Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2008 :: December ::
Retrying Shylock's Case
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0688  Wednesday, 24 December 2008

From:        Alan Horn <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:        Wednesday, 17 Dec 2008 08:11:00 -0500
Subject:     New Yorker Talk of the Town Piece: Retrying Shylock's Case

RETRIAL
by Lizzie Widdicombe
DECEMBER 22, 2008

The other night at the Cardozo School of Law, a group of distinguished 
legal minds got together to settle a dispute over a loan default. The 
lender wasn't Citibank or Countrywide -- it was Shylock, from 
Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." His last trial, English majors 
may recall, didn't go so well. (He was publicly humiliated, and was 
forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity; the authorities handed 
over his estate and half his money to his enemies.) Modern audiences 
tend to view his treatment at the hands of the Venetian court as unfair 
-- the scholar and critic A. David Moody wrote that "it seems to involve 
a reversal of the right order of things" -- and so Richard Weisberg, a 
professor of law and literature at Cardozo ("Poethics," "When Lawyers 
Write"), decided to give him an appeal.

"Lawyers were one of the first groups, along with theatre directors, to 
see Shylock's position," Weisberg, who takes a pro-Shylock reading of 
the play, said last week. "Shylock really has the best lines -- there 
isn't a lot of argument about that -- but in the nineteenth century a 
prominent German legal philosopher, Rudolf von Jhering, was among the 
first to argue that he actually had the better legal case." This was an 
exhibition hearing (Weisberg arranged a similar one for Melville's Billy 
Budd in 2006), but the legal lineup was extremely legit. Hearing the 
case: the First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams; Jed S. Rakoff, a federal 
district judge in New York; Justice Dianne T. Renwick, of the Appellate 
Division of the New York State Supreme Court; the federal appeals-court 
judge Richard Posner; the Columbia literature professor Julie Peters; 
Bernhard Schlink, the law professor and novelist; and Anthony Julius, 
best known as Princess Diana's divorce lawyer.

The appeal was held in the Cardozo moot courtroom, before a sold-out 
crowd that seemed to be equal parts lawyers and Shakespeare nuts. 
Actors did a CliffsNotes version of the play, focussing on the trial 
scene. Quick refresher: Renaissance Venice, a different era in 
Judeo-Christian relations. Shylock, a Jewish moneylender, lends three 
thousand ducats to the Christian merchant Antonio, so that Antonio's 
friend can use it to woo the wealthy Portia. Shylock, who hates Antonio, 
demands a "pound of flesh" as collateral. Some things go wrong, and 
everyone ends up in court, where Portia, disguised as a doctor of law, 
gets Antonio off the hook and gets Shylock charged with attempted 
murder. The staging was contemporary: Antonio wore a suit;
Shylock carried a briefcase.

After a short reception -- sushi, wine, California wraps -- the seven 
judges took the bench to hear arguments from lawyers for Shylock and 
Antonio.  They were dressed as if for brunch (sweaters, turtlenecks), 
and a few jotted down notes. Michael Braff, a partner at Kaye Scholer, 
argued, on Shylock's behalf, that his client should get his money back, 
plus interest. (He did not press for "specific performance"-the pound of 
flesh that Shylock had been shouting about in the play. "After four 
hundred years, my client has had time to reconsider," Braff said.) 
Daniel Kornstein, a partner at Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, 
represented Antonio, and he attacked the validity of the pound-of-flesh 
agreement. He brandished a detailed brief that he had written, which 
compared the agreement to "a tainted C.D.O." and Shylock to a predatory 
lender.

"If it please the court," Kornstein said, "this is a case about an 
illegal contract."

"What's illegal about it?" Judge Rakoff interrupted. "As you well know, 
there is a virtual obesity epidemic in this country, and to remove a 
pound of flesh is wholly to the public good."

"Not by a knife wielded by your sworn enemy," Kornstein said. He brought 
up Shylock's ulterior motives -- "the deep hatred" he had for Antonio.

"What does that have to do with anything?" Floyd Abrams asked. "Why 
should we even consider that in deciding whether to enforce the contract?"

"It adds color," Kornstein said. He went back to the pound of flesh.

"The contract, on its face, contains a clause that is such a penalty 
that no civilized society-not even Venice, New York, here -- would 
enforce it."

A woman in the audience called out, "They would in Venice, California."

To skip, "Law & Order" style, to the rulings: the judges were split, but 
they came out, five to two, in Shylock's favor. Schlink, Rakoff, Abrams, 
Peters, and Renwick said that he deserved to be repaid his three 
thousand ducats, though they differed on the question of interest.

(Schlink, on the pound of flesh: "It was Antonio's obligation to 
deliver," but "our public policy forbids enforcing a contract in a way 
that enforcement leads to one party's death.") Posner and Julius voted 
to let Antonio keep the money.

Portia, admired by many readers for her "quality of mercy" speech, was 
reprimanded by the judges for impersonating a doctor of law. "The trial 
was a travesty," Abrams said, of Shakespeare's litigation scene. 
"Beautiful sometimes, funny sometimes, and ugly sometimes, but that 
judgment is not something that we sitting here today can enforce." 
Posner said, "I'm particularly critical of Antonio's conduct. His 
failure to insure his cargoes was completely irresponsible." Renwick 
said that the whole thing made her think of the rickety deals that got 
us into the current financial mess -- "the dangers of going into a 
contract with someone who has covert ideas and interests" -- and 
suggested that all the parties were at fault. Posner agreed: "This is 
one of those cases in which we've just heard very fine lawyers argue the 
cases, but the litigants are all disreputable people. This is often 
true, particularly in the twenty-first century."

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.