ST

11 SEMESTER
SEMESTER ENGLISH
ST
ST
ENGLISH
Initiated by:
INITIATED BY
INITIATEDANANDA BYBISWAS (GENERAL SECRETARY)
ANANDA
IN BISWAS
[Grab your reader’s attention C
ANANDA BISWAS
with a great quote
(GENERAL from the
SECRETARY) Arranged by:
I
(GENERAL SECRETARY)
document or use this space to
emphasize a key point. To place this
R
ARRANGED
text box anywhere onBY
DIPSHIKHA
the page, just
BHANDARI C
drag it.]
ARRANGED BYANANDITA NANDY U
DIPSHIKHA BHANDARI L
(JOINT ITIATED
SECRETARIESBY OF ACADEMIC COMMITTEE)
DIPSHIKHA
ANANDITABHANDARI NANDY C A
ANANDA BISWAS I T
ANANDITA
(JOINT SECREATRIES NANDY OF
(GENERAL Circulated by: R E
ACADEMIC COMMITTEE)
(JOINT SECREATRIES
SECRETARY) OF C D
MEMBERS
ACADEMIC COMMITTEE) OF THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE B
U
ARRANGED BY Y
L
DIPSHIKHA A
T THANKS TO,P
BHANDARI R
E SURYAJYOTI SARKAR A
ANANDITA D
NANDY (PRESIDENT)G
B Y
(JOINT Y A
Courtesy: DEPARTMENT OF LAW, CALCUTTA
SECREATRIES OF UNIVERSITY, P CAMPUS TMCP STUDENT’S
HAZRA S UNIT
0
ACADEMIC R H
COMMITTEE) A U
G K
 Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE NO.

1. About the committee…………………………………….….2

2. Objectives of the committee………………………………...3
3. Acknowledgement…………………………………………..4
4. Disclaimer …………………………………………………..5
5. GROUP A
Question I (5 marks)………………………………………...6
Question II (10 marks)…………………………………..…34
Question III (5 marks)……………………………………...50
6. GROUP B (2 marks)…………………………………….…62

1
 About the Committee
The Academic Committee of the Department of Law at the University of Calcutta
is a newly formed body established in the month of September, 2024, comprising
dedicated students from all 5 years of the BA LLB program. This diverse
committee is designed to foster a collaborative academic environment, drawing
on the unique perspectives and experiences of its members to enhance the
educational journey of the students.

With a total of 12 members, including two Joint Secretaries, the committee

operates under the auspices of the Student Unit (TMCP) of Department of Law,
University of Calcutta. Its primary mission is to develop comprehensive study
materials and notes that cater to the specific needs of law students, ensuring they
have access to essential resources for their academic success.

In addition to creating study materials, the committee is committed to provide

valuable support through organized online doubt-clearing sessions and
compiling lists of important exam questions. By engaging students from various
academic years, the committee aims to create a vibrant community that
encourages knowledge sharing and academic excellence across all levels of the
BA LLB program. Through these initiatives, we aspire to empower students and
enhance their understanding of legal concepts, preparing them for both
examinations and future careers in law.

2
 Objectives Of the Committee
The Academic Committee of the Department of Law at the University of Calcutta
is dedicated to enriching the academic experience of BA LLB students through
several key initiatives. A primary focus is developing comprehensive study
materials, including high-quality, well-researched notes covering essential topics
in the BA LLB curriculum. This ensures students have valuable resources to
support effective learning and exam preparation.

To aid examination success, the committee curates and distributes a list of

important questions and topics, helping students focus on critical areas and
improve performance. Regular online doubt-clearing sessions further support
students by providing a platform to clarify course content, ask questions, and
engage in discussions on complex legal concepts.

The committee also emphasizes practical learning through workshops and

seminars with legal professionals, offering insights into the legal field and
connecting theoretical knowledge to real-world applications. Additionally,
fostering a collaborative academic community is a priority, encouraging
knowledge sharing and support among students across different years.

Looking ahead, the committee plans to introduce new initiatives such as guest
lectures and legal research projects to further enhance the academic experience
and prepare students for future careers in law.

3
 Acknowledgement
The Academic Committee of the Department of Law at the University of Calcutta
extends its heartfelt gratitude to all those who have supported the establishment
and ongoing efforts of this committee. We would like to express our sincere
appreciation to the University of Calcutta for providing a conducive environment
for academic growth and innovation.

We are especially thankful to the Student Union members, Surya Jyoti Sarkar
(President) and Ananda Biswas (General Secretary) for their unwavering
support and guidance, which has been instrumental in facilitating our operations
and ensuring that student voices are effectively represented in our initiatives.

We also appreciate the enthusiasm and commitment shown by our Committee

Secretaries - Anandita Nandy and Dipshikha Bhandari of 7th Semester and
Executive Members – 9th Semester- Ridhikamini Basu Mallick, 7th Semester -
Ritisha Majumder, Maitreyee Roy, 5th Semester - Anu Mondal, Manami
Pramanick, Supriti Murmu, 3rd Semester – Diksha, Krishna Thakur, Pragya
Shukla, Arkodyuti Pramanick, Debapriya Dutta in working collaboratively to
enhance the academic environment for law students. Together, we aim to create a
vibrant learning atmosphere that prepares students not only for examinations but
also for their future careers in law.

4
 Disclaimer
The notes mentioned in the pdf are prepared for assistance of
students in the Department of Law, Calcutta University. They are
aimed at supplementing the efforts of students. Students are sincerely
advised to attend classes and study by themselves, using these notes
only as a means of reference to enhance their knowledge for
examinations. This Committee does not condone missing classes or
forsaking of own research for academic purposes.

5
*Students are advised to mention the name of the play, playwright, act and scene at the
beginning of the answers.

For example, the given line has been spoken by Portia in Act IV Scene 1 of the play, 'The
Merchant of Venice' written by William Shakespeare.

GROUP -A

Question I

(5 MARKS)

1. Before you can come to a verdict guilty but insane, you must be
well and thoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind
was such as would have qualified him at the moment for a
lunatic asylum”
This statement is made by the presiding judge in the Act II of the play justice written by John
Galsworthy, articulating the critical standards that the jury must consider when deliberating on
the verdict of Falder's case. The judge emphasizes that for the jury to arrive at a verdict of
“guilty but insane,” they must have a firm conviction regarding Falder’s mental state at the
time he committed the crime. This highlights the legal distinction between simply committing
an offense and the mental capacity with which it was committed, thereby setting a high
threshold for establishing insanity as a defence.

The judge clarifies that the jury cannot base their decision on mere emotional distress or
impulsive actions; rather, they must evaluate whether Falder's mental condition was severe
enough to warrant qualification for a lunatic asylum. This requires them to consider the
evidence presented during the trial regarding his behaviour, thoughts, and overall mental
health. The judge’s reference to a lunatic asylum underscores the seriousness of the insanity
plea, as it suggests that Falder's mental state would need to reflect a significant impairment in
his understanding of reality to be classified as insane under the law.

6
Ultimately, this statement guides the jury to focus on the facts and evidence regarding Falder’s
mental health at the time of the forgery, rather than being swayed by factors such as his
emotional turmoil or circumstances surrounding the crime. By emphasizing the need for
thorough conviction, Justice Floyd ensures that the jury remains grounded in the legal
definitions of insanity, reinforcing the principle that the justice system requires a high standard
of proof when determining criminal responsibility. This careful approach serves to protect the
integrity of the legal process and uphold the standards of accountability for those who commit
crimes.

2. “You will go to penal servitude for three years”

This statement is delivered by Justice Floyd, the presiding judge in the trial of William Falder.
This line comes after the judge's remarks after finding Falder guilty of forgery, a serious crime.
The judge has meticulously outlined the factors that influenced his decision, weighing both the
nature of the crime and the mitigating circumstances surrounding Falder’s actions.

The judge emphasizes that despite Falder's youth, good character, and emotional distress at the
time of the offense, the gravity of the crime committed cannot be overlooked. Falder’s role as
a clerk in a lawyer's office further aggravates the situation, as it signifies a breach of trust and
knowledge of the legal implications of his actions. Justice Floyd's refusal to accept the
defence’s appeal for mercy, which he deems morally flawed, underlines his commitment to
upholding the law and ensuring justice is served.

Ultimately, the sentence of three years in penal servitude reflects the judge’s duty to maintain
the integrity of the legal system while also considering the need for deterrence. The judge’s
decision aims to uphold societal standards and discourage similar behaviour in the future,
reinforcing that even in the face of emotional turmoil, the rule of law must prevail. This
sentencing decision demonstrates the delicate balance judges must strike between compassion
for individual circumstances and the responsibility to the broader community.

3. “Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am

not disposed to weary you with further argument”
This statement is made by Mr. Harold Cleaver, the prosecution counsel, during his closing
remarks in the trial of Falder. In this part of the argument, Cleaver addresses the jury and
responds to the defence’s plea of temporary insanity put forth by Mr. Hector Frome. Cleaver

7
intends to highlight the perceived absurdity of the defence’s argument that Falder was not
responsible for his actions due to a temporary lapse into insanity.

By describing the defence as “peculiar,” Cleaver implies that the claim lacks a logical
foundation and does not align with common understandings of mental illness or criminal
responsibility. He contends that the idea of someone being sane one moment and insane the
next—specifically, in the critical moments surrounding the commission of the crime—is not
only unusual but also a tactic to escape accountability.

Cleaver’s phrase “not disposed to weary you with further argument” reflects his belief that the
evidence has already sufficiently demonstrated the inadequacy of the defence’s position. He
seeks to streamline the jury's deliberation by urging them to dismiss what he sees as a
convoluted and unconvincing plea. In doing so, Cleaver aims to reinforce the notion that the
law should not bend to accommodate the emotional circumstances surrounding Falder’s
actions, thereby maintaining a focus on the facts of the case and the seriousness of the crime.

4. “I have merely shown you the background of life"-- that

palpitating life which, believe me whatever my friend may
say— always lies behind the commission of a crime.
In Justice by John Galsworthy, during the trial, defence counsel Mr. Hector Frome argues that
understanding the context of a crime is crucial. He states, “I have merely shown you the
background of life”—referring to the complex emotional landscape that influences individuals.
In Falder’s case, his criminal actions are deeply tied to the difficult circumstances surrounding
Ruth Honeywill's life and his intense emotional connection to her. Frome suggests that these
factors play a significant role in understanding why Falder committed his offense.

While the prosecution, led by Mr. Harold Cleaver, may dismiss Falder’s relationship with Ruth
as irrelevant or even contemptible, Frome emphasizes the reality of their situation. He insists
that love and emotional turmoil cannot be overlooked, as they are fundamental to
understanding the motivations behind criminal behaviour. The prosecution's focus on the crime
itself neglects the underlying human experiences that led to it.

Frome contends that the emotional force of life—the love and desperation felt by both Falder
and Ruth—is a critical element in assessing the nature of Falder's actions. By highlighting this
emotional context, he urges the jury to consider the complexities of human relationships and

8
the profound impacts they can have, arguing that such feelings often drive individuals to act in
ways that may seem irrational or criminal when viewed in isolation.

5. “But it just flashed across me that if I put the ty and the nought
there would be the money to get her away.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, Falder experiences intense emotional turmoil as he reflects on
his actions. He explains that when Ruth Honeywill leaves him, he is overwhelmed with fear
and anxiety and unable to focus on anything. Falder describes a conversation with Davis, a
fellow clerk, who notices his distress and suggests that a brief outing might help him clear his
mind.

In a moment of desperation, while holding a cheque, an impulsive thought crossed his mind, if
he altered the figures on the cheque, he could obtain the money needed to help Ruth escape her
difficult situation. Falder recounts, “It just flashed across me that if I put the ty and the nought
there would be the money to get her away.” He emphasizes that this idea was fleeting, and he
had not fully grasped the implications of his decision until it was too late. After cashing the
cheque, he felt immediate regret, contemplating self-harm as he recognized the gravity of his
actions. Despite this, he resolved to use the money to save Ruth, feeling trapped by his choices.

As Falder speaks, he wrestles with guilt and confusion, unable to comprehend how he could
have acted in such a way. His narrative reveals the profound emotional struggle he faces, as
well as the impulsive nature of his crime driven by love and desperation. Ultimately, Falder’s
reflections underscore the complexity of human emotions and the circumstances that can lead
a person to commit offenses, highlighting the themes of passion, regret, and the desire to protect
those we love.

6. “Prisoner of the bar you are convicted felony”

This line is taken from Justice by John Galsworthy, where, at the end of the cross-examination,
the clerk of the Court of Justice announces, “Prisoner of the bar, you are convicted of felony.”
Responding to the judge’s direction to call upon the prisoner, the clerk formally declares to
Falder, the accused, that he stands convicted of a serious crime.

At this point, the court follows a standard procedure, offering Falder, as the accused, an
opportunity to address the court directly before judgment is pronounced. This moment upholds
a fundamental right of the accused—allowing him, as a human being, to present any final

9
statement or plea in his defence. Regardless of the trial’s outcome or evidence presented, it is
customary in the legal process for the accused to be given the chance to speak before the court
finalizes its judgment. This practice honours the principle that the accused’s perspective
deserves to be heard, reflecting a measure of respect and fairness in the administration of
justice.

7. “The law is what it is — a majestic edifice sheltering all of us "

In Justice by John Galsworthy, Judge Floyd, delivering his judgment, asserts, “The law is what
it is—a majestic edifice sheltering all of us.” Rejecting the defence's argument about double
jeopardy presented by Mr. Hector Frome, Judge Floyd states that Falder, who has already
served a prison term for forgery, deserves no leniency under the law for additional offenses.
The judge emphasizes that Falder’s actions, especially his pursuit of a married woman, are
serious breaches both legally and morally, warranting further punishment.

Judge Floyd underscores the essential role of law in society, describing it as a structure built
upon enduring principles that shape and stabilize social order. Law, he explains, is deeply
embedded in the minds and lives of individuals, providing security and consistency that cannot
be easily altered or adjusted for particular cases. Every provision of the law functions like a
stone in a grand structure, supporting and strengthening the whole, creating a solid body of
justice that upholds society’s sanctity and order.

Thus, the judge refuses any departure from established legal practices or any special mercy for
Falder. He maintains that the law’s authority and integrity must be respected, and no exception
can be made merely out of sympathy, as defence counsel Mr. Frome had pleaded. He argues
that the law’s permanence and role in safeguarding society must prevail.

8. “Justice is a machine that, when someone has once given it the

starting push, rolls on itself”
This line is drawn from John Galsworthy's play Justice, where Mr. Hector Frome, the defence
lawyer, passionately addresses the jury in a final plea on behalf of his client, Falder. Frome
argues against the rigid and impersonal application of justice, which he compares to a machine.
He explains, “Justice is a machine that, when someone has once given it the starting push, rolls
on itself.” He urges the jury not to issue a verdict that would send an unintentional offender
back to prison, forever branding him and robbing him of any hope of redemption.

10
Frome illustrates how, once the wheels of the justice system turn against a weak and unfortunate
individual like Falder, it traps him in an inescapable cycle, where any chance at freedom or
rehabilitation is lost. The system, he argues, is overly orthodox and laden with complex rules,
whose harsh application ensnares vulnerable individuals, stripping them of dignity and
preventing their return to normal life. Frome's appeal is not for the cold, mechanized
application of legal justice, but for a compassionate, humane approach that recognizes Falder's
missteps without destroying his future.

9. “One wrong is no excuse for another”

This expression “One wrong is no excuse for another” has been delivered by the defence
counsel Mr. Hector Frome during the Trial in the Court of Justice.

Mr. Hector Frome points out in his argument that one immoral act cannot be able to justify
another wrongful act which it relates with.

The minds of both Ruth Honeywill and William Falder are constantly turned towards immoral
acts and relation.

Falder, in the tragic circumstances, has committed the offence of forgery in the stress of
urgency. He wanted to rescue Ruth, a married woman, from her tyrannical husband who used
to ill-treat her and from whom she has no means of escape. He cannot do wrongful acts thinking
of that woman and helping her with her life problems when her husband is still alive and no
divorce took place between them.

It is also a wrong, a married woman cannot make a relation with an unmarried young man. She
cannot set her whole hopes on him by planning to elope with him to South America and settle
together as husband and wife where they both would be unknown.

Thus, these are the two wrongs which Mr. Hector Frome referred in this context.

10.“It don’t bear talking about.”

In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line “It don’t bear talking about” reflects the resignation and
helplessness of characters confronted with difficult or painful truths they feel powerless to
change. Ruth Honeywill, the woman Falder loves, says this line to convey the depth of her
suffering and the hopelessness of her situation.

11
She is trapped in an abusive marriage, unable to escape due to social and economic constraints.
When she says “It don’t bear talking about,” she is expressing that her struggles and the grim
reality of her life are so overwhelming and painful that discussing them seems pointless, as it
offers no solution or relief.

This line underscores the play’s themes of societal and personal confinement, as Ruth, like
Falder, is caught in circumstances beyond her control. Both characters are trapped by rigid
social structures and an unforgiving legal system that offers them little sympathy. Through
Ruth’s resigned words, Galsworthy highlights the condition of individuals who suffer silently,
unable to find justice or understanding in society.

11.“This was a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no

doubt call it, an immoral resolution.”
The line was a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it, an immoral
resolution” was said by Mr Hector Frome, the defence counsel during the trial in the Court of
Justice.

While explaining the circumstances which took place, he explained that the woman, Ruth
Honeywill would confirm that the prisoner that is, Falder had done forgery for she had set up
all hopes on him knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.

She knew that Falder would take her away from all her misery and would settle into a new
country with her where they both would be unknown and will pass as husband and wife there.
This shows the desperation an immoral resolution since it’s both wrong how the forgery was
done and also how they were in an illegal relationship. This points how their minds the
constantly turned towards the wrong.

12.“Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?”

The line “Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?” was said by Mr Hector Frome,
the defence counsel during the trial in the Court of Justice.

The context of this line is that he asked this question to Mr Robert Cokeson in the trial scene.
Mr Robert Cokeson, the managing clerk of the Solicitor’s firm is put into the witness box. He
is the first witness of the case because he is centre point of relations with his employers and

12
employees. He knows the nature, conduct and behaviour of all who are engaged in the office.
He has the capacity to notice the feeling of the person in grave circumstances.

The day when Falder committed the offence of forgery, he looked peculiar. Cokeson had never
seen such an abnormal look in Falder eyes. He used the term ‘funny’ as unusual instead of
strange for Falder. His collar was unbuttoned and he stared at him and it was not nice. Actually,
Mr Cokeson when he is in witness box in response to the Judge cannot explain the meaning of
how it was funny.

When the defence counsel, Mr Hector Frome, asks him whether he had ever seen such a look
in Falder’s eyes before, Mr Robert Cokeson replies in negative way and he says if he had he
should have spoken to the employers, Mr James How and Mr Walter How.

He also says that they cannot have anything eccentric in their profession.

13.“Well, now Sir, what precisely do you mean by that word?”

The line “Well, now Sir, what precisely do you mean by that word?” was said by Mr Harold
Cleaver the prosecution counsel.

He asked Mr Robert Cokeson that he said on the morning of the forgery the prisoner, Falder
was jumpy. On the context of this, he asks what did he mean by that precise word ‘jumpy’. Mr.
Cokeson describes that if he has ever seen a dog that has lost its master, Falder was kind of
everywhere at once.

Then Mr Cleaver asked him about his eyes and why he called it funny before since what may
be funny to him may not be funny to the jury or any other person, he wanted him to explain
whether they were shy or fierce or any other expression. Mr Cokeson replied that he finds it
very difficult to explain but he detailed that his collar was unbuttoned on that day. He noticed
it especially because Falder was generally a very clean and quiet person and was never caught
in such a dishevelled state before.

14.“The fact is patent that you committed this crime with the view
of furthering an immoral design.”
In ‘Justice’ by John Galsworthy, the line “The fact is patent that you committed this crime with
the view of furthering an immoral design” is delivered by the Judge, Mr. Justice Floyd during
the trial of the protagonist, William Falder. Falder is on trial for forgery, a crime he committed

13
to obtain money that would enable him and Ruth Honeywill, a woman trapped in an abusive
marriage, to escape together.

The judge’s words reflect the harsh and uncompromising stance of the judicial system, focusing
solely on the legal structure and labelling Falder’s motive as an “immoral design.” The judge
interprets Falder’s actions as premeditated and morally wrong, dismissing the compassionate,
desperate motivation behind them.

This line glorifies Galsworthy’s critique of the justice system’s failure to account for personal
circumstances or morality, showing how rigid legal interpretations can deny the humanity of
those it judges. The play as a whole explores the limitations of a legal system that overlooks
individual struggles, emphasizing Galsworthy’s call for a more empathetic approach to justice.

15.“On the morning when my husband nearly killed me, my

friend cried.”
The line “On the morning that when my husband nearly killed me, my friend cried” has been
delivered by Mrs Ruth Honeywill in response to the defence counsel Mr Hector Frome during
the trial in the Court of Justice whether Falder had money to give her.

On Saturday, July 8th, Falder told her afterwards he had come with unexpected money. He gave
her money to buy an outfit for her and the children and to get all ready to start for South America
in order to settle for their future living.

On the morning when Mrs Ruth Honeywill's husband nearly killed her, her friend Falder cried
out, hearing the situation because he did not have the money to get her away from her abusive
husband. Although Falder afterwards came with the money which was unexpected. But he did
not speak to her about a check which he had encashed.

16.“It just flashed across me that if I put the ty and the nought,
there would be the money to get her away.”
In ‘Justice’ by John Galsworthy, the line “It just flashed across me that if I put the ‘ty’ and the
‘nought,’ there would be the money to get her away” is spoken by the protagonist, William
Falder, as he explains his impulsive decision to commit forgery.

14
Falder, a young and vulnerable clerk, is in love with Ruth Honeywill, a woman suffering in an
abusive marriage. He becomes desperate to help her escape her situation, and in a moment of
panic and impulsive reasoning, he sees a quick, albeit illegal, solution.

Falder alters a check by adding a “ty” (for ninety) and a “nought” (zero) to increase its value
from £9 to £90, intending to use the money to help Ruth. This moment reveals the character’s
inner turmoil, his desperation, and his lack of premeditation. The line underscores the
impulsive, almost subconscious nature of his crime—it was a split-second decision driven by
his compassion and desperation rather than malice or greed.

This moment highlights a central theme in Justice: the conflict between human emotion and
the rigid, impersonal structure of the law. Galsworthy uses Falder’s rash action to show how
individuals under pressure can make poor choices, raising questions about whether strict
punishment is always the fairest response.

17.“He has not a strong face, but neither has he a vicious face.”

The line “He has not a strong face, but neither has he a vicious face” is spoken by the character
Cokeson in John Galsworthy’s play Justice. This remark occurs during a discussion about
William Falder, a young man who has committed forgery out of desperation to help Ruth, a
woman trapped in an abusive marriage. Cokeson’s observation reflects his nuanced
understanding of Falder’s character, suggesting that while Falder may lack physical strength or
a commanding presence, he is not inherently malicious.

Cokeson’s statement serves to humanize Falder, emphasizing that his crime was not born from
wickedness but rather from a place of emotional turmoil and moral conflict. The context of this
line is crucial; it highlights the broader theme of the play, which critiques the rigid and often
unjust nature of the legal system. Galsworthy uses Cokeson’s perspective to challenge the
audience’s perception of justice and morality, inviting them to consider the circumstances that
lead individuals to commit crimes.

By portraying Falder as a sympathetic character rather than a typical criminal, Galsworthy

underscores the flaws within the judicial system that fails to account for human emotions and
motivations. This moment encapsulates the play’s central critique: justice should be tempered
with compassion and understanding, rather than being administered with blind severity. Thus,
Cokeson’s remark not only sheds light on Falder’s character but also serves as a poignant
commentary on the nature of justice itself.

15
 18.“I beg you not to return a verdict that may thrust him back
into prison and brand him forever”
The line “I beg you not to return a verdict that may thrust him back into prison and brand him
for ever” is spoken by Hector Frome, the defense attorney, during the trial of William Falder
in John Galsworthy’s play Justice. This plea occurs in Act II, as Frome attempts to sway the
jury’s perception of Falder, who has committed forgery out of desperation to help Ruth, a
woman trapped in an abusive marriage.

Frome’s statement reflects his deep concern for Falder’s future and the potential consequences
of a guilty verdict. He emphasizes that a prison sentence would not only punish Falder for his
crime but also permanently tarnish his reputation, branding him as a criminal. This moment
underscores the play’s critique of the justice system, which often fails to consider the
circumstances that lead individuals to commit crimes. Frome argues that Falder’s actions were
driven by compassion rather than malice, suggesting that the law should account for human
emotions and motivations.

This plea is significant as it encapsulates the central theme of Galsworthy’s work: the need for
justice to be tempered with mercy and understanding. Frome’s heartfelt appeal challenges the
jury to look beyond the letter of the law and consider the broader implications of their decision.
By doing so, Galsworthy invites the audience to reflect on the flaws within a legal system that
harshly punishes those who may be victims of circumstance rather than true criminals.
Ultimately, Frome’s words serve as a poignant reminder of the human cost of rigid legalism
and the importance of compassion in administering justice.

19.“Have you ever seen a dog that’s lost its master?”

The line “Have you ever seen a dog that’s lost its master?” is spoken by William Falder in John
Galsworthy’s play Justice. This poignant moment occurs during a conversation with Hector
Frome, the defence attorney, as Falder reflects on his emotional turmoil and sense of
abandonment following his own struggles.

Falder’s comparison to a lost dog serves as a powerful metaphor for his feelings of isolation
and despair. Just as a dog wander aimlessly, searching for its master, Falder feels adrift in a
world that seems to have turned against him. This imagery evokes sympathy from the audience,

16
highlighting the deep emotional scars that accompany his actions—specifically, the forgery he
committed out of desperation to help Ruth, a woman trapped in an abusive relationship.

The context of this line is crucial; it underscores Falder’s vulnerability and the internal conflict
he faces. He is not merely a criminal but a man grappling with profound feelings of loss and
helplessness. Galsworthy uses this moment to challenge the audience’s perception of justice,
inviting them to consider the human emotions that drive individuals to commit acts deemed
unlawful.

By likening himself to a lost dog, Falder articulates his longing for connection and
understanding in a world that often punishes rather than empathizes. This line encapsulates the
play’s central themes of compassion and the need for a more humane approach to justice.
Ultimately, it serves as a poignant reminder of the emotional complexities behind criminal
behaviour and the importance of recognizing the humanity in those who are often branded as
offenders.

20.“I was all out of breath when I got to the bank”

The line “I was all out of breath when I got to the bank” is spoken by William Falder in John
Galsworthy’s play Justice. This statement occurs during a moment of reflection as Falder
recounts the frantic circumstances surrounding his decision to commit forgery.

Falder’s admission highlights the urgency and desperation he felt at that moment. He had
rushed to the bank, driven by a sense of panic and the weight of his emotional turmoil. This
urgency is not merely physical; it symbolizes the overwhelming pressure he faces in trying to
help Ruth, a woman ensnared in an abusive marriage. The breathlessness he describes serves
as a metaphor for the suffocating nature of his situation—caught between his moral compass
and the drastic measures he feels compelled to take.

The context of this line is significant as it underscores Falder’s vulnerability and the emotional
stakes involved in his actions. Rather than portraying him as a cold-hearted criminal,
Galsworthy presents him as a deeply troubled individual pushed to extremes by circumstance.
This moment invites the audience to empathize with Falder, recognizing that his crime was
born from desperation rather than malice.

Additionally, this line reflects the broader themes of the play regarding justice and compassion.
Galsworthy critiques a legal system that fails to consider the human emotions and motivations
behind criminal acts. By illustrating Falder’s frantic state, he challenges viewers to reconsider
17
their perceptions of justice and punishment, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of
individuals who find themselves in dire situations.

Ultimately, Falder’s breathlessness encapsulates his internal struggle and the emotional weight
of his actions, serving as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in human behaviour
and the need for empathy within the framework of justice.

21.“I am not able to justify to my conscience a plea for mercy

which has a basis inimical to morality.”
The quote “I am not able to justify to my conscience a plea for mercy which has a basis
inimical to morality” is spoken by Justice Floyd, the presiding judge in the play.

Justice Floyd makes this statement during the trial of William Falder, a junior clerk who has
committed forgery. The quote arises in the context of discussions about whether Falder
should receive mercy in light of his circumstances, which include personal struggles and a
moment of desperation that led to his crime.

Justice Floyd’s statement reflects his internal conflict and the principles guiding his judicial
philosophy. He suggests that while he understands the human desire for mercy, he cannot
grant it if it contradicts moral law. This is particularly significant because it indicates that he
believes mercy must be grounded in ethical considerations; otherwise, it risks undermining
the integrity of the legal system.

Justice Floyd’s suggestion serves as a critical turning point in the narrative, influencing how
other characters perceive justice and mercy. His perspective contrasts sharply with characters
like Walter How, who advocate for understanding Falder's plight. This dichotomy drives
home Galsworthy's critique of a legal system that can be inflexible and harsh, often failing to
account for human frailty.

In summary, Justice Floyd’s statement serves as a poignant reflection on the complexities of

justice within Galsworthy's Justice. It invites audiences to consider how legal principles
intersect with moral values and the profound implications these intersections have on
individuals' lives

22.“I have to remember that she may have come to commit

perjury on the prisoners’ behalf.”

18
The quote “I have to remember that she may have come to commit perjury on the prisoners'
behalf,” is spoken by Justice Floyd in John Galsworthy's play Justice.

This quote is delivered by Justice Floyd, the presiding judge, during the trial of William
Falder, who is accused of forgery. In this moment, Justice Floyd reflects on the possibility
that a witness may be motivated to commit perjury out of sympathy for Falder.

His statement reveals the complexities inherent in legal proceedings, where emotions can
cloud the truth. By acknowledging this potential for dishonesty, Justice Floyd emphasizes his
commitment to maintaining objectivity and integrity within the courtroom. He understands
that while witnesses may feel compassion for the accused, their motivations can complicate
the pursuit of justice.

This quote encapsulates key themes in Justice, particularly the tension between moral
considerations and legal principles. It highlights the challenges judges face in balancing
empathy with their duty to uphold the law, ultimately inviting audiences to reflect on the
nature of truth and justice in human affairs.

23.“Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am

not disposed to weary you with further argument.”
“Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am not disposed to weary you with
further argument,” is spoken by Harold Cleaver in John Galsworthy's play Justice. The quote
is delivered by Harold Cleaver, the prosecution counsel, during a pivotal moment in the trial
of William Falder, who is accused of forgery. Cleaver’s statement reflects his incredulity at the
defense's arguments, which he finds to be both unconventional and lacking in merit. By
expressing his reluctance to continue debating what he perceives as an absurd proposition,
Cleaver underscores his confidence in the strength of his case and his disdain for the opposing
side's attempts to defend Falder. This moment captures the adversarial nature of courtroom
proceedings, where each side is determined to assert its position. Cleaver’s dismissive attitude
highlights the tension that often characterizes trials, where emotions run high and stakes are
significant. His remark suggests a sense of superiority and frustration, as he believes that
engaging further with what he considers nonsensical arguments would be a waste of time. This
dynamic reflects a broader theme within Galsworthy's play: the competitive environment of
the legal system, where winning can overshadow the pursuit of true justice. The courtroom

19
becomes a battleground where legal representatives focus on defeating their opponents rather
than seeking an equitable resolution.

Moreover, Cleaver's statement serves as a critique of the rigidity often found in legal arguments
and the potential for moral ambiguity within judicial proceedings. The phrase “peculiar
proposition” implies that certain legal arguments can defy common sense or ethical
considerations. This highlights a critical aspect of Galsworthy’s narrative: that legal
frameworks can become so entrenched in their own rules that they may overlook fundamental
human truths and individual circumstances. Cleaver’s perspective raises important questions
about how justice is defined and pursued within such a system. Ultimately, Galsworthy uses
Cleaver’s character to illustrate how lawyers can become entrenched in their roles, prioritizing
personal ambition over ethical considerations. This aspect reflects a broader critique of the
legal profession, suggesting that some practitioners may focus more on winning cases than on
ensuring justice for those involved. In Justice, this moment emphasizes the need for a more
compassionate approach to legal proceedings—one that recognizes and addresses the
complexities of human experience rather than reducing individuals to mere legal cases.
Through this lens, Galsworthy invites audiences to reflect on the nature of justice itself and
consider how it can be achieved amidst the complexities of human behavior and emotion.

24.“Men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law for want of
that human insight which sees them as they are- patients, and not
criminals.”

The line “Men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law for want of that human insight
which sees them as they are—patients, and not criminals” is spoken by Hector Frome in John
Galsworthy’s play Justice. This statement occurs during the trial of William Falder, who has
committed forgery out of desperation to help Ruth, a woman trapped in an abusive marriage.

Frome’s remark highlights a critical flaw in the judicial system: its inability to recognize the
humanity behind criminal actions. By referring to Falder and others like him as “patients,”
Frome emphasizes that these individuals are often victims of circumstance rather than
inherently immoral beings. This perspective challenges the audience to reconsider their views
on justice and punishment, suggesting that the law should be more compassionate and
understanding of human frailty.

20
The context of this line is significant as it underscores Galsworthy’s broader critique of a legal
system that prioritizes rigid adherence to rules over empathy and insight. Frome’s plea for
understanding reflects his belief that true justice must account for the complexities of individual
situations, particularly those driven by desperation or emotional turmoil.

Ultimately, this line serves as a poignant reminder of the need for reform within the legal
system. Galsworthy’s portrayal of Falder’s plight illustrates how societal pressures can lead
individuals to commit crimes, and it calls for a more humane approach to justice—one that
recognizes the underlying issues faced by those who find themselves in desperate situations.
By advocating for a legal framework that sees individuals as more than just criminals,
Galsworthy urges society to adopt a more compassionate stance towards those who have erred,
fostering an environment where rehabilitation is prioritized over punishment.

25.“If you’d seen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you’d
have felt the same, I know.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, this line by William Falder reflects his profound emotional
conflict and desperation. Falder, a young law clerk working in the law office of James and
Walter How, has fallen deeply in love with Ruth Honeywill, a married woman who is abused
by her husband. Falder's statement reveals that he feels justified in committing forgery because
of the intense love and sympathy he has for Ruth. His desire to rescue her from her harsh life
blinds him to the potential consequences of his crime, showing how strong emotions can cloud
judgment and drive one to moral compromise.

Galsworthy uses Falder’s emotional turmoil to emphasize the disconnect between the rigid
structure of the law and the nuances of individual circumstances. Falder believes that if others
truly understood the depth of his feelings and his compassionate motives, they would
empathize with his decision. However, the court and society are indifferent to his personal
plight and only see his act as a criminal offense. This conflict between personal motivation and
societal law raises the question of whether justice should be purely objective or if it should
consider individual circumstances.

Falder's tragedy lies in the fact that the judicial system disregards his emotions and intentions,
focusing solely on his actions. Galsworthy uses this to criticize a system that is unable to
account for human vulnerability and complex emotional motivations. Falder’s words highlight
a central theme of the play: that rigid justice can be both inhumane and unjust when it fails to

21
consider compassion, empathy, and the personal motives behind actions. His story serves as a
poignant critique of how the legal system often fails to recognize the humanity of those it
punishes.

26.“I don’t see why I should, sir, not to be a man like that.”

In this line, Cokeson, the office manager in Justice, expresses his frustration and moral
discomfort toward a character he finds unworthy of respect. Cokeson is a compassionate yet
rule-abiding man who manages the law office where William Falder works. Though he is
initially shocked by Falder’s forgery, he grows sympathetic towards him, recognizing the
young clerk's tragic circumstances and emotional vulnerability. His remark is likely directed
towards Mr. James How, one of the partners in the firm, who represents the rigid and
impersonal side of the legal profession.

Cokeson’s words reveal his inner conflict with the unyielding and often harsh attitudes of those
in power, like Mr. James. Cokeson has a strong sense of fairness and believes in giving people
a second chance. Throughout the play, he becomes one of Falder’s few allies, advocating for
understanding and empathy rather than strict punishment. However, Mr. James is depicted as a
figure who values the law above personal compassion, illustrating the stark contrast between
humanity and the law. This line highlights Cokeson's struggle with a system that does not align
with his moral convictions.

Galsworthy uses Cokeson’s perspective to criticize a judicial and professional system that often
overlooks individual morality in favor of unwavering adherence to rules. Cokeson’s words are
a subtle act of rebellion, as he questions why he should respect a person who, in his view, lacks
compassion. Through Cokeson, Galsworthy raises important questions about the conflict
between personal ethics and societal expectations. This line underscores the tension between
Cokeson's compassion and the law’s demand for impartiality, showing how individuals within
the system may experience inner turmoil when their values are at odds with institutional
principles.

27.“You must not allow any consideration of age or temptation to

weigh with you in the findings of your verdict.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the statement, “You must not allow any consideration of age or
temptation to weigh with you in the findings of your verdict,” is delivered by the Judge during

22
William Falder's trial. This line underscores the judicial philosophy of strict impartiality, where
personal circumstances such as youth or vulnerability to temptation are deemed irrelevant in
determining guilt. The Judge is instructing the jury to focus solely on the legality of Falder’s
actions—namely, his forgery—and to disregard any emotional or empathetic considerations.

Falder’s case, however, is deeply entwined with factors of age, temptation, and desperation. A
young clerk with limited means, Falder is driven to commit forgery out of love and compassion
for Ruth Honeywill, a woman trapped in an abusive marriage. His actions are not motivated by
personal gain or malice but rather by a sincere, albeit misguided, desire to rescue Ruth.
Galsworthy uses the Judge’s instructions to the jury to illustrate the tragic rigidity of the legal
system, which dismisses the complex motives behind human actions in favor of an
unemotional, absolute verdict.

This line highlights one of the central themes of Justice: the conflict between the letter of the
law and the broader principles of humanity and compassion. By asking the jury to ignore
Falder’s circumstances, the Judge implies that justice should be blind to individual context.
Galsworthy critiques this approach, suggesting that a legal system unwilling to consider human
factors risks perpetuating injustice rather than preventing it. Falder’s story becomes
emblematic of the suffering caused by a system that prioritizes objective punishment over
understanding. In this line, Galsworthy questions whether true justice can be achieved if it fails
to account for the humanity of those it judges, illustrating how rigid laws can trap individuals
in cycles of despair and hopelessness.

28.“I shouldn’t like you to have led me to the answer.”

In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line, “I shouldn’t like you to have led me to the answer,” is
spoken by Cokeson, the well-meaning but somewhat narrow-minded office manager at the law
firm where William Falder works. This statement is directed toward the defense lawyer, as
Cokeson testifies in Falder's forgery trial. Cokeson, who has a strong sense of honesty and duty,
does not want to appear as though he’s been influenced or manipulated into giving a particular
response in his testimony. His words reveal his desire to maintain integrity and avoid appearing
biased or swayed by any party in the courtroom.

Cokeson's statement highlights his ethical stance and his commitment to truth, even as he
struggles with conflicting loyalties. While he sympathizes with Falder, he is also bound by his
sense of duty to the law and the firm. By stating that he doesn’t want to be "led," Cokeson

23
emphasizes his wish to remain impartial and truthful, despite his underlying compassion for
Falder’s plight. He represents the human element within the otherwise cold, bureaucratic world
of law—a man who desires to do right by the rules but is uncomfortable with the rigidity and
lack of empathy in the judicial process.

Galsworthy uses Cokeson’s reluctance to be "led" as a way to critique how individuals within
the legal system are often constrained by its rules and conventions, which may prevent them
from fully expressing empathy or advocating for humane treatment. This line underlines
Cokeson’s internal struggle and the play’s broader theme: the tension between justice as an
abstract ideal and the moral realities of individuals within the system. Cokeson’s insistence on
speaking freely and honestly reflects his discomfort with a system that may pressure witnesses
to conform to a particular narrative, raising questions about the integrity of a legal process that
demands objectivity at the cost of compassion.

29.“Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man

those dark ill-starred ships called prisons?”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line “Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that
man those dark ill-starred ships called prisons?” is spoken by William Falder’s defense lawyer
during his trial. This powerful metaphor vividly captures the grim reality of the prison system
and the irreversible impact it has on individuals who, like Falder, find themselves caught in
desperate circumstances. The lawyer pleads with the court, highlighting the harsh and
dehumanizing nature of imprisonment, especially for someone as young and vulnerable as
Falder, who is not a hardened criminal but a man driven by compassion and love for Ruth
Honeywill.

In comparing prisons to “dark ill-starred ships,” the lawyer evokes the imagery of condemned
souls or “luckless crews,” trapped in a life of suffering and isolation. This metaphor suggests
that the prison system is like a doomed vessel, casting its inhabitants into despair rather than
offering them redemption or rehabilitation. The lawyer’s appeal emphasizes the play’s central
critique of the justice system: its failure to account for individual circumstances and its
tendency to punish rather than to understand or reform.

Galsworthy uses this line to draw attention to the harshness of the British penal system, which
offers little hope for those who enter it. Through the lawyer’s words, he questions whether the
court truly serves justice by condemning people like Falder, whose crime stems not from malice

24
but from love and desperation. The line underscores the broader social critique in Justice, where
Galsworthy advocates for a more humane and compassionate approach to justice—one that
recognizes the personal stories behind each case rather than reducing individuals to mere
criminals. This plea reflects the tragic irony of Falder’s situation: though he seeks to escape
hardship, his actions may doom him to a life of suffering within the very “ill-starred ship” of
the prison system, highlighting the play’s underlying call for reform and empathy in the judicial
process.

30.“It couldn’t have been four minutes, Sir, because I ran all the
way.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line “It couldn't have been four minutes, Sir, because I ran
all the way,” is spoken by William Falder during his trial for forgery. Falder, a young law clerk,
tries to defend himself by explaining the brief time he had to commit the crime. This statement
captures Falder’s desperation and his attempt to mitigate his guilt by stressing the hurried,
impulsive nature of his actions. His words convey a sense of panic, as he tries to justify the
briefness of the act to show that he had little premeditation.

Falder's statement reflects his character as a young, vulnerable individual who is overwhelmed
by his circumstances. He committed forgery not out of greed, but out of love and concern for
Ruth Honeywill, a woman he wishes to help escape an abusive marriage. Galsworthy uses this
moment to underscore the theme of human vulnerability within a rigid legal system that
disregards individual motives. Despite his explanation, Falder's attempt to provide context is
overshadowed by the strict, unforgiving nature of the court, which focuses only on the legality
of his actions rather than the motives behind them.

Through this line, Galsworthy emphasizes how the justice system fails to consider the
emotional and situational factors that drive individuals to commit crimes. Falder’s plea—
stating that he “ran all the way”—is his effort to communicate that his actions were rushed,
possibly even impulsive, and not calculated. However, the court’s focus remains on the act
itself rather than the context, illustrating Galsworthy's critique of a system that lacks empathy.
This line represents Falder’s tragic struggle to make the court see him as a human being with
genuine, compassionate motives, rather than reducing him to just another criminal. This adds
to the play’s larger message on the need for a justice system that not only punishes but also
understands the human dimensions of those it judges.

25
 31.“He told me afterwards he’d come into a windfall.”

In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line “He told me afterwards he’d come into a windfall” is
likely spoken by a witness or character recounting William Falder's attempt to justify his
sudden possession of extra money after committing forgery. This statement serves to illustrate
how Falder tried to cover up his actions by fabricating a story about unexpectedly receiving
money. His claim of a “windfall” is meant to deflect suspicion and downplay any connection
to his crime, reflecting his nervousness and desperation to avoid punishment.

Falder’s fabricated story about the windfall underscores his fear of being caught, as well as his
lack of experience in handling such a stressful situation. Galsworthy uses this line to reveal the
lengths to which Falder goes to protect himself and his fragile dream of helping Ruth
Honeywill, the woman he loves. Falder’s crime of forgery was not driven by greed, but rather
by his compassionate desire to assist Ruth in escaping an abusive marriage. However, when
questioned about his sudden access to money, he resorts to a lie, indicating his desperate state
and inability to foresee the consequences of his actions.

This line also reflects one of the play’s central themes: the tragic consequences of impulsive
actions taken by individuals in desperate circumstances. Galsworthy portrays Falder as a
sympathetic figure, a young man driven to dishonesty and crime by a society that offers him
no other escape from his predicament. The mention of a “windfall” represents Falder’s fleeting
hope that he could evade responsibility, but it ultimately contributes to his downfall, as the lie
is easily exposed. Galsworthy uses Falder’s futile deception to critique a legal system that is
quick to condemn but slow to understand the social and personal factors that lead people to
crime, highlighting the need for compassion within justice.

32.“She has every reason to favour the prisoner- She said the
prisoner was not insane.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line “She has every reason to favour the prisoner – She said
the prisoner was not insane” likely refers to a moment in the trial where the defense attempts
to question the credibility of a witness, or the prosecution argues against any suggestion of
Falder’s mental instability. This statement reflects the way the legal system scrutinizes and
questions each piece of testimony, especially when it appears to support the accused. Here,
“She” could be Ruth Honeywill or another character with a personal connection to Falder,
whose support for him might be seen as biased by the court.

26
The line highlights the complexities of witness testimony and how the justice system evaluates
the motives behind statements given in favor of the defendant. Galsworthy illustrates the
tendency of the court to dismiss testimony from those who may be sympathetic toward the
accused, suggesting a skeptical view of emotional connections that could compromise
“objectivity.” In Falder's case, Ruth, as the woman he loves and for whom he committed the
crime, is naturally inclined to support him, leading the court to question her reliability. The
legal system, therefore, prioritizes detachment and impartiality, even if it means disregarding
the emotional truths that could provide insight into Falder’s motives and state of mind.

The assertion that Falder “was not insane” also underscores a crucial aspect of his defense, as
Falder's actions could be seen as the result of a momentary lapse or emotional turmoil rather
than a deliberate, calculated crime. By dismissing the possibility of mental instability, the court
reinforces its rigid view that Falder is solely responsible for his actions. Galsworthy uses this
line to critique a justice system that fails to account for the complex human elements—such as
love, desperation, and psychological strain—that drive individuals to commit crimes. This
approach leads to a more severe outcome for Falder, as the court disregards the emotional
struggles underlying his actions, ultimately reflecting the play’s theme of the legal system's
lack of empathy.

33."The rest has followed as death follows a stab to the heart...."

In Justice by John Galsworthy, the quote "The rest has followed as death follows a stab to the
heart" vividly encapsulates the inevitability and speed of the consequences stemming from a
single moral lapse. Delivered as part of Mr. Frome’s closing argument, the line underscores the
chain reaction triggered by William Falder's act of forgery, which ultimately seals his tragic
downfall. Falder’s crime, committed in a moment of emotional turmoil over Ruth Honeywill’s
plight, leads to irreversible legal repercussions, highlighting the play’s themes of human
fragility, justice, and systemic rigidity.

The metaphor likens the aftermath of Falder's actions to death following a mortal wound,
emphasizing the fatalistic nature of his situation. Just as a stab irrevocably wounds the body,
Falder's forgery irreparably damages his life and reputation. This imagery not only conveys the
inevitability of his fate but also critiques the rigid and unempathetic nature of the justice system,
which fails to distinguish between crimes of malice and those born of desperation.

27
The quote reflects Falder's psychological state, portraying him as a tragic figure overwhelmed
by his circumstances. His sense of hopelessness and torment mirrors the play’s broader
criticism of a legal framework that punishes rather than rehabilitates. By depicting Falder as a
victim of emotional distress rather than a hardened criminal, Galsworthy questions whether the
law, in its current form, truly serves justice.

Ultimately, the line symbolizes the play’s central conflict between rigid legality and human
compassion. It calls for an acknowledgment of human weakness and the necessity of mercy
within the legal system, urging a reflection on the need for reform to prevent individuals like
Falder from being destroyed by their errors.

34."Anyway, when I got outside, I wanted to chuck myself under a

bus.”
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line "Anyway, when I got outside, I wanted to chuck myself
under a bus" captures William Falder's intense psychological turmoil and regret immediately
after committing forgery. Spoken during his testimony, it reveals the overwhelming guilt that
consumes him as he reflects on his impulsive action to secure money for an escape with Ruth
Honeywill. Falder's remorse is palpable, as he derives no relief or satisfaction from his crime,
only the crushing realization of its moral and legal consequences. His desire to harm himself
highlights the inner conflict between his love for Ruth and his awareness of the wrongdoing,
underscoring his fragile emotional state.

Galsworthy uses this moment to delve deeply into Falder's psyche, portraying him as a victim
of circumstance rather than a true criminal. Ruth’s suffering, coupled with Falder’s desperation
to save her, leaves him unable to think rationally, and his fragile mental state drives his
impulsive decision. The metaphor of throwing himself under a bus further emphasizes his
hopelessness and foreshadows his inevitable downfall, as his life is figuratively "run over" by
the harsh and unforgiving justice system.

This line also serves as a critique of society’s inability to support individuals like Falder. His
desperation stems from the lack of legal or societal avenues to assist Ruth, forcing him into a
moral and legal misstep. Falder's predicament highlights the inadequacies of the justice system
in addressing human vulnerabilities, illustrating how individuals in distress are often left
without options.

28
In essence, the line encapsulates Falder’s humanity and vulnerability, presenting him as a tragic
figure ensnared by love and societal constraints. It underscores the play's critique of an
inflexible justice system and its devastating impact on those who act out of emotional
desperation rather than malice.

35."The offence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the

most serious known to our law."
In Justice by John Galsworthy, the prosecution’s statement during Falder’s trial emphasizes the
gravity of forgery as a crime that breaches trust and undermines societal stability. By portraying
Falder’s actions as deliberate and deserving of severe punishment, the prosecutor frames
forgery as a public concern rather than an individual failing. However, this rigid legal
perspective contrasts with the defence’s argument that Falder acted impulsively and out of
emotional distress rather than malice. This tension highlights the central theme of the play: the
conflict between the inflexible application of legal codes and the complexities of human frailty.

Through this statement, Galsworthy critiques the justice system’s failure to account for the
circumstances and intentions behind crimes. While Falder’s act technically violates the law, it
lacks the calculated malice that typically defines severe offenses, raising moral questions about
whether the system adequately considers the vulnerabilities and desperation of individuals.
Falder’s attempt to save Ruth Honeywill, born from a moment of emotional turmoil, sharply
contrasts with the prosecutor’s depiction of him as a dangerous criminal, further challenging
the fairness of such judgments.

Ultimately, this remark underscores the harshness of a system that treats all offenders with
equal severity, regardless of their intent or context. Galsworthy invites the audience to question
the justice system’s rigidity and to consider the need for empathy and understanding in
addressing crimes driven by human weakness rather than true criminality.

36."Gentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under

our law for want of that human insight which sees them as they
are, patients and not criminals".
In Justice by John Galsworthy, this statement is made by Mr. Frome, Falder’s defence counsel,
during his closing arguments as he appeals to the jury's compassion. Frome argues that Falder’s
actions were driven by emotional and psychological distress rather than inherent criminality,

29
portraying him as a victim of circumstances. Falder’s impulsive act of forgery is depicted not
as a calculated crime but as an act of desperation, making him more akin to a "patient" in need
of understanding than a true criminal.

The statement critiques the rigidity of the justice system, which often disregards the context
and motivation behind crimes. Galsworthy uses this argument to highlight how the system
perpetuates the downfall of vulnerable individuals by treating them as irredeemable instead of
offering opportunities for rehabilitation. Frome’s defence resonates with the play’s broader
themes of justice and humanity, emphasizing the urgent need for reforms that differentiate
between premeditated offenses and those born of emotional distress.

By framing Falder as a "patient," Frome advocates for a more compassionate approach to

justice, one that prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment. This perspective challenges the
audience to question the true purpose of justice and whether it should focus solely on retribution
or strive to address the complexities of human behaviour.

Ultimately, the statement encapsulates Galsworthy’s critique of the legal system’s lack of
humanity. It urges a reconsideration of how justice is administered and calls for a system that
recognizes and addresses the vulnerabilities and emotional struggles that often underlie human
actions.

37."He was kind of everywhere at once with his eyes”

In Justice by John Galsworthy, the line "He was kind of everywhere at once with his eyes" is
spoken by Robert Cokeson during Falder's trial, describing Falder’s nervous demeanour on the
morning he committed the forgery. This observation portrays Falder as anxious and unsettled,
reflecting his internal turmoil and lack of control over his emotions.

The description highlights Falder’s psychological state, suggesting that he was overwhelmed
by his emotions rather than deliberately planning a crime. His inability to focus and the erratic
movement of his eyes symbolize his mental unrest, mirroring his disoriented thought process
and the impulsive nature of his decision-making.

Cokeson’s observation supports the defence’s argument that Falder’s actions were not driven
by criminal intent but by a moment of emotional instability or temporary insanity. This aligns

30
with the play’s theme of human fragility under stress, where emotional turmoil leads to
impulsive actions.

Through Cokeson’s testimony, Galsworthy critiques the justice system’s failure to consider the
psychological and emotional factors behind a crime. Falder’s nervous behaviour demonstrates
the emotional distress that often goes unrecognized by the legal system, which focuses only on
the criminal act itself, disregarding the circumstances that led to it.

Ultimately, this line captures the depth of Falder’s turmoil and emphasizes the impulsive nature
of his actions. It supports the defence’s plea for empathy and understanding, while also
critiquing a legal system that fails to take into account the emotional and psychological context
in which crimes are committed.

38.“You have been given fair trial and found guilty, in my opinion
rightly found guilty, of forgery”.
This statement is made by the judge during William Falder’s sentencing in Justice by John
Galsworthy. It marks the conclusion of the trial, where the judge affirms the fairness of the
legal process and asserts that the verdict, which found Falder guilty of forgery, is justified,
regardless of any mitigating circumstances surrounding his crime.

The judge’s comment emphasizes the fairness of the trial and the correctness of the verdict,
reinforcing the authority of the legal system. It reflects the law’s focus on evidence and
procedure, rather than considering the emotional or psychological context in which the crime
was committed.

This statement highlights the tension between justice and morality, as Falder’s crime, while
legally punishable, was driven by desperation and love for Ruth, not malice. This raises
questions about whether true justice has been served, as the legal system fails to take into
account the personal and moral complexities surrounding the act.

Galsworthy uses the judge’s impartial tone to critique the legal system’s rigidity. By prioritizing
legal technicalities over the context of the crime, the system ignores the emotional and social
factors that led to Falder’s actions. This reflects the lack of empathy within the justice system,
which treats individuals like Falder as mere offenders rather than acknowledging the human
vulnerabilities that influence their decisions.

31
The phrase also reinforces the theme of inflexible justice, where a moment of human weakness
is met with severe consequences. It shows how the legal system’s unyielding approach fails to
offer understanding or rehabilitation, leaving Falder a victim of its strict application.

The judge’s statement encapsulates the criticism of the legal system’s mechanical and inflexible
approach to justice. While the trial may have been "fair" in procedural terms, the outcome
highlights the failure of the law to address the deeper emotional and moral complexities of the
case, making Falder a casualty of its rigid system.

39."You say that on the morning of the forgery the prisoner was
jumpy."
This statement is made by the counsel for the crown, Harold cleaver, during Robert Cokeson’s
testimony in Justice by John Galsworthy, where he describes Falder’s nervous behaviour on
the day he committed the forgery. It provides insight into Falder’s emotional instability and
helps support the defence’s argument of temporary insanity.

The description of Falder as "jumpy" indicates his heightened anxiety and inability to
concentrate, suggesting he was emotionally disturbed. This behaviour reflects the internal
conflict he was experiencing, driven by his desperate need to help Ruth Honeywill escape from
her abusive situation.

Cokeson’s testimony aligns with the defence’s claim that Falder acted impulsively, rather than
with premeditation. His jumpiness suggests that the crime was not planned, but rather a result
of emotional distress, emphasizing that Falder did not commit forgery out of malice, but out of
an urgent and irrational need to act.

The term "jumpy" also symbolizes Falder’s anxiety, which was compounded by his
desperation. His inability to think clearly highlights the vulnerability of individuals under
emotional pressure, which the legal system often overlooks. Cokeson’s observation indirectly
critiques a justice system that fails to recognize the emotional distress that influences actions,
reducing a complex human experience to a legal violation.

Cokeson’s statement about Falder being "jumpy" illustrates his emotional instability and
supports the defence’s argument for temporary insanity. It highlights the human fragility that
is often disregarded by the justice system, which focuses solely on the crime itself rather than
considering the emotional context in which it occurred.

32
 QUESTION II

(10 Marks)

1. What does the trial scene reveal about Shylock? Do you think
Shylock’s trial was unfair?
The Trial Scene and Shylock’s Character

The trial scene in Act IV of The Merchant of Venice serves as a dramatic climax that reveals
the multifaceted nature of Shylock, the Jewish moneylender. Throughout the play, Shylock is
depicted as a figure driven by resentment and a desire for revenge against Antonio, who has
publicly insulted and mistreated him. However, the trial exposes deeper layers of his character,
illuminating the themes of justice, mercy, and the societal prejudices that shape his actions.

Shylock’s Motivation

At the heart of Shylock’s insistence on claiming his pound of flesh lies not merely a desire for
vengeance but also a profound sense of betrayal and injustice. He has been wronged by
Antonio, who has undermined his business by lending money without interest, thereby
devaluing Shylock’s profession. This context is crucial; it frames Shylock not just as a villain
but as a man who feels cornered by a society that marginalizes him. His demand for the bond
is emblematic of his struggle for recognition and respect in a world that has consistently
dehumanized him.

The Unfairness of the Trial

The trial itself is rife with unfairness. While Shylock seeks to enforce the law—a bond he
believes to be just—he is confronted with an overwhelming bias against him. The court,
presided over by Portia disguised as Balthazar, operates under a veneer of legality that masks
its inherent prejudice. The moment Portia appeals to mercy, she shifts the moral ground of the
trial. Her famous speech on the quality of mercy highlights the expectation that mercy should
temper justice; however, this appeal does not extend to Shylock. Instead, he is met with hostility
and derision.

Shylock’s refusal to yield to mercy is often interpreted as stubbornness or cruelty, yet it can
also be seen as an assertion of his identity and rights in a society that denies him both. When
he is ultimately defeated—his wealth confiscated and his faith forced upon him—Shylock’s

33
punishment feels disproportionate. He is not only stripped of his financial assets but also forced
to convert to Christianity, erasing an essential part of his identity. This transformation from a
proud Jew to a submissive Christian underscores the play’s troubling engagement with themes
of assimilation and loss.

In conclusion, the trial scene in The Merchant of Venice reveals Shylock as a tragic figure
caught in the web of societal prejudice and personal vendetta. While he embodies the role of
the antagonist, Shakespeare complicates this portrayal by inviting audiences to empathize with
his plight. The unfairness of the trial reflects broader themes of justice and mercy, ultimately
questioning who truly holds power in Venetian society. By examining Shylock’s character
through this lens, we see not just a villain but a man whose quest for justice leads him to tragic
consequences—a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in human nature and societal
structures.

2. How is the trial scene, Act IV, scene I the climax of the play?
The trial scene in Act IV, Scene I of The Merchant of Venice stands as the play’s climax,
encapsulating its central conflicts and themes. This pivotal moment not only determines the
fates of Antonio and Shylock but also crystallizes the ethical dilemmas surrounding justice and
mercy.

The Dramatic Tension

As the scene unfolds in the Venetian court, we witness a palpable tension between Shylock,
who demands his pound of flesh as stipulated in the bond, and Antonio, who faces imminent
death. The duke’s pleas for mercy fall on deaf ears as Shylock remains resolute, driven by a
desire for revenge against Antonio’s previous mistreatment. This confrontation highlights the
deep-seated animosity that defines their relationship and sets the stage for an intense legal
battle. Portia, disguised as Balthazar, enters as a beacon of hope for Antonio, yet her role
complicates the narrative. She embodies both the authority of the law and the voice of
compassion, navigating between Shylock’s rigid adherence to justice and Antonio’s plea for
mercy.

The Legal and Moral Quandary

Portia’s famous speech on mercy introduces a critical moral dimension to the trial. She argues
that mercy is not forced but freely given, enhancing both the giver and receiver. However,
Shylock’s refusal to show mercy exposes a harsh reality: his demand for justice is rooted in
34
personal grievance rather than ethical considerations. This juxtaposition raises questions about
the nature of justice itself—can it exist without compassion? As Portia cleverly reveals a
loophole in Shylock’s bond, stating that he may take his pound of flesh but must not spill any
blood, the tables turn dramatically. Shylock’s confidence crumbles as he realizes that his quest
for vengeance is now fraught with impossibility.

The Turning Point

The climax reaches its zenith when Shylock is confronted with the consequences of his actions.
Portia’s legal acumen dismantles his case, forcing him into a position of vulnerability. The
once-dominant figure now kneels before the court, stripped of power and dignity. This reversal
not only serves as poetic justice but also critiques societal attitudes towards outsiders like
Shylock. The trial scene becomes a microcosm of Venetian society’s prejudices, illustrating
how deeply ingrained biases can distort notions of justice.

Ultimately, Act IV, Scene I serves as a culmination of The Merchant of Venice’s exploration
of mercy versus justice. It challenges audiences to reflect on their own values while
presenting a complex portrayal of Shylock—not merely as a villain but as a tragic figure
ensnared by his circumstances. The climax underscores that true justice cannot exist in
isolation from mercy; rather, it thrives on understanding and compassion. As Shylock exits
defeated, the audience is left to ponder the implications of his downfall—a poignant reminder
that in the pursuit of vengeance, one risks losing their humanity.

3. Discuss how Balthazar with his wit and intelligence could save
Antonio from the danger of Shylock.
In Act IV, Scene I of The Merchant of Venice, the character of Balthazar, who is actually Portia
in disguise, employs her wit and intelligence to save Antonio from Shylock’s deadly demand
for a pound of flesh. This scene serves as the climax of the play, showcasing not only Portia’s
legal acumen but also the intricate interplay between justice and mercy.

The Setup for the Climax

As the trial begins, Shylock is adamant about claiming his bond, viewing it as a matter of legal
right rather than personal vendetta. Despite pleas for mercy from the Duke and Bassanio, he
remains unyielding. Enter Balthazar (Portia), who has been summoned as a learned lawyer to
adjudicate the case. Her initial approach is to appeal to Shylock’s sense of humanity, urging

35
him to show mercy. However, Shylock’s insistence on strict adherence to the law sets the stage
for Portia’s brilliant legal manoeuvring.

Exploiting Legal Technicalities

Portia’s intelligence shines through when she cleverly interprets the bond. She acknowledges
that Shylock is entitled to a pound of flesh but emphasizes that the contract does not permit
him to shed any blood. She states:

“The words expressly are ‘a pound of flesh.’ But in the cutting it, if thou dost bleed, / Thou art
damned.”

This pivotal moment reveals a loophole in Shylock’s claim: he cannot extract flesh without
causing bloodshed, which would violate Venetian law. Portia’s manipulation of legal language
not only highlights her sharp intellect but also turns Shylock’s own rigid interpretation against
him.

The Shift in Power Dynamics

As Balthazar continues her argument, she escalates the stakes by declaring that Shylock’s
actions threaten the life of a Venetian citizen (Antonio). According to Venetian law, this act
would result in severe penalties for Shylock—half his wealth would go to the state and half to
Antonio. This revelation shifts the power dynamics dramatically; Shylock, once confident and
vengeful, is now cornered and desperate.

Portia’s strategy effectively dismantles Shylock’s position while simultaneously reinforcing

her own authority in the courtroom. As she turns the law against him, it becomes clear that her
wit and understanding of legal intricacies are what ultimately save Antonio’s life.

Conclusion: Mercy Over Justice

The trial scene culminates in a powerful moment where Portia not only saves Antonio but also
forces Shylock into a position of humility and loss. By compelling Shylock to beg for mercy
rather than demanding it, Portia exemplifies the play’s central theme: true justice cannot exist
without mercy. The cleverness with which she navigates this perilous situation highlights her
as one of Shakespeare’s most resourceful heroines.

In essence, Balthazar’s role as Portia showcases how intelligence and wit can triumph over
malice and prejudice. The trial scene thus serves not only as a dramatic climax but also as a
profound commentary on human nature and societal values in The Merchant of Venice.

36
 4. Highlight dramatic significance of the ring episode.
In William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, the ring has great significance between
Portia and Bassanio because it is a symbol of their love as well as their marriage. The ring
episode is a minor affair in the play but it shows how our promise is broken under pressure of
circumstances and when we absolutely have to do what we intended to avoid whole-heartedly.

In the play, the ring symbolizes love between Portia and Bassanio. After their marriage, Portia
gives Bassanio the ring which he is requested not to part with at any circumstances. Bassanio
assures her to keep the ring like a part of his body.

The ring symbolises their commitment to each other. The ring Portia and Nerissa gave to
Bassanio and Gratiano that they were never to remove. The rings stand for man’s commitment
to his wife just as the rings that Bassanio and Gratiano would give to Portia and Nerissa at their
weddings, would stand for the wives’ commitment. When Portia gives the ring to Bassanio, he
readily agrees to Portia’s term as he loves her and doesn’t think that anything would come
between him keeping the ring safely on his hand. Bassanio promises Portia that when the ring
leaves his finger, then his spirit will flee and his life will leave him. He will only part from the
ring in death.

The ring episode makes the trial scene more interesting. In the trial scene, Portia plays the part
of a young lawyer named Balthazar in the case between Shylock and Antonio (Bassanio’s
friend). After winning the case, she asks Bassanio for the ring as payment for saving Antonio’s
life. Bassanio wrestles with the decision perfectly but Portia manipulates the situation so much
that he compelled to give the ring away as payment and appreciation for Antonio. Actually,
Portia wants to prove how far her husband is true to his oaths. However, when Portia reaches
home, she makes the whole situation clear and reinstates the ring to Bassanio and all have a
pretty good laugh over it.

The ring episode of “The Merchant of Venice” is contrived to put the lovers and husbands to
qualify the test of love and marriage bond. It makes the play more interesting. In fact, the ring
episode has contributed a lot to the development of the plots of the play. It contains several
twists and finally brings a happy ending of the play.

5. Who is better friend Antonio or Bassanio? – Discuss in regard

to the trial scene of The Merchant of Venice.

37
Antonio is the merchant of Venice, who is very generous, particularly with his good friends.
Bassanio needs money in order to woo Portia. Even though all of Antonio’s money is tied up
in products yet to be sold, he agrees to help Bassanio because they are such close friends.
Antonio is such a loyal friend to Bassanio that he agrees to borrow money from Shylock with
the stipulation that Shylock can exact a pound of flesh from Antonio if he does not repay the
loan within the agreed-upon time frame.

Bassanio is more impulsive and irresponsible. And although he is loyal to Antonio, he does
take advantage of his generosity; the attempt to woo Portia (and thereby inherit the vast amount
of money of her estate by marrying her) is a gamble that he is willing to take with Antonio’s
money and the pound of flesh. However, Bassanio does reveal that he is more than a self-
indulgent gambler who takes advantage of his friend. He is a very loyal friend just as Antonio
is to him. He offers Shylock twice the amount he’d loaned to Antonio. Shylock refuses and
then Bassanio offers to give his own flesh instead of Antonio’s:

“Good cheer, Antonio! What, man, Courage yet!

The Jew shall have my flesh, blood, bones, and all,

Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood!”

In the end, neither Antonio nor Bassanio are cut because a disguised Portia discovers a
technicality in the agreement that no blood can be shed. In the earlier case, Bassanio needs
money and Antonio helps him. In the latter case, Antonio is facing a potentially fatal injury and
Bassanio offers to take his place.

The depth of their friendship is no more clearly demonstrated than in the trial scene, Act IV,
scene 1. Antonio faces the distinct possibility that his failure to repay the money he borrowed
from Shylock on Bassanio’s behalf will result in his own death.

However, Antonio has no ill feelings whatsoever towards Bassanio for being in this unfortunate
circumstance, and he’s willing to accept his fate for helping his friend.

When it becomes clear that Shylock is absolutely intent on getting his “pound of flesh” from
Antonio, even after trying to persuade him in every way possible, Antonio prepares to suffer
his fate and offers nothing but love to Bassanio:

“Give me your hand, Bassanio. Fare you well.

Grieve not that I am fall’n to this for you,

38
 For herein Fortune shows herself more kind

Than is her custom: it is still her use”

These exchanges between these two friends demonstrate the depth of their love and friendship
for each other and the depth of the nobility of their characters. Thus, both Antonio and Bassanio
are good friends to each other, it is difficult to judge them as a better friend when both value
and love each other equally.

6. How does the duke try to reason with Shylock at the beginning
of Act IV, Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice? How does
Shylock respond? Give details.
Scene 1 of Act IV of The Merchant of Venice takes place in a court of justice in Venice. The
scene starts with the duke asking if Antonio is present and he shows his sympathy for Antonio
by telling him that he pities him. He had come to defend himself against an opponent who has
hard-hearted and a cruel wretch, who did not have a single grain of tenderness or sympathy in
his heart.

Shylock is called a ‘Stony Adversary’ here because he demanded the pound of flesh from
Antonio’s body. This was the penalty, according to the terms of the bond, for failing to repay
the three thousand ducats he had borrowed, on the specified date.

Antonio has been told that the duke had himself had used every endeavour to soften shylock
severity and to call off the trial. He says that since all the duke’s effort have been in vain, and
Shylock remains obstinate, he is ready to suffer his cruelty with resignation. As the law is
unable to deliver him from Shylock malicious hatred, he is resolved to meet his utmost fury
with calmness and fortitude, and is ready to submit to the judgement of the court.

The duke makes a last-minute attempt to make Shylock show mercy on Antonio. He tells
Shylock that it is everyone’s opinion, and his also, that he only intends to keep up this show of
severity and hatred until the last stage of the case. Then, it is believed, he will suddenly relent
and show kindness and pity, which will be more wonderful and amazing than his present
appearance of unrelenting malice. People say that although Shylock is now claiming the
penalty, which is a pound of flesh of Antonio, the unfortunate merchant, he will let him off this
payment. He will be influenced by human tenderness and sympathy for the losses Antonio has
suffered, so he will generously forgive him part of the money debt, of the principal sum of three

39
thousand ducats. His losses have been so heavy, and have come so thick and fast upon him
lately, that they have built enough to ruin even a merchant prince such as he is. They are enough
to draw pity and sympathy for his condition, from hearts as hard as brass and stone, and even
from savage Turks and Tartars who have never been schooled in acts of kindness and love. The
duke then tells Shylock that everyone hopes he will give a sympathetic reply to his appeal.

Shylock in reply says that he has already informed the duke of his intentions and moreover, he
has taken an oath, by his holy Sabbath, to see that the term of the forfeit is carried out.

Shylock threatens the duke by saying that if he refuses to let the law be carried out, then the
reputation of his city will suffer. The duke has to be prepared to face the danger of losing the
very liberty of his state, by leading to a revocation of the Imperial Charter which gives it. By
saying ‘I’ll not answer that’, Shylock here means that the law does not require him to answer
the duke’s question about why he would rather have a pound of rotten flesh than the money.
He has a fancy for it, that should satisfy him.

In order to gratify his own malignity, he goes on to answer the duke’s question with such
answers that he knows will aggravate his pain. He goes on to state that he has individual whims
like other men. He says suppose his house is infested with rats, he may spend ten thousand
ducats to have them poisoned. There are some people who cannot tolerate the sight of an open-
mouthed roasted pig. Some people are sent almost frantic by the sight of a cat. Still others feel
infuriated to hear the screams of the bag-pipe. In all these cases, there is no definite reason for
hating these things. It is just a matter of personal taste. What we like or dislike is not determined
by any reason but just by a strong whim or mood, which can overpower our reason.

He continues saying that these people have no well-grounded reason to offer as to why they
dislike these various objects, like a gaping pig, a harmless domestic cat and a bag-pipe wrapped
in wool. These people stoop low by offending others because they cannot help giving
expression to the dislike they feel. In the same way, says Shylock he can offer the duke no
explanation. He will not try to give any more reason than this fact, that he bears just such a
deep-rooted hatred and a definite dislike for Antonio. This influences him so greatly that he
even prefers to prosecute this case against him, although he loses the money by doing so.

7. Explain in detail Gratiano's reference to Pythagoras in his

heated dispute with Shylock.

40
Gratiano's reference to Pythagoras occurs in The Merchant of Venice (Act IV, Scene 1), during
the courtroom scene where Shylock demands justice and Antonio's pound of flesh. Gratiano,
one of Antonio’s friends, uses the reference to insult and ridicule Shylock, reflecting his disdain
for Shylock’s perceived cruelty and obsession with vengeance.

Gratiano invokes Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher known for his belief in the
transmigration of souls (metempsychosis), to suggest that Shylock's merciless nature stems
from the soul of a wolf. Gratiano claims that according to Pythagoras, the soul of a wolf that
killed out of greed and cruelty may have passed into Shylock's body. This idea is meant to
degrade Shylock, implying that he is inherently evil and incapable of mercy, like the wolf. The
specific lines Gratiano speaks are:

" Thy currish spirit

Governed a wolf, who hanged for human slaughter,
Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet,
And whilst thou layest in thy unhallowed dam,
Infused itself in thee; for thy desires
Are wolfish, bloody, starved, and ravenous."

Gratiano's words aim to dehumanize Shylock by likening him to a predatory animal, portraying
him as consumed by vengeance and devoid of human compassion.

8. Write a note on the famous 'Mercy Speech’ delivered by Portia

in Act IV Scene i of The Merchant of Venice. What does it
reveal about Portia’s character?
Portia’s "Mercy Speech" in Act IV, Scene 1 of William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice
is one of the play's most celebrated passages. Delivered in the climactic courtroom scene,
Portia, disguised as a male lawyer, appeals to Shylock’s sense of morality, urging him to show
mercy to Antonio, who faces the grim penalty of losing a pound of flesh as per their bond.
Through her eloquent plea, Portia presents mercy as a divine and noble quality that transcends
the rigidity of human law, embodying Shakespeare’s exploration of justice, compassion, and
human frailty.

Portia opens her speech with the famous lines:

"The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven."

41
By comparing mercy to gentle rain, which nourishes the earth freely and without compulsion,
she emphasizes its natural, effortless grace. This metaphor captures the essence of mercy as a
spontaneous act of goodness, essential for nurturing harmony in human relationships. Portia’s
view of mercy as an unforced and life-giving virtue reflects her wisdom and deep
understanding of human nature.

She continues by describing mercy as

"Twice blessed: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

This line underscores the reciprocal and redemptive nature of mercy, showing that it enriches
both the giver and the recipient. In highlighting this dual benefit, Portia positions mercy as a
higher moral choice, transcending the limitations of strict legal rights. Her words appeal not
only to Shylock’s reason but also to his humanity, urging him to temper his pursuit of justice
with compassion.

Portia further elevates mercy to a divine level, stating that it is "an attribute to God himself"
and that earthly power becomes godlike when tempered with mercy. By aligning mercy with
divine qualities, she subtly encourages Shylock to emulate the higher virtues of forgiveness
and compassion rather than clinging to vengeance. She also argues that if God were to judge
humanity with pure justice, none would find salvation:

"In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation: We do pray for mercy."

This powerful statement serves as a reminder that mercy is integral to forgiveness and
redemption, qualities that lie at the heart of a just and moral society. In making this point, Portia
not only appeals to Shylock’s sense of spirituality but also underscores the limitations of rigid
justice.

Portia’s speech is a masterclass in rhetoric. Her poetic language combines logic and emotion,
allowing her to engage both the intellect and the conscience of her audience. Her gentle tone
and carefully structured arguments showcase her exceptional skill in persuasion, as she crafts
a case for mercy that is as moving as it is rational. Moreover, her ability to present such a
compelling argument while disguised as a man in a male-dominated courtroom highlights her
intelligence, adaptability, and confidence.

Strategically, Portia’s speech also sets the stage for her later legal maneuver. By emphasizing
the importance of mercy over strict adherence to the law, she prepares the court to question the

42
justice of Shylock’s demands. Her argument not only seeks to save Antonio but also serves to
expose the flaws in Shylock’s rigid pursuit of his bond, making her eventual legal counterstrike
all the more impactful. This blend of compassion and shrewdness reflects her dual role as both
an advocate for higher virtues and a keen legal mind.

However, while Portia’s speech is celebrated for its eloquence and moral insight, its
effectiveness is complicated by the broader context of the play. The Christian characters, who
extol mercy, often fail to practice it themselves, particularly in their treatment of Shylock after
his defeat. This irony underscores Shakespeare’s nuanced exploration of justice and mercy,
revealing the complexities and hypocrisies of human behaviour.

Ultimately, Portia’s speech is a timeless commentary on the balance between law and
compassion. Through her eloquence, wisdom, and moral conviction, she emerges as one of the
play’s most compelling characters, embodying the ideals of mercy and justice that resonate
across centuries.

9. Bring out the dramatic qualities of the 'Trial Scene' (Act IV, sc.
i) of The Merchant of Venice.
The Trial Scene (Act IV, Scene 1) of The Merchant of Venice is the dramatic climax of the play.
It masterfully combines themes of justice, mercy, and revenge while showcasing Shakespeare’s
skill in creating tension, irony, and resolution.

The scene opens with an intense atmosphere as Shylock stands resolute in his demand for a
pound of Antonio’s flesh, representing the rigid enforcement of the bond. Antonio, resigned to
his fate, and the pleas of the duke and others for mercy heighten the stakes. The courtroom
setting adds to the formality and gravity of the situation, emphasizing the life-and-death stakes.

Characterization and Emotional Depth:

• Shylock: Shylock's implacable demand for justice and his refusal to show mercy reveal
his deep resentment toward the Christians, rooted in personal and societal grievances.
His character elicits both fear and pity.

• Antonio: Antonio's stoic acceptance of his fate reflects his noble character, contrasting
with Shylock’s intensity.

43
 • Portia: Disguised as the learned lawyer "Balthazar," Portia’s intelligence and poise
dominate the scene, showcasing her as a figure of wit and justice.

The dramatic tension hinges on the clash between Shylock's demand for justice and Portia's
appeal for mercy. The famous "The quality of mercy" speech is central, presenting the moral
and philosophical arguments for compassion.

The turning point comes when Portia, after allowing Shylock to push the case to its limit,
cleverly uses the letter of the law against him. Her revelation that Shylock may take only the
flesh and not spill any blood is both shocking and satisfying.

While Antonio is saved, Shylock's fate—a forced conversion to Christianity and loss of his
wealth—leaves the audience questioning the Christian characters’ mercy. This moral ambiguity
adds depth to the scene.

The scene is marked by eloquent speeches, especially Portia’s "The quality of mercy" and
Shylock’s passionate rhetoric about the sanctity of the bond, which reveal the characters’ inner
conflicts and values. The Trial Scene captivates through its high stakes, dramatic reversals, and
exploration of profound moral themes. It is a dramatic tour de force that combines courtroom
tension with ethical debate, leaving a lasting impression on audiences

10. Can you defend the conversion of Shylock to Christianity?

Give reasons for your answer.
Defending Shylock's forced conversion to Christianity in the play ‘The Merchant of Venice’ is
challenging, as it raises significant ethical, religious, and cultural issues. However, we can
examine a few arguments within the context of the play, though these points remain contentious
and are often viewed critically by modern audiences.

1. Social and Legal Context of the Play:

In the setting of The Merchant of Venice, Venetian society is predominantly Christian, and anti-
Semitic sentiments are common. Shylock’s forced conversion can be seen as a means of
assimilating him into this society. At that time, conversion was viewed as a way to “save” non-
Christians, an idea that the society might have believed to be morally justified, even if it was a
form of cultural domination. From this perspective, the forced conversion reflects the era’s
narrow view of religious tolerance.

44
2. Mercy in Legal Punishment:

Portia, in her defense of Antonio, uses strict interpretations of the law to turn the trial against
Shylock. The duke then spares Shylock’s life but imposes the conditions of conversion and
confiscation of his property. The Venetian court views these terms as more merciful than the
death penalty, considering it a compromise that saves Shylock’s life and places him under
Christian protection, giving him some measure of forgiveness within their worldview.

3. Character Transformation:

One interpretation of the play is that Shakespeare might have intended for Shylock's conversion
to symbolize a form of personal redemption or transformation. While Shylock’s forced
conversion is ultimately tragic, it could be seen as a way for him to release his attachment to
vengeance and embrace a new identity, even if unwillingly. This view is tenuous, as it assumes
that Shylock benefits in some way from the conversion, but it’s worth noting that Shakespeare’s
contemporaries may have interpreted it as a moral “victory” of forgiveness over revenge.

4. Reinforcement of Christian Values:

The play often juxtaposes Christian values of mercy and forgiveness with Shylock’s perceived
adherence to justice and vengeance. In Elizabethan England, audiences may have viewed
Shylock’s conversion as an ultimate acceptance of mercy and the values that Christianity
espouses. His conversion could then be interpreted as aligning with the play’s themes of mercy,
implying that Shylock has symbolically, though controversially, been "redeemed" through this
act.

However, these defenses do not fully justify the forced conversion by modern ethical standards,
as it strips Shylock of his religious identity and personal freedom. Today, this moment is often
viewed as a tragic end to Shylock’s story, underscoring the intolerance and prejudices of the
society around him rather than his genuine transformation. In this light, Shylock’s conversion
may be interpreted as a critique by Shakespeare of the injustices faced by marginalized
individuals, rather than a justified punishment.

11. Summarize the contents of the letter of introduction that

Bellario wrote to the Duke for Balthazar.
In ‘The Merchant of Venice’, Dr. Bellario, a respected lawyer from Padua, writes a significant
letter of introduction to the Duke of Venice on behalf of Balthazar (who is actually Portia in

45
disguise). The letter serves multiple purposes: it explains Bellario’s own absence from the court
due to illness, recommends Balthazar as a skilled legal representative, and provides assurances
of Balthazar’s capability to handle the case. Through this letter, Bellario effectively grants
Portia the authority to argue the case in his place.

The letter begins with Bellario expressing regret that he cannot attend the trial himself due to
illness. This explanation serves as both a polite apology and an acknowledgment of the duke’s
need for assistance with the complex legal matters in Antonio’s case. By addressing his illness,
Bellario prepares the duke for his absence and suggests that his decision to send Balthazar
(Portia) is made in good faith and with respect for the court’s need for competent counsel.

Bellario goes on to offer a strong endorsement of Balthazar’s legal expertise and skills, building
the duke’s confidence in his abilities. Bellario praises Balthazar’s deep understanding of law
and his capacity to handle a case as challenging as the one between Shylock and Antonio. By
highlighting Balthazar’s qualifications, Bellario conveys that this young lawyer, though not
widely known to the court, possesses the wisdom and insight necessary to navigate the legal
intricacies involved. This endorsement effectively establishes Portia’s (in her disguise as
Balthazar) credibility before she even begins her argument, ensuring that the duke and other
members of the court view her with trust and respect.

In addition to vouching for Balthazar’s competence, Bellario also mentions that he has provided
him with his own legal notes on the case. This gesture further strengthens Balthazar’s position
by indicating that he not only has Bellario’s trust but also has access to the legal insights and
opinions of a seasoned expert. The duke and the court are likely reassured by this, as it means
that Balthazar will be arguing with both his own knowledge and the benefit of Bellario’s
wisdom. This detail demonstrates Bellario’s commitment to supporting the duke and the court,
even in his absence, and solidifies Balthazar’s credibility.

Bellario’s letter ultimately achieves several important outcomes. First, it explains his absence
in a respectful manner, showing that he does not intend to neglect his duties but is unable to
attend due to unavoidable health issues. Second, it establishes Balthazar as a trustworthy and
skilled representative, capable of handling the complex trial. Finally, it serves as a strategic
device in the play, setting the stage for Portia’s intervention in Antonio’s trial by giving her, in
disguise as Balthazar, the authority to speak on Bellario’s behalf.

In summary, Bellario’s letter is a well-crafted piece of writing that accomplishes its purpose of
preparing the duke and the court to receive Balthazar as an equal replacement. It is through

46
Bellario’s strong recommendation and assurances that Portia, disguised as Balthazar, is able to
step into the trial with the credibility and respect necessary to influence the outcome. The letter
provides a seamless introduction for Portia’s entrance into the courtroom, setting the foundation
for her to advocate effectively for Antonio and ultimately turn the case in his favor.

12. What punishment is there in Venice for one who "seeks the
life of any citizen"? How does Antonio modify this
punishment?
In Act IV Scene I of ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ Portia highlights the severe consequences for
anyone who seeks to harm a citizen of Venice. According to Venetian law, if an alien is proven
to have attempted to take the life of a citizen, they face significant penalties. Half of their goods
are seized, with the other half going to the state's treasury, and their life is left to the mercy of
the duke. This legal framework underscores the seriousness with which Venice treats threats
against its citizens, reflecting a society that prioritizes the protection of its people.

Portia’s argument against Shylock is based on his actions towards Antonio, asserting that
Shylock has plotted against Antonio's life. She presents compelling evidence of Shylock's
intent to harm Antonio, thereby placing him in the precarious position defined by the law. Portia
also calls upon Shylock to seek mercy from the duke, suggesting that his actions have led him
to a grave consequence where he must face judgment for his intentions.

Antonio proposes to modify the punishment imposed on Shylock by suggesting a more lenient
outcome. He asks the duke to allow Shylock to forfeit only half of his goods instead of facing
the full repercussions of his actions. Antonio expresses his willingness to accept half of
Shylock's wealth, with the condition that the other half is used for charitable purposes.
Specifically, he desires that upon Shylock's death, the remaining half of his goods be given to
the gentleman who recently eloped with Shylock's daughter.

Additionally, Antonio stipulates two critical conditions for this arrangement. First, he requests
that Shylock convert to Christianity, which not only signifies a personal transformation but also
reflects the religious tensions present in the play. Second, Antonio insists that Shylock formally
record a gift of all his possessions to his daughter Jessica and her husband Lorenzo.

This proposal demonstrates Antonio's capacity for forgiveness and his desire to redirect
Shylock's potential punishment towards a more constructive end.

47
 13. Would you agree that Antonio is the pivotal character of
"The Merchant of Venice”? Explain your opinion in detail.
Yes, I would agree that Antonio is the pivotal character of The Merchant of Venice. His actions,
relationships, and character traits drive the plot and significantly influence the events that
unfold throughout the play.

Firstly, Antonio’s role as a successful merchant establishes the initial premise of the story. His
decision to help his friend Bassanio by securing a loan from Shylock sets off a chain of events
that ultimately leads to the dramatic trial. This act of friendship demonstrates his loyalty and
generosity, which are central to his character. Despite his financial constraints, Antonio’s
willingness to assist Bassanio highlights his importance in the narrative.

Secondly, Antonio’s interactions with Shylock reveal the themes of mercy, justice, and revenge
that permeate the play. His acceptance of the bond, which includes the risk of losing a pound
of flesh, showcases his bravery but also his naivety regarding Shylock's vengeful nature. This
bond becomes the focal point of the conflict and the trial that follows, making Antonio’s
predicament crucial to the plot's progression.

Moreover, Antonio's character embodies a contrasting perspective to Shylock’s. While Shylock

represents vindictiveness and strict adherence to the law, Antonio reflects values of mercy and
honor. His reluctance to engage in conflict with Shylock and his desire for a straightforward
resolution to the bond underscore his moral integrity.

Antonio’s relationships with other characters, particularly Bassanio and Portia, also contribute
to his pivotal role. His deep affection for Bassanio and his acceptance of his fate illustrate the
themes of love and friendship that are woven throughout the play. Furthermore, Portia’s actions
in the courtroom hinge upon Antonio’s situation, as she devises a plan to save him, thereby
highlighting his significance in the resolution of the plot.

In conclusion, Antonio’s character serves as the backbone of The Merchant of Venice. His
decisions and experiences not only propel the narrative forward but also embody the play’s
central themes. Thus, it is evident that Antonio is indeed the pivotal character in this
Shakespearean drama.

14. Antonio is the pivotal character of 'The Merchant of Venice'.

Justify
48
Antonio is the pivotal character in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ due to his integral role in the
development of the plot. His actions and relationships set the stage for the unfolding drama,
making him central to both the narrative and its moral explorations.

Firstly, Antonio's financial predicament is the catalyst for the entire plot. His decision to help
his friend Bassanio, despite his own lack of funds, leads to the crucial bond with Shylock. This
bond, which threatens Antonio's life, creates the central conflict of the play. His willingness to
accept such a dangerous arrangement illustrates his loyalty and love for Bassanio, emphasizing
the theme of friendship that runs throughout the story.

Furthermore, Antonio's interactions with Shylock provide insight into the themes of justice and
mercy. His passive acceptance of Shylock’s terms reflects a sense of nobility but also highlights
his underestimation of Shylock's determination for revenge. This tension between Antonio and
Shylock is essential, as it contrasts the notions of mercy and strict justice. Antonio’s eventual
willingness to show mercy towards Shylock, along with his acceptance of the court's judgment,
reinforces the play's exploration of these themes.

Additionally, Antonio's character influences the actions of others, particularly Portia. Her
determination to save Antonio during the trial demonstrates his significance to her motivations
and actions. She acts not only to protect him but also to assert the value of mercy over revenge,
a lesson that resonates throughout the play.

Antonio's character is also a representation of the societal norms and values of the time. His
honorable demeanor and adherence to the principles of trade reflect the ideals of Venice as a
mercantile society. However, his relationships with characters like Shylock and Bassanio also
expose the underlying tensions of class, religion, and personal loyalty, making him a complex
and multifaceted character.

QUESTION III

(5 Marks)

1. “It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place
beneath.”
The line, "It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath," is a powerful
metaphor from William Shakespeare's ‘The Merchant of Venice’. In Act IV, Scene 1, Portia

49
speaks these words while disguised as a lawyer, arguing for mercy over strict justice. This line
highlights her plea for mercy to be shown to Antonio, who is bound by a harsh agreement with
Shylock, a moneylender demanding a pound of flesh.

Portia compares mercy to rain, which gently falls from heaven and blesses the earth below
without discrimination. This comparison implies that mercy, like rain, is a natural, gracious act
that doesn’t need to be forced or bargained for; instead, it flows freely and benefits both the
giver and receiver. The rain from heaven nourishes the earth, bringing life and growth, and
mercy similarly enriches human relationships by bringing harmony, peace, and understanding.

Furthermore, this comparison emphasizes the divine quality of mercy. Just as rain comes from
the heavens, mercy is seen as a godly virtue, elevating the one who shows it and aligning them
with divine values. By choosing mercy over revenge or punishment, a person demonstrates a
compassionate, noble character. In this way, Portia suggests that justice without mercy is
incomplete, and that true justice should always include compassion and forgiveness. Her
speech ultimately serves as a call for empathy and humanity, portraying mercy as essential to
a fair and moral society.

2. “Give me my principal, and let me go.”

The line "Give me my principal, and let me go" is spoken by Shylock, the moneylender in
William Shakespeare's ‘The Merchant of Venice’. This line occurs during the climactic trial
scene in Act IV, where Shylock is demanding a pound of Antonio’s flesh as repayment for a
defaulted loan. Shylock's "principal" here refers to the original sum of money he lent to
Antonio.

By this point in the trial, Shylock has realized he cannot lawfully take his "bond" (the pound
of flesh), due to Portia’s clever legal argument. Shylock then shifts his demand, asking simply
to get his initial loan back and leave. This line reflects his frustration and resignation. He no
longer seeks revenge on Antonio but simply wants to be released from the trap he finds himself
in.

Shylock’s shift in demands marks a turning point. It shows his diminishing power as the trial
no longer goes in his favor. His demand for the principal highlights his sense of defeat and how
he’s forced to abandon his desire for justice, or rather revenge, in the face of the law’s
interpretation. It is a moment of vulnerability, as Shylock, once so determined to carry out the

50
terms of the bond, now only wants his money back and to end the ordeal. This line captures the
themes of justice, mercy, and revenge that permeate the play.

3. “Shed thou no blood; nor cut thou lese, nor more, But just a
pound of flesh”
In the Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1, the line "Shed thou no blood; nor cut thou less, nor
more, but just a pound of flesh" is spoken by Portia, who is disguised as a young lawyer
defending Antonio in the trial against Shylock. Shylock insists on his right to a pound of
Antonio's flesh as repayment for an unpaid loan. Portia agrees that Shylock may take his bond,
but she sets strict conditions: he must take exactly one pound of flesh, without shedding a single
drop of blood, and without cutting even a fraction more or less than a pound.

By imposing this condition, Portia cleverly uses the law to save Antonio while exposing the
flaw in Shylock’s rigid pursuit of revenge. Since it is impossible to remove flesh without
shedding blood, Portia’s demand makes it impossible for Shylock to fulfill his bond without
breaking the law himself. This turning point highlights the themes of justice, mercy, and the
limitations of seeking vengeance without compassion. Through this argument, Portia
demonstrates that true justice is not found in strict adherence to the letter of the law, but rather
in tempering justice with mercy and humanity.

4. “I am a tainted wether of the flock, Meetest for death. The

weakest kind of fruit”
In ‘The Merchant of Venice’, Act IV, Scene 1, Antonio speaks the line, "I am a tainted wether
of the flock, Meetest for death. The weakest kind of fruit," in a moment of resignation to his
seemingly inevitable fate. By referring to himself as a "tainted wether," or an old, castrated,
and diseased sheep, he uses a powerful metaphor that suggests he is the least valuable and most
dispensable member of the "flock," worthy only of death. This sense of worthlessness is
intensified when he compares himself to "the weakest kind of fruit," symbolizing something
past its prime and ready to fall.

Antonio’s words reveal his despair and willingness to accept death, seeing himself as a burden
with little to contribute. His sorrowful tone contrasts with Shylock’s cold determination to exact
the bond, underscoring the themes of mercy and justice in the play. Antonio’s acceptance of his
role as "the weakest" also speaks to his loyalty and selflessness, as he faces death for his friend

51
Bassanio’s sake. In this way, he embodies sacrificial love, which stands in sharp contrast to
Shylock’s desire for revenge.

This scene is significant not only because it reveals Antonio's character but also because it
highlights the conflict between mercy and vengeance. While Shylock insists on justice,
Antonio’s humility and willingness to die for his friend show the importance of compassion
and humanity, essential themes in the play. Antonio’s acceptance of his fate creates a powerful
emotional appeal, emphasizing that true worth is found not in wealth or social status but in
selfless acts of loyalty and love.

5. “Let me have my judgement and the Jew his will”

The line “Let me have my judgement and the Jew his will” is spoken by Antonio in Act IV,
Scene 1, of The Merchant of Venice, during the trial scene. It reflects Antonio’s resignation and
acceptance of his fate as Shylock insists on the fulfilment of the bond for a pound of flesh.
Antonio shows no attempt to plead for mercy or resist Shylock’s demands. Instead, he submits
to the law and accepts what he believes to be inevitable, demonstrating his stoic character. His
calm and dignified demeanour contrasts sharply with Shylock’s vengeful determination,
emphasizing the moral and emotional stakes in the scene.

This line encapsulates Antonio's noble acceptance of his predicament and serves as a critical
moment in the play, underlining the themes of justice, mercy, and the human capacity for
endurance in the face of adversity. It also emphasizes Shylock’s relentless pursuit of the bond,
paving the way for the dramatic reversal that follows.

6. “He shall have nothing but the penalty"

The line “He shall have nothing but the penalty” is spoken by Portia in Act IV, Scene 1, of The
Merchant of Venice. Disguised as the lawyer Balthazar, Portia uses this statement to deliver the
final twist in the trial scene, turning Shylock's insistence on strict justice against him.

This line marks the climactic reversal of Shylock’s fortunes. After Shylock insists on the
enforcement of the bond, Portia cleverly interprets the law to deny him any claim beyond the
exact penalty—one pound of flesh. Crucially, Portia points out that Shylock cannot spill any of
Antonio’s blood, effectively rendering the penalty impossible to execute.

52
Portia’s words highlight the importance of precision in legal arguments. By adhering strictly to
the letter of the bond, she demonstrates her intellectual prowess and Shylock’s overreliance on
rigid justice.

While the line asserts justice, it also exposes the limits of mercy in the Christian characters.
Although Shylock is legally outmanoeuvred, the ensuing penalties imposed on him—loss of
wealth and forced conversion—cast doubt on the moral high ground claimed by the victors.

This line serves as a pivotal moment in the play, demonstrating Portia’s brilliance and sealing
Shylock’s fate, while prompting the audience to reflect on the nature of fairness and
forgiveness.

7. “To do a great right, do a little wrong.”

The line “To do a great right, do a little wrong” is spoken by Bassanio in Act IV, Scene 1, of
The Merchant of Venice. It reflects Bassanio's suggestion that bending the law slightly would
be justified to save Antonio’s life, illustrating the moral and ethical dilemmas that permeate the
play.

Bassanio speaks these words during the trial scene when it seems that Shylock’s demand for a
pound of flesh from Antonio will be enforced. In desperation, Bassanio urges the court to act
pragmatically, even if it means straying from strict legal principles.

The line encapsulates a conflict between justice and mercy, as well as the tension between
adhering to the law and ensuring a just outcome. Bassanio’s plea highlights the complexity of
balancing ethical principles with practical outcomes. Bassanio argues from a utilitarian
perspective, suggesting that a small moral compromise (a “little wrong”) is justified if it
prevents a greater injustice (Antonio’s death). This introduces a nuanced view of morality into
the courtroom drama.

Bassanio’s appeal contrasts with Portia’s eventual strategy, which adheres strictly to the law
while achieving a morally favourable outcome. It demonstrates differing approaches to
resolving ethical conflicts. The line reflects one of the play’s central themes: the interplay
between rigid justice and flexible mercy. It also reveals Bassanio’s deep loyalty to Antonio,
willing to compromise moral integrity to save his friend.

8. “A Daniel come to judgment: yea a Daniel!”

53
In The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I, during the intense trial scene, Shylock exclaims,
“A Daniel come to judgment: yea, a Daniel!” Here, Shylock praises the young doctor of law,
who is Portia in disguise, saying, "An ideal judge has come to decide this case! A judge as wise
and discerning as Daniel! O wise young judge, how should I honor you!"

Shylock’s praise for Portia comes just after Bassanio, in a desperate attempt to save Antonio,
asks her to find a way to go around the law. He argues that bending the rules just a little would
be a small price to pay to prevent Shylock’s cruelty. However, Portia, staying in character as
the young doctor, denies this request firmly. She explains that no authority in Venice, not even
the court, has the right to alter the law in any way. She further explains that if they were to
make an exception now, it could set a dangerous precedent—one that might allow others to
bend or misuse the law in the future for their own selfish purposes. This could lead to serious
abuses and make the law unreliable.

Thus, she insists that even a minor irregularity could open the door to much greater harm, and
for that reason, the law must be followed exactly as it is written, no matter the consequences.

9. “What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?"

The line is spoken by Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I. Shylock says this
in response to the duke, who has questioned him about his lack of mercy toward Antonio. The
duke asks Shylock how he can expect mercy if he refuses to show any himself. However,
shylock replies that he has nothing to fear, as he believes he is simply exercising his legal rights
and therefore “doing no wrong.” Shylock also refers to the fact that he had no instigation
towards the insults targeted at him by Antonio earlier. He was humiliated merely for being a
Jew.

In reply, Shylock confidently asserts that he has nothing to fear from judgment because, in his
view, he is doing nothing wrong by strictly enforcing his legal contract with Antonio. Shylock
defends his claim to the "pound of flesh" by comparing it to the way Venetians treat their slaves,
which they consider their property. He argues that, just as they believe they have the right to
do as they please with their slaves, he should have the right to claim his bond, as Antonio’s
flesh was “dearly bought.”

Shylock is essentially challenging the moral authority of the court by implying that Venetian
society itself practices harshness and ownership, yet expects him to act differently. This line

54
reveals Shylock’s sense of ruthless determination to stick to the law, as he believes that
enforcing the bond is within his legal rights, even if it seems merciless.

10. "It is an attribute to God himself."

The line is spoken by Portia in The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene I, during her famous
"mercy speech" in the trial scene. Disguised as a young doctor of law, Portia addresses Shylock
and appeals to his sense of compassion, encouraging him to show mercy toward Antonio
instead of demanding the pound of flesh as agreed in their bond.

Portia's speech describes mercy as a divine quality, one that "droppeth as the gentle rain from
heaven," blessing both the giver and the receiver. By saying, “It is an attribute to God himself,”
Portia emphasizes that mercy is a virtue connected to the divine, something greater than mere
earthly power. She explains that true strength lies not in enforcing punishment or power but in
showing compassion, which reflects God’s own nature. Portia argues that kings and rulers
appear closest to God when they temper justice with mercy, showing that the highest form of
power comes from kindness and forgiveness.

Portia's appeal is meant to convince Shylock that he would gain greater respect and moral
authority by showing mercy, aligning himself with divine qualities. Through this speech, Portia
tries to sway Shylock’s heart, suggesting that in choosing mercy, he would embody both justice
and compassion, reflecting the values held by God himself.

11. "I'll not answer that: But say, it is my humor".

The line “I’ll not answer that: But say, it is my humor” is spoken by Shylock in ‘The Merchant
of Venice’, Act IV, Scene I. Shylock says this to the duke during the trial scene when the duke,
hoping for mercy, suggests that Shylock will ultimately forgive Antonio’s debt rather than insist
on the pound of flesh. The duke believes that Shylock’s harshness is only for show and that he
will eventually act with compassion. However, Shylock makes it clear that he intends to claim
the bond, no matter what anyone expects of him.

When Shylock says, “I’ll not answer that: But say, it is my humor,” he is responding to the
duke’s question about why he would rather have Antonio’s flesh than the large sum of money
offered in repayment. By “humor,” Shylock essentially means his personal inclination or desire,
something that cannot be logically explained. He argues that his insistence on the pound of
flesh is simply his choice, similar to how some people have irrational likes or dislikes—such

55
as disliking certain animals or sounds for no clear reason. Shylock uses this argument to assert
that his preference for revenge over money is simply an emotional inclination that he doesn’t
need to justify.

This line reflects Shylock’s deep-seated hatred for Antonio, which he describes as a “lodged
hate and a certain loathing.” He acknowledges that there may be no logical reason for his desire,
yet his hatred drives him to demand Antonio’s flesh rather than settle for repayment. This
response reinforces Shylock’s determination to follow through with the bond, showing his
willingness to pursue his grudge even when offered alternatives.

12. “Thou almost makest me waver in my faith, to hold opinion

with Pythagoras”.
The line “Thou almost makest me waver in my faith, to hold opinion with Pythagoras” is
spoken by Gratiano during the trial scene in Act IV, Scene I of The Merchant of Venice. This
occurs as Gratiano passionately argues against Shylock’s demand for a pound of flesh from
Antonio, reflecting his outrage at Shylock’s cruelty.

Gratiano’s reference to Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher who believed in the
transmigration of souls, suggests that he is so repulsed by Shylock’s lack of compassion that
he momentarily considers the possibility that Shylock’s soul might be that of a predatory
animal, like a wolf. This metaphor underscores Shylock’s perceived inhumanity and reinforces
Gratiano’s view that Shylock is devoid of mercy.

The context of this line is crucial as it highlights the intense emotional stakes of the trial.
Gratiano’s outburst reveals not only his disdain for Shylock but also the broader societal
tensions between Christians and Jews in Venice. By invoking Pythagoras, Gratiano expresses
his frustration with a system that allows such cruelty to flourish, thus questioning the moral
fabric of their society.

Ultimately, this line encapsulates the themes of justice and mercy within the play. It critiques a
legal system that prioritizes rigid adherence to law over compassion, urging audiences to reflect
on the consequences of allowing vengeance to overshadow humanity. Gratiano’s struggle with
his faith in light of Shylock’s actions serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent
in human nature and the need for empathy within the framework of justice.

13. “How shall thou hope for Mercy rendering None?”

56
The quote “How shall thou hope for mercy rendering none?” is spoken by the Duke in Act 4,
Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice, during the intense courtroom scene where Shylock
demands his legal right to claim a pound of flesh from Antonio. This moment is pivotal in the
play, as it encapsulates the central conflict between justice and mercy. In this context, the Duke
addresses Shylock directly, questioning the validity of his expectation for mercy when he
himself is unwilling to show any. The tone of the Duke's question is one of stern admonition
and moral inquiry, reflecting disappointment and frustration toward Shylock's rigid adherence
to the law without compassion. This line serves as a powerful critique of Shylock’s character,
emphasizing his inflexible stance and lack of empathy for Antonio, who is facing dire
consequences. The emotional weight behind the Duke's words underscores a broader theme in
the play: the necessity of mercy within the framework of justice. The Duke’s inquiry highlights
the moral dilemma at play—how can one expect kindness or leniency if they are not willing to
extend it to others? This moment invites both Shylock and the audience to reflect on the
implications of a legal system that prioritizes strict adherence to law over compassion and
understanding. Furthermore, the Duke’s question serves as a call for introspection, urging
Shylock to reconsider his position and the consequences of his actions. It emphasizes that true
justice cannot exist in a vacuum devoid of mercy; rather, it requires a balance between legal
rights and human compassion. The tension in this scene is palpable, as it raises critical
questions about morality, justice, and the human condition. In summary, the Duke’s question
not only critiques Shylock's lack of mercy but also encapsulates a key theme of The Merchant
of Venice. It reflects the emotional turmoil present in the courtroom while inviting reflection
on the importance of empathy in achieving true justice. This moment serves as a powerful
reminder that mercy is an essential component of justice, urging all characters—and by
extension, the audience—to consider their own capacity for compassion in the face of conflict.

14. “And by our Holy Sabbath have I sworn to have the due and
forfeit of my bond.”
The line “And by our Holy Sabbath have I sworn to have the due and forfeit of my bond” is
spoken by Shylock in Act IV, Scene I of The Merchant of Venice. This moment occurs during
the climactic trial where Shylock insists on enforcing the bond he made with Antonio, which
stipulates a pound of flesh as collateral for a loan.

Shylock’s invocation of the “Holy Sabbath” underscores the seriousness of his oath and
highlights his commitment to the bond despite the pleas for mercy from Antonio and others.

57
By referencing his religious beliefs, Shylock emphasizes that his demand is not just a legal
obligation but also a moral one, rooted in his identity as a Jew. This insistence reveals his deep-
seated desire for justice and revenge against Antonio, who has wronged him in the past.

The context of this line is significant as it illustrates Shylock’s unwavering resolve to claim
what he believes is rightfully his. His character embodies the themes of justice versus mercy
and the consequences of rigid adherence to law without compassion. Shylock’s refusal to show
leniency reflects his own experiences of discrimination and humiliation at the hands of
Venetian society, particularly from Christians like Antonio.

Ultimately, this line encapsulates Shylock’s tragic predicament. While he seeks justice, his
insistence on the bond leads to his downfall, revealing how vengeance can blind individuals to
their own humanity. Shakespeare uses this moment to critique a legal system that allows for
such cruelty and to explore the complexities of justice, identity, and morality within the play.

15. “Thou shall have justice more than thou desir’st.”

The line “Thou shalt have justice more than thou desir’st” is spoken by Portia, disguised as the
lawyer Balthazar, in Act IV, Scene I of The Merchant of Venice. This pivotal moment occurs
during the trial when Shylock insists on his right to claim a pound of flesh from Antonio as
stipulated in their bond.

Portia’s declaration serves multiple purposes. First, it underscores her role as a mediator in the
conflict between Shylock and Antonio. By promising Shylock “justice more than thou desir’st,”
she implies that the legal system will uphold the bond, but she also hints at the consequences
that will follow from such strict adherence to the law. This statement foreshadows the dramatic
turn of events where Shylock’s rigid interpretation of justice ultimately leads to his own
downfall.

The context of this line is crucial; it reflects the tension between justice and mercy that
permeates the play. Portia’s assertion can be interpreted as both a warning and a challenge to
Shylock. While she acknowledges his legal rights, she simultaneously prepares to expose the
limitations of his claim. The irony lies in the fact that Shylock’s desire for strict justice will not
yield the satisfaction he expects; instead, it will result in severe repercussions for him.

Furthermore, this line highlights Portia’s intelligence and cunning as she navigates the
intricacies of the law. She understands that true justice must encompass mercy and compassion,
which contrasts sharply with Shylock’s vengeful stance. By promising more justice than
58
Shylock desires, Portia sets the stage for her subsequent argument about mercy, ultimately
illustrating that a legalistic approach devoid of empathy can lead to tragic outcomes.

In conclusion, Portia’s proclamation encapsulates one of the central themes of The Merchant
of Venice: the delicate balance between justice and mercy. It serves as a reminder that while
laws are essential for order, they must be tempered with understanding and compassion to
achieve true justice. Through this moment, Shakespeare invites audiences to reflect on their
own interpretations of justice and the moral implications of their actions within society.

16. “You take my house when you do take the prop that doth
sustain my house”.
The line “You take my house when you do take the prop that doth sustain my house” was said
by the Jew, Shylock during the trial court of justice in Venice.

Portia managed to save Antonio by pointing out in the bond that there is no mention whatever
of even the smallest drop of blood. The words clearly say ‘a pound of flesh’. She tells Shylock
to take the forfeit in his agreement which is just a pound of flesh. However, in the process of
cutting it, if he sheds one drop of blood of a Christian citizen, then all his wealth and positions
will be forfeited to the Government, according to the laws of Venice.

Upon hearing this Shylock wanted his sum of money back which Bassanio offered him
previously but Portia stops him to pay as Shylock has already said before all present in the
court, that he will not have it. All he wants is strict justice on the payment of the penalty.

Portia further states that there is a statute in the Venetian law that declares that if a foreigner
conspires against the life of any citizen of Venice, either directly or indirectly, then the person
whom he has plotted against is entitled to half his wealth. The rest is to be handed over to the
private treasury of the State; and the life of the plotter himself depends solely on the will of the
duke without appeal. Shylock has brought upon himself the punishment; thus, he should kneel
before the duke at once and plead for mercy.

The duke says that he grants Shylock his life before he asks for it, in order to show him the
difference between his nature and the nature of a Christian. As for half his riches, they now
belong to Antonio, the merchant he plotted against. The other half belongs to the State, but if
he repents and humbly begs for mercy, the State may just impose a fine, instead of taking the
full amount. Shylock then says that they may as well take his life to. It is no use sparing his

59
life, seeing that they have taken away his means of subsistence reducing him to beggary since
he makes his life living by lending out his money.

17. “.... It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”
The line “.... It blesseth him that gives and him that takes” was said by Portia disguised as
Balthazar in the court of trial in Venice.

Portia makes an impassioned plea for mercy and explains that the very characteristic of mercy
is that there can be no compulsion in its exercise. It is beyond a power of man and the law to
compel a man to be merciful. Mercy is a purely voluntary action, whereas justice has the
compelling force of the law behind it. Its very nature to is to fall like rain. Just as no man can
command the rain to fall, so also, no man can command mercy. Mercy shows itself of its own
accord. Just as rain is pleasing and beneficial in its effects by refreshing the weary earth, so
mercy is an agreeable beneficial attribute of the human heart. It carries with it a twofold power
and a double blessing. It benefits and makes happy both the giver and the receiver.

Portia continues to say mercy is not an attribute of weakness. She says its effect is greatest and
noblest when exercised by the great and the powerful, where the law gives them absolute power
to enforce justice. It sheds upon a royal king a brighter lustre than the crown which he wears,
which is an emblem of his sovereign authority.

As she speaks of mercy, Portia tells the Jew to consider, that though he asks for justice, or more
if strict justice meant to be meted out to all, no one can enter heaven. We all pray to God for
mercy, not for justice. We pray to him to ‘forgive’ us our trespasses that we may forgive those
who trespass against us. He who needs God’s mercy to be shown to him, should show mercy
to the man who needs it from him. Therefore, Portia requests Shylock not press for bare justice
in the case but to forego his legal rights, and to season justice with mercy.

18. “The pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly

bought, ‘tis mine and I will have it”
The line “The pound of flesh which I demand of him is dearly bought, ‘tis mine and I will have
it” was said by Shylock, the Jew in the court of Venice.

When the Duke asked Shylock how he can hope for mercy from God, if he shows no mercy to
others, he answers him by saying that he did not fear any punishment, because he has done no

60
wrong, as he is asking for nothing but justice. As for questioning him why he does not treat
others as he would be treating himself, he says the Christians do not do any better. He says the
Christians all possess slaves whom they employ in servile tasks, as they employ their donkeys,
dogs and mules. The reason why they justify themselves for this treatment of them, is that they
are theirs by right of purchase. He says that if he tells them to give their slaves their freedom
and allow them to intermarry with their families, give them comfortable beds to sleep on and
reach food to eat, the Christians will reply that they can treat their massive please as they are
their property, having given payment for them. Shylock says his reply is the same. The pound
of flesh which he claims from Antonio has been bought by him at a high price. It is his own
and he insists on having it. If the Duke refuses him, then he will be making an open confession
that the law of Venice is a mere dead letter. It will be held up to shame. He demands justice.
He asks the duke whether he intends to give it to him or not.

19. “What! Wouldst, thou have a serpent sting thee twice?”

The line “What! Wouldst, thou have a serpent sting thee twice?” was said by Shylock, the Jew
in the court of Venice.

Bassanio asks Shylock whether a man is obliged to seek the death of everything he dislikes.
Shylock replies with another question, he wants to know when a man hates a thing intensely,
why should he not kill it willingly. Bassanio argues that a first offence does not arouse so fierce
hatred as killing one. Shylock answers Bassanio whether he would give a serpent a second
chance to sting him, meaning whether he would give an enemy the chance to hurt him a second
time.

Shylock hates Antonio. He has a bias against Antonio as a Christian and hates him even more
for Antonio’s practice of lending money without interest, undermining Shylock’s usury
business. Shylock wants revenge for years of Antonio’s mistreatment. On several occasions,
Antonio insulted him openly and even spat on him. These instigated Shylock’s pure hatred
towards Antonio and wanting his death.

20. “The Jew shall have all justice; soft! No haste: He shall have
nothing but the penalty.”
The line “The Jew shall have all justice; soft! No haste: He shall have nothing but the penalty.”
was spoken by Portia disguised as Balthazar in the court of Venice.

61
Portia wins the case in the favour of Antonio by pointing out that in the bond there is no mention
whatever of even the smallest drop of blood. The words clearly say ‘a pound of flesh’. She tells
Shylock to take the forfeit in his agreement which is just a pound of flesh. However, in the
process of cutting it, if he sheds one drop of blood of a Christian citizen, then all his wealth and
possessions will be forfeited to the Government according to the laws of Venice.

In answer to that, Shylock says he will accept the offer of money which was made at first and
would release Antonio from his bond on payment of three times the amount of his debt.
Bassanio eagerly tries to hand in the money but Portia stops him and states that Shylock shall
have the justice he asked for. She even denied Shylock of the mere principal, the amount that
he lent to Antonio.

GROUP-B
(2 Marks)
1. Why is a native ashamed of speaking cockney dialect?

The word ‘cockney' means ‘city dweller.’ It is most likely derived from a term used to
derogatorily describe inhabitants of the then-crowded, disease-ridden, and filthy towns in
medieval times. Although its geographic range has significantly diminished, the East End of
London is still home to the Cockney dialect of English. It has several distinguishing
characteristics that are well known to many English speakers, and it is often linked with the
working-class residents of London, known as cockneys. Due to its use is related to lower class
people, native is often ashamed speaking cockney dialect.

2. What is the advice that Shaw gives to foreign speakers of

English language?

George Bernard Shaw emphasizes that there is no such thing as perfectly correct English and
there is presentable English which is called “Good English”. In London, Shaw points out that
nine hundred ninety nine out of every thousand people don’t only speak bad English but speak
even that very badly. They neither speak it correctly nor be understood when it is well spoken.
He suggests the foreigners, to speak with a foreign accent, and speak broken English, that is
English without grammar. Then, the native understands the foreigner and try to understand and

62
gets ready to help. The native never expects the foreigner to be polite and to use elaborate
grammatical phrases.

3. “Even among English people, to speak well is a pedantic

affectation.” What then would be the most natural thing
among Englishmen?
If “to speak well is a pedantic affectation” among English people, then the most natural thing
among Englishmen would be to speak in a less formal, more natural way. G.B. Shaw suggests
that one must not speak too well even with cultivated people, during private conversation also.
While dispelling the fears of foreigners with regard to the language G.B. Shaw says that little
knowledge is adequate to travel England, and adds that to speak too well is a pedantic
affectation, even among English people. G.B. Shaw says that is an insult to the native who
can’t understand his own language when it is too well spoken.

4. According to Shaw what are the two simplest and commonest

words in the English language? Do the members of the
committee agree to the pronunciation of these two words?

According to Shaw what are the two simplest and commonest words in the English language
are ‘yes’ and ‘no'.

Shaw tells the audience that he is a member of a committee named British Broadcasting
Corporation. Many great writers and poets, even poet laureates and actors are members of BBC.
They all are experts at speaking English but still, there are arguments among them on deciding
the correct pronunciation of even simplest English words.

Those simple words that Shaw is talking about are ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Thus, his point is that even
after years of experience and public speaking, even the greatest English speakers have different
pronunciations for the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’. However, what is important here to notice is that
despite having different pronunciations, those speakers will say these two words in a way that
they are easily understandable to all humans. This makes them look highly literate and different
from uneducated people.

63
 5. What examples does Shaw give to distinguish between
company manners and home manners?
Shaw classifies manners into two types namely Company Manners and Home Manners which
also vary according to the situation. Family members do not speak among themselves in the
manner as they do on ordinary occasions when they are in the presence of an outsider. Shaw
further adds by citing an example of ‘key hole moral’.

Shaw says that his audience can do an experiment. If they just listen to a common family
through a keyhole, they will find that the family members speak in a mumbled unclear way.
But when they open the door, the family will start speaking in a clear and publicly
understandable way. This is what Shaw calls the difference between company manners and
family manners. Both these manners apply to everyone.

Another example that Shaw gives of the difference between company manners and family
members is that to ask time to a stranger, Shaw will need to ask him properly to be
understandable. But to his wife, he can just say “cloxst?” and his wife will understand. Shaw
even says that he is talking to the listeners more carefully than he would speak to his wife.

6. What are the defects of our civilization?

The first Defect: Disparity in sharing of the National Income: Today, the sharing of national
wealth, food, clothing, houses and other amenities is still very unfair. Some people live in
luxury and many others do not have enough to eat, drink and wear. Today, in England,
thousands of people live in dreadful surroundings. There are many families with eight to ten
persons who live in a single room. In this room they are born and in this same room they die,
because, they are too poor to afford another room. Until everyone gets his proper share of
necessary things our civilization will not be perfect.

The Second Defect: The Danger of war: A still greater danger comes from war. Four years
from 1914 to 1918, the most destructive was that the world has known, took place between the
great nations of Western Europe. The chief causes for this war were fear and pride. Each nation
was afraid of the power of the other nation and each nation was too proud to admit it. Today,
each nation is spending its greater part of its budget on war preparations thus leading to another
which will probably burn up entire civilization altogether. However, to prevent the impending

64
danger, all nations decide to set up League of Nations, the chief hope of the world, to settle
disputes between the nations and ensure peace.

The Third Defect: The Danger from Machines: The third great defect of our civilization is
that we do not know how to manage our machines. Machines were made to be man’s servants;
yet, they have grown to become his masters. Moreover, the machines are very stern masters.
They must be fed with coal, given petrol to drink, oil to wash with and they must be kept at the
right temperature. So, we have to wait upon them attentively and do all that we can to keep
them in a good temper. The time may come when they rule us altogether, just as we rule the
animals.

Thus, these are the defects of our civilization which C E M Joad mentions in his essay ‘Our
Civilization’.

7. Why was the League of Nations formed?

A greater danger comes from war. Four years from 1914 to 1918, the most destructive war that
the world has known, took place between the great nations of Western Europe. The war that
took place again from 1939 to 1945 almost torn apart the world. The chief causes were fear and
pride. Each nation was afraid of the power of the other nations and each nation was too proud
to admit it. In spite of this last explosion, today, nations are spending still more money on war
preparation thus leading to another destructive blaze which will probably burn up civilization
altogether. What may prevent this is a body called the League of Nations, which was set up
after the last war. This is a sort of law court for nations to which they could bring their disputes
for settlement. Thus, in the League of Nations lies one of the chief hopes in the world.

8. How can our civilization be made the greatest and longest

lasting?
C E M Joad believes if man will give his time and energy to removing the causes of quarrels
between nations and discovering how to remove poverty then, our civilization would
undoubtedly be the greatest, as it would be the most lasting, that there has ever been.

9. How are machines a threat to our civilization?

C E M Joad expresses his apprehension that one day or the other day man may become a slave
to his own machines. Machines may become the masters over the men. They may dictate and
govern all human beings as we rule our brainless animals today. So, man has to engage himself

65
to satisfy their (machines) needs and demands or else they may sulk and refuse to work. The
author feels that machines are not civilization but aids to civilization.

10.Three hundred years after Amanullah's visit to England, when

Afghans read the history books, what would they think of the
English?
In The Civilization of Today, C.E.M. Joad explores the impact of historical events on the
perceptions of different nations. Referring to Amanullah Khan, the King of Afghanistan who
visited England in the early 20th century, Joad suggests that three hundred years after this visit,
Afghans reading history books would likely view the English with a sense of admiration and
respect, but also with a degree of hostility or resentment due to the historical context of
colonialism and imperialism.

The English might be seen as a powerful and influential force, but also as an imperial power
that had dominated and exploited many nations, including Afghanistan. Their view would
likely be shaped by the historical experiences of Afghanistan under British influence, such as
the Anglo-Afghan wars and the imposition of British policies in the region.

Thus, while the Afghans might acknowledge the achievements of the English, they would also
remember the more contentious aspects of their relationship, leading to a complex and
ambivalent perception of the English.

11.What is the full form of B.B.C.

The full form of B.B.C. is British Broadcasting Corporation.

12.Which countries provide date and sugar according to C.E.M

Joad?
C.E.M. notes in his work "The Civilization of Today" that Iraq and Egypt provide dates, while
Mauritius and the West Indies provide sugar.

13.Who were the people in the audience who listen to GB Shaw's

lecture on Spoken English and Broken English?

66
George Bernard Shaw's Spoken English and Broken English was recorded as a gramophone
message, intended to guide learners of English. This lecture targeted foreign students who
wished to communicate effectively while traveling or interacting with English-speaking
natives. He emphasized that there is no such thing as "perfectly correct English," as even native
speakers differ in pronunciation and dialect. He advised learners to focus on speaking
"presentably" rather than striving for polished perfection, as overly formal speech might
confuse natives. The recording, later broadcast on Manhattan’s WNEW radio station, reached
a broad audience, including students, educators, and language enthusiasts, offering insights into
the diversity and practicality of English communication.

14.According to GB Shaw, who is a confident trickster?

According to George Bernard Shaw in Spoken English and Broken English, a "confidence
trickster" uses elaborate, overly polished, and formal language to deceive others into believing
they are trustworthy or authoritative. Shaw humorously points out that if a foreigner speaks
English too perfectly while asking for directions or assistance, they might be mistaken for a
beggar or a confidence trickster, as such speech seems unnatural and arouses suspicion among
native English speakers.

15.Why are the English not keen to help foreigners who are fluent
in English?
According to George Bernard Shaw in Spoken English and Broken English, the English are
often not keen to help foreigners who speak English too fluently because such perfection in
speech feels unnatural and raises suspicion. Native speakers are accustomed to the casual,
imperfect use of their language, so a foreigner’s overly polished and grammatically precise
English can make them appear pedantic or even pretentious. Shaw humorously notes that this
might lead to the foreigner being mistaken for someone with ulterior motives, such as a beggar
or a confidence trickster, rather than someone genuinely seeking help. This highlights the
importance of speaking in a natural and approachable manner rather than striving for perfect
accuracy.

16.What is meant by the term 'British Commonwealth"?

The term "British Commonwealth," as used during George Bernard Shaw's time, referred to
the group of countries that were part of the British Empire. After decolonization, it evolved

67
into what is now called the Commonwealth of Nations, which includes former British colonies
and territories, along with other countries that chose to remain connected to Britain in a
voluntary association. The Commonwealth serves as a political and cultural community with a
shared commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, though it no longer implies
political control by the United Kingdom.

In Shaw's context, "British Commonwealth" referred to these countries where English was
spoken and where the English language and culture had a significant influence.

17.Why was Shaw chosen as a member of the special committee

set up by the B.B.C?
George Bernard Shaw was chosen as a member of the special committee set up by the BBC to
decide how the utterances of speakers employed by the corporation should be pronounced to
serve as a model of correct English. Shaw was selected because, as a writer of plays, he had
extensive experience in supervising rehearsals and critically listening to how actors, who were
trained speakers, pronounced their lines. Additionally, Shaw's expertise as a public speaker
gave him the ability to discern and refine speech for clarity and correctness. His selection was
due to his deep understanding of the nuances of spoken English, making him well-suited for
the task of determining a standardized pronunciation for public broadcasts.

18.In what context does G. B. Shaw mention “cloxst”?

George Bernard Shaw mentions the term “cloxst” in a humorous context to illustrate how
speech can be casual and imprecise in informal, private settings. He describes how, when
speaking to his wife at home, he often speaks carelessly, resulting in words being misheard or
slurred. In this case, Shaw says that when he asks his wife for the time, she only hears “cloxst”
instead of the full “What o’clock is it?” He humorously notes that this level of carelessness in
speech is acceptable in intimate settings but would be unacceptable in formal or public
communication, where clarity is essential.

19.According to C.E.M. Joad, from which countries can one get

oranges and tea?

68
According to C.E.M. Joad, oranges come from Brazil and tea from China. He illustrates how
the world has transformed into a single place instead of many isolated regions, where things
from different parts of the globe are easily available in one place despite their geographical
remoteness.

20.To which country did King Amanullah belong? Why did he

visit London?
King Amanullah belonged to Afghanistan. He visited London to observe Western civilization.
His visit reflects a desire to witness Western advancements and build diplomatic relations.
During his stay, he was shown tanks at Lulworth Cove, bombing aeroplanes at Hendon, taken
on a submarine trip, and even allowed to fire a torpedo off Spithead.

21.According to C.E.M. Joad, what does the law protect one

from?
According to C.E.M. Joad, the law protects us from robbery and violence. It ensures that no
one can break into our homes, steal our belongings, or take our children without facing
punishment. The law also punishes burglars when they are caught, thereby providing justice
and a sense of security.

22.Why does Joad say that Europe looks like “a big-armed

Camp"?
Joad describes Europe as "a big-armed camp" because of its militarized nature and the
pervasive presence of armed forces. He explains that nations were afraid of each other's power,
which led them to spend large sums of money on rifles, cannons, battleships, and training
soldiers, making Europe look more like a military camp than a peaceful place.

23.Comment on Bernard Shaw's opinion of ‘ideally correct

English’.
Bernard Shaw opines that there is no such thing as "ideally correct English" because no two
British subjects speak exactly alike. If we consider one person's speech as correct, it would

69
suggest that another person's way of speaking is wrong, which is not the case. The variation in
English usage highlights the language's diversity, making it impossible to establish a single
standard for correctness.

24.What does Shaw say about 'home manners' and 'company

manners’?
Shaw states that there is a distinction between home manners and company manners. In a
company, we are expected to behave formally and maintain discipline, as we are obligated to
certain authorities to uphold a suitable lifestyle. However, at home, we are not required to
follow the same protocols, allowing us to be more relaxed and informal, which contributes to
a happier and more comfortable environment.

25.What were the primary causes of the First World War?

According to C.E.M. Joad, the primary causes of the First World War were numerous, but the
chief factors were fear and pride. Nations were afraid of each other's power but too proud to
acknowledge it. As a result, this fear and pride led them to spend significant amounts of money
on weapons, building battleships, and training soldiers, causing the war.

26.How is a housewife more fortunate than King Solomon in

today's civilization?
The author claims a housewife to be more fortunate than King Solomon in today’s civilization
because even in his glory he could not access the vast variety of produce that a modern
housewife can when shopping at the grocer's. Joad points out that the world has become
interconnected, allowing for easy access to goods from different parts of the globe, regardless
of geographical distance.

27.Why does C.E.M. Joad say that ‘illness is no longer a terrible

thing'?
C.E.M. Joad states that "illness is no longer a terrible thing" because the use of anaesthetics
has become common. This development has freed people from the fear of pain associated with
medical treatments, making the experience of illness less daunting than it once was.

70
 28.Who is Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson?

Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson was a prominent English actor and theatrical impresario, born
on January 16, 1853, and passing away on November 6, 1937. He is widely regarded as one of
the finest actors of his time, particularly noted for his portrayal of Hamlet, which earned him
acclaim as the best Hamlet of the Victorian era. Educated at Charterhouse School, Forbes-
Robertson initially trained as an artist before turning to acting in 1874. Throughout his career,
he performed alongside notable figures such as Sir Henry Irving and was involved in
productions of Shakespearean plays. George Bernard Shaw wrote the role of Julius Caesar in
Caesar and Cleopatra specifically for him. Knighted in 1913, he retired from acting shortly
thereafter but continued to produce plays until his death. His legacy includes a reputation for
exceptional elocution and a significant impact on English theatre.

29.Name any one target audience of G.B. Shaw’s speech.

One target audience of G.B. Shaw’s speech in Spoken English and Broken English includes
‘the general public’, particularly those interested in the nuances of language and
communication. Shaw aimed to address individuals who might be struggling with the
complexities of spoken English, including both native speakers and learners. By discussing the
importance of clear communication and the impact of language on social interactions, Shaw
sought to engage a broad audience that spans various social classes and educational
backgrounds. His insights into how language shape’s identity and perception resonate with
anyone invested in effective communication, making his speech relevant to a diverse group
seeking to improve their linguistic skills.

30.According to Shaw, how is the question “What O’clock is it?”

heard by a stranger and by his wife?
In Spoken English and Broken English, G.B. Shaw illustrates how the question “What o’clock
is it?” is perceived differently depending on the relationship between the speaker and the
listener. When a stranger asks this question, it is often viewed as a straightforward inquiry about
time, devoid of emotional context or connection. However, when asked by a wife to her
husband, it carries deeper implications; it reflects intimacy and familiarity within their
relationship. Shaw emphasizes that such questions can reveal underlying emotions or tensions,
showcasing how language is not merely about conveying information but also about expressing

71
feelings and dynamics within personal relationships. This distinction highlights the complexity
of communication beyond mere words.

31.“... there have been two revolutions and a great many wars”.
What two revolutions does Joad talk about?
C.E.M. Joad refers to the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution as the two significant
revolutions that have profoundly impacted modern civilization. The Industrial Revolution,
which began in the late 18th century, transformed economies from agrarian-based systems to
industrialized ones, leading to urbanization, technological advancements, and significant
changes in labor dynamics. It altered the fabric of society by creating new social classes and
changing the nature of work. The French Revolution, occurring in the late 18th century,
challenged the established political order and introduced revolutionary ideas such as liberty,
equality, and fraternity. It dismantled feudal structures and inspired democratic movements
across Europe and beyond. Together, these revolutions not only reshaped economic systems
but also influenced political ideologies, setting the stage for modern democratic governance
and capitalist economies. Joad emphasizes that these revolutions were pivotal moments that
marked the transition into contemporary civilization.

32.Why did previous civilizations come to an end? Name any two

places where this happened.
Previous civilizations often came to an end due to a combination of factors, including economic
collapse, political instability, social injustice, and external invasions. These elements
contributed to the decline of societies that once thrived. For instance, the Roman Empire faced
internal strife, such as corruption and civil wars, alongside external pressures from invading
tribes like the Visigoths and Vandals. This combination weakened its ability to govern
effectively and defend its borders, ultimately leading to its fall. Similarly, the Mayan
civilization experienced a decline attributed to environmental degradation, overpopulation, and
social upheaval. Deforestation and agricultural practices led to soil depletion, which
undermined food production and contributed to societal collapse. Joad uses these examples to
illustrate that civilizations must adapt to changing circumstances; failure to do so can result in
their eventual demise.

33.What does Joad say about the division of national income?

72
In his analysis of modern society, Joad discusses the disparity in the division of national
income, emphasizing how wealth is unevenly distributed among different segments of the
population. He points out that in countries like England, a substantial portion of national
income is concentrated in the hands of a small elite while a significant number of people live
in poverty or struggle to make ends meet. This inequality creates social tensions and
undermines social cohesion, as those at the bottom feel marginalized and disenfranchised. Joad
argues that such disparities can lead to instability within society, as economic inequality breeds
resentment and conflict. He suggests that a more equitable distribution of wealth is essential
for a stable society where all individuals have access to opportunities for growth and prosperity.
By highlighting this issue, Joad calls attention to the need for reforms that address economic
injustices.

34.Does Shaw encourage listening through keyholes?

In Spoken English and Broken English, G.B. Shaw does not explicitly encourage listening
through keyholes; rather, he uses this metaphor to illustrate the nuances of communication and
understanding among individuals. He suggests that eavesdropping can provide insight into
genuine conversations that reveal true feelings and intentions often masked in formal dialogue.
However, he also acknowledges the ethical implications of such actions, indicating that while
it may lead to greater understanding, it can also breach privacy and trust. Ultimately, Shaw
encourages open communication over secretive listening, advocating for clarity in expression
rather than relying on clandestine methods to grasp meaning in conversations between people.

35.According to C.E.M. Joad, what led to the destruction of the

ancient civilizations?
C.E.M. Joad identifies several factors that led to the destruction of ancient civilizations,
particularly emphasizing moral decay, social injustice, and an inability to adapt to changing
conditions. As societies grow complacent or corrupt, they often experience a decline in ethical
standards among their leaders and citizens alike. This moral decay can manifest in widespread
corruption, loss of civic responsibility, and erosion of social values that once held communities
together. Additionally, social injustice—where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands
of a few whiles many suffer—can lead to unrest and rebellion among the populace.
Furthermore, civilizations that fail to adapt to environmental changes or external pressures risk
collapse; for example, resource depletion or climate change can destabilize agricultural systems

73
essential for survival. Joad’s insights highlight how interconnected these factors are in
determining a civilization’s longevity or demise.

36.What does Joad mean when he says “Today it is the oasis which is
spreading over the desert”?

When Joad states, “Today it is the oasis which is spreading over the desert,” he employs a
metaphorical image to convey that modern civilization is expanding its benefits—such as
knowledge, technology, education, and social progress—over areas previously characterized
by ignorance or hardship. The “oasis” represents pockets of prosperity and enlightenment that
contrast sharply with the surrounding “desert,” symbolizing regions or aspects of society
suffering from neglect or deprivation. This imagery suggests a hopeful transformation where
advancements in civilization can bring improvement and uplift those who have been
marginalized or left behind. Joad implies that through education and social reform, society can
create fertile ground for growth and development even in challenging environments.
Ultimately, this vision reflects an optimistic belief in humanity’s capacity for progress and
improvement through collective effort and understanding.

37.What is G.B. Shaw’s opinion regarding “Ideally correct

English”?
George Bernard Shaw argues that “Ideally correct English” is impractical and hinders natural
communication, making it sound forced or unnatural. He believes language should be flexible
and focused on clarity, not restricted by rigid, formal rules.

38.What advice does G.B. Shaw give to foreigners intending to

visit England?
G.B. Shaw advises foreigners visiting England to be prepared for the English people’s reserved
nature and their strict manners. He humorously suggests that visitors expect formal politeness,
be cautious of the unpredictable weather, and adapt to strong English tea. Shaw’s advice reflects
his playful critique of English customs, helping foreigners understand the cultural quirks they
might encounter.

39.What are ‘the new and rare things’ that C.E.M. Joad talks
about?
74
C.E.M. Joad describes “new and rare things” as technological advancements and changes in
social organization, such as automobiles, airplanes, telecommunication, and industrialization.
These developments distinguish modern civilization from the past, creating both progress and
new challenges.

40.How can machines help in the progress of civilization, as

suggested by C.E.M. Joad?
C.E.M. Joad suggests that machines aid civilization by increasing efficiency and productivity,
allowing for greater output in industries. They also improve the quality of life by reducing
manual labor, facilitating communication and transportation, and driving economic growth
through innovation and job creation.

41.What in Joad’s opinion, is the chief difference between

previous civilizations and the civilization of today?
In Joad’s opinion, the chief difference between previous civilizations and modern civilization
is the overwhelming influence of technology and machinery. While earlier civilizations were
primarily shaped by human relationships and cultural values, modern civilization is dominated
by industrialization and technological advancements, leading to both significant progress and
complexities that challenge traditional social structures and moral values.

42.What in Joad’s opinion, are the chief causes of war among

nations?
According to Joad, the chief causes of war among nations are economic rivalry and the desire
for power. Nations compete for resources, markets, and economic dominance, leading to
conflicts. Additionally, nationalism and the pursuit of political influence drive countries to
assert their power, often resulting in war.

43.What is a major benefit of good health enjoyed by the people of

modern civilization?

75
A major benefit of good health enjoyed by people of modern civilization, as suggested by Joad,
is an increased lifespan, which allows individuals to be more productive and enjoy a higher
quality of life. Advances in medicine, hygiene, and public health contribute to this benefit,
enabling people to live longer and healthier lives.

44.Mention the two qualities that C.E.M. Joad speaks of which are
recent and rare characteristics of today’s civilization.
C.E.M. Joad identifies mechanization and speed as two recent and rare characteristics of
today’s civilization. Mechanization refers to the widespread use of machines in daily life and
industries, while speed highlights the fast pace of life due to advancements in transportation
and communication.

45.Name any three major benefits which, according to C.E.M.

Joad, have been accomplished by modern civilization.
According to C.E.M. Joad, three major benefits accomplished by modern civilization are:

• Increased Efficiency: Machinery and technology have greatly improved productivity

and reduced manual labor.
• Improved Health: Advancements in medicine and public health have led to longer
lifespans and better overall health.
• Enhanced Communication and Transportation: Developments in telecommunication
and transportation allow people to connect and travel quickly and easily across
distances.

76