izdvojit sve ekonomske odnose koje pravo regulira u djelu

naći najvažnije obilježje prava koje je krucijalno za ekonomski razvoj

kako pravni sustav može doprinijeti diskriminaciji ekonomskoj

the usury theme in the merchant od venice can be traced to the historical dichotomy between
christian doctrines and jewish law concerning charging interest during the middle ages. In the play
antonio a venetian mercahant has all his wealth invested in a fleet of ships on the high seas. His best
friend bassiano approaches him for a loan to finance his courtship of portia, a rich noble woman
wooed by many rich suitors. Unable to help bassiano because of liquidity problems, antonio agrees
to borrow money from shylock the jewish moneylender.
Kamatarenje u The Merchant of Venice povezano je s povijesnim
razlikama između kršćanskih doktrina i židovskih zakona u vezi
s naplaćivanjem kamata tijekom srednjeg vijeka. U djelu
Antonio, venecijanski trgovac, svo svoje bogatstvo ulaže u
flotu brodova na otvorenom moru. Njegov najbolji prijatelj
Bassiano obraća mu se kako bi posudio novac za udvaranje
Portiji, bogatoj plemenitoj ženi kojoj su se udvarali mnogi
bogataši. U nemogućnosti da mu pomogne zbog problema s
likvidnošću, Antonio pristaje posuditi novac od Shylocka,
židovskog lihvara.
The negotiations between Shylock and Antonio reveal the deep religious differences between the
two men. Shylock hates Antonio because he has persecuted Shylock publicly. As a Christian, Antonio
does not lend out money with interest. However, he is willing to borrow from Shylock at interest for
his dear friend Bassanio. Shylock proposes a different bond agreement. He offers to lend the money
without interest. However, if Antonio forfeits, Shylock will cut a pound of flesh from Antonio's body.
Pregovori Shylocka i Antonia otkrivaju duboke vjerske razlike
između njih dvojice. Shylock mrzi Antonia jer ga je ovaj javno
progonio. Kao kršćanin, Antonio ne posuđuje novac s kamatama,
ali spreman je posuditi od Shylocka pod kamatom za svogm
prijatelja Bassiana. Antonio pristaje na prijedlog Shylocka da
mu posudi novac i ukoliko ga ovaj ne bude mogao vratiti Shylock
će mu odrezati dio tijela

Commerce permeates the play on a variety of levels, some more direct than others. It serves as the
direct source of conflict between Shylock and Antonio through the financial bond they make as
lender and debtor. Trade and mercantilism very clearly characterize Venice, the historic maritime
republic and city in which much of the play’s activity takes place.
Pregovori Shylocka i Antonia otkrivaju duboke vjerske razlike
između njih dvojice. Shylock mrzi Antonia jer ga je ovaj javno
progonio. Kao kršćanin, Antonio ne posuđuje novac s kamatama,
ali spreman je posuditi od Shylocka pod kamatom za svogm
prijatelja Bassiana. Antonio pristaje na prijedlog Shylocka da
mu posudi novac i ukoliko ga ovaj ne bude mogao vratiti Shylock
će mu odrezati dio tijela

Venice was regarded as a cultural and economic center of its time, benefitting from its accessibility to
Mediterranean and Eastern trade, architectural and artistic prowess, and diversity of inhabitants.
Venice was “perceived in part as a community of ‘strangers’, home to individuals of varied
nationalities and cultures. Venice profited greatly from the proliferate trade and commerce of
geographically and culturally diverse market players, so it is not surprising that Venetian law was
relatively progressive with respect to aliens. , that in practice, “cases were apparently settled
according to the conscience of the judges, and not necessarily according to the law,” to the extent
that is “corrupted the system to the disadvantage of poor litigants.”
Venecija se smatrala kulturnim i gospodarskim središtem svoga
doba, zbog svoje pristupačnosti mediteranskoj i istočnoj
trgovini te raznolikosti stanovnika. Veneciju se doživljavala
kao zajednica stranaca, dom pojedincima različitih
nacionalnosti i kultura. Venecija je uvelike profitirala od
širenja trgovine te trgovine zemljopisno i kulturno raznolikih
tržišnih igrača, pa je mletačko pravo bilo progresivno u odnosu
na strance, u praksi su se slučajevi rješavali po savjesti
sudaca, a ne nužno prema zakonu, do te mjere da je sustav
korumpiran na štetu siromašnih.
These points are interesting to consider in reflecting upon the climactic trial scene in The Merchant
of Venice. Perhaps the Duke’s demand that Shylock forfeit the bond and plead for mercy reflects this
notion of judges settling cases according to “conscience,” which in the case of the Duke, is heavily
colored by his Christian values. At the same time, as both the Duke and Antonio understand,
Venetian law is crucial to upholding the economic stability of the maritime republic. Another
important commercial activity central to The Merchant of Venice is usury, or the practice of lending
money at interest, later considered the charging of excessive or illegal rates of interest. The negative
association of Jews with usury derives from Mosaic (Hebrew) laws regulating the charging of interest
as well as the fact that Jews were permitted periodically to charge interest throughout the medieval
and early modern periods”. General economic development and the commercial demands of
mercantile powers like Venice placed attitudes towards moneylending and merchants in a more
positive and accepting light than was the case for most of medieval history.
Scena suđenja gdje vojvoda zahtjeva da Shylock povuče obveznicu
i moli za milost prikazuje primjer sudaca koji rješavaju
slučajeve prema "savjesti", na što u ovom slučaju utječu
vojvodine kršćanske vrijednosti. Istodobno mletačko je pravo
presudno za održavanje ekonomske stabilnosti pomorske
republike. Još jedna važna komercijalna aktivnost u djelu je
lihvarenje ili praksa posuđivanja novca uz kamatu, koja se
kasnije smatrala naplaćivanjem prekomjernih ili ilegalnih
kamatnih stopa. Negativna povezanost Židova s kamatama
proizlazi iz hebrejskih zakona koji reguliraju naplatu kamata,
kao i činjenice da je Židovima bilo dopušteno povremeno
naplaćivati kamate tijekom srednjovjekovnog i ranog modernog
razdoblja. Opći ekonomski razvoj i komercijalni zahtjevi
trgovačkih sila poput Venecije stavili su stavove prema
posuđivanju novca i kamatarima u pozitivnije i prihvatljivije
svjetlo nego što je to bio slučaj za veći dio srednjovjekovne
povijesti.
conflict of old and new perspectives, displayed through the characters of Shylock and Antonio, as one
of “quasifeudal fiscalism and native bourgeois mercantilism,” labeling Shylock as “a figure from the
past”. Shakespeare's caricaturization and villainization of Shylock as a stereotypical miserly Jewish
moneylender illuminates the persistence of these “older perspectives” even within the commercial
and financial hub of Venice in which the state itself is primarily concerned with wealth and profit. “In
a society where money becomes generally needed, a conflict arises between the abhorrence of usury
and the necessity for it. The hypocrisy is that though moneylending will be condemned and the
lender despised, men will still go to the moneylender” (79). Shylock’s role as a lender practicing usury
can be seen as both disdainful yet necessary and demanded by the Venetian mercantile society.
Sukob stare i nove perspektive, prikazan kroz likove Shylocka i
Antonija, kao „kvazifeudalnog fiskalizma i domaćeg građanskog
komercijalizma“, označavajući Shylocka kao ličnost iz
prošlosti. Shakespeareovo predstavljanje Shylocka kao
stereotipnog škrtog židovskog lihvara osvjetljava ustrajnost
tih starijih perspektiva čak i unutar trgovačkog i financijskog
središta Venecije u kojem se sama država prvenstveno bavi
bogatstvom i dobiti. U društvu u kojem novac postaje općenito
potreban, dolazi do sukoba između gađenja prema kamatarenju i
njegove potrebe. Iako će se posuđivanje novca osuditi, a
zajmodavac prezirati, ljudi će i dalje ići kod lihvara.
Shylockova uloga zajmodavca koji se bavi lihvarstvom može se
smatrati i prezirnom, ali nužnom i zahtijevanom od mletačkog
trgovačkog društva.
Antonio’s close tie to commerce as a merchant by trade leaves him struggling to understand his
identity and achieve a sense of fulfillment in his life. The financial loan Antonio grants Bassanio
introduces friendship as a bond of sorts and the influence of it on the financial decisions of Antonio.
The notorious pound-of-flesh bond between Antonio and Shylock represents a conflict between the
characters deeply rooted in religion and prejudice, highly charged with ideological differences, and
reaching far beyond the mere material terms of the contract.
Antonijeva bliska veza s trgovinom kao trgovca po zanimanju
ostavlja ga da se bori da razumije svoj identitet i postigne
osjećaj ispunjenosti u svom životu. Financijski zajam koji
Antonio daje Bassanio uvodi prijateljstvo kao svojevrsnu vezu i
njegov utjecaj na financijske odluke Antonia. Notorna veza
kilograma mesa između Antonija i Shylocka predstavlja sukob
između likova duboko ukorijenjenih u religiju i predrasude,
visoko nabijenih ideološkim razlikama, koji sežu daleko dalje
od pukih materijalnih uvjeta ugovora.
Portia, too, engages and revels in the commercial world of Venice, ultimately appropriating and
redirecting the literalism and legalism of Shylock during the trial scene in arguably her most heroic
and liberating moment of the play. Even in Belmont, her fate is inescapably tied to the commercial
and contracts, initially with her father’s binding casket game, and later with her bond of marriage to
Bassanio. Bassanio’s love for and commitment to Portia is notably understood in tandem with the
physical ring she uses to test his loyalty. The marriages at the end of Act V, as well as consideration
for the ultimate fate of of Antonio and Bassanio’s friendship, reflect the way in which in the
commercial, particularly in Belmont, incorporate contracts, obligations, and indebtedness within the
play’s social dynamics.

In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare creates a microcosmic model of early modern society
through which he explores not only the readily evident theme of anti-Semitism, but also the changing
economic face of Europe. The interactions between Antonio, Shylock, and Portia–that is, between
merchant, usurer, and landlord–play out the new set of economic interactions that accompanied the
birth of capitalism. The play’s portrayal of these interactions and of the Venetians’ reactions to
Shylock and Antonio position the comedy as an exploration of the cultural anxieties surrounding the
historical emergence of free markets.
U The Merchant of Venice Shakespeare stvara mikro model društva
ranog vijeka kroz koji istražuje promjenjivo gospodarsko lice
Europe. Interakcije između Antonia, Shylocka i Portiee, odnosno
između trgovca, kamatara i zemljoposjednika, igraju novi niz
ekonomskih interakcija koje su pratile rađanje kapitalizma.
Prikaz predstave o tim interakcijama i reakcija Venecijanaca na
Shylocka i Antonija smještaju komediju u istraživanje kulturnih
strepnji oko povijesnog nastanka slobodnih tržišta.

An ambivalence toward the law pervades The Merchant of Venice

and modem thought as well. On the surface rests a commitment to
the letter of the law and the ideology of the marketplace that
makes transaction itself possible-to the optimism of "Dick
Whittington." Beneath this, however, the view expressed is
ultimately pragmatic, for one can view law and contract as
bending to the needs of the moment and reflecting deep
hostilities and fundamental breaches among different cultural
groups.
Dvosmislenost prema zakonu prožima Venecijanskog trgovca i
mislio i modem. Na površini počiva predanost pismu zakona i
ideologije tržišta koje vrši transakcije sam po sebi moguć - na
optimizam "Dicka Whittingtona". Ispod ovoga, međutim, izneseno
gledište u konačnici je pragmatično, jer se može promatrati
zakon i ugovor kao prilagođavanje potrebama trenutka i
odražavanje duboka neprijateljstva i temeljna kršenja među
različitim kulturnim skupine.
The pragmatism in the play appears to be the product of a time
when the growth of international trade and the dawn of the
bourgeoisie forced the relations of law, capital, and society
into rapid change. In some ways this historical moment mirrors
America's, for the expanding trading ports of the Renaissance
parallel modem America's new information/global economy.
Shakespeare's pessimistic revelations about intercultural
exchange in such a transforming society provide a trenchant
critique of America's experience that, like all fine art,
leaves individuals with more questions than it answers.
Merchant prompts renewed consideration of whether international
commerce requires a truly multinational, multicultural forum
for dispute resolution; whether intercultural commerce and
contract, in a world that accepts an irreducible difference
among contracting parties, necessitates increasing abandonment
of formalist principles and myths if merchants are to speak of
"bargaining" at all; and whether the ideology of the
marketplace persists in its usefulness as a lubricant among
transactors often otherwise inclined toward xenophobia and
isolationism. In a sense, The Merchant of Venice is a reminder
that when one goes to the market or to the law, one should go
to a sort of play where one can accept enough game-playing to
bridge the epistemological gap while maintaining a tight enough
hold on formalist equality to achieve an approximation of
justice. In a world of such balance, the optimism of
Whittington and His Cat might ultimately be justified.
Čini se da je pragmatizam u predstavi proizvod vremena kada su
rast međunarodne trgovine i zore buržoazije natjerali odnose
zakona, kapitala i društva na brze promjene. Na neki način ovaj
povijesni trenutak odražava američki, za šireće trgovačke luke
renesansnog paralelnog modernog američkog novog
informacijskog / globalnog gospodarstva. Shakespeareova
pesimistična otkrića o interkulturnoj razmjeni u društvu koje
se transformira pružaju oštru kritiku američkog iskustva koje,
kao i sva likovna umjetnost, ostavlja pojedincima više pitanja
nego što im daje odgovora. Trgovac potiče ponovno razmatranje
treba li međunarodnoj trgovini uistinu multinacionalni,
multikulturni forum za rješavanje sporova; da li interkulturna
trgovina i ugovori, u svijetu koji prihvaća nesvodivu razliku
među ugovornim stranama, zahtijevaju sve veće napuštanje
formalističkih principa i mitova ako trgovci uopće žele
govoriti o "pregovaranju"; i ostaje li ideologija tržišta
korisna kao mazivo među transakcijama često naklonjenima
ksenofobiji i izolacionizmu. U određenom smislu, Venecijanski
trgovac podsjetnik je da kad se ide na tržište ili zakon, treba
se ići na neku vrstu predstave u kojoj se može prihvatiti
dovoljno igranja kako bi se prevladao epistemološki jaz,
zadržavajući dovoljno čvrsto držanje o formalističkoj
jednakosti radi postizanja približavanja pravde. U svijetu
takve ravnoteže, optimizam Whittingtona i njegove mačke u
konačnici bi mogao biti opravdan.
Ono što se očito doživljavalo kao nečasni kapitalizam u obliku
Shylocka, zapravo je bilo samo slobodno tržište, koje još nije
bilo potpuno oslobođeno okova rituala. Venecijanci sugeriraju
da je izvor sukoba veza između Antonija i Shylocka, ali
nezadovoljstvo zapravo proizlazi iz krute hijerarhije koja je
Židove prebacila u ulogu zajmodavaca novca i izopćila ih, a
pritom nisu uspjeli očistiti ogorčenost koja je uslijedila.
Komercijalno natjecanje između dva lika tek je tanko prikriveni
vjerski sukob i osobna mržnja.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27558940