Previous
Motifs
Definition of Paradox
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel of truth or reason. Oscar Wilde's famous declaration that "Life is... read full definition
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel of truth or reason. Oscar... read full definition
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel... read full definition
Act 2, Scene 1
Explanation and Analysis—Like a Jack-daw:
In a tavern near Newgate Prison, where Macheath will later be imprisoned, Matt of the Mint uses a paradox and a simile in his defense of his criminal profession to the other members of Macheath’s gang of thieves:
We retrench the Superfluities of Mankind. The World is avaritious, and I hate Avarice. A covetous fellow, like a Jack-daw, steals what he was never made to enjoy, for the sake of hiding it. These are the Robbers of Mankind, for Money was made for the Free-hearted and Generous, and where is the Injury of taking from another, what he hath not the Heart to make use of?
Matt of the Mint suggests that he is not motivated by “Avarice” or greed but by his disapproval of greed in others. In a simile, he claims that the targets of his robbery are “like a Jack-daw” (a kind of bird) hoarding possessions they were “never made to enjoy, for the sake of hiding it.” In other words, those who guard their possessions do so not out of enjoyment of what they own but because they selfishly want to keep these things from others. In a paradox, Matt of the Mint insists that the legal owners of these possessions are the true “Robbers of Mankind,” as they are too selfish to give up their belongings freely in the spirit of generosity and charity—he thus presents the paradoxical claim that he disapproves of greed and that this justifies his decision to steal (which, of course, is a greedy thing to do).
Matt of the Mint’s condemnation of those who own an excess of belongings or money, or what he refers to as “Superfluities,” gives voice to the legitimate resentments of the “have-nots” of London society. On the other hand, his speech here is clearly self-serving, as he seeks personal wealth for himself, not economic justice for the poor.
Related Themes:
