Works of literature, while reflecting the constructs and nature of law and legal practice of the times they represent, also discreetly contribute to the development of the disciple of jurisprudence. Aimed at the refinement of human thoughts and actions, literary texts often elicit the tenets of natural law – morality and equity – which normally finds its reflection in the constructs of law. Seen in this light, works of literature and law present a complementary association, which makes the study of one complete only with the study of other, as i t helps to understand and appreciate both law and literature better. The paper presents such an analysis – and analysis from the perspective of a law—of William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In this context, it is worthwhile to note that The Merchant of Venice “has spawned more commentary by lawyers than any other Shakespeare play.” [Kornstein, 66]

The Merchant of Venice explicitly presents a multitude of legal issues and concerns, which may be of particular interest to a law scholar. While the essential theme and action of the play is focused on the law of contract, the conflict between natural laws and strict construct of the state laws, wills and contracts; the questions of equity and fairness in the construct of law, the consequence of inflexible adherence to the law, the significance of legal interpretations in jurisprudence are some of the striking topics addressed by Shakespeare in the seemingly playful comedy.

Shakespeare presents the key legal issues in the play through Portia, the rich heiress of Belmont and the central character of play, who is caught in between her love for Bassanio and her father’s will, which stipulates that she must marry the man who correctly chooses one of three caskets. In the Elizabethan societal context in which Shakespeare wrote the play, men, were the figures of authority, and controlled law and order; women were a suppressed class. Even in the virtuous land of Belmont, woman is essentially denied of her basic rights. Portia laments over the strict will of her father, which denies natural right to choose her partner in marriage: “The brain may/devise laws for the blood, but a hot temper leaps/o'er a cold decree.”[Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene II] Her remark points to the callousness of law towards the basic and inevitable human emotions. While laws of the modern society acknowledges the woman’s right of self-determination in issues like marriage, many issues such as women’s basic right to reproductive self-determination are still entangled in the callous, ‘hot tempered,’ male-centered laws and calls for necessary and appropriate intervention for the administration of justice.

Another crucial legal issue raised by the play is the need for considerations of equity and mercy in the administration of law. Shylock’s inflexible adherence to the construct of law would have led to disastrous consequences, as Portia’s appeal for equity, “That in the course of justice none of us/ Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy;/And that same prayer doth teach us all to render/The deeds of mercy,”[Shakespeare, Act 4, Scene I] fails to make a case. However, Portia manages to redirect the course of law by her tactful interpretation of the bond, basing her argument on conditions not expressed in the bond, but vital to the exercise the granted right. The episode also suggests the significance of just interpretation of the law, so that justice is ensured.

While Shakespeare’s magical hands has dexterously geared the conflicts of the play to a pleasantry conclusion, tacitly suggesting the role of law in shaping a peaceful and happy society, his crucial remark on the indifference of law and decrees to the natural and basic human rights, and also about the issues of equity and fairness in legal constructs continues to be applicable to the modern societal laws and calls for a deeper contemplation and appropriate intervention by lawmakers and lawyers of the modern society.