SHAKESPEARE is my Homeboy

The Merchant of Venice criticism summary

Cohen, D.M. "The Jew and Shylock" Shakespeare Quarterly. Volume 31, No. 1. Spring 1980.

A. The Journal:
Shakespeare Quarterly was founded in 1950. According to the Quarterly's website, the journal was founded by the Shakespeare Association of America. "Housed and published by the Folger Shakespeare Library since 1972, SQ is the world's foremost journal focusing on all aspects of Shakespeare studies. Topics for essays and notes cover criticism of the plays and poems, theater history, Shakespeare pedagogy, the history of Shakespeare as an institution, and studies in editing, text, canon, and bibliography. "Shakespeare Performed," publishing review-essays on Royal Shakespeare Company and other significant stage and film productions around the world, is a regular feature. Each issue also includes book reviews on Shakespeare and related subjects."

B. Introduction
In his introduction, Cohen argues that Merchant of Venice is a "profoundly and crudely anti-Semitic play." He then sets out to examine the characterization of Shylock. He will use a text-based argument.

C. Expectations
Based on Cohen's tone in the introduction, I expected this article to be a passionate argument. It seemed to have more emotion to it, rather than the detachment of most other critic's arguments I've read. I think that his choice of language incited an emotional level to his arguments. He uses lots of dramatic language such as "bloodthirsty villain," "satanic evil," "verminous Jew," "complete and unredeemed villain" to interpret Shylock's role in the play.

Ultimately, Cohen argues forcefully that Shylock should be seen as villain and evil. I felt that Cohen interpreted the text rather that the other critics in his arguments. However, I feel that he made several unsupported assertions based on interpretation of the text. I felt that Shakespeare's character was too complex to be interpreted in such a one-dimensional manner.

I thought that Cohen's argument was thoughtful, and although unsettling, gave the reader quite a lot to think about. Ultimately, I felt that he was imposing his agenda onto a reading of the text, but it was a clear and passionate argument.