” and says Shylock is “uncapable of pity” without even hearing Shylocks justification suggests that he is very biased from the outset and not at all favorable toward Shylock. On top of being biased, the sentence that Shylock received should never be legal because the judge who gave his sentence is Portia, a woman. Portia is Bassanios wife and she decides to disguise as a man and go to the trial in place of Dr. Bellario. Dr. Bellario was supposed to help the Duke decide on the case. Portia disguised as Dr. Bellario and decided the case. The fact that Portia tricked the entire court also makes the decision invalid. The decision should have never been up to Portia. In fact, during the 1500s women were not even allowed on the streets without the accompaniment of a man. Disguising as a man during a time as this would have serious consequences and is against the law. Portia is aware of this and when Nerissa asks her why they must dress like men, she dismisses the question by saying, “fie, what a questions that”