"He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."


-Shylock, Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare

This is one of the most brilliant monologues ever written by William Shakespeare and there is much to analyze in it. The monologue is told from the perspective of Shylock, a Jewish moneylender who has been betrayed by Antonio, a Christian who he lent money to. In the cultural arena, Shakespeare adheres to the conventions that normally are used in order to add emphasis and force to a speech. Shylock frequently uses isocolon and parallism in lists (i.e. "mocked at my gains, scorned my nation" in keeping with established conventions in making a speech. Shylock also uses lists of rhetorical questions, another convention of speeches, in combination with isocolon, anaphora, and climax (i.e. if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?) in order to add even more force to what he is saying.

Shakespeare frequently combines many figures together, usually in the same phrase, in order to add force to what Shylock is saying. I think the most powerful example of this is in this series of lines: " If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge". The most obvious figure here is parallelism and anaphora, which serves to show how Shylock believes that both Christians and Jews should receive the same treatment. Another one that is clear is the usage of antimetabole ("If a Jew wrong a Christian...If a Christian wrong a Jew"), which further adds towards this equality Shylock wishes to see. The isolation of the word "revenge" by itself in its own sentence adds emphasis to how Shylock believes he is justified in taking revenge against the Christians, and when Shakespeare has Shylock break the parallelism by saying "Why, revenge" the second time, he draws emphasis (in a deviation) to how Shylock thinks he is justified in taking revenge on Antonio.

I think it’s interesting to look at this monologue and discuss whether it functions in the high, middle, or low style. One could argue it is in the high style because of how many figures there are crammed into it, but on the other hand it adheres to most of the characteristics of the low style, especially in how Shylock relies mostly relatively "concrete and specific nouns" and "action verbs" with "easily processed sentence structures" (Holcomb and Killingsworth 74).

On one footing, this monologue is Shylock addressing Salarino in the context of the play, but on another it is Shylock addressing social inequalities based on religion. I have only begun to analyze what is probably one of the greatest monologues in the history of theater.