The Legality of Shylock's

Bond and the Trial

Presented by Hadi and Abdul
Things to be discussed
● Prerequisites and precedent for a specific type of bond to be legally approved
in sixteenth century England/Venice
● The authority/behavior of legal actors in the trial including Portia and the Duke
● Assessing the legality of charges and punishments imposed on Shylock
Singular Bond
“This kindness will I show:

Go with me to a notary, seal me there

Your single bond”

Shylock demands a ‘single bond’, which is different from a regular one, according
to legal historian EJ White. A single bond fulfils the English legal requisite for a
valid specialty contract.

Lawsuits over bonds increased in England between 1560 and 1606 nearly 500%,
so a bond was the norm of the time.
Legal prerequisites for a valid bond
● Competent parties (Shylock and Antonio)
● Agreement (Act 1 Scene 3) (Act 4 Scene 1)
● Consideration (Act 1 Scene 3)
● Lawful object (Act 4 Scene 1)
● Prescribed form (Act 1 Scene 3)
Precedent for Bonds exacting price of death and their legality

● Contracts going against public policy were often made void in sixteenth
century because of their illegality
● ‘they aim at effecting certain results which it is the policy of the law to
prevent.”-Holdsworth, vol 8 p.54-55
● Since the law prohibits murder, this bond should have been discarded of at
first sight regardless of the intention of the parties since it goes completely
against public policy but it wasnt
Legitimacy of Portia’s Role in trial
● Prejudicious position of Portia
● Role as ‘Amicus curiae’
● However, Portia extends her role from advising the court or at the most,
directing the court, to making judgements: "the law allows it and the court
awards it"
The Duke’s negligence
● The Duke is supposed to adjudicate fairly between Shylock and Antonio
● He stands by as Shylock is othered, called “the Jew”
● The Duke shows bias towards Antonio “I am sorry for thee” (4:1)
● The Duke does not exercise his authority; he asks Shylock for a gentle
answer, yet Bassanio interrupts before his response
● A very unusual manner of conducting a trial, conforming to an informal
manner
● He is the presiding judge but the judgements are coming from Portia and
from Antonio who is the defendant of all things.
Hypocrisy of the Court

● Portia violating her position as an informed person on this matter by incorrectly

stating that his forfeiture demanded is legal when it is not.
● Portia can prevent Shylock from proceeding with his suit but she does not
● White states that this statement by Portia is at variance with the latter conclusion
of the court itself, who adjudges that the very object of the suit was counter to the
law of Venice and of such criminal nature as to make forfeit the life of Shylock and
his estate confiscate unto the crown
Extended Hypocrisy of Portia
● Shylock does not have to be merciful
● Demands Shylock to show mercy and then later stops him from taking less than
what he is owed, which is something he is entitled to as the creditor
● Antonio is allowed to take less than what was originally awarded to him by the
court in contrast to Shylock
● Despite Shylock’s suit being legally flawed, it does not explain several of
Portia’s Judgements:
○ No flesh is to be taken because of the blood
○ Shylock will not receive principal of his loan
○ His goods are to be forfeited
○ His religion is to be forfeited
No flesh is to be taken because of blood
● The law allows for the fact that if one is entitled to something, then one is
entitled to whatever comes with that item – example of lashings
● there could be no flesh without blood
● When Shylock asks, "Is that the law?" He is not answered with statute or
precedent which makes Portia guilty of decievement
Shylock will not receive principal of his loan
● legally inaccurate to imply that this initial refusal is the sole reason why
Shylock is no longer entitled to his principal
● during the sixteenth century, bonds were constructed in such a way which
guaranteed the lender at the very least, his or her principal
Legality of accusing Shylock of Attempted Murder
● Hypocrisy of Court in recognizing entitlement at one point and disregarding at
other - Antonio in Pain
● Bond approved by legal body which means any action; implied or direct has
been looked over so it is not Shylock’s fault
● Intent of Shylock
● Shylock not legally literate
Intent of Shylock in making bond
● Why is it relevant?
● In the case of Hales v. Petit in 1563, it was said that, "the imagination of the
mind to do wrong without an act done, is not punishable in our law, neither is
the resolution to do that wrong which he does not punishable, but the doing of
the act is the only point which the law regards:
● This implies that Shylock's intention at the time that he signed the bond is
irrelevant. if it was not accompanied by an overt act.
● Even if Portia did try to construct evidence of Shylock's intent, it is Impossible
that she would know what his intention was at the time that the contract was
made
Sources
Simpson A.W.B., “The Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance”, (1966) 82 Law Quarterly Review.

Notai genovesi in Oltremare. Atti redatti aCaffa ed in altre località del Mar Nero nei secoli XIV e XV”, Aletheia, 2018,
ISBN 9785907030138, https://iris.unito.it.

White E. J., “Commentaries on the Law in Shakespeare”, Missouri, 1911,

https://archive.org/details/commentariesonla00whit/page/n6

Baker J. H., “An Introduction to English Legal History”, Oxford University Press; 4 edition, 2005, ISBN-10: 0406930538

Holdsworth, W, A History of English Law 12 Volumes Methuen & Co Ltd, 1937-1942