AYJW

Parrot Trick Training

Poicephalus

Parrot Forum

In order to pose the critical question of whether or not The Merchant of Venice coveys a message of racism, one must first examine how “Others” are treated in the play. After all, at its structural level, The Merchant of Venice is largely a play about the uses of power among the principal players – whether for good or for evil. Money is power to Shylock, as is evidenced in his business of usery as well as the loan of three-thousand ducats, benevolence (toward Bassanio) is power to Antonio, and the threat of the pound of flesh itself is perhaps the most volatile demonstration of power. Two separate yet similar invocations of power come from Portia’s suitor, the Prince of Morocco, as well as Shylock; these monologues (II.i.1-12 and III.i.58-73, respectively) cite their personal heritages as sources of power formidable enough for the two to defend themselves against apparent presuppositions about, if not preexisting opposition to, their races. Both the Prince of Morocco and Shylock encounter prejudice that, while in Shylock’s case can be labeled anti-Semitism, will be referred to as opposition to the Other for the purposes of this essay. Through a close examination of the aforementioned monologues, I will set out to prove that both the Prince of Morocco and Shylock are constrained to vindicate their personal heritages by giving assertions of equality, and furthermore, that this is evidence of the opposition to representations of the Other in The Merchant of Venice. Thus, when the Prince of Morocco states, “Mislike me not for my complexion” (II.I. line 1), and Shylock brashly declares, “I am a Jew” (III.I. line 58), both are confronting prejudice intrinsic to the play itself.

While their subject matter is largely the same, the Prince and Shylock have unique methods of argumentation. Shylock’s barrage of questions (“Hath not a Jew eyes?” [59]; “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you poison us, do we not die?” [64, 65])  initially might be read as defensive; the Prince’s declaration, however, (“…let us make incision for your love” [6]; “this aspect of mine/ Hath fear’d the valiant” [8,9]), carries more authority and assertion. Note that Shylock’s retort-like speech implies anti-Semitism at the outset: a few lines prior to his monologue, he accuses Antonio, in apostrophe, of “laugh[ing] at my losses, mock[ing] my gains, [and] scorn[ing] my nation” (III.i.55,56). His speech is indeed a vindication of Jewish reputation, as if to say, “See? A Jew has dimensions, senses, affections and passions, too!”. The Prince’s speech does not imply the selfsame recompense-fueled vindication as Shylock’s, but rather a justification of his Other status: “The best-regarded virgins of our clime/ Have lov’d it [the color of his skin] too” (10, 11) and an assertion of his ability to compete for Portia’s hand with the same ardency as “the fairest creature northward born” (line 4).

At the outset of his monologue, the Prince immediately contrasts himself (a dark, southern-bred “Moor”) with “the fairest creature northward born.” There is marked contrast between these two characters (the latter character, of course, is an abstraction), with the disparities of dark versus “fairest” and “a neighbor…of the burnish’d sun” versus “northward born.” Each time the Prince utilizes binary comparison, he is emphasizing “differentness,” yes, but he does this in order to set himself apart as the different suitor and, indeed, the superior suitor. Perhaps it is also telling that in the stage directions the Prince is described as a “tawny Moor” is dressed “all in white” (II.i). While the Prince appears to be masking his pigmentation, it is more likely, given his unabashed self-promotion, that the white garments exist only as a foil for his “tawny complexion,” that is, he adorns himself in white so his own dark pigmentation may be showcased by way of contrast.

Both Shylock’s and the Prince’s monologues raise questions as to the origin of either their persecution or discrimination. When Shylock asks, “Hath not a Jew…affections [and] passions?” one might inquire as to the particular genesis of his malice, presumably, a reaction to prejudice. In the same way, the Prince’s imperative, “Mislike me not for my complexion” is a reactionary statement that implies that someone had “misliked” him due to the pigment of his skin. These similar statements of defensiveness and assertion share continuity: both Shylock and the Prince are Others, and yet both assert themselves as possessing the same or better qualities as their respective oppositions.

Whereas the Prince accentuates his disparities from his competitor(s), Shylock, in his monologue, uses paratactic reasoning to draw out resemblances between his and Antonio’s—if not the whole of the anti-Semitic world—humanity. First, Shylock identifies himself with the subject of his defense: “I am a Jew” (III.i.58). He goes on to address the physical similarities between Jew and Christian: “Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions” (59, 60), and then moves to the physiological: “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” “If you poison us, do we not die?” (64-66). Shylock, of course, is not quite so subtle in his treatment of his ethnic background and the centuries-old persecution that accompanies his faith. “I am a Jew,” he curtly states. His staccato single syllables emphasize the urgency of his speech. Shylock is no intermediary in this scene; he is what he will defend, and when he lowers a threat, he utilizes a kind of synecdoche when referring to himself collectively with Judaism: “And if you wrong us, shall we not/ Revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”

As is evidenced above, Shylock overtly defends his faith and his heritage. While the Prince is not quite so overt in his manner—unlike Shylock he seems not to have a specific “log,” so to speak, of wrongs done against his people—he nevertheless defends the honor of the Moor by naming himself capable of anything the “northward born” can do. As well, while Shylock’s retort is meticulously detailed and reads like a laundry list, the Prince’s opening words of his monologue briefly acknowledge a historical prejudice (citing the tendency to make judgments based on outward appearance – in his case it is his complexion) but quickly transitions to his humanist assertion of equivalent power.  

The yearning for recognition and vindication of the Prince and Shylock goes much deeper than the merely competitive, for when the Prince challenges, “to prove whose blood is reddest, his or mine,” he transcends the superficial and touches the darkest core of the play’s prejudice. Shylock, too, understands what is at the heart of the matter: “If you prick us,” he asks, “do we not bleed?” thus equivocating himself with Antonio and the Venetians. Both “Others” place themselves on a paratactic level with the prevailing powers by implying that each of their blood flows red, despite the pigment of the “tent” encompassing the body, or of the associations of their personal heritage.