In Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice, Shylock and Antonio make a contract in which Antonio will lose a pound of his flesh if he does not pay back money borrowed for Bassanio. The two men verbally solidify the bond and Shylock takes the contract to the notary. In Shakespeare’s time, economic contracts were more like social promises than written law, although still made formally and purposefully to seal an agreement. The contract drafted between Shylock and Antonio becomes problematic at the play’s end, when Shylock, Portia, and the Duke interpret the contract in multiple ways. Contract law overall lacked consistency, and religion was a strong argument while defending it in court. The issue here is that while citizens suffer from laws that are easily misunderstood and forever changing, enforcing contracts with Shylock’s stringency and vengeful motives is even more destructive.

In the courtroom scene, Shylock adamantly defends Antonio’s punishment, since the debt was not repaid in time. Shylock asserts, “I stand for judgment” (4.1.103) and “I stand here for law,” (4.1.142) demonstrating a merciless interpretation of contract law. To Shylock, the original understanding between two men still stands according to the law, regardless of the contract’s brutal repercussions. He uses a type of justice found in the Book of Exodus, where taking an “eye for an eye” defines policy. Shylock is eager for revenge, but Portia pleads for mercy and understands the contract in a different way. When her appeals to the New Testament sway everyone but Shylock and the Duke, Portia turns the diction of the contract around in order to incriminate Shylock. Portia voids Shylock’s contract on a technicality of wording, in which Shylock can take “just a pound of flesh” (4.1.324) only, not blood. The trial scene illustrates how one contract between two men can be a legal agreement, a social promise, a weapon, and a method of mercy, all at once. The varied uses and meanings extracted from the contract seem to work against the goal of making consistent laws within a society. Law attempts to define rules and standards for a population so that relationships between citizens will be peaceful. However, because of Shylock’s failure in court and ultimate demise, the conclusion can be drawn that Shakespeare did not support rigid enforcement of contract law.

In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare recognizes the arbitrary and harmful nature of inconsistent contract law, especially because of its social and religious nature. Contracts concerning debt and borrowing are elevated above civil law since they are shaped in a tradition of common law and followed because of moral obligations from church law. During the early seventeenth century, English law was more dependent upon vocal agreements and social standards than it was upon written statutes and judgment from authority figures. When Antonio breaks his contract with Shylock, his reputation and business will be damaged, without the interference of civil law. However, when Shylock involves the Duke and English codes of law, his revenge backfires and Antonio emerges as the victor. Shakespeare understands that standard operating procedure benefits a large population, but in this play, he also discourages vindictive and inflexible interpretation of contract law. When dealing with a highly interpretive agreement, it is best to act honestly and justly, without neglecting mercy and human compassion.