Shylock is perhaps one of the best antagonists in all of Shakespeare; dichotomously, he has been portrayed as the oppressor and the oppressed. Was Shakespeare conforming to the ideas of his time, and if so, was Shylock’s punishment just?
Shylock’s idea of ‘justice’ is very different from everyone else’s. After the Duke (IV. i. 20) insists on mercy for Antonio, Shylock refuses and insists on his bond justifying his refusal through Jewish and Venetian law (IV. i. 35-39). It’s interesting to note that Shylock only mentions justice once, stating that “The Duke shall grant me justice (III. iii. 8)”, but before Shylock says that on line 4 – and later on lines 12 and 13 – he keeps insisting on his “bond”. His bond is Antonio’s debt to him, which since he was not able to pay the 3,000 ducats, is one pound of flesh and because of his frequent mention of the bond, it appears that that is truly what Shylock cares about not the money. Even when double the money was offered to him later by Bassanio in the Court of Justice Shylock refuses stating, “If every ducat in six thousand ducats were six parts, and every part a ducat, I would not draw them. I would have my bond (IV. i. 85-87).” In other words, if you offered Shylock six times the number that Bassanio just offered him, it’ll equate to 36,000 ducats! Yet he insists on his bond. While trying to give Shylock the benefit of the doubt, this could be because the ways Jews handle contracts in his time. During the time of Shakespeare, when a party defaults on their loan and breaks their contracts, the party that was infringed upon is not only entitled to the initial amount of damages but also any additional or future damages that result from the contract not being fulfilled (Jewishvirtuallibrary). Now Shylock loaned Antonio 3,000 ducats, 1 ducat is about £100 (Britishmuseum), and one pound is 1.6 dollars (Google), therefore 1 ducat is 160 dollars. Therefore, in today’s money, Shylock lent Antonio $480,000 and Bassanio offers Shylock $960,000.
Now Shylock’s quest for flesh a little more reasonable and people have killed for less. But, on the flip side, having just been offered double the money was Shylock’s grievances over the previous 3 months so awful that not even double the money could compensate? Doubtful. So this must be where the future damages clause comes into play, what could Shylock do with that money while it was not lent out and if he had been paid how much profit could he have made with it? More than 36,000 ducats ($5760000)? Shylock is either giving a hyperbole or he truly wants Antonio’s flesh; it’s beginning to be more and more clear that it is the later. Therefore, Al Pacino can portray Shylock as sympathetically as he likes, Shakespeare was conforming to his day on the portrayal of Jews. Shylock did not want justice; he wanted revenge, revenge for all the disgrace, spitting, and name calling. Yet in the end, Shylock is the one who loses everything, perhaps Shakespeare is saying that justice is being served onto Shylock.
Would it be justice to take everything from a man who wronged you but his life or would it be more just to take everything from that man and then take his life? Would it be merciful? Shylock falls into the former and Antonio would have fallen into the later upon his death. Yet, despite Shylock’s conversion being forceful, Shylock’s strict manner of thinking may gerrymander him into actually being a Christian. Firstly, most contemporary authors of Shakespeare’s time were against forceful conversion of Jews and instead favored “an arousal of the will under the influence of grace (Questier 184)” but due to Shylock’s strict interpretation of the Jewish and, subsequently, legal law he may actually start practicing Christianity. Since Shylock clings so fast to the rules, he could go from the mindset, “I am a Jew and therefore must do Jewish things” to “I am a Christian and therefore must do Christian things” simply because he ‘converted’ and has been labeled a Christian now. This is bolstered by the fact that we know Shylock loves his money more than his daughter when he laments about the loss of a diamond his daughter stole from him stating he would rather his daughter dead at his foot “and the jewels in her ear (III. i. 66-67).” Additionally, regarding Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech, “his meanness and avarice are dwelt upon almost to the exclusion of his justifiable resentment at the insults to his race. He hates Antonio more for spoiling his business than for reviling religion (O’Connor, 324)” (Madillard). So, if conversion did not truly matter to Shylock but money did, is Shylock’s punishment at the end just?
Shakespeare is trying to say that Shylock’s punishment is just. If Shylock will not accept the generous offering from Bassanio to free Antonio of his debt, and the thing Shylock cares most about is money, the only way to punish Shylock for his greed would have been to remove some of his fortune. Shakespeare has demonstrated a similar situation before in Henry V. In Henry V, the traitors tell King Henry to hang a man for cursing him in a drunken stupor. Henry refuses and sentences the traitors to death using their own logic against them (“Henry V” II. ii. 80-84). Just as Henry used the traitors’ logic for killing the drunk against them, the Duke uses for Shylock’s punishment. For if Shylock wouldn’t be merciful why should they take pity on him.

References
“Contract”. Encyclopedia Judaic. The Jewish Virtual Library. 2008. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04597.html
“Crowns and ducats: Shakespeare’s money and medals”. The British Museum. 2012.https://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/press_releases/2012/cro wns_and_ducats.aspx
Mabillard, Amanda. Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic? Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2009. < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespearejews.html >.
O’Connor, Evangeline. An Index to the Works of Shakespeare. 7 December 2009
“Pounds to Dollars.” Google.com. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS444US444&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF- 8#q=1+pounds+to+dollars
Questier, Michael. Conversion, Politics, and Religion in England, 1580-1625. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996
Shakespeare, William. Henry V. Ed. Claire McEachern., 1999. Print.