 Back to the Hood (Home) |
|
Shout Outs (Contact Us) |
The Merchant of Venice criticism summary
Ajzenstat, Samuel. "Contract in The Merchant of Venice." Philosophy
and Literature. Volume 21, Number 2. October 1997
A. The Journal:
Philosophy and Literature is published by the Johns Hopkins University
Press. According to its website, the journal has explored the dialogue
between literary and philosophical studies for more than 25 years. "The
journal offers a constant source of fresh, stimulating ideas in the aesthetics
of literature, theory of criticism, philosophical interpretation of literature,
and literary treatment of philosophy. Philosophy and Literature challenges
the cant and pretensions of academic priesthoods by publishing an assortment
of lively, wide-ranging essays, notes, and reviews that are written in
clear, jargon-free prose." Although the journal tries to define itself
as anti-establishment, I found the articles to be very similar to other
scholarly journals I read. The articles in this journal were extremely
well written, and very easy to read (considering their philosophical content).
B. Introduction
In his introduction, Ajzenstat seems to want to cover a lot of ground
about the play. First, he addresses some of the flaws that he sees in
some of the traditional interpretations of the play. He also sets up "the
contract" as the play's "basic metaphor" which he will
address throughout the paper. Further, exploring the idea of "the
contract" within the play, he sets out to explore the oppositions
of love and commerce ( which he describes as unconditional commitments
versus conditions with commitments) within The Merchant of Venice.
C. Expectations
In this article, I expected to find a philosophical analysis of the play's
anti-Semitic characters and conflicts. I expected the author to address
the question of whether the play is intentionally anti-Semitic or not,
as other critics have. However, his argument tries to address a wider
understanding of the play than just the Shylock issue. He addresses several
themes within the play, including the nature of love, the problem of usury,
the conversion of Shylock to Christianity, and the problems of relationships
within the play.
What I found most interesting in Ajzenstat's analysis is that ultimately the play is not the conflict of two mutually exclusive views, but rather perhaps about the tensions of love and commerce living in relation to each other, the unconditional love at work in a world full of conditional contracts, commitments and obligations.. The play doesn't have to be interpreted as "either/or" opposing forces, but rather can be seen as "both/and" constantly within relationship to the other.