자유, 관용, 『베니스의 상인』
Liberty, Tolerance, and The Merchant of Venice
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study interprets The Merchant of Venice as a problem play which explores liberty and tolerance, two pivotal ideas of western democracy. Among many western thinkers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill most comprehensively and plausibly explain the two ideas in terms of Respect for Others Argument and Harm Principle. In the play, Shylock representing minority Jews tries to kill Antonio, a representative of Venetian ruling class according to the law of forfeiture. According to Mark Andrews, the trial scene in Act 4 Scene 1, which is the acme of the whole play, is a legalization of contention for the supremacy between common law and equity law in England. Portia disguised as Balthazar powerfully thwarts Shylock’s murderous intent by resorting to equity law. While Shylock vengefully implements his plan to revolt against ruling Christians until Act 3, the power elites successfully defeat him retaliating him with pecuniary punishment from Act 4. In this light, the play demonstrates how the ruling class consolidate their political power by coercing the Jew into converting to Christianity and confiscating his property. Consequently, Shylock is deprived of his freedom to choose his own religion and to keep his personal property. This verdict calls into question whether Venice is tolerant or not. In the ending, many fundamental conflicts between liberty and freedom, ruling majority and oppressed minority, legalism and mercy, common law and equity law, remain unresolved. For these reasons, The Merchant of Venice is a problem play which deals with not only moral but also serious political questions.
Abstract
This study interprets The Merchant of Venice as a problem play which explores liberty and tolerance, two pivotal ideas of western democracy. Among many western thinkers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill most comprehensively and plausibly explain the two ideas in terms of Respect for Others Argument and Harm Principle. In the play, Shylock representing minority Jews tries to kill Antonio, a representative of Venetian ruling class according to the law of forfeiture. According to Mark Andrews, the trial scene in Act 4 Scene 1, which is the acme of the whole play, is a legalization of contention for the supremacy between common law and equity law in England. Portia disguised as Balthazar powerfully thwarts Shylock’s murderous intent by resorting to equity law. While Shylock vengefully implements his plan to revolt against ruling Christians until Act 3, the power elites successfully defeat him retaliating him with pecuniary punishment from Act 4. In this light, the play demonstrates how the ruling class consolidate their political power by coercing the Jew into converting to Christianity and confiscating his property. Consequently, Shylock is deprived of his freedom to choose his own religion and to keep his personal property. This verdict calls into question whether Venice is tolerant or not. In the ending, many fundamental conflicts between liberty and freedom, ruling majority and oppressed minority, legalism and mercy, common law and equity law, remain unresolved. For these reasons, The Merchant of Venice is a problem play which deals with not only moral but also serious political questions.
참고문헌 (21)
- 권오숙, "셰익스피어의 법률 희곡 『베니스의 상인』과 『자에는 자로』를 통한 셰익스피어의 법률관 연구", Shakespeare Review, 51(3), pp.405~430 (2015), 한국셰익스피어학회[DOI]
- 볼테르, "관용론" (2001), 한길사
- 조광순, "용산고등학교 24회 졸업 40주년 기념문집", pp.43~48 (2013), 용산고등학교 24회 동창회 발행. 예스커뮤니케이숀
- 황규철, "문제 희극으로서의 「베니스의 상인:」 포오셔의 미해결의 난제들", Shakespeare Review, 39(2), pp.473~493 (2003), 한국셰익스피어학회
- Andrews. Mark Edwin, "Law and Equity in The Merchant of Venice: A Legalization of Act IV Scene I with Foreword, Judicial Precedents, and Notes" (1965), U of Colorado P
- Barton, Anne, "The Riverside Shakespeare", pp.250~253 (1974), Houghton Mifflin
- Berlin, Isaiah, "Four Essays on Liberty", pp.121~131 (1969), Oxford UP
- Boas, F. S., "Shakespeare and His Predecessors" (1910), Oxford UP
- Brown, J. R., "Shakespeare and His Comedies" (1962), Methuen
- Evans, G. Blakemore, "The Riverside Shakespeare" (1974), Houghton Mifflin
- Hinely, Jan Lawson, "Bond Priorities in The Merchant of Venice", Studies in English Literature, 20, pp.217~239 (1980)
- Holmer, Joan Ozark, "The Merchant of Venice: Choice, Hazard, and Consequence" (1995), Macmillan
- Kant, Immanuel, "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals" (1959), Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishers
- Mill, John Stuart, "The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women and Utilitarianism" (2009), Classic Books America
- Schanzer, Ernst, "The Problem Plays of Shakespeare: A Study of Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra" (1963), Routledge
- "The Merchant of Venice. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Peter Hall. The Phoenix Theatre, London. 29 August. 1989. Performance", ~ (1989)
- "The Merchant of Venice. By William Shakespeare. Dir. Clifford Williams. Royal Shakespeare Company, London. 1965. Performance", ~ (1965)
- Waller, Gary, "Shakespeare’s Comedies" (1991), Longman
- Wertheim, Albert, "The Treatment of Shylock and Thematic Integrity in The Merchant of Venice", Shakespeare Studies, 6, pp.75~87 (1970)
- Whigham, Frank, "Ideology and Class Conduct in The Merchant of Venice", Renaissance Drama, 10, pp.93~115 (1979)