The Merchant of Venice is a characteristic of the characters in the play.

William Shakespeare

The Merchant of Venice

CHARACTERS

Doge of Venice, Prince of Morocco , the suitors of Portia.

Prince of Aragon .

Antonio , The Merchant of Venice.

Bassanio , his friend.

Salanio, Salarino, Graziano, Salerio , friends of Antonio and Bassanio.

Lorenzo in love with Jessica.

Shylock , a wealthy Jew.

Tubal , Jew, his friend.

Lancelot Gobbo , jester, Shylock's servant.

Old Gobbo father of Lancelot.

Leonardo , Bassanio's servant.

Balthazar, Stefano , Portia's servants.

A portion , a wealthy heiress.

Nerissa , her servant.

Jessica Shylock's daughter.

Venetian senators, members of the court, jailer, servants of Portia and others. 1

The action takes place partly in Venice, partly in Belmont, Portia's estate on the mainland.

SCENE 1

Venice. Street.

Enter Antonio, Salarino And Salanio.

Antonio

I don't know why I'm so sad.

It is a burden to me; you, I hear, too.

But where I caught sadness, found or got it.

What constitutes what will give birth to her, -

I would like to know! My senseless sadness is my fault,

It's hard for me to recognize myself.

Salarino

You are rushing about the ocean in spirit,

Where are your majestic ships,

Like the rich and nobles of the waters

Or a magnificent procession of the sea,

They look with contempt at the small merchants,

Who bow low to them with reverence,

As they fly on woven wings.

Salanio

Believe me, if I took such a risk,

Almost all my feelings would be there -

With my hope. I would constantly

Picked grass to know where the wind came from

I searched for harbors and bays on maps;

Any item that could fail

I foretell, I would surely

I plunged into sadness.

Salarino

Chilling my soup with your breath

I'd be shaking in a fever at the thought

What can a hurricane do in the sea;

I could not see the hourglass,

Not remembering the shoals and reefs;

I would imagine a ship stuck in the sand,

Head bowed lower than the sides,

To kiss your grave! In the church,

Looking at the stones of the building of the saint,

How could I not remember dangerous rocks,

What, barely pushing my fragile ship,

All the spices would be scattered into the water

And the waves would clothe in my silks, -

Well, in a word, that my wealth has become

Nothing? And could I think about it

Without thinking that if so

Happened, I would have to be sad?

Don't say, I know: Antonio

Sad, worried about his goods.

Antonio

No, believe me: I thank fate -

My risk is not one I entrusted to the ship,

Not one and the same place; fortune

Mine is not measured by the current year:

I am not sad because of my goods.

Salarino

Then you are in love.

Antonio

Salarino

Not in love? So let's say you are sad.

Then that you are sad, and nothing more!

You could laugh, repeating: "I am cheerful,

Then I'm not sad!" Two-faced Janus!

I swear by you, nature will give birth to strange

People: some stare and laugh,

Like a parrot that heard the bagpipes;

Others look like vinegar, sour,

So they won't show their teeth in a smile,

Swear to yourself Nestor 4 that the joke is funny!

Enter Bassanio, Lorenzo And Gratiano.

Salanio

Here is your noble kinsman Bassanio;

Gratiano and Lorenzo with him. Farewell!

We are in better society let's leave you.

Salarino

I would stay to cheer you up

But here I see those who are dearer to you.

Antonio

In my eyes, the price is dear to you.

It seems to me that business is calling you

And you are glad to have an excuse to leave.

Salarino

Hello gentlemen.

Bassanio

Sirs, but when will we laugh?

When? You have become unsociable!

Salarino

We are ready to share your leisure with you.

The plot of the play is an example of a masterful combination of several plot motifs. The story of the bill is told in Giovanni Fiorentino's collection of short stories The Simpleton (1558); grooms guessing in which box the bride's portrait is hidden are described in the 66th story of the medieval collection "Roman Acts" (c. 1400), translated into English language Richard Robinson (1577). In the pamphlet of the Puritan Stephen Gosson, The School of Abuses (1579), there is mention (without title or name of the author) of a play similar in content to The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare might have known her. Unfortunately, it has not survived.

The play was registered with the Chamber of Paper Merchants in July 1598, first published in 1600, reprinted in 1619, and finally in the folio of 1623.

Estimated time of creation - 1596-1597.

So far, we have considered works whose general meaning did not cause much disagreement, because both the action of the plays and the characteristics of the characters reveal with sufficient clarity the author's attitude to dramatic conflicts and the characters acting in them.

But now we are moving on to The Merchant of Venice, and a difficulty arises: how should one treat central conflict plays: who is right - the Venetians or Shylock? Whom should we sympathize with? How to evaluate from a moral point of view the character of the Jewish usurer Shylock? Did Shakespeare want the audience to be imbued with hatred and contempt for him, or did he seek to arouse sympathy for this representative of an oppressed and persecuted people?

Let's start with historical facts. When Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice, the wave of anti-Semitism in England that had arisen in connection with the trial of the Queen's physician, the Jew Lopez, had not yet subsided. Elizabeth's favorite Earl of Essex (the one whom many biographers predicted as the prototypes of Hamlet), wanting to strengthen his position at court, thought up that he had discovered a conspiracy on the life of his elderly patroness. Her doctor was declared the perpetrator. Under torture, he was forced to confess that he wanted to poison her. At the trial, Lopez retracted his testimony, but this was not taken into account, and the Jewish doctor was executed (June 1594) *.

It is indicative of the social atmosphere of that time that the Henslo-Alleyn troupe restored a production of Marlo's play The Jew of Malta*. Burbage-Shakespeare's rival troupe also put on a play in which Shylock, a Jewish pawnbroker, was introduced as the villain. There was, however, some difference between the two plays. Marlo wrote a tragedy, and his Jew was a tragic villain. Shakespeare created a comedy in which the Jew was presented as a comic villain.

* (Tragedy written by Marlo c. 1590)

The title of the first edition of the play: "A most excellent story about a Venetian merchant. Depicting the extreme cruelty of the Jew Shylock towards the said merchant, from whom he wanted to carve exactly a pound of meat; and depicting the harassment of the hand of Portia by means of a choice of three caskets." This leaves no room for doubt as to how the figure of Shylock was treated in Shakespeare's theatre. Facts also confirm stage history. The actor Thomas Jordan wrote in a poem about Shylock (1664) (translated in prose): "He had a red beard, a face like a witch, he wore Jewish clothes suitable for any weather, his chin was hooked up, and his nose was hooked downward, and their tips converged" * . Such was the stage tradition bequeathed to the theater of the 17th century by the stage late XVI centuries. She lasted until mid-eighteenth century, when the actor McLean (1747) changed Shylock's costume by wearing a red Venetian headdress instead of the orange hat worn by Jewish moneylenders in the Middle Ages. He gave the character not only a new external appearance, but also interpreted the whole image of Shylock in a new way. In the performance of McLean, he lost his comedy and for the first time gained features tragic hero. Shylock MacLean was terrible in his vicious vindictiveness.

Another step forward in the interpretation of the image was made by the brilliant romantic actor Edmund Kean, who, playing Shylock (1814), turned him into " romantic hero who does not hesitate to kill, but is volcanically magnificent in his national fanaticism and in the frenzied strength of passion "*. In accordance with this, there was also appearance Shylock. The comic villain's red wig was replaced with a black wig.

Dickensian actor William Macready turned Shylock into a majestic perfect figure(1841), and Henry Irving (1879) presented Shylock as a handsome old man with gray hair, full of aristocratic pride as a representative of the "chosen" people.

The metamorphosis of this play is truly amazing. When she appeared on the stage, it was a comedy about a noble Venetian merchant and his pursuer, a vicious and funny Jewish pawnbroker. Over time, they began to see in it, if not a tragedy, then a drama that affirms the human rights of the Jews * .

* (See G. Heine, Girls and Women of Shakespeare, Sobr. soch., v. 7, Goslitizdat. 1958, p. 381; V. Stasov, "The Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare, St. Petersburg. 1904.)

Which of these plays was written by Shakespeare and which is attributed to him? I think that this question is not settled by clarifying the problem whether or not Shakespeare was an anti-Semite. As in solving many other ideological problems of Shakespeare's work, in order to find the right answer, it is necessary to proceed from the nature of Shakespeare's dramaturgy.

"The Merchant of Venice" is a play that is much deeper than the idea implied by its full title above. This is what stage history has revealed.

The fact that in the same character both meanness and greatness are found, is quite consistent with the nature of Shakespeare's dramaturgy. This, after all, was pointed out by Pushkin, who admired the versatility of Shakespeare's characters. As you know, as an example of the versatility of the image, Pushkin cited Shylock in the first place.

"The Merchant of Venice" in the main part of the plot is a comedy. But sad and sad motives invade this comedy. We will turn shortly to another similar comedy - "Much Ado About Nothing" - where one of the plot lines will also be sad, not comic.

Fun and joy are mixed in "The Merchant of Venice" with gloomy motives. In the play, two artistic elements coexist, all the time crowding each other - romantic and realistic. Finally, it contains three plot motifs, and where the historical-comparative method of criticism revealed only a combination of wandering plot motifs, a deep philosophical thought is revealed.

At the center of the play is the conflict between Antonio and Shylock. Antonio is a Christian, Shylock is a Jew. Can we say that their enmity has religious reasons? Let us hear from the one who suffers the most from this enmity, Shylock. Here is what he says about his attitude towards Antonio:

He is hateful to me as a Christian, but more themes that in the infamous simplicity He lends money without interest And reduces the rate of growth in Venice ...

(I, 3. Translated by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik)

It follows from this: Shylock hates Antonio not so much because he is a Christian, but because he interferes with his commercial affairs - he lends without taking interest, thereby knocking down the usurious rate of credit operations.

Why does Antonio hate Shylock? According to the same Shylock, He hates our sacred people And in the gatherings of merchants reviles Me, my deeds, my honest profit Calls with interest.

Again, therefore, the main thing is not national differences. Antonio hates the Jew for his "deeds", for usury.

And for Shylock, his wealth is the only defense against Christians who hate him. Choking from the consciousness of injustice, he demands that he be recognized as a man: “Does the Jew have no eyes? Doesn’t the Jew have hands, organs, members of the body, feelings, attachments, passions? hurts him, isn't he subject to the same ailments, don't the same medicines heal him, don't the same summers and winters keep him warm and cold as a Christian? If we are pricked, don't we bleed? If we are tickled "Don't we laugh? If we are poisoned, don't we die?" (III, 1).

Even if these words, which now read like a declaration of human equality, regardless of nationality, were not taken seriously by those for whom the play was written, then, on the other hand, it becomes quite obvious that not all Jews were surrounded by contempt. Even those who mortally hate Shylock harbor no prejudice against people of Jewish blood in general. Lorenzo falls in love with Jew Jessica, while Portia, Bassanio, Gratiano, Nerissa and himself worst enemy Shylock, Antonio, take her into their midst. As is often the case with Shakespeare, the jester servant Launcelot expresses general opinion while telling Jessica:

"The most beautiful pagan, the most charming Jewess! If some Christian does not commit fraud because of you just to get you, I will be positively deceived" (II, 3).

This is the voice of the people! Thus, we see that in Shakespeare's play we are no longer faced with a medieval society with its impenetrable boundaries between people of different faiths and nationalities. In the same Venice, they will not look at the fact that Othello is a black Moor, and will give him command of all the armed forces of the republic. "The affairs of Othello - that's his face!" And Shylock is judged in the same Shakespeare's Venice by his deeds.

Even Aristotle wrote: “Usury is justly hated by everyone, because here money is a source of acquisition and is not used for what it was invented for. this acquisition is the most contrary to nature. All medieval literature full of condemnation of usury. The attitude towards him did not change during the Renaissance. They saw in him something contrary to nature, and such was the opinion of the people, supported by the humanists.

Shylock is a typical bourgeois hoarder. His hoarding is evidenced by the complaints of the servant Lancelot, who "dies of hunger" in his house, and that Lancelot is not lying, we are convinced by observing Shylock himself, when he reproaches the servant for gluttony, idleness and because he wears out his clothes too quickly ( II, 5). He willingly releases Lancelot from himself - he "does not need drones in the hive." This scene is crowned by Shylock's maxim addressed to his daughter:

If you forbid it more densely, you will find it more correctly, - A worthy proverb of economic people.

Shylock is reminiscent of the bourgeois Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in his appearance and behavior. This, of course, was done by Shakespeare on purpose. Like the Puritans, Shylock loves to refer to scripture. Biblical sayings are often found in his speech. Even Launcheloth he calls "offspring of Hagar" (II, 5). It is not an accidental feature in Shylock's appearance that he does not like entertainment and music. Music for Shylock is nothing more than "nasty squeak". Shakespeare believed that

* (Paul N. Siegel, Shylock the Puritan, Columbia University Forum, Fall 1962, vol. V, No. 4, p. 14-19.)

He who does not have music in his soul, Whom sweet harmonies will not touch, Is capable of robbery, treason, cunning; Dark as night are the souls of his movements, And his feelings are all gloomy, like Erebus...

Shylock "has no music in his soul". The world in which HE lives is gloomy, one deity reigns in it - gold. The thirst for accumulation killed in Shylock the ability to enjoy the joys of life, and the love of gold dulled even parental feelings. When Jessica flees from his house, Shylock, distraught with grief, rushes through the streets of Venice, but he is looking not so much for the runaway daughter as for the diamonds and ducats she has carried away.

This Shylock, Shylock the bourgeois, cannot arouse any feeling but contempt, and it is not for nothing that the scenes depicting his miserliness and greed for money are written in a comic way. But this is not the whole of Shylock, and this is not the whole truth about him.

And who is his enemy, Antonio? After all, he is the "merchant of Venice". Antonio "has one ship sailing to Tripoli, the other to India; in addition ... he has a third now in Mexico, a fourth in England, and the rest of the ships are also scattered all over the world" (I, 3). He is a merchant-adventurer, of which there were many in the Renaissance. He conducts his business on a grand scale. His courts

Like rich men and nobles of the waters Or a magnificent procession of the sea, With contempt they look at the small merchants, Who bow low to them with reverence, When they fly on woven wings.

The choice of these two figures - the usurer and the merchant - in Shakespeare is not accidental. He corresponded to the historical stage at which the bourgeoisie was then, and one must only be surprised at the social insight of the great playwright.

“The Middle Ages,” we read in Marx, “left behind two various forms capital, which reach maturity in the most diverse socio-economic formations and, until the onset of the era of the capitalist mode of production, are considered capital as such: usurious capital and merchant's capital" * .

* (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, pp. 759-760.)

There is this conflict in the play, but it is not the main idea of ​​the work.

"The Merchant of Venice" embraces a range of great universal human issues: the law of the state, parental will, the interests of the individual, law - in the broad and narrow sense of the word, justice and mercy, and the theme of justice dominates all of them.

In parallel with the main conflict (Antonio-Shylock), the play develops a line of action relating to Bassanio and Portia. At first it seems that these two plots are connected mechanically. Gradually, however, the deep ideological connection of this line of action with the conflict between Antonio and Shylock becomes clear.

According to her father's will, Portia must marry the one who correctly solves the problem: guess which of the three boxes - gold, silver or lead - contains her portrait.

"With me you will get what many desire" - says the inscription on the golden box. The Prince of Morocco chooses gold, because, as he believes, a valuable pearl cannot be set in any other setting than gold (II, 7). Instead of a portrait of Portia, he finds in a chest a skull and a scroll explaining to him:

Not all that glitters is gold.

The Prince of Morocco based his choice on a judgment of appearance - and was deceived.

The Prince of Arragon chooses a silver casket, on which the inscription reads: "With me you will receive what you deserve." In his choice, he proceeds from the fact that "no one dares to wear greatness undeservedly." He is looking for a complete correspondence between the external and the essence. He is closer to the truth than the Moroccan prince, but he is also mistaken. The Prince of Arragon also attaches too much importance to the outside.

Finally, it is Bassanio's turn. He chooses the most unattractive-looking chest - lead - and explains his choice as follows:

Appearance is far from essence: It is not difficult to deceive the world with decoration, In the courts there are no dirty, low litigations in which It would be impossible to cover up a bad appearance with a pleasant voice. In religion - There is no heresy, so that someone's mind is not taken seriously, it is not confirmed by texts. Covering the absurdity with a magnificent decoration, There is no obvious vice, so as not to accept the Game of virtue outwardly. ...... Take a look at the beauty - And now it’s possible to buy that by weight; And so a miracle happens in nature, That those who wear more are lighter. Yes, you are the guise of truth, under which Our cunning age catches even the wisest.

And the note in the casket confirms the correctness of the motives on the basis of which Bassanio made his choice:

You did not look at appearance - Be so lucky in the future!

The episode with the three chests is directly related to the central theme of the play. At the heart of these scenes is the question of the principles on which a person's judgment about life phenomena is based. The idea here is simple and deep: "appearance is far from essence," we should not be deceived by the "mask of truth," and therefore we should not judge things by appearance.

Now we will immediately move on to the central episode of the play - to the court scene. In bringing his claim and demanding a pound of Antonio's meat, Shylock proceeds from formal law. The law is on his side. True, this law in this case justifies cruel inhumanity. But according to the letter of the law, Shylock has the right to receive what is due to him under the bill, that is, a pound of meat. Against this, the sense of justice, mercy, is indignant, it is contrary to humanity, but formally - in appearance - Shylock is right. However, the nature of formal law is such that it cannot provide justice. And Portia shows how, starting from formal law, one can assert anything, even if it contradicts the evidence.

They try to persuade Shylock, appeal to his sense of humanity, to justice, point to the incommensurability of Antonio's real debt and the formal obligation on the bill. But Shylock is relentless. It is then that Portia resorts to Shylock's own argument. She also takes the point of view of purely formalism:

So, get ready to cut the meat, But do not shed blood, look cut off You are not more and not less than a pound: A little more or less than a pound, - Although it would exceed or reduce the weight A part of the twentieth twentieth of the Insignificant scruple, even if You are an arrow by a hair rejected, - That is death to you, the property is - to the treasury.

Shylock proceeded not from essence, but from formal law, and formal law turned against him.

Portia herself, shortly after the trial, finds herself in a position where she must personally solve a similar life task for herself.

When Bassanio leaves Belmont to go to Venice and try to rescue his friend Antonio from the hands of Shylock, Portia puts a ring on his finger. "He swore an oath not to part with him," for this ring is a symbol of love between them. But, as you know, at the end of the trial, Portia, not recognized by anyone, asks Bassanio for this ring as a reward for saving Antonio, and he, after some hesitation, gives it back. Bassanio returns to Belmont without the ring given to him by Portia. Judging by appearance, based on formal signs, Portia has the right to regard this as a betrayal of Bassanio. The betrayal is double: Bassanio broke his oath and sacrificed the symbol of Portia's love for another person, his friend Antonio.

In essence, of course, there is no fault for Bassanio. Vice versa. By doing this, he elevates himself. The ring was dear to him as a symbol of his highest personal happiness. But he gave it away to thank him for saving his friend. And Portia understands this, so she turns the whole incident into a joke.

The scene of the court and the episode with the ring are in theory closely related. Shylock proceeded from formal law, and this led to his defeat. Bassanio proceeded from pure humanity, and he turned out to be a winner.

Thus, humanity and true justice triumph. After the gloomy scene of the trial, dominated by the sinister figure of Shylock, who, with inexorable cruelty, wants to cut a pound human meat and kill your enemy, the fifth act follows, when in the beautiful garden of Belmont, in moonlit night, converge all those in whom humanity is above everything else - Portia and Bassanio, Antonio, Gratiano and Nerissa, Jessica and Lorenzo. Love and friendship reign here. The sweet sounds of music are an accompaniment to the inner harmony that reigns in their souls.

It is impossible not to succumb to the charm of this scene, in which such beauty reigns. But let's not forget the lesson just given to us, let's remember the wonderful words of Bassanio:

Appearance is far from essence: It is not difficult to deceive the world with decoration ...

Is everything really going so well, is justice and humanity really triumphing? Why, despite all the beauty of the night in the Belmont garden, do we not feel completely satisfied? Because neither the beauty of nature, nor the brilliance of the moon, nor the enchanting music can drive away the lonely shadow hovering before us. Because we cannot forget the figure of an old Jew, bent over the years, humiliated and defeated. We remember how, after the verdict, he clutches his heart with a trembling hand and says in a low voice:

I beg you, let me go; I feel bad...

Indeed, until now we have looked at everything through the eyes of Antonio and Portia. Of course, Shylock is a predatory usurer, a miser, a cruel and vengeful person. But are these the only traits he has? Let's take a look at it again.

We remember that Shylock is greedy and grieves over the stolen money even when the only creature close to him ran away from him - his daughter. But then something else emerges. Tubal tells that a merchant showed him the ring with which Jessica paid for the monkey she had bought. Shylock exclaims: "Damn her! You torment me, Tubal: it was my turquoise - I got it from Leah when I was still single. I would not give it for a whole monkey grove" (III, 1). The ring touched a forgotten string - Shylock's youth, when he may have been different, when life had not yet made him greedy, cruel and vindictive,

Shylock is avaricious. But is it really so much Odin suffers from this vice? Bassanio, of course, is very noble and handsome - but this is how he himself explains the reasons that impel him to marry Portia.

It is not unknown to you, Antonio, how much I have upset my affairs, Lifestyle Than the modesty of my means allowed.

And after that he talks about "a rich heiress who lives in Belmont" - for her he is going to woo.

Shylock is greedy. And what about "Little Jessica", who knows that you can't live with love alone, and, running away from her father, steals all his fortune?

Finally, when Shylock is condemned, his enemies are not satisfied with saving Antonio from the moneylender's revenge. They are diligently clearing Shylock's chests, distributing what gets to whom.

Shylock is cruel, inhuman. What a contrast Antonio presents in this respect! Yes, with one exception. Antonio's humanity does not extend to Shylock. Shylock tells him:

Signor Antonio, many times and often In Rialto you slandered me Because of my own money and interest ... You called me vicious dog, incorrect. They spat on my Jewish caftan... ...but now, apparently, you need me... ...It's you, you ask, who spat in my face, kicked me like a dog... What can I say you? .. "Signor, you spat on me on Wednesday, On such and such a day they gave me a kick, after They called me a dog; and for these caresses I will lend you money."

To this Antonio - the generous, kind Antonio - replies:

I'm ready to call you that again, And spit on you, and kick with my foot.

And this Antonio says when Shylock is ready to make up his mind to a completely unusual act for him.

Antonio in this scene asks Shylock for money, demands a favor, and yet wants to humiliate him for the service rendered to him. At this moment, a peculiar grandeur awakens in Shylock. Antonio scolds him, but he still lends him money, lends him like never before to anyone - without interest. He, who is considered so greedy, is able to refuse monetary gain, to give up even his "legitimate profit", interest. Bassanio sees some kind of trick in this, and Shylock bitterly remarks:

O Father Abraham! That's how All these Christians are: their cruelty They teach others to suspect! Judge for yourself: if he delays - What good is this forfeit to me? A pound of human meat - from a person - Not so much worth and not so useful, As from a bull, a ram or a goat. Ready to help in order to earn mercy; He agrees - if you please; no - goodbye; Don't repay me with resentment for friendship.

But no one wants to believe in Shylock's noble intentions, not even his own daughter. Jessica says:

While still in my presence, he swore - I heard - Tubalu and Hus, to his countrymen, That he wants to get Antonio's meat better than twenty times the amount That he owes.

Consider, however, how likely it was that Antonio would not pay his debt - how likely was it at the moment when Shylock lent him money? Shylock knew that Antonio was rich and had many friends. He could not count on Antonio being insolvent. On the contrary, it was more likely that Antonio would be able to repay the debt.

Shylock, whom Antonio always reviled, could only dream of being forced to turn to him for help. And now such a moment has come. For Shylock, this is the justification of his whole life, the redemption of all the grievances he has endured. And he is a proud man and longed for recognition from Antonio, who always looked down on him. By becoming Antonio's creditor, Shylock towers over him in his own eyes. Shylock triumphs. This, however, is not a triumph of pure humanity. Shylock the pawnbroker triumphs! This means that his profession is needed, even if Antonio himself is forced to turn to him for help.

Shylock wants to be on a par with Antonio, who has been lending without interest. He also gives him money without profit for himself.

But it may be asked: why does Shylock charge a pound of meat as a penalty? *. This is his way of joking. They say it's a dark joke. But that's Shylock. He has no sense of humor. And therefore, when he tries to joke, his jokes come out rude, clumsy, as when he decides to go to visit Antonio: "But I will go, I will eat out of hatred: let the Christian moth pay." Only he is capable of such gloomy jokes. But that's not the point.

* (Such a question did not arise before the audience. Shakespeare Theater. They knew the cruelty of the usurers, and they did not seek a psychological explanation for the Shylock story. This question did not arise in such a form before Shakespeare either, for he processed a ready-made and widely known plot in which he could not change anything. But for the reader and viewer of our time, a complete and exhaustive explanation of the behavior of Shakespeare's characters from the point of view of modern psychological concepts. That is why we are looking for explanations of this kind.)

The bill is not only a test of Shylock, but also a test of Antonio. The service rendered by Shylock to Antonio does not change the attitude of the latter: he is just as rude and inhuman towards Shylock and thus arouses in Shylock a thirst for revenge.

All his life Shylock was subjected to humiliation. Finally, to all his sorrows was added the flight of his daughter and the loss of money and jewelry. Shylock resents Antonio; and in his anger, the annoyance of a merchant and real human resentment are mixed: “He dishonored me, prevented me from earning at least half a million, mocked my losses, mocked my profits, insulted my people, interfered with my affairs, cooled my friends, inflamed my enemies; and what reason did he have for this? The one that I am a Jew" (III, 1).

Shylock has reason to say!

I bought a pound of meat that I demand Not cheap: it's mine, I want it!

Shylock is vindictive. But where does this trait come from? Let us recall once again his famous speech: “If we are poisoned, don’t we die? And if we are insulted, shouldn’t we take revenge? If we are like you in everything, then we want to be like you in this too. does his humility inspire him? Revenge! If a Christian offends a Jew, what should be his patience in the Christian example? Also revenge! You teach us vileness; I fulfill it "(III, 1).

At the trial, Shylock's enemies cry out for his mercy. Doge appeals to him with a request to have mercy. But Shylock immediately exposes the Doge's hypocrisy:

You have many purchased slaves; They, like your donkeys, mules and dogs, you drive to despicable slave labor, Since you bought them. Well, let me tell you: Give free rein to the slaves! Marry Your Children! Than to sweat under the burden, Let them sleep in soft beds, like yours, Eat everything that you! - In response, I will hear: They are my slaves! And I will answer: The pound of meat that I demand, I bought Not cheap: it is mine, I want it!

Let us see again what is the justice of Shylock's enemies. Universal admiration is caused by the judgment of Portia: "O wise Daniel ..." But "in jurisprudence it is considered an inviolable rule that if one grants another any right, then he thereby allows him to do everything that is necessary for the implementation (for the implementation) of this right ... The decision of the wise and just Daniel is in conflict with this principle: for it is clear that whoever is allowed to cut meat is also allowed to shed blood, if this operation cannot be performed without shedding blood" * . Therefore, Portia's decision, from this point of view, is wrong and unfair.

* (I. Koller, Shakespeare from the point of view of law, St. Petersburg. 1895, p. 56.)

But Shylock deserves it, for he is vindictive! What are his enemies? We have already seen that the Doge's appeals for mercy were hypocritical. Portia also speaks of mercy. And then condemns Shylock to death; here the doge intervenes: he grants Shylock life, but takes away all his property: "We will divide your property between Antonio and the state." In addition, Shylock is still forced to be baptized into the Christian faith. The mercy of Shylock's enemies lies in the fact that they take from him everything that is dear to him: the right to revenge, property, religion. True, life is left to him, but having taken away everything that makes up its content. And Shylock replies to this "mercy" with the exclamation:

Take life and all; no need to forgive. You take my house, having taken away the support, What kept it; Take my life, Taking away everything that only I live.

Do humanity, law and justice really triumph in the play? After all, Portia, Antonio, the Doge and this whole circle of people recognize humanity and justice in relation not to everyone, but only in relation to "their own". Shylock is not included in this circle. He can be despised, as Antonio despises him, and be reputed to be a humane person. Shylock can be robbed, as Jessica and Lorenzo rob him, and go unpunished, be accepted in a circle the best people. One can be hypocritical with him, as the Doge is hypocritical, who retains the glory of a venerable, respected head of state. There is justice, but it is not for Shylock. He can be left with nothing with the help of chicanery, as does the "wise Daniel" - Portia. Bassanio did not think, and Portia did not think that it was she who would become a clear example of what Bassanio spoke about so correctly and beautifully when wooing her:

In the courts there are no dirty, low litigations in which it would be impossible to cover up a bad appearance with a pleasant voice.

But such is the judgment of "wise Daniel"!

There are very humane people in the camp of Shylock's enemies. But their humanity does not extend to him. Here we return to the starting point of our analysis. It seemed to us that Shylock's belonging to the Jewish nation was a secondary fact. And we had to accept this position in order to overcome the sentimental and philanthropic interpretation of his conflict with Antonio. Now, enriched by an understanding of the complex nature of this conflict, let us summarize.

The objectivity inherent in Shakespeare the playwright allowed him to show the characters in all their inconsistency. Shylock combines the features of his profession - the capitalist-usurer - with the features inherent in him as a man from the environment of an oppressed and despised people. Life has crippled his nature, and yet the human is far from alien to him. This is not noticed by critics who want to cut a pound of sociological flesh out of a living person at all costs.

The characters of the Venetians are also more complex than it might seem at first glance. They are cheerful (with the exception of the melancholy Antonio), strive to enjoy the blessings of life, which include wealth. They don't make a fetish out of wealth, but by no means neglect them.

Love and friendship determine the relationship of people of this circle with each other. But Shylock does not belong to their circle, and they hate him. They don't want to see anything human in Shylock. They have not the slightest condescension towards him, not a drop of desire to understand him. If they are philanthropic, then not towards Shylock.

Thus, Shakespeare, by distributing light and shadow, did not denigrate Shylock at all. On the contrary, to the extent that the truth of life demanded it, he made him human in his own way. In the same way, Shylock's opponents are not painted with pink paint alone. Shakespeare also showed them truthfully, emphasizing the charm of youth inherent in them, but not forgetting their shadowy features.

In whose favor is the conflict resolved? There is no doubt - not in favor of Shylock. Shylock has stained himself with cruelty. All the main characters in the play are put to the test of their capacity for self-sacrifice, or generosity, or, finally, the willingness to atone for the offense. They all stand up more or less well to the test of their benevolence. Even Antonio, previously implacable towards Shylock, now that he himself was in mortal danger emanating from the usurer, does not demand his death and asks for some benefits from the fine imposed on Shylock.

Shylock at the very critical moment his fate did not show goodwill. There was a moment when he held Antonio's life in his hands. He failed to show generosity - we know why - and that was his only chance to enter the world of those who saw in love and friendship the main law of life.

Some moments of dramatic conflict give Shylock a partial advantage - but not for long. In general, the friendly and cheerful Venetians excel Shylock, even though they are not perfect. In any case, in principle they are for humanity, although they do not always and not always show themselves from the best side.

Having pushed not ideal people, but living people, Shakespeare created a work that is not amenable to simple and one-line interpretations. In his characterization of Shylock's versatility, Pushkin set an example of a thoughtful approach to this realistic play. Somewhere and in something the conflict is not resolved to the end. In any case, its formal solution does not fully satisfy. Something is missing from the play. It seems that this happened because Shakespeare himself hesitated between a real and an ideal solution to the conflict. There are two endings in the play - a thing that is completely contrary not only to the rigoristic theory of drama, but also to the broadest concepts of how to resolve dramatic conflicts. But such is this play, and critical analysis should, without deviating from the actual content, reveal the contradictions that reflect in the work the contradictions that the artist himself encountered.

"The Merchant of Venice" is a play of that time when Shakespeare persistently pursued in his works the idea of ​​the inevitable triumph of the best beginnings of life. This is expressed in Portia's victory over Shylock. But Shakespeare the realist presented the circumstances of life with such depth that he own solution the conflict has not exhausted and has not fully resolved the contradictions discovered by him.

The Merchant of Venice is considered a comedy, but, contrary to the traditional comedies of Shakespeare's time, it is a very deep moving play. Perhaps in this creation of Shakespeare, for the first time, a topic is raised that became topical much later. For the past two centuries, there has been a lot of controversy over whether this play is anti-Semitic, and opinions on this point are decidedly divided. Of course, Shakespeare portrayed Shylock as just a man, he is not in the least like the evil stereotyped Jews that are found in English literature that time. Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" says: Jews, perhaps, bad people but Christians are no better. The most worthy character in the play is Portia, who cannot be a female lawyer. At any rate, she could not, until it became customary in the law academies of Inns-of-Court to change into the dress of the opposite sex; similarly, in 19th-century England, women who wanted to study medicine did. Perhaps this custom is hinted at in plays where women so often dress up as men, and sonnet 20, in which there is the line “the king and queen of my heart” (translated by S.Ya. Marshak).

Shakespeare had never written anything like it before; "The Merchant of Venice" clearly indicates his growing sensitivity and understanding of human nature. Why Sir Henry chose to write this play is not clear, but no doubt he encountered Jews in Venice during his tour of Europe. In 1552, there were only 900 Jews in a city with a population of 160,000. By 1655 this figure had reached 4800. According to one source, there was a conflict between Jews and Christians in 1597 over money loans, which certainly has something to do with the events of the play. Orthodox Stratfordians found a simple explanation for how Shakespeare could have known about the Italian Jews. Jews, according to the law, from 1290 to 1656 could not live in England (although some did manage to do so); Stratfordians assume that Shakespeare certainly visited Venice and saw the Jews with his own eyes. There is an opinion that the "Swarty Lady" of the sonnets was Jewish - however, there is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that the Jews who secretly lived in England had at least some connection with the theater. It is worth emphasizing another fact: since the Jews for many centuries were not subjects of the crown, they were forbidden to engage in usury, banking and commerce. It was an occupation exclusively of British Protestants, or at most foreigners; in this field, Neville's closest relatives, the Greshams, succeeded, for example.

Note that the name Shylock is unknown to the Jews (and to no other people). There is a version that it comes from the word "shalah", found in the books "Leviticus" and "Deuteronomy", which means "miser". But the Jews did not use it as their own name. And the assumption that Shakespeare from Stratford knew Hebrew is, to put it mildly, unfounded - unless, of course, the Stratford grammar school was an even greater miracle than it is portrayed by orthodox Stratfordians. It should also be noted that in Berkshire, two miles northeast of Billingbury Park, there is a village called Shirlock Row, which Neville must have known well. This is certainly an amazing coincidence.

"Shylock. ... Well, well, well, well, well! Gone is the diamond for which I paid two thousand ducats in Frankfurt! Until now, the curse has not yet fallen so hard on our tribe, I have never felt it like this until now ... "

Act III, scene 1. (Translated by T. Shchepkina-Kupernik)

It is unlikely that a person who has not been to Venice could know this.

The fact that Shakespeare from Stratford was hardly the author of The Merchant of Venice is confirmed by another fact - his business relationship with another persecuted religious minority living in London. From 1602 to 1604, Shakespeare lived in north London, in the Cripplegate area, with a certain Christopher Mountjoy, a Huguenot who made then fashionable, richly decorated women's wigs. This is one of the few absolutely reliable facts of Shakespeare's life.

In 1604, the English apprentice Stephen Bellot married Mountjoy's daughter, and in 1612 he sued Mountjoy for not giving his daughter the promised dowry. William Shakespeare was summoned to the court session. He testified under oath that he was really familiar with both sides and even convinced Bellot to marry, but he could not remember anything about the size of the dowry. Shakespeare signed his testimony and left the courtroom on his way. Here is a summary of the content of the lawsuit, which later became known as the case of Bellot v. Mountjoy. For three hundred years, no one knew anything about this lawsuit. And in 1909, the indefatigable American couple Charles William (1865-1932) and Hilda Wallace discovered an unknown lawsuit in the National Archives. This document added one more small fraction to what little we know about Shakespeare from Stratford. (The lawsuit between Bellot and Mountjoy is almost the only one piece of information about Shakespeare found throughout the entire 20th century.) But the document found must not be given too great importance- after all, he does not say anything about Shakespeare as an author, even if the sixth signature of William Shakespeare was found in it.

The importance of this discovery for us lies in the fact that William Shakespeare undoubtedly lived for some time in a family of French Protestant Huguenots. The Huguenots had to endure a lot in the 16th century. For their lives, they fled to England and formed here a successful, prosperous colony of merchants and merchants. It seems incredible that, living among the Huguenots, Shakespeare never heard scary stories about the persecution they were subjected to in France, especially about the famous St. Bartholomew's Night (August 23/24, 1572) - during this massacre, thousands of French Protestants were killed. Some - among them Mountjoy - managed to escape abroad. Shakespeare can be compared to any English writer sixties or seventies of the last century, who lived for two years in London in a community of German Jewish refugees. It is impossible to believe that he would not have learned anything about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and did not use them scary stories in your creativity. And by the way, if Shakespeare from Stratford is the author of the plays attributed to him, then, then, we we know for sure: He was sympathetic to the Jewish minority and wrote a play about the Jews five years before Bellot v. Mountjoy. Considering Shakespeare's all-encompassing compassion (empathy), as well as his popularity and penchant for "political correctness" (demanding no-no and recalling the terrible persecution of Protestants by European Catholics), it seems very strange that none of Shakespeare's plays says anything about distress of the Mountjoy family and other Huguenots. After 1602-1604, the French theme actually disappears from Shakespeare's plays. Needless to say, orthodox Stratfordians gloss over this fact, which highlights the glaring lack of logic in the Stratfordian concept of authorship. At the same time, orthodox Shakespeare scholars often say that the Bellot v. must was to influence Shakespeare. Anthony Holden states that Shakespeare "certainly knew them [the Mountjoys] for several years, having given their Huguenot name to a French herald in Henry V, written . . . in 1599." Meanwhile, Shakespeare confidently stated in his testimony that he had known the Mountjoys since 1602, not before. Other biographers of Shakespeare express the opinion that, acting as a matchmaker to Stephen Bellot, the actor gained life experience that was useful to him when writing the plays “The End is the Crown of Things” and “Measure for Measure”. Park Honan even says that "a reluctant bachelor should have been forced to marry." But unlike the banal unwillingness of bachelors to marry (the starting point of a common comedic plot), Bellot's indignation was caused by a miserable amount of dowry, and not by marriage as such. In a deposition given under oath ten years later, Shakespeare stated that he had difficulty remembering anything about Bellot's marriage. And this clearly does not agree with the assertion that the litigation of the London philistines influenced the creation of two Shakespearean tragicomedies. One way or another, the plots of both plays go back to other sources and have nothing to do with either Stephen Bellot or Miss Mountjoy.

The events described in The Merchant of Venice present a difficulty for anti-Stratfordians as well. Oxfordians consider Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, to be the real author of Shakespeare's plays, and often refer to Michael Lock (1532-1615), a merchant and manager of the China Company, in which de Vere invested 3,000 pounds in 1578-1579 to finance one of the expeditions of Martin Frobisher. The expedition was a failure, and Lock paid off his debts for the rest of his life. According to the Oxfordians, the 3,000 ducats mentioned in the play are a hint of just that. In fact, however, everything was different: de Vere did not lend Lock, but, on the contrary, reimbursed the 2 thousand pounds that Lock invested in Frobisher's enterprise, and, in addition, he himself contributed his own thousand to the seemingly win-win business. pounds. There is no evidence that The Merchant of Venice was written before 1596-1597, that is, not earlier than twenty years after Frobisher's expedition. During this period of time, de Vere lost huge sums in other similar enterprises- in 1582 and 1584. And one more thing: de Vere, as a confidant, until his death in 1604, kept Michael Locke's nephew, Henry, by his side. We also recall that, according to the established opinion, "The Merchant of Venice" is a response to the case of Rodrigo Lopez, who was executed in June 1594; if this opinion is correct, then it is completely incomprehensible what the play can have to do with the reckless financial investment made by de Vere twenty years before it was written.

"The Merchant of Venice", as already said, was probably conceived by Neville to explain to the public the participation of the Earl of Essex in the case of Rodrigo Lopez (c. 1525-1594) - a Jew born in Portugal, famous doctor appointed in 1586 to the position of chief physician at the court of Queen Elizabeth. He fell out with Essex, and Essex took part in the investigation. The unfortunate man, under torture, made a confession that he really tried to poison the queen in order to render a service to Spain. In June 1594 he was hanged, gutted and quartered at Tyburn. Needless to say, Lopez was innocent. Apparently, Essex - pursuing his own interests - wanted to arouse anti-Spanish (and not at all anti-Semitic) sentiments in the London masses. However, although it is generally accepted that The Merchant of Venice is a response to the execution of Lopez (given the date of writing, it most likely is), Neville's intention was most likely not so clear; comedy reflects his mixed feelings. She condemns Shylock and, in his person, the "vices" of the Jews, and at the same time defends him as a person who has been offended. Also, Shylock is a pawnbroker, not a doctor convicted of a state crime. And one more thing: López was an Iberian Catholic of Jewish origin, and hostility towards him, of course, is based not only on anti-Semitism.

Maybe, main idea"Merchant of Venice" is that business and friendship can successfully coexist. That was Neville's position in life. He seems to be saying that Christians are capable of being both friends and business partners - in contrast to the Jews, who live by the principle: friendship is friendship, and money apart. But there is one more thought in the play, which, fortunately, has become obsolete in our time: a Christian will not be friends with a Jew, even if they are business partners. The Jewish woman in the play is depicted in a completely different way: she is both a friend and a lover of a Christian. Ultimately, however wild it may seem today, Neville encourages Christians to convert Jews to their faith in any way - by coercion (Shylock's conversion) or through marriage (Jessica). Here Neville is not so much a racist as an ardent Christian; it's perfect - as far as we can tell - fits his character. No wonder Neville's father-in-law called him "a Christian to the core."

Neville - when he was the English ambassador in France, he even arranged Christian readings at his residence. All this seems to run counter to our generalized assessment of Sir Henry when we assert that intellectually and spiritually he was ahead of his time; but the past cannot be judged in the context of today's knowledge and ideas. Neville lived at a time when Luther's ideas were triumphant across Europe. Neville, who met with many European philosophers and knew more than one language, could not help but read the works of Luther. And Luther wrote terrible things about the Jews: in today's language, he advocated genocide against them. Alas, Luther did write that all Jews should be killed and burned. Neville, a humanist and Christian, this must have been very disturbing - after all, the teachings of Luther in the Elizabethan era were widely discussed and much more known than in our time. Undoubtedly, Neville felt compassion and anger when he listened to his father's stories about the massacres and burnings of Protestants during the reign of Mary Tudor. Luther called for the same to be done with the Jews. So from a historical point of view, Neville's call to pity the Jews and convert them to Christianity (by coercion or marriage) was clearly ahead of the views of European Protestants of that time.

Neville had been merciful in life as well—unless, of course, that required him to break the law; thus, he showed generosity to a double agent who repented and wanted to make amends. John Chamberlain, the author of numerous letters and court gossip, once remarked that Neville "... never allowed suffering when it was possible to help" - this is precisely the author's position that emerges in The Merchant of Venice. In diplomatic letters to Robert Cecil, Sir Henry recounted his conversations in philosophical themes with the French king Henry IV. According to Neville, the king agreed with him that Christians should convert people to their faith by good example, and not by force and coercion. Shylock's monologue, where he talks about the attitude of Christians towards him, is clearly written with the intention of making Christians wonder if they always give good example with their behaviour. In the Christian understanding, compassion is a character trait that goes hand in hand with mercy. When we read Shakespeare's play, we really sympathize with Shylock in his misfortune and reflect on mercy, to which Portia's monologue, full of philosophical moralism, is devoted. Protestants are traditionally less ritualistic than Catholics, but more strictly follow the Christian precepts in Everyday life. Shakespeare's plays, and especially The Merchant of Venice, reflect this strictly Protestant ethic.

We do not know anything about Shakespeare's attitude as an actor to mercy and compassion, but if we believe his contemporaries - representatives of the theatrical and literary worlds then mercy was unknown to him. Shakespeare's current biographers often describe him as a ruthless lender and world-eater. Meanwhile, in Neville, contemporaries have always admired good-heartedness; this was noted even by the most vehement and acrimonious satirists, including Ben Jonson, who dedicated a poem of nothing but praise to Neville. Johnson knew Sir Henry well; In writing this poem, Johnson did not pursue any benefit: Neville was then out of favor with King James I, he was not favored by supporters of absolute power. So, Johnson's praise can be treated with confidence.

Neville continued to write historical chronicles during these years. He is improving in the art of dramaturgy - Shakespeare appears new way character images. In later chronicles, memorable heroic characters(this is, first of all, Prince Hel, then Henry V), which are very different from the shallow written actors early plays. Prince Hel is undoubtedly endowed with the qualities of a politician - he seemed to have descended from the pages of Machiavelli's The Prince, which at that time had not yet been translated into English. True, there was a translation made by Neville's father, but, as far as is known, it was published only for personal use. However, Neville could read Machiavelli in the original, which was not available to Shakespeare - modern foreign languages grammar schools were not taught. Nevertheless, in the "Shakespearean" plays Machiavelli is mentioned three times: twice in "Henry VI" and once in "The Merry Wives of Windsor"