|
In both Merchant and The Tempest, Shakespeare proposes ideas of justice and mercy that hold true in both plays. In order to see if the actions taken were just and/or merciful, definitions of these words must be set up. If we were to assume that Shakespeare's definition of mercy was what Portia espoused in act four, scene one, specifically lines 205 - 206, the definition of mercy must be viewed in a biblical sense. Thus, in order to judge if something is merciful, one must look to see if it fulfills the qualifications of mercy in the New Testament. However, the idea of justice is quite different, for my definition of justice, I will turn to Charles Mill's definition, for, in the plays it applies the most. Mill's espoused that justice for the Europeans meant "just us," implying different standards for white Christians that for any other race or religion. Now that we have firm definitions on what mercy and justice are in the context of Shakespeare's time, it is possible to see how each of these played a role in these plays.
In The Merchant of Venice, justice and mercy play a key role in determining the outcome of the play. During the trial, it would be fair to say that mercy was given to Antonio and not Shylock. For Antonio, the other cheek was turned and he was able to be spared the loss of his life -- even though he had entered into a contract in which he put this on the line. On the other hand, money was not given to Shylock who not only was not reimbursed the money that he lent out, but he was also harmed by being forced to convert. However, when looking at why mercy was given to one and not the other, we must look at how justice was applied. In Antonio's case, he is a Catholic merchant from Europe, unlike the prince of Morocco. However, even though Shylock was also a European, he was not a Christian -- justice did not apply. However, in context, was justice served? Of course it was served, for not only was the spirit of it upheld but it was also carried out how it was meant to be carried out. Thus, in The Merchant of Venice, justice and mercy intermingle providing mercy only to the people that receive justice.
In The Tempest, Shakespeare again uses the concepts of justice and mercy in order to have his audience think about what just and merciful actions were taken. At the end of the play, when Prospero releases Caliban from his bondage, this action, by definition, is merciful, but in no way is it just. By releasing Caliban from his control, Prospero has taken a love thy neighbor as yourself mentality and, this, is merciful. However, when determining if these actions are just, they are only just if Prospero wanted to give up his control. In lines 163 - 175 of act four, scene one, Prospero gives up his control over nature. In these lines we see that Prospero is vexed, troubled and in general just worn out, but we do not see if he wants to do it. When he arrived on the island and imprisoned Caliban, this was just because Prospero was doing what he wanted to do and was not harming any other Catholic European in the process. However, this behavior of mentally imprisoning someone else is and was not merciful. In this play, Shakespeare's views of justice and mercy again come into conflict when dealing with Prospero and Caliban. However, by applying the same idea of mercy in this play, as he did in Merchant, Shakespeare is able to correlate a merciful end in both plays.
In both Merchant and The Tempest, Shakespeare's idea and view of mercy and justice are similar in both plays. However, how these views are applied are different. In Merchant, mercy was applied on a just basis in which the people who received justice would also be given mercy. However, in The Tempest, mercy was given unjustly to Caliban. While mercy and justice played a key role in both plays, the different effects of each could clearly be seen. By dealing with both themes of justice and mercy, Shakespeare is able to correlate his plays with the ideas of justice and mercy in the time period that he was writing in.
|
| |
