essay on friendship of jessica and launcelot

Merchant of Venice

How has the relationship between jessica and lancaulet changed since lancalot became bassanio's servant and not shylockhas his change in master, changed his personalitiesexplain..

This question is from Act 3 scene 5

Yes, Lancelot and Jessica are in an argument over whether she can be saved by God since she was born a Jew. Lancelot tells her that since both her parents are Jews, she is damned. She protests that she can be saved once she becomes a Christian because her husband Lorenzo is a Christian. Lancelot then makes a joke, and says that Lorenzo is a bad man because by converting all the Jews he is raising the price of pork (since Jews do not eat pork, but Christians do). Lorenzo then arrives and orders Lancelot to go inside and prepare the table for dinner.

http://www.gradesaver.com/merchant-of-venice/study-guide/section3/

Log In To Your GradeSaver Account

• Remember me
• Forgot your password?

Create Your GradeSaver Account

• The Merchant of Venice

William Shakespeare

• Literature Notes
• Play Summary
• Character List
• Summary and Analysis
• Act I: Scene 1
• Act I: Scene 2
• Act I: Scene 3
• Act II: Scene 1
• Act II: Scene 2
• Act II: Scene 3
• Act II: Scene 4
• Act II: Scene 5
• Act II: Scene 6
• Act II: Scene 7
• Act II: Scene 8
• Act II: Scene 9
• Act III: Scene 1
• Act III: Scene 2
• Act III: Scene 3
• Act III: Scene 4
• Act III: Scene 5
• Act IV: Scene 1
• Act IV: Scene 2
• Act V: Scene 1
• Character Analysis
• Critical Essays
• Major Themes
• Major Symbols and Motifs
• William Shakespeare Biography
• Famous Quotes
• Film Versions
• Essay Questions
• Cite this Literature Note

Summary and Analysis Act II: Scene 2

After the last, rather serious scene in Belmont, we return to Venice, and the initial emphasis here is on Launcelot Gobbo, Shylock's servant, an "unthrifty knight." Launcelot is debating with himself as to whether or not he should remain in Shylock's service; he is tempted to leave and find employment elsewhere, but he is unable to make up his mind. The decision is difficult, he says, for he feels the weight of his "conscience hanging about the neck of his heart."

The comedy builds when Launcelot's father, Old Gobbo, comes onstage. Old Gobbo is "more than sandblind" and does not recognize his son. He sees before him only the dim image of a man who he hopes can direct him to Shylock's house. Launcelot is delighted to encounter his father, whom he has not seen for a long time, and so he conceals his true identity and playfully confuses the old man with much clowning and double-talk, before revealing who he really is and kneeling to receive his father's blessing.

Bassanio now enters, along with Leonardo and other followers, and he is enthusiastically talking of preparations for a dinner tonight, complete with a masque, to which he has invited his friends to celebrate his departure for Belmont, where he will begin his courtship of Portia. Launcelot is quick to note Bassanio's good mood, and he immediately speaks to him about Bassanio's hiring him as a servant. Bassanio agrees and orders a new set of livery for his new servant.

Gratiano enters, looking for Bassanio, and tells him, "I must go with you to Belmont." Bassanio is hesitant, but he finally consents, urging Gratiano to modify his "wild behaviour," which Gratiano agrees to do. But he will do that tomorrow. Tonight, he says, shall be a night of merriment, a gala inaugurating his setting out for Belmont.

This scene, like Scene 1 and most of the rest of the nine scenes in Act II, deals with minor diversions and developments in the plot — the elopement of Lorenzo and Jessica, and Launcelot Gobbo's transfer of his services from Shylock to Bassanio.

Almost all of this scene is taken up with the antics of Launcelot Gobbo, and it may be useful here to consider for a moment the clowns and comedy of the Elizabethan stage. Two of the most important members of any Elizabethan theatrical company were the actor who played the tragic hero and the actor who played the clown. It is obvious why the actor who played the great tragic roles was important, but it is perhaps not so easy for us to see, from the standpoint of the modern theater, why the role of a clown took on so much importance. The clowns, though, were great favorites with the Elizabethan audiences. Their parts involved a great deal of comic stage business — improvised actions, gestures, and expressions — and they had their own special routines. Launcelot, for example, would be given a great deal of leeway in using his own special comic devices. Much here depends on the actor's "business" — mime, expressions of horror or stupid self-satisfaction, burlesque or parody movements around the stage, and so forth. This sort of scene is not written for verbal comedy (as Portia's scenes are); rather, Shakespeare wrote them to give his actors as much scope as was necessary for visual antics. Today we call these gimmicks "sight gags" or "slapstick." The dialogue itself is not particularly witty because the comedy was meant to be mostly physical. Launcelot's opening speech takes the form of a debate between "the fiend" and his own "conscience." The comedy here lies in the fact that the jester-clown Launcelot should regard himself as the hero of a religious drama, but this gives him the opportunity to mimic two separate parts, jumping back and forth on the stage and addressing himself: "Well, my conscience says, 'Launcelot, budge not.' 'Budge,' says the fiend. 'Budge not,' says my conscience" (18-20). Visually, this makes for good comedy; while reading this play aloud, one can enhance this brief scene by imagining that the voice of the conscience is delivered in high, falsetto, flute-like tones; the voice of the fiend, in contrast, is delivered in low, evil-sounding growls.

In addition to this clowning business, verbal confusion was also a favorite device in this sort of scene, and it occurs throughout the play. Notice, for example, the directions for finding Shylock's house which Launcelot gives to his father: "Turn up on your right hand at the next turning, but at the next turning of all, on your left; marry, at the very next turning of no hand, but turn down indirectly." Small wonder that Old Gobbo exclaims, "'twill be a hard way to hit!"

There is more visual comedy when the two Gobbos confront Bassanio at line 120. Here, it is suggested by the lines that Launcelot bends down behind his father, popping up to interrupt him at every other line and finishing his sentences for him. This kind of comedy depends on visual and verbal confusion, especially mistaking obvious words and phrases. Particularly characteristic of this clowning is the confusion of word meanings. Here, Launcelot speaks of his "true-begotten father," and he uses "infection" for affection, "frutify" for certify, "defect" for effect, and so on.

Toward the close of the scene, two more details of the central plot are developed. First, Launcelot leaves Shylock's household for that of Bassanio; this prepares us for a similar, if a much greater defection from Shylock by his daughter, Jessica, in the following scene. It also makes it possible for Launcelot to appear at Belmont in the final act, where a little of his clowning adds to the general good humor. Second, Gratiano announces his intention of going to Belmont with Bassanio; he must be there to marry Nerissa and take part in the comedy of the "ring story," which ends the play with lighthearted teasing wit.

Previous Scene 1

Next Scene 3

The Merchant of Venice

William shakespeare, everything you need for every book you read..

• Shakespeare Learning Zone Home
• As You Like It
• The Comedy of Errors
• Julius Caesar
• Measure for Measure

The Merchant of Venice

• A Midsummer Night's Dream
• Much Ado about Nothing
• Romeo and Juliet
• The Taming of The Shrew
• The Tempest
• Twelfth Night
• Your Feedback
• Education Home
• What’s on at the RSC

Main Navigation

Investigate character relationships.

See how their relationship changes during the play by moving the bar to the marked points.

The relationship between these characters remains the same throughout the play.

Peggy Ashcroft as Portia in the 1953 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia and her page in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio and Portia in the 2001 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Diana Wynyard as Portia in the 1948 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice.

Portia in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia in the 1998 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia is a wealthy heiress who lives in Belmont. Her father has died and in his will wrote that anyone wanting to marry his daughter must succeed in a specially designed challenge. Suitors have to choose between three caskets (either gold, silver or lead), guessing which one holds Portia’s portrait. Portia is not at all keen on most of the men who have tried to win her, however she does fall in love with Bassanio. Ultimately she plays an essential role in ensuring that Antonio’s life is saved, as she prevents Shylock from claiming his ‘pound of flesh’.

Facts we learn about Portia at the start of the play:

• She lives in Belmont.
• Her father has died.
• She is considered to be very beautiful by lots of men.
• She is unable to choose her own husband.

Things they say:

‘My little body is aweary of this great world.’ (Portia, 1:2)

At the start of the play Portia feels overwhelmed by her current situation.

‘An unlessoned girl, unschooled, unpractised.’ ‘She is not bred so dull but she can learn.’ (Portia, 3:2)

Portia considers herself to be says she is uneducated and inexperienced, but with great potential to learn.

‘I could teach you how to choose right but then I am forsworn. So will I never be.’ (Portia, 3:2)

Although Portia is tempted to help Bassanio choose the correct casket, she is determined to remain loyal to the terms of her father’s will.

‘I have within my mind/A thousand raw tricks of these bragging jacks/Which I will practise.’ (Portia, 3:4)

Portia is full of ideas about what she will do when she goes to Venice dressed as a man.

Things others say about them:

‘Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth.’ (Bassanio, 1:1)

Portia is famous for her beauty and wealth. If Portia’s beauty is highlighted by other characters, we need a stronger example.

'You would be, sweet madam, if your miseries were in the same abundance as your good fortunes are.’ (Nerissa, 1:2)

Nerissa, Portia’s waiting woman thinks Portia has far more good luck than bad!

‘Thrice fair lady […] you have bereft me of all words.’ (Bassanio, 3:2)

Bassanio is overwhelmed by his love for Portia.

‘You have a noble and a true conceit/Of godlike amity.’ (Lorenzo, 3:4)

Lorenzo considers Portia to be almost goddess-like in her goodness.

Bassanio and Portia in the 1947 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock and Bassanio in the 1971 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio is a young Venetian gentleman who is a close friend of Antonio’s and in love with Portia. In order to woo Portia he needs money and so asks Antonio for a loan. It is this request which results in Antonio becoming ‘bound’ to Shylock and in danger of losing his life.

Facts we learn about Bassanio at the start of the play:

• He is a scholar and a soldier.
• He is a close friend of Antonio’s.
• Bassanio has lost his own wealth.
• He needs money to go to Belmont and woo Portia.

‘I owe you much, and like a wilful youth/That which I owe is lost.’ (Bassanio, 1:1)

Bassanio is unable to repay for Antonio previous debts.

‘As I am, I live upon the rack.’ (Bassanio, 3:2)

Bassanio is so in love with Portia that until he knows whether he has won her hand in marriage or not, the uncertainty is as painful as torture to him.

‘How much I was a braggart.’ (Bassanio, 3:2)

Once Bassanio has won Portia’s hand in marriage he admits that he pretended he had more wealth than he did and admits that he boasted about something he didn’t have.

‘He, of all the men that ever my foolish eyes looked upon, was the best deserving a fair lady. ’(Nerissa, 1:3)

Nerissa considers him to be superior to the other suitors who have visited Portia so far.

‘He bringeth sensible regreets:/To wit, besides commends and courteous breath/ Gifts of rich value.’ (Messenger, 2:9)

Bassanio has spent some of the money he has borrowed on gifts for Portia and he sends a messenger ahead who behaves politely and charmingly when he announces Bassanio’s arrival at Belmont.

Antonio in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio and Bassanio in the 1960 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

 Ian Gelder as Antonio in the 2001 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio in the 1978 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio is the Venetian merchant described in the title of the play. He is extremely well liked by most characters apart from Shylock. Although Antonio is inexplicably sad at the start of the play, he is in a relatively secure position. Although he has no readily available cash, he has plenty of ships carrying fortunes at sea. As the play goes on his position becomes increasingly precarious as he has entered into a dangerous deal with Shylock, which nearly costs him his life.

Facts we learn about Antonio at the start of the play:

• He is a Christian.
• His wealth is spread across a number of cargo ships.
• He is very close friends with Bassanio.
• He has a passionate dislike for Shylock, a Jewish moneylender.

‘In sooth I know not why I am so sad.’ (Antonio, 1:1)

Antonio is melancholy at the start of the play but does not know say what the cause of his sadness is.

‘My purse, my person, my extremest means/ Lie all unlocked to your occasions.’ (Antonio, 1:1)

Antonio is prepared to do whatever he can to help his friend Bassanio.

'You look not well, Signior Antonio’, ‘you are marvellously changed’ (Gratiano, 1:1)

There has been a marked change in Antonio’s appearance and his friend Gratiano is worried about him.

‘You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog,/ And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine.’ (Shylock 1:3)

There is a history of animosity between Shylock and Antonio and Antonio has insulted Shylock on account of his religion.

‘A kinder gentleman treads not the earth’ (Salarino, 2:8) ‘How true a gentleman’ (Lorenzo, 3:4) ‘The dearest friend to me, the kindest man’ (Bassanio, 3:2)

Antonio is enormously well respected by a number of Venetian citizens

Shylock in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock and Solanio in the 1987 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Philip Voss as Shylock in the 1998 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Ian Bartholomew as Shylock in the 2001 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Emlyn Williams as Shylock in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio and Shylock in the 1971 production of The Merchant of Venice.

Shylock in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice.

Peter O'Toole as Shylock in the 1960 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock is a moneylender who lives in Venice. He is Jewish and receives a great deal of abuse for his religion. Shylock lends money to Antonio on the condition that if Antonio cannot pay him back by the appointed time then Shylock will cut away a pound of Antonio’s flesh. As the play progresses, Shylock becomes completely fixated on his ‘bond’ with Antonio and desperate to claim revenge on the merchant, who has treated him badly in the past.

Facts we learn about Shylock at the start of the play:

• He is Jewish.
• He is the father of Jessica.
• He doesn’t have 3,000 ducats himself, but knows he can borrow them from his friend Tubal.

‘I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.’ (Shylock, 1:3)

Shylock’s determination to punish Antonio comes from a longstanding hatred between them.

‘The villainy you teach me I will execute.’ (Shylock, 3:1)

Shylock wants people to know that he behaves as a ’villain’ because he has learnt this bad behaviour from the way others have treated him.

‘I’ll have my bond, speak not against my bond.’ (Shylock, 3:3)

Shylock is completely determined to take Antonio’s pound of flesh.

‘You take my life/When you do take the means whereby I live.’ (Shylock, 4:1)

Shylock’s money is so important to him, that without it, he feels life is not worth living.

'An evil soul.’ (Antonio, 1:3)

Antonio has a deep seated hatred for Shylock.

‘Never did I know/A creature that did bear the shape of man/So keen and greedy to confound a man.’ (Salerio, 3:2)

Salerio considers Shylock to be less than human (‘a creature’) that is not actually a man, but looks like one.

‘The most impenetrable cur/That ever kept with men.’ (Salanio, 3:3)

Like Antonio and Salerio, Salanio also has an extremely strong dislike for Shylock.

'A stony adversary, an inhumane wretch,/ Uncapable of pity, void and empty/From any dram of mercy.’ (The Duke, 4:1)

The Duke is so alarmed by Shylock’s refusal to show pity towards Antonio that, like other Venetians, he considers Shylock to be not to fully human.

Nerissa in the 1998 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Nerissa and Portia in the 1987 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Bassanio_ Gratiano_ Nerissa and Portia in the 1960 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Nerissa in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Nerissa and Portia in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Nerissa in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Prunella Scales as Nerissa in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Portia and Nerissa in the 1947 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Nerissa is Portia’s waiting woman and friend. They have a close relationship and Nerissa both teases and advises her boss. She also assists Portia in helping to get Antonio freed and goes with Portia to Venice, dressed as a lawyer’s clerk. Nerissa falls in love with Bassanio’s friend Gratiano, who asks for her hand in marriage after Bassanio ‘wins’ Portia.

Facts we learn about Nerissa at the start of the play:

• She is Portia’s waiting woman.
• She has been working for Portia since Portia’s father was alive.
• She has a close friendship with Portia.

‘I’ll see if I can get my husband’s ring,/Which I did make him swear to keep for ever.’ (Nerissa, 4:2)

Nerissa is determined to test how trustworthy Gratiano is.

‘This fair one here.’ (Gratiano, 3:2)

Gratiano considers Nerissa to be very beautiful.

'Nerissa teaches me what to believe.’ (Portia, 5:1)

Portia is influenced by Nerissa’s opinions and advice.

‘Good sentences and well pronounced.’ (Portia, 1:2)

Portia thinks highly of what Nerissa has to say.

Jessica in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Jessica in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Yvonne Mitchell as Jessica in the 1953 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock and Jessica in the 1948 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Jessica in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Jessica is Shylock’s daughter and at the start of the play is living in his house. She is in love with a Christian, Lorenzo. Jessica knows that her father will never give his consent for her to marry a Christian and so she plans to secretly escape one night in order to run away with Lorenzo, marry him and convert from Judaism to Christianity.

Facts we learn about Jessica at the start of the play:

• She is Shylock’s daughter.
• She is Jewish, but determined to convert to Christianity.
• She is friends with Lancelet, Shylock’s (Christian) servant.

‘What heinous sin it is in me/To be ashamed to be my father’s child’ ‘though I am a daughter to his blood/I am not to his manners.’ (Jessica, 2:3)

Jessica is humiliated by her father and determined that beyond being related genetically, their characters and personalities values/traditions/cultures? are completely different.

'I am glad ‘tis night you do not look on me,/For I am much ashamed of my exchange.’ (Jessica, 2:6)

Jessica is insecure about how Lorenzo will respond to her outward appearance when she is disguised as a man.

‘I shall be saved by my husband; he hath made me a Christian.’ (Jessica, 3:5)

Jessica is aware of her difference from Lorenzo but makes light of it in joking with Lancelet Gobbo.

‘Gentle Jessica/I will not fail her.’ (Lorenzo, 2:4)

Lorenzo is determined to keep his promise to Jessica and will help her to escape from her father’s house.

‘Wise, fair and true.’ (Lorenzo, 2:6)

Lorenzo thinks Jessica is clever, beautiful and honest.

‘I fear you’, ‘I think you are damned.’ (Launcelet, 3:4)

Although Launcelet is immensely fond of Jessica, he thinks says that she will not go to Heaven because she is Jewish. He’s a clown

Lorenzo, Jessica, Portia, Nerissa and Balthasar in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio, Bassanio, Gratiano and Lorenzo in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Lorenzo and Jessica in the 1948 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Lorenzo in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Lorenzo in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Lorenzo is a Venetian and a Christian, who is friends with Bassiano, Gratiano and Antonio. Lorenzo is in love with Jessica, Shylock’s daughter and helps her to escape from her father’s house so that they can run away and marry.

Facts we learn about Lorenzo at the start of the play:

• He is a friend of Bassanio’s.
• He is in love with Jessica.
• He dislikes Shylock.

‘I will not fail her.’ (Lorenzo, 2:4)

Lorenzo is determined to keep his promise to Jessica.

‘Not I, but my affairs have made you wait.’ (Lorenzo, 2:6)

Lorenzo had lots of business to sort out before he escaping Venice with Jessica.

‘O Lorenzo, if thou keep promise,/ I shall end this strife,/Become a Christian and thy loving wife.’ (Jessica, 2:3)

Lorenzo and Jessica have made a secret pact to marry, which also involves Jessica converting to Christianity.

‘It is marvel he out-dwells his hour.’ (Gratiano, Act 2, Scene 6)

He is surprisingly late for important matters!

Lancelet Gobbo

Old Gobbo and Launcelot Gobbo in the 1987 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Launcelot Gobbo in the 2001 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Launcelot Gobbo in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Old Gobbo and Launcelot Gobbo in the 1947 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Launcelot Gobbo in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

The two Gobbos in the 1978 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Donald Pleasence as Launcelot Gobbo in the 1953 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

The two Gobbos in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice.

Lancelet is the ‘clown’ of the play and much of the comedy derives from him playing tricks on his father and making silly jokes. He works for Shylock, but passionately dislikes his master and so asks Bassanio if he can work for him instead. When Bassanio agrees, Lancelet accompanies Bassanio to Belmont.

Facts we learn about Lancelet at the start of the play:

• He works for Shylock, but would rather not.
• He really dislikes Shylock.
• He is friends with Jessica, Shylock’s daughter.
• He has a blind father called ‘Old Gobbo’.

'My consience will serve me to run from this Jew my master.' (Launcelet, 2:2)

Launcelet is troubled by having Shylock as his master and is keen to leave and work elsewhere.

'I will try confusions with him.' (Launcelet, 2:2)

Launcelet enjoys playing tricks on his father.

‘I am sorry thou wilt leave my father so.’ (Jessica, 2:3)

Jessica is very fond of Launcelet and it upsets her when he goes.

‘What a wit-snapper are you.’ (Lorenzo, 3:5)

Launcelet takes any opportunity to make a joke.

Robert Shaw as Gratiano in the 1953 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Gratiano in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Antonio, Gratiano and Lorenzo in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Shylock and Gratiano in the 1960 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Gratiano in the 2011 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Gratiano is a Venetian man who is friends with Bassanio and Antonio. He is renowned for his wild and boisterous behaviour and heavily insults Shylock at the start of the play. Gratiano accompanies Bassanio to Belmont and falls in love with Nerissa, Portia’s waiting woman.

Facts we learn about Gratiano at the start of the play:

• He lives in Venice.
• He is friends with Bassanio and Antonio.
• He is known for his wild behaviour.
• He falls in love with Nerissa.

‘Let me play the fool.’ (Gratiano, 1:1)

Gratiano enjoys being the person who cheers others up.

‘I’ll fear no other thing/So sore as keeping safe Nerissa’s ring.’ (Gratiano, 5:1)

At the end of the play Gratiano is determined to prove his loyalty to Nerissa, and is afraid of what she’ll do if he loses her ring.

‘Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing.’ (Bassanio, 1:1_

Bassanio thinks that Gratiano speaks an awful lot of rubbish.

‘Thou art too wild, too rude and bold of voice.’ (Bassanio, 2:2)

Bassanio considers Gratiano’s behaviour to be too outlandish and unpredictable to take him to Belmont.

 Shylock and Tubal in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Tubal in the 2008 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Tubal and Shylock in the 1956 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Tubal in the 2015 production of The Merchant of Venice. 

Tubal is a wealthy Jewish friend of Shylock’s. Shylock doesn’t have enough money himself to lend to Antonio, so he borrows the funds from Tubal. When Jessica, Shylock’s daughter, goes missing, Tubal goes in search of her in order to help his friend.

Facts we learn about Tubal at the start of the play:

• He is wealthy.
• He is friends with Shylock.

'I often came where I did hear of her, but cannot find her.' (Tubal, 3:1)

Tubal has worked hard trying to find Jessica for Shylock, but has not had any luck.

'I spoke with some of the sailors that escaped the wreck.' (Tubal, 3:1)

Tubal has been trying to find out what is happening to Antonio's ships.

'Tubal, a wealthy Hebrew of my tribe,/ Will furnish me.' (Shylock, 1:3)

Shylock and Tubal's friendship must be close enough that Shylock knows Tubal will help him out, even before asking him to do so.

'Here comes another of the tribe.' (Solanio, 3:1)

Solanio sees Tubal and Shylock as part of the same group and one that is separate and different from him.

Explore their relationships

Portia - bassanio.

At the start of the play we learn that Portia and Bassanio have met before and that they like each other. Bassanio tells Antonio that he wants to go to Belmont to woo the ‘fair’ Portia and that ‘sometimes from her eyes’ he received ‘fair speechless messages’ (1:1). In Belmont, Portia tells Nerissa that she remembers meeting Bassanio and that he was ‘worthy’ of ‘praise’ (1:2).

When Bassanio goes to Belmont their relationship strengthens and Portia admits that she wants Bassanio to ‘tarry’ before he chooses the caskets as she’s scared that ‘in choosing wrong’ she’ll lose Bassanio’s company. (3:2)

Both Bassanio and Portia are overjoyed when Bassanio chooses the correct casket and wins Portia’s hand in marriage. They kiss and Portia declares ‘myself, and what is mine’ now belongs to Bassanio (3.2) She also gives him a ring as a symbol of her love, which Bassanio promises he’ll not part with until his death.

Some tension erupts between them when Portia ‘discovers’ that Bassanio gave the ring away and she tells him off for parting with it. Bassanio begs her to forgive him and ‘pardon this fault’ (5:1).

Portia forgives Bassanio and gives him the ring again, making him swear that he’ll ‘keep it better than the other’ (5:1).

Portia - Nerissa

Although Portia is Nerissa’s boss, the ladies are evidently close friends, who enjoy joking about Portia’s suitors. Nerissa is not afraid to tease Portia about the way she complains, even though she has an ‘abundance’ of ‘good fortunes’ (1:2).

Portia and Nerissa become even closer when they are united in their plan to help Antonio by going to Venice dressed as male lawyers.

Portia - Antonio

Antonio is most in debt to Portia towards the end of the play as she is the one who manages to stop Shylock from claiming the pound of flesh and so saves his life in 4:1. Although Antonio thinks he is talking to a male lawyer called ‘Balthasar’ (Portia in disguise) Antonio says that he stands ‘indebted, over and above,/In love and service to you evermore.’

Portia makes it clear that she doesn’t want any actual payment for saving Antonio’s life and so the debt is effectively ‘cleared’. She says to Antonio in 4:1, ‘He is well paid that is well satisfied,/And I delivering you, am satisfied,/And therein do account myself well paid.’

Bassanio - Portia

Bassanio - antonio.

Antonio and Bassanio have a very strong relationship in Act 1 and we can infer that they have been friends for a long time as Bassanio says that he already owes Antonio ‘the most in money and in love’ (1:1). When Bassanio asks Antonio for support, Antonio assures him that ‘my purse, my person, my extremest means/ Lie all unlocked’ to him’ (1:1).

Bassanio and Antonio remain very close as Act 1 progresses, however they begin to have differing opinions when the issue of Shylock’s bond emerges. When Antonio asks Shylock for money (to lend to Bassanio) and Shylock insists that Antonio must give him a pound of his flesh if he can’t repay the sum on time, Bassanio urges Antonio not to sign: ‘You shall not seal to such a bond from me’ (1:3). Antonio is happy to commit to the bond for his friend, however Bassanio is much more uncertain.

Some distance grows between Antonio and Bassanio as Bassanio leaves Venice and his friend in order to go to Belmont and woo Portia. However, when Bassanio receives a letter detailing Antonio’s lost ships, he is full of concern and explains to Portia that Antonio is his ‘dearest friend’ (3:2). Antonio’s letter reveals that he is not sure whether his friend will come to visit him or not, as he writes ‘use your pleasure’ (3.2) suggesting that Bassanio does whatever he wants to do.

In Act 4 we see Bassanio and Antonio’s relationship restored. In the court room, when Antonio is about to face death, Bassanio does all that he can to try and dissuade Shylock from claiming the pound of flesh.

Bassanio and Antonio are very close once more when we reach the end of the play. We see just how much influence Antonio has over his close friend when, after Antonio has been saved, Portia (as ‘Balthasar’) asks for Bassanio’s ring. Bassanio refuses when she asks for it, however when Antonio asks Bassanio to give it over, Bassanio does so.

Bassanio - Gratiano

Bassanio and Gratiano are good friends, but Bassanio is the one in control of the relationship. Gratiano needs to ask Bassanio’s permission to go to Belmont and Bassanio only agrees on the condition that Gratiano behaves himself!

Bassanio and Gratiano become closer when Bassanio agrees to Gratiano’s request to ask Nerissa, Portia’s waiting woman, for her hand in marriage. Bassanio agrees to the match ‘with all [his] heart’ (3:2).

Antonio - Bassanio

Antonio - shylock.

In Act 1, Antonio becomes bound to Shylock as he is going to borrow ‘three thousand ducats for three months’ (1:3) from the Jewish moneylender. If he fails to pay the money, Antonio will owe Shylock a pound of his own flesh. At this stage, Antonio is confident that he will be able to pay the money back on time as ‘within these two months’ (1:3) he expects his ships to return with ‘thrice three times the value of this bond’ (1:3).

The intensity of the danger of the debt between Antonio and Shylock increases when we hear that Antonio’s ships have been lost at sea and so ‘all his ventures failed’ (3.2), destroying his ability to pay the money back on time.

In the Venetian Court both the Duke and ‘Balthasar’ admit that Shylock’s bond was entirely legal and therefore Shylock is entitled to take the pound of flesh from Antonio: ‘lawfully by this the Jew may claim/ A pound of flesh’ (4.1).

The debt between Shylock and Antonio is eliminated when Portia (disguised as a male lawyer) points out that ‘this bond’ does not mention a ‘jot of blood’ (4.1) and so Shylock realises it will be impossible for him to claim the flesh as there’s no way of cutting it off without causing Antonio to bleed.

The tables turn at the end of Act 4 Scene 1 when Shylock owes money to Antonio. As Shylock attempted to kill Antonio, his punishment is that he must hand over half of his wealth to Antonio and half to the Venetian state.

Antonio - Portia

Shylock - tubal.

Shylock and Tubal clearly have a close relationship at the start of the play as Shylock is sure that he can borrow money from Tubal, even without having to ask him first. ‘Tubal, a wealthy Hebrew of my tribe/Will furnish me’ (1:3)

Shylock and Tubal’s relationship is evidently very strong in Act 3, as Tubal has been looking for Shylock’s daughter Jessica in order to help his friend. Tubal has also been talking to sailors to find out what happened to Antonio’s ships in order to be able to report the news back to Shylock.

Shylock - Antonio

Shylock - lancelet, shylock - jessica, nerissa - gratiano.

Although we don’t know what Nerissa feels about Gratiano early on, it’s clear that Gratiano is very keen to visit her. In fact he is so keen to go to Belmont that he promises to Bassanio that he will behave gracefully and ‘talk with respect’ (2:2) when Bassanio threatens to leave him in Venice on account of his usually ‘wild’ and ‘rude’ behaviour (2:2).

Gratiano and Nerissa’s love for each other is revealed to be strong and mutual when Gratiano asks Bassanio for his permission to marry as he ‘beheld the maid’ of Bassanio’s mistress and fell for her. Nerissa admits that it is ‘true’ that she loves Gratiano (3:2).

There are cracks in the relationship when Gratiano and Nerissa ‘quarrel’ over the ring that Nerissa gave him and he lost. Gratiano exclaims to her ‘I swear you do me wrong’ and tries to get Nerissa to understand why he gave the ring away (5:1).

By the end of the play they are close once more as Nerissa has forgiven Gratiano for giving the ring away. She gives the ring back to him again as a symbol of theim being reunited, but Gratiano admits that he’ll ‘fear no other thing/So sore as keeping safe Nerissa’s ring’ (5.1), thinking the consequences of losing it might be much harsher next time!

Nerissa - Portia

Jessica - lorenzo.

When we meet Jessica it’s clear that she’s desperately in love with Lorenzo, but that she’s not completely sure that he’ll keep his promise and help her escape her father’s house. In a private moment in 2:3 she says ‘O Lorenzo/ If thou keep promise’, the if suggesting that she’s not totally certain he will, but she wants to be his ‘loving wife’.

Lorenzo is evidently just as passionate about Jessica as she is about him as he asks Laucelet to deliver the message that he ‘will not fail her’ (2:4) and enlists his friends to help him enable her to escape from Shylock’s house so that they can run away together.

Jessica and Lorenzo’s love grows stronger and stronger. After he helps her to escape and run away from Shylock, they go to Belmont where they compare themselves to classical lovers such as ‘Thisbe’, ‘Dido’ and ‘Medea’ as well as swearing their love for each other (5:1). These are all tragic references though which leaves a sense all may not end well.

Jessica - Lancelet

Jessica - shylock, lorenzo - jessica, lancelet - jessica, lancelet - shylock, gratiano - nerissa, gratiano - bassanio, tubal - shylock, teacher notes.

On this page students can arrange the characters on the screen, showing the connections between the characters and their relationships. They can then print this using the button on the page and label them with their own quotes.

We need your help

We’d love to know what you think about the Shakespeare Learning Zone. Help us by taking a short survey – it will only take a few minutes and will help us make the Shakespeare Learning Zone even better for everyone.

Contract, Friendship, and Love in The Merchant of Venice

• March 1, 2018

Lee Trepanier

• Articles , Arts & Culture Articles

Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice has been interpreted in numerous ways that range from focusing on the roles of women and marriage to examining questions of justice and mercy to exploring the appropriate relationship between Christian and Jews. [1] While most critics have paid particular attention to the character Shylock and the themes associated with him, I will look at the figures Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, and Jessica to show how their decisions, actions, and relationships reveal the moral limitations of Venice as a commercial republic. [2] Specifically I will explore how Venice, as a commercial republic that is based on contract, has a corrosive effect on non-contractual, moral relationships like friendship, love, and marriage. By examining each of these characters, I will illustrate how a world of commerce and contract has a tendency to reduce all relationships to motives of self-interest, utility, and profit.

From the play it is made known that Venice is a city based on commerce with its law of contract enforced – even if a pound of flesh were demanded – for otherwise the law would lose its legitimacy and all trade and justice would cease to exist. As Antonio observes about his bond of flesh with Shylock, who had demanded its fulfillment:

The Duke cannot deny the course of laws;

For the commodity that strangers have

With us in Venice, if it be denied,

Will much impeach the justice of the state,

Since that the trade and profit of the city

Consisteth of all nations (III.iii.26-31). [3]

Although in this particular case the enforcement of contract seems unreasonable, the great benefit to a city like Venice that is founded and governed by commerce and contract is that motives of self-interest, utility, and profit override the natural tendency to exclude, persecute, or kill strangers. [4] Christian and Jews are able to co-exist, albeit acrimoniously, in Venice to exchange goods and services. Instead of excluding or killing Jews, Christians seek to make a profit with or out of them and vice versa. Prejudice still exists in Venice but persecution and murder do not.

The Christian commandment of loving thy neighbor appears to have failed as a political principle to organize the city: commerce, contract, and profit have provided the path to stability, cooperation, and toleration. But to maintain this peace, impartial and enforceable justice is required. Even if it were against his own inclinations, the Duke must conduct the trial of Antonio to maintain the rule of law in Venice (IV.i.1-33). [5] If an exception were made in this case, Shylock correctly asks why should the Duke not break other contracts, such as the purchasing of slaves (IV.i.89-103; 38-39)? The answer is obvious enough: chaos would result if contracts were no longer enforced, because nobody would be able to trust one another. To retain stability in the city and the legitimacy of his rule, the Duke therefore must enforce the contract of a pound of flesh. As we know later in the play, the contract is enforced but with the qualification that a “if thou dost shed / One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods / Are by the laws of Venice confiscate” (IV.i.309-311). Under this new condition, Shylock cannot fulfill his end of the contract and consequently will suffer the penalties for it.

This theme of Venice as a commercial republic based on contract has been explored by other scholars and has been even presented in recent performances. [6] For example, some like Lars Engle and Fredrick Turner argue that the play is about patterns of exchanges, purchases, and pledges that range from the physical to the abstract, while other critics look at the use of bonds – natural, emotional, commercial – as the theme that unities the play. [7] Another set of commentators contend that the practice of usury is the central feature of The Merchant of Venice , with even some pointing out the historical and contemporary economic parallels to play. [8] This contextualization of the play continues in more recent studies that place The Merchant of Venice in a judicial and legal context. [9]

However, these studies have neglected the effect that contractual relations in a commercial republic have on non-contractual ones like friendship, love, and marriage. [10] Whereas previous studies have focused either on the contractual relationships or the non-contractual ones, this article will explore the interaction between these two types of relationships. Critics who see the play as a pattern of exchanges and purchases or revolving around the question of bonds fail to address the question about the incommensurability of non-contractual relations with contractual ones. And for those scholars who either historically contextualize or draw interesting parallels between the play and contemporary economics, they overlook how the play charts the moral, social, and political implications of a politics where its public sphere is the domain of calculation, commerce, and contract. This article will remedy this inattention, although it is indebted to these previous studies that have tangentially touched upon this topic: the effect of contract and commerce on friendship, love, and marriage and their social and political ramifications.

Antonio’s Friendship

The Merchant of Venice opens with Antonio’s speech about his own sadness, with the explanation of it escaping him:

In sooth, I know not why I am so sad;

It wearies me, you say it wearies you;

But how I caught it, found it, or came by it

What stuff ‘tis made of, whereof it is born,

I am to learn.

And such a want-wit sadness makes of me

That I have much ado to know myself (1-7).

His companions, Solanio and Salerio, suggest that commerce or love as possible causes of his sadness, but these options are dismissed by Antonio (I.i.41-45, 47). The cause of Antonio’s sadness has befuddled critics, who have offered several explanations about the cause of his sadness from suppressed homoerotic feelings for Bassanio to a Christ-like pursuit of spiritual perfection. [11] However, I suggest another possibility: Antonio is sad because, on the one hand, he desires a relationship that more meaningful than one predicated on contracted; but, on the other hand, he recognizes that such a relationship is difficult, if not impossible, in the commercial republic of Venice. In other words, Antonio longs for a friendship that is rooted in some non-contractual value, like Aristotelian or Ciceronian virtue, instead of utility or profit. [12]

Because of its commercial ambitions, Venice makes meaningful relationships more difficult. In fact, Antonio’s own experience in commerce has trained him to view relationships solely in contractual terms. He is a successful merchant who takes calculated risks, such as spreading his fortune into three different ventures at sea and whose appetites usually do not outstrip his resources (I.i.177; I.iii.61-64, 156-59; III.ii.266-71). Because of his self-discipline and successfully weighing benefits against risks, Antonio needs not concern himself with material wants. What he does lack is a non-contractual relationship like friendship that is based on moral values like virtue. But because of his inexperience in this realm, Antonio’s attempts of forming a non-contractual friendship with Bassanio fails because he mistakes the material for the moral. This overcompensation by Antonio not only leads to a failure to establish a friendship based on virtue but almost costs him his life.

Of course, friendship can be based on a contract of self-interest, utility, and profit; but the highest form of friendship, according to Aristotle, is a non-contractual one that is founded on virtue. [13] This perfect form of friendship is between people who are good and similar with respect to virtue, where they wish for each other’s good because they are good themselves. It also requires a type of equality of exchange, for friends receive and wish the same thing from and for each other (1158b1-2). For good people, they would want to receive and wish virtue from and for their friends. For Aristotle, it is this type of friendship that is most noble, stable, and lasting as long as both parties remain good (1156b10-14). To love a friend is, in the best sense, to love “one’s other self” and thus be able to participate in the perfect economy of both sentiment and virtue. Antonio aspires for this type of friendship but, given his commercial soul, he does not know how to achieve it because of his trade, training, and dwelling.

When Bassanio, a young nobleman whose generous habits have eaten up his inheritance, enters the scene, there is not one word about Antonio’s countenance exchanged between them. Antonio instead inquires about Bassanio’s secret pilgrimage, revealing that Antonio was waiting to receive Bassanio because the latter had made it known that once again Antonio’s assistance is needed (I.i.119-21). Bassanio initially ignores Antonio’s question and rather confesses of his profligacy but refuses to complain about it because:

. . . my chief care

Is to come fairly off the great debts

Wherein my time, something too prodigal

Hath left me gag’d. To you, Antonio,

I owe the most in money and in love,

And from your love I have a warranty

To unburthen all my plots and purposes

How to get clear of all the debts I owe (I.i.127-34).

It is important to note that when asked about the lady of the secret pilgrimage, Bassanio not only responses with a discussion of his finances but that he sees the marriage to “a lady richly left” as a way to repay his debts to Antonio (I.i.161). Bassanio, who appears to be Antonio’s closest companion, is not only profligate with his and his friend’s monies, but he partially, if not predominantly, sees the world in terms of self-interest, utility, and profit. [14]

Thus, the chief care of Bassanio is not the lady of Belmont but his debts and particularly the debts he owes Antonio. But the money he has received from Antonio was gratis. It is the means by which Antonio signifies something that cannot be assigned a calculated value: his love (I.i.153-60, 184-85). For Antonio, one can owe money but one cannot owe love, at least as he has defined it. This is evident in the way that Antonio offers more than a loan to Bassanio but “My person, my extremist means / Lie all unlock’d to your occasions (I.i.138-39). He even agrees use a pound of his own flesh as collateral to Shylock, whom he clearly detests, in order to loan Bassanio the three thousand ducats (I.iii.152-81).

Clearly Antonio’s actions are not rational, which is surprising, since he is a successful merchant that requires one to calculate risk correctly. What Antonio does not understand is that perfect friendship is not grounded in the absolute repudiation of contract for the needless sacrifice of oneself but rather is rooted in a type of reciprocity based on moral values like virtue. This reciprocity also must be relatively equal, something Antonio does not understand in his confusion to trade a pound of his own flesh for the value of Bassanio’s friendship. The material merely symbolizes the moral significance of friendship and is not, as Antonio wrongly thinks, the substitution of it.

But after his life is spared, Antonio continues to perceive the world in contractual and commercial terms. When Portia reveals to everyone that she is Balthazar, to whom Bassanio, on the urging of Antonio, gave his wedding ring as a token of gratitude for savings his friend’s life, everyone is stunned (IV.i.452-54). In revenge to Bassanio for relinquishing his wedding ring to Balthazar, Portia promises him that she will be as liberal with their marriage bed as he was with his wedding ring (V.i.223-29). After Bassanio pleads for forgiveness, Antonio speaks in support of his friend and describes what had transpired as a series of commercial transactions:

I once did lend my body for his wealth,

Which but for him that had your husband’s ring

Had quite miscarried. I dare be bound again,

My soul upon the forfeit, that your lord

Will never more break faith advisedly (V.i.249-53).

Portia, in turn, replies back in the language of commerce and contract that Antonio shall be Bassanio’s “surety” – the person who assume the debts of another – in Bassanio’s and Portia’s new pledge of marriage. The return of the ring to Bassanio is not from Portia to Bassanio but from Portia to Antonio who then gives it back to Bassanio. In a sense, Bassanio participates in the marital contract of Portia and Bassanio.

Shakespeare leaves it open to whether Antonio will eventually understand the value of non-contractual relationships like friendship and marriage, although it is evident that Antonio acknowledges his debt to Portia, when he proclaims, after hearing his ships have safety returned, “Sweet lady, you have given me life and living” (V.i.286). Whether Antonio means his “life and living” only literally – his pound of flesh and ships – or metaphorically is unresolved in the play, thereby leaving open the question whether moral values like friendship can exist in Venice. Regardless of how one interprets these questions in The Merchant of Venice , friendship is an important good for us and something without which we cannot live. But on what foundation friendship should and can be based is one of the questions that Shakespeare’s play seems to be asking us.

Bassanio’s Friendship and Marriage

But as important as it may be for the good life, friendship is ultimately subordinate to marriage in the play. [15] At his trial Antonio twice places his friendship with Bassanio as something to be valued higher than Bassanio’s marriage. When he believes that he is about to die, Antonio instructs Bassanio:

Commend me to your honorable wife,

Tell her the process of Antonio’s end,

Say how I lov’d you, speak me fair in death;

And when the tale is told, bid her be judge

Whether Bassanio had not once a love (IV.i.273-77).

Bassanio replies that he would sacrifice everything he possesses – his life, his wife, and his estate – “Here to this devil [Shylock], to deliver you” (IV.i.286-87). Watching this in the disguise of Balthazar, Portia remarks that “Your wife would give you little thanks for that / If she were by to hear you make the offer” (IV.i.288-89). The remark is humorous because of its implied truth: Antonio’s and Bassanio’s friendship is meaningful but is not amendable to be part of the commercial transaction vis-à-vis the marriage between Bassanio and Portia. Nevertheless, both Antonio and Bassanio repeat this mistake after Antonio is saved. Although Bassanio initially resist Balthazar’s request for the wedding ring, he eventually confers it to Balthazar after Antonio’s urging (IV.i.452-54).

Back in Belmont when Portia hears that Bassanio had bestowed his wedding ring to Balthazar, she immediately chastises Bassanio for not understanding its worth: “If you have known the virtue of the ring, / Or half her worthiness that gave the ring, / Or your own honor to contain the ring” (V.i.199-201). The ring symbolizes the moral relationship of love instead of contract, which Bassanio had failed to understand. In his defense, Bassanio provides a three-folded explanation of why he gave the ring to Balthazar: 1) the lawyer was man and not a woman; 2) the lawyer had saved the life of Antonio and therefore he was bounded by honor to give it him; and 3) if Portia were there, she would have concurred with his actions (V.i.209-22).

Bassanio omits the fact that Antonio had urged him to give the ring to Balthazar – an explicit admission about valuing friendship over marriage – and instead resorts to an argument of honor. But Bassanio wrongly understands honor as a type of contract: Antonio’s life is worth Bassanio’s marriage. But marriage and friendship are incommensurable goods: they cannot be compared and therefore cannot be traded. Each is valued as its own good with marriage being a superior one over friendship. Honor properly understood would have Bassanio recognize that Balthazar should be honored as should his friendship with Antonio but not at the expense of his marriage with Portia.

But why is marriage superior to friendship? Portia’s reply to Bassanio’s explanation provides a clue to answering this question:

Let not that doctor e’er come near my house.

Since he hath got the jewel that I loved,

And that which you did swear to keep for me,

I will become as liberal as you,

I’ll not deny him any thing I have,

No, not my body nor my husband’s bed (V.i.223-28).

Shakespeare suggests that marriage is superior to friendship because of its procreative aspect. Traditionally marriage was the way to create and socialize children into society: friendship, for all its virtues and value, cannot do this. Furthermore, the sexual and procreative act of marriage not only produces children but unifies the body and soul of both partners. This spiritual and physical unity is symbolized in the wedding ring which should be accorded the highest honor.

The fact that Bassanio fails to understand this, or is unable to act upon this when it conflicts with friendship, reveals his contractual thinking about relationships: friendship and marriage are commensurable goods that can be exchanged as circumstances permit. It is only when he is confronted with the possibility that Portia could also see their marriage as contractual and commensurable, e.g., such as having an affair with the lawyer, that Bassanio recognizes the error of his ways, as Portia observes: “In both my eyes he doubly sees himself” (V.i.244). Of course, the marital conflict is resolved when Portia reveals that she is in fact Balthazar; but Portia requires Bassanio to swear an oath of fidelity and “on credit’ that will be guaranteed by his friendship with Antonio (V.i.266-70). If Bassanio were to violate his oath, then his friendship with Antonio is to be forfeit.

Both Antonio and Bassanio fall short in participating in meaningful relationships: Antonio is still alone at the end of the play as he was in the beginning and his friendship with Bassanio has become subordinate to Bassanio’s and Portia’s marriage. Although Antonio aspires for perfect friendship, he was not able to achieve it because his companions, including Bassanio, behave out of self-interest, utility, and profit rather than out of moral values like virtue. As a result, Antonio mistakes money as the essence rather than as a symbol of non-monetary values like friendship and engages in irrational behavior to the point of literally risking self-annihilation as proof of these moral values. At the end of the play, it is unclear whether Antonio has learned how non-contractual relations like friendship and marriage should be understood and valued. [16]

Bassanio fares better than Antonio but it is not clear whether he has learned to value marriage and friendship for their own sake. Bassanio agrees that his friendship with Antonio will be the collateral to guarantee his marital oath and therefore his friendship will be subordinate to his marriage; otherwise, Portia will be unfaithful. However, this understanding is explained and agreed to in the contractual language of Venice in the supposedly non-contractual place of Belmont. There is no evidence in the play, particularly in the final act, that Bassanio has actually learned the value of marriage, or even friendship, on moral grounds; or, that he knows their value but lacks the social tools to participate in a meaningful relationship. Whereas Antonio acted out of a misguided sense of friendship in giving a pound of his own flesh to Shylock, Bassanio relinquished his wedding ring to Balthazar at Antonio’s urging because of the debt he owed Antonio. It is entirely possible and very likely that Bassanio ultimately submitted to Portia’s demands of valuing their marriage over his friendship not because he understands the value of marriage in and of itself but because he fears that he will lose his wife and his newly-acquired estate. [17]

Portia’s and Jessica’s Marriages

Like Antonio in the beginning of the play, Portia suffers from weariness of “this great world” in Belmont because she bound by her father’s will that decrees she wed only the individual who passes his trial of caskets (I.ii.1-2, 21-35). This trial requires suitors to solve a riddle that filters out those who want to marry Portia for the wrong reasons. In effect, Portia’s father has bound his daughter by a contract that transcends his own death. Although Belmont appears to have a different set of values when compared to Venice, it is actually governed by the same laws of contract. [18]

The father-daughter relationship is formulated in contractual terms and is symbolized by three caskets trial. With contractual relations undergirding the city, Belmont possesses the same advantages as Venice with its welcoming of foreigners to woe for Portia’s hand: Frenchmen, Moroccans, Spaniards, Germans, English (I.ii.39-105; II.vii, ix). But, like Venice, this contractual foundation of Belmont also has a corrosive effect on the characters’ non-contractual relationships because they perceive all values as commensurate with one another. This moral deterioration is most evident in the marital relationship between Bassanio and Portia, with especially the latter relinquishing his wedding ring so easily. An examination of this marriage will show how contractual Belmont leads both characters to think and act out of self-interest. [19]

Both Bassanio and Portia’s father conflate Portia’s persona with the estate of Belmont in their desire to count her as property over which to have exclusive dominion. Portia stands poised to be transferred to the winning suitor, the portrait hidden in one of the three caskets that symbolizes her objectification (III.ii.115). But in spite of being bound by her father’s will, Portia is able to influence the trial’s outcome, when Bassanio, whom Portia favors over the other suitors, is helped by her song in selecting the correct casket (III.ii.63-72). [20] Bassanio is able to depict the clues in Portia’s song as he remarks, “The world is still deceiv’d with ornament,” and proceeds to select the lead casket (III.ii.74). The contract is fulfilled as guided by Portia’s song to a conclusion that both Portia and Bassanio desire. Portia has a husband that she prefers, and Bassanio has claim to “This house, these servants, and this same myself / Are yours – my lord’s! – I give them with this ring” (III.ii.170-71).

However, Bassanio’s correct choice of the lead casket ends up exacerbating rather than diminishing the problem of importing contractual relations into the marital world. On winning Portia, Bassanio immediately becomes indebted to his new wife, who has positioned herself as a creditor rather than as a prize to be handed over. In response to Bassanio’s victory, Portia sets about the task of assessing her worth:

I would not trebled twenty times myself,

A thousand times more fair, ten thousand times more rich,

That only to stand high in your account,

I might in virtues, beauties, livings, friends

Exceed account (III.ii.152-55).

In other words, Portia presents herself as type of investment that appreciates value over time and can be redeemed at some point in the future.

Although Portia initially trusts Bassanio with her house, servants, and herself, she later changes the terms of the contract where she becomes both owner and possessor of Bassanio (III.ii.166-67, 170-71). Portia declares that “Since you [Bassanio] are dear bought, I will love you dear,” indicating that Bassanio is the debtor to her, after she learns that Bassanio has only credit from a friend whose life now hangs in the balance (III.ii.313). This assessment of her relationship with Bassanio echoes her earlier statement, where she said, “when you part from, lose, or give away / Let it presage the ruin of you love, / And be my vantage to exclaim on you” (III.ii.172-74). This inversion of the usual situation, which the husband typically imposes fidelity on the wife, is not only a demonstration of feminism but a form of feminism that conceives and explains the non-contractual relationship of marriage in contractual terms. [21]

Bassanio similarly perceives their relationship in contractual terms of debts and credits, as he correctly has identified the “gentle scroll” to “come by note, to give and to receive” (III.ii.139-140). This “note” is the bond that must be “confirm’d, sign’d, ratified” by Portia, the person who will provide him the necessary funds (III.ii.148). The only medium Bassanio has at his disposal to seal the deed is not funds, as these are borrowed from Antonio, but  “Only my blood speaks to you [Portia] in my veins” (III.ii.176). Bassanio can only offer his blood as collateral to ratify the nuptial bonds between him and Portia. This abstraction of one’s own body as a type of property to be exchanged exists because of the contractual mindset that exists in both Venice and Belmont: the former in the characters Antonio, Shylock, and Bassanio; and the latter in the figures Portia and her father. [22]

This creditor-debtor perspective of marriage also appears earlier in the play, when Salerio compares Lorenzo’s relationship to Jessica in the same language: “To seal love’s bonds new made, than they are wont / To keep obliged faith unforfeited!” (II.vi.6-7). Like Portia, Jessica is bound to her father; but unlike Portia, this bond is also religious as well as paternal. Jessica has a choice to honor the bond with her father, Shylock, or follow her desires to flee with Lorenzo. But whereas Portia remained faithful to her father’s will, even when she was tempted to break it, Jessica chooses to break both the paternal and religious bond with her father (III.ii.13-14). [23] Because “Our house is hell,” Jessica decides to join her lover, along with converting to his religion: “O Lorenzo, / If thou keep promise, I shall end this strife, / Become a Christian and thy loving wife” (II.iii.19-21).

Both women also are associated with caskets and wealth: Portia with the casket trial and Jessica with the “caskets” she throws to Lorenzo that are stolen from her father (II.vi.35). Once freed from her father’s restraint, Jessica and Lorenzo spend their stolen wealth with carelessness, even trading the “turquoise,” which symbolizes the betrothal of her father and mother, for a monkey (III.i.118-23). Jessica’s callousness to her father contributes to Shylock’s increasingly dehumanization but also highlights the contrast between her behavior and Portia’s. While Jessica has recklessly spent their stolen money, Portia has carefully conserved her wealth to make her husband a debtor in their relationship. If it were not Portia’s assistance at the end of the play, the marriage between Jessica and Lorenzo probably would have ended in calamity.

The relationship between Jessica and Lorenzo therefore is treated sympathetically in The Merchant of Venice , yet there are uneasy undertones that mark Jessica’s breaking of her paternal, and perhaps religious, contract with her father. [24] Other than the character Launcelot, Jessica is the only person who breaks a contract in the play. [25] Like Antonio at the end of The Merchant of Venice , it is not clear whether Jessica’s and Lorenzo’s marriage will be successful, as they do not renew their nuptial vows. By contrast, Portia and Bassanio re-pledge themselves to each other, with using Antonio’s friendship with Bassanio as collateral, and seem to be headed towards future happiness.

Except Shylock, those character who conceive and act in contractual terms are successful, while those who do not, such as Antonio and Jessica, fare less well. Because both Venice and Belmont are cities founded upon contract, the regimes make those who act non-contractually, whether agreeing to unreasonable loans or breaking paternal bonds, melancholic without knowing the motive behind it. [26] They sense the corrosive effects that contract and commerce have upon non-contractual relations like friendship, love, and marriage but are unable to operate successfully outside the contractual foundations of Venice and Belmont. Only those who are able to calculate correctly like Bassanio and Portia will be content in such a regime. Values incommensurate with contract must either be re-conceptualized in contractual terms to be successful or face failure in a world governed by self-interest, utility, and profit.

The pattern of exchanges enforced by contracts is one, if not the, dominant theme in The Merchant of Venice . The three thousand ducats Bassanio borrows from Antonio is both the price Bassanio pays to enter the casket trial and the contractual equivalent of a pound of Antonio’s flesh as collateral for Shylock’s loan. The leaden casket that Bassanio chooses is the one that contains the portrait of Portia, which in turns symbolizes his right to marry her. Portia interprets that right as a right of possession over her property and person as symbolized by the wedding which she gives to her new husband. As the betrothed of Bassanio, she then offers many times the value of the three thousand ducats to ransom the life of Antonio (III.ii.299-302 ) .

But at the trial Shylock refuses, claiming that a pound of Antonio’s flesh is no different than the flesh of any other animal (IV.i.89-103 ) . Prior to Jessica’s betrayal, Shylock detested Antonio but was this hatred was moderated by practical motives; after Jessica’s unfaithfulness, Shylock has become monomaniacal in his quest for revenge (I.iii.160-70; III.i.116-30). [27] In the demand of a pound of Antonio’s flesh, the Duke describes Shylock’s mind as unchangeable:

A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch,

Uncapable of pity, void and empty

From any dram of mercy (IV.i.4-6).

In spite of the Duke’s repeated pleads – and Balthazar’s famous account – of mercy, Shylock is adamant that the contract be enforced. Unlike the Duke’s plead for mercy, which is based on utilitarian concerns, i.e., a potential loss of profit, Balthazar’s entreaty is rooted in values that are religious and moral (IV.i.17-33; 184-205). By tempering justice, mercy blesses both the giver and receiver of the contract, thereby making both participants divine-like. But for Shylock, justice is enough. His pursuit to fulfill the contract, even at the cost of someone else’s life, is a reflection of the moral limitations of Venice as a commercial republic based on contract.

Balthazar returns the favor to Shylock with a strict interpretation of the contract that not one drop of blood be taken otherwise “thy land and goods / Are by the laws of Venice confiscate / Unto the state of Venice,” for “as thou urgest justice, be assur’d / Thou shalt have justice more than thou desir’st” (IV.i.310-11, 315-16). Even when Shylock asks only for the loan’s principal, Balthazar refuses on the grounds that “He shall have merely justice and his bond” and then charges and sentences him for attempted murder (IV.i.339; 346-63). Ultimately, Shylock retains his life but loses his fortune and religion, as he is forced to convert to Christianity (IV.i.381-91). [28]

After sparing Antonio’s life, Balthazar mischievously demands Bassanio’s wedding ring as the wage for this service, thus transforming Antonio’s pound of flesh into Portia’s ring (IV.i.426-28). Later in Belmont, Portia demands to see the ring and feigns jealousy at its loss, accusing Bassanio of giving it away to another woman and threatening to sleep with the lawyer, to whom Bassanio gave the ring (V.i.223-29). When Portia finally relents and returns Bassanio his ring, she gives it first to Antonio who in turn gives it back to Bassanio, thus renewing her wedding vow with Bassanio on the collateral of her husband’s friendship with Antonio.

Thus, The Merchant of Venice reveals the moral limitations of a commercial regime based on contract and the corrosive effects it has on non-contractual relationships like friendship, love, and marriage. This is evident in the decisions, actions, and relationships of Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, and Jessica in the play: Antonio foolishly risks his life out of friendship; Bassanio views friendship as commensurate with marriage; Portia perceives of her marriage in contractual and commercial terms; and Jessica’s breach of contract leads to unhappiness. Although he ends the play on a happy note, Shakespeare has given us a cast of characters who break paternal bonds, fail to understand friendship, and perceive marriage in contractual and commercial terms. The conclusion one can reach is that, in spite of its advantages, regimes based on commerce and contract ultimately fail to create the conditions for non-contractual relations to flourish.

Among early modern writers, Venice had enjoyed mythical status because of its political institutions and ideals of republicanism. [29] As a successful model of a mixed constitution, Venice had developed an elaborate system of governance to reduce the influence of fraction and enjoyed an economic prosperity that appeared to follow from its political organization. How the Venetians were able to accomplish this feat was of interest to the English and perhaps even to us today. [30]

What is interesting is that Shakespeare shows us not only the advantages of the commercial and contractual republic with its multicultural society and economic abundance but also its shortcoming in terms of human relations and moral values. In spite of its watery depth, Venice’s commercial and contractual foundations make human relationships superficial and merely transactional. The republic’s moral limitations with its corrosive effects on friendship, love, and marriage are inextricably tied with the benefits of religious tolerance, rule of law, and material wealth. It would seem that this is the price that the citizens of any commercial and contractual republic must pay for in exchange for these goods.

  [1] I would like to thank referees, Richard Avramenko, Brianne Walsh, and the University of Wisconsin Political Theory workshop for their criticism of this article.

Most critics have focused on the themes of justice and mercy as respectively represented by the character Shylock and the city Venice and Portia and Belmont. E. K. Chambers, Shakespeare: A Survey (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1925), 106-17; J.W. Lever, “Shylock, Portia and the Values of Shakespearian Comedy,” Shakespeare Quarterly 3 (1952), 383-86; John Russell Brown, The Merchant of Venice (London: Methuen, 1955); C. L. Barber, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 163-91; W. H. Auden, “Brothers and Others.” In The Dryer’s Hand and Other Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1963), 218-37; Nevill Coghill, “The Theme of The Merchant of Venice .” In Twentieth Century Interpretations of “The Merchant of Venice ,” ed. Sylvan Barnet (Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970), 108-13; Albert Wertheim, “The Treatment of Shylock and Thematic Integrity in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Studies 6 (1970), 75-87; Raymond B. Waddington, “Blind Gods: Fortune, Justice, and Cupid in The Merchant of Venice ,” English Literary History 44 (1977), 458-77.

For other themes in the play, refer to Barbara K. Lewalski, “Biblical Allusion and Allegory in The Merchant of Venice .” Shakespeare Quarterly 13 (1962), 327-43; Thomas H. Fujumura, “Mode and Structure in The Merchant of Venice ,” PMLA 81 (1966), 449-511; Peter G. Phialas, Shakespeare’s Romantic Comedies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966); Danson Lawrence, The Harmonies of The Merchant of Venice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978); Isabella Wheater, “Aristotelian Wealth and the Sea of Love: Shakespeare’s Synthesis of Greek Philosophy and Roman Poetry in The Merchant of Venice ,” The Review of English Studies , New Series , 44 (1993), 16-36.

Scholars also have looked at the role of women in the play. Camille Slights, “In Defense of Jessica: The Runaway Daughter in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 31 (1980), 357-68; Karen Newman, “Portia’s Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Exchanges in The Merchant of Venice .” Shakespeare Quarterly 38 (1987), 19-33; Lynda Boose, “The Comic Contract and Portia’s Golden Ring.” Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988), 241-54; Carol Leventen, “Patrimony and Patriarchy in The Merchant of Venice .” In The Matter of Difference: Materialist Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare , ed. Valerie Wayne (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991), 57-79; Olvia Delgado de Torres, “Reflections on Patriarchy and the Rebellion of Daughters in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice and Othello .” Interpretations 21 (1994), 333-51.

Finally, there are commentators who believe there is no coherent plot or theme in the play. Leo Salinger, Shakespeare and the Tradition of Comedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 298-317; Norman Rabkin, “Meaning and The Merchant of Venice .” In Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 1-32; David N. Beauregard, “Sidney, Aristotle, and The Merchant of Venice : Shakespeare’s Triadic Image of Liberty and Justice,” Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988), 33-48; Derek Cohen, Shakespeare’s Motives (London: Macmillan, 1988); John Lyon, The Merchant of Venice (Boston: Twayne, 1988).

[2] For critics who see Shylock as the pivotal figure in the play, refer to John W. Draper, “Usury in The Merchant of Venice ,” Modern Philology 33 (1935), 37-47; E.C. Pettet, “ The Merchant of Venice and the Problem of Usury,” Essays and Studies 31 (1945), 19-33; C. L. Barber, Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy , 163-91; Frank Kermode, “The Mature Comedies.” In Early Shakespeare , ed. John Russell Brown and Bernard Harris (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1961), 220-24; Allan Bloom, “On Christian and Jew.” In Allan Bloom with Harry V. Jaffa, Shakespeare’s Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1964), 13-33; Paul N. Siegel, “Shylock, the Elizabethan Puritan, and Our Own World.” In Shakespeare in His Time and Ours (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), 337-38; John R. Cooper, “Shylock’s Humanity.” Shakespeare Quarterly 21 (1970), 117-24; Lawrence, Danson. The Harmonies of The Merchant of Venice , 1-18; Marc Shell, “The Wether and the Ewe: Verbal Usury in The Merchant of Venice ,” Kenyon Review 1 (1979), 65-92; René Girard, “’To Entrap the Wisest’: A Reading of The Merchant of Venice .” In Literature and Society , ed. Edward W. Said (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980), 100-19; Burton Hatlen, “Feudal and Bourgeois Concepts of Value in The Merchant of Venice .” In Shakespeare: Contemporary Critical Approaches , ed. Harry R. Garvin (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1980), 91-105; John Barton, “Exploring a Character: Playing Shylock.” In Playing Shakespeare (London: Methuen, 1984), 169-80; Richard Arneson, “Shakespeare and the Jewish Question,” Political Theory 13 (1985), 85-111; Derek Cohen, “Shylock and the Idea of the Jew.” In Shakespearean Motives (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), 104-18; Samuel Ajzenstat, “Contract in The Merchant of Venice ,” Philosophy and Literature 21 (1997), 262-78; Martin D. Yaffe, Shylock and the Jewish Question (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1997); Jay Michaelson, “In Praise of the Pound of Flesh: Legalism, Multiculturalism, and the Problem of the Soul,” Journal of Law 98 (2005), 1-31; Susannah Heschel, “From Jesus to Shylock: Christian Supersessionism and “ The Merchant of Venice ,” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006), 407-31; Gorman Beauchamp, “Shylock’s Conversion,” Humanitas XXIV (2012), 55-92.

[3] Citations of the play are from G. Blackemore Evans et al., ed., The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974), 254-85.

[4] Both Bloom and Torres make this point explicitly. Allan Bloom, “On Christian and Jew” 14-16; Olvia Delgado de Torres, “Reflections on Patriarchy and the Rebellion of Daughters,” 339. For more about the sources that influenced Shakespeare’s understanding of Venice, refer to Bloom’s first footnote as well as endnotes eight, nine, seventeen, twenty-nine, and thirty of this article.

[5] For interpretations of the court scene as a conflict between law and equity or justice and mercy, refer to endnote one as well as Maxine MacKay, “ The Merchant of Venice: A Reflection of the Early Conflict Between Courts of Law and Courts of Equity,” Shakespeare Quarterly 15 (1964), 371-75; Andrews Mark E. Law versus Equity in The Merchant of Venice (Boulder: Colorado University Press, 1965); George W. Keeton, Shakespeare’s Legal and Political Background (London: Pitman, 1967), 132-50; Ruth M. Levitsky, “Shylock’s as Unregenerate Man,” Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977), 243-63.

[6] A recent production that emphasizes commerce in the play was Daniel Sullivan’s New York production in Central Park in 2010. Ben Brantley, “Theater Review: The Merchant of Venice , “Railing at a Money-Mad World,” June 30, 2010. Available at http://theater2.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/theater/reviews/01merchant.html?n=Top/Reference/Times Topics/Subjects/T/Theater&_r=0moc.semityn.2retaeht&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1348624665-6C3Joxzn81A7UMTrD+CmkA;

Stephen Greenblatt, “Shakespeare & Shylock,” The New York Review of Books , September 30, 2010. Available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/sep/30/shakespeare-shylock/?pagination=false

[7] Sigurd Burckhardt, “The Merchant of Venice: The Gentle Bond,” English Literary History 29 (1962), 239-62; MacKay, “ The Merchant of Venice : A Reflection of the Early Conflict between Courts of Law and Courts of Equity”; Robert Hapgood, “Portia and the Merchant of Venice: The Gentle Bond,” Modern Language Quarterly 28 (1967), 19-32; John P. Sisk, “Bondage and Release in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 20 (1969), 217-23; E. F. J. Tucker, “The Letter of the Law in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Survey 29 (1976), 93-101; Jan Lawson Hinely, “Bond Priorities in The Merchant of Venice ,” Studies in English Literature 20 (1980), 217-39; William Chester Jordan, “Approaches to the Court Scene in the Bond Story: Equity and Mercy or Reason and Nature,” Shakespeare Quarterly  33 (1982), 49-59; Lars Engle, “’Thrift is Blessing’”: Exchange and Explanation in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 37 (1986), 20-37; Charles Spinosa, “Shylock and Debt and Contract in The Merchant of Venice ,” Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 5 (1993), 65-85; “The Transformation of Intentionality: Debt and Contract in The Merchant of Venice ,” English Literary Renaissance 24 (1994), 370-409; Frederick Turner, Shakespeare’s Twenty-First-Century Economics. The Morality of Love and Money (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

[8] C. L. Barber, “The Merchants and the Jew of Venice: Wealth’s Communion and an Intruder.” In Twentieth Century Interpretations of The Merchant of Venice , ed. Sylvan Barnet (Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970), 11-32; Shell, “The Wether and the Ewe”; William Chester Jordan, “Approaches to the Court Scene in The Bond Story: Equity and Mercy or Reason and Nature,” Shakespeare Quarterly 33 (1982), 45-59; Donna M. Kish-Goodling, “Using ‘ The Merchant of Venice ’ in teaching monetary economics,” The Journal of Economic Education , 29.4 (1998), 330-39; Suzanne Penuel, “Castrating the Creditor in “ The Merchant of Venice ,” Studies in English Literature 44 (2004), 255-75. For the methodology of understanding the play in a historical context, refer to Walter Cohen, “ The Merchant of Venice and the Possibilities of Historical Criticism,” English Literary History 49 (1982), 765-89.

[9] For those who argue that the practice of humans being used as collateral was a common one during Shakespeare’s time, refer to Theodore B. Leinwand, Theater, Finance and Society in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Linda Woodbridge, ed., Money and the Age of Shakespeare: Essays in New Economic Criticism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Valerie Forman, Tragicomic Redemptions: Global Economics and the Early Modern English Stage (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008); Natasha Korda, “Dame Usury: Gender, Credit, and (Ac)counting in the Sonnets and The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 60 (2009), 129-53; Amanda Bailey, “Shylock and the Slaves: Owning and Owning in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 62 (2011), 1-24.

[10] Harp makes a comparison of risk-taking in business and love, but he does not explore the origins or how these parallel activities are related in the play, while Sharp believes that gift-giving rather than contractual consent is the dominant relationship among the characters, thereby severing the connection between non-contractual and contractual relations. Shirley and Kerrigan look at the use of promises and swearing in Shakespeare’s play, which is similar to contracts but lack their binding force.  Frances Shirley, Swearing and Perjury in Shakespeare’s Plays (London: Allen & Unwin, 1979); Ronald A. Sharp, “Gift Exchange and the Economies of Spirit in ‘ The Merchant of Venice, ’” Modern Philology 83 (1986), 250-65; William Kerrigan Shakespeare’s Promises (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999); Richard Harp, “Love and Money in The Merchant of Venice ,” Modern Age (Winter 2010), 37-44.

[11] For those who attribute the cause of Antonio’s sadness to religious or philosophical reasons, refer to Lawrence W. Hyman and Thomas H. Fujmura, “Antonio in The Merchant of Venice ,” PMLA 82 (1967), 649-50; Allan Holaday, “Antonio and the Allegory of Salvation,” Shakespeare Studies 4 (1968), 109-18; R. Chris Hassel Jr. “Antonio and the Ironic Festivity of The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Studies 6 (1970), 67-74; J. A. Bryant, Jr. “’ The Merchant of Venice ’ and the Common Flaw (For C.T.H.)” The Sewanee Review 81 (1973), 606-22; Monica J. Hamill, “Poetry, Law, and the Pursuit of Perfection: Portia’s Role in The Merchant of Venice ,” Studies in English Literature 18 (1978), 229-43; David Lowenthal, Shakespeare and the Good Life (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 147-72; Henry S. Turner, “The Problem of More-than-One: Friendship, Calculation, and Political Association in The Merchant of Venice,” Shakespeare Quarterly 57 (2006): 413-42.

Other critics have argued that Antonio’s condition is due to the conflict between friendship and marriage. John D. Hurrell, “Love and Friendship in The Merchant of Venice ,” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 3 (1961), 328-41; Lawrence W. Hyman, “The Rival Lovers in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 21 (1970), 109-16; Walter F. Eggers, Jr., “Love and Likeness in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977), 327-33; Alice N. Benston, “Portia, the Law, and the Tripartite Structure of The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Quarterly 30 (1979), 384-85; Cynthia Lewis, “Antonio and Alienation in ‘ The Merchant of Venice ,’” South Atlantic Review 48 (1983), 19-31; Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 3-22; Michael Zuckert, “The New Medea: On Portia’s Comic Triumph in The Merchant of Venice .” In Shakespeare’s Political Pageant: Essays in Literature and Politics , ed. Joseph Alulis and Vickie Sullivan (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1996), 3-36.

For explanations of Antonio’s sadness as suppressed homosexual feelings, refer to Graham Midgley, “ The Merchant of Venice : A Reconsideration,” Essays in Criticism 10 (1960), 119-33; W. H. Auden, “Brothers and Others.” In The Dryer’s Hand and Other Essays (London: Faber & Faber, 1963), 218-37; Steven Patterson, “The Bankruptcy of Homoerotic Amity in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice,” Shakespeare Quarterly 50 (1999), 9-32.

Finally, there are those who believe that Antonio’s melancholy is motiveless. Janet Spens, An Essay on Shakespeare’s Relation to Tradition (Oxford: B. H. Blackwell, 1916), 45; John Middleton Murray, Shakespeare (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936), 155; Bernard Grebarnier, The Truth about Shylock (New York: Random House, 1962), 215-19.

[12] It is not unreasonable to assume that some ethical presuppositions that informed the late Elizabethan period had roots in classical Greek and Roman philosophies. It is well-known that Aristotle’s Ethics and Cicero’s On Duties were part of the intellectual and educational culture of the period; and these specific works were cited by the widest range of writers on the most diverse questions. The Ethics appeared in both public and private inventories two or three time more often than the Politics ; and On Duties was ubiquitous in English grammar-school classrooms throughout the sixteenth-centuries for instruction in Latin. Neal Wood, “Cicero and Political Thought of the Early English Renaissance,” Modern Language Quarterly 51 (1990), 185-207; David Harris Sacks, “The Greed of Judas: Avarice, Monopoly, and the Moral Economy in England, ca. 1350-ca.1600,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28 (1998), 263-307; Howard Jones, Master Tully: Cicero in Tudor England (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1998), 120-42; Henry Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts 1580-1630 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 47-50, 62-63, 65. Also refer to Isabella Wheater, “Aristotelian Wealth and the Sea of Love: Shakespeare’s Synthesis of Greek Philosophy and Roman Poetry in The Merchant of Venice .”

[13] Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics . Trans. H Rackham. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 1156b8-19. Subsequent citations are in-text. For the other types of Aristotelian friendships, utility and pleasure, refer to 1156a6-30. For more about Aristotle’s account of friendship, refer to Stephen Salkever, “Taking Friendship Seriously: Aristotle on the Place(s) of Philia in Human Life.” In Friendship and Politics: Essays in Political Thought , ed. John von Heyking and Richard Avarmenko (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 53-83; John von Heyking, “’Sunaisthetic’ Friendship and the Foundations of Political Anthropology,” International Political Anthropology 1 (2008), 179-93.

[14] Bassanio does not seem to operate entirely out of self-interest, as the next lines in his description about Portia indicate that he does recognize virtue “And she is fair and, fairer that word, / Of wondrous virtues” (I.i.161-63). However, this conflict between self-interest and virtue manifests itself again when Bassanio decides to value his friendship with Antonio over his marriage to Portia, when Bassanio gives his wedding ring, albeit reluctantly, to Balthazar (IV.i.452-54).

[15] This is the consensus among critics. John D. Hurrell, “Love and Friendship in The Merchant of Venice ”; Lawrence W. Hyman, “The Rival Lovers in The Merchant of Venice ”; Walter F. Eggers, Jr., “Love and Likeness in The Merchant of Venice ”; Alice N. Benston, “Portia, the Law, and the Tripartite Structure of The Merchant of Venice ”;  Cynthia Lewis, “Antonio and Alienation in ‘ The Merchant of Venice ’”; Michael Zuckert, “The New Medea: On Portia’s Comic Triumph in The Merchant of Venice .”

[16] Both Lowenthal and Holmer argue that Antonio does achieve a type of self-knowledge at the end of the play: Lowenthal see Antonio as representative of classical philosophical knowledge in contrast to revelation, while Holmer interprets Antonio as being bound in a more perfect love with Bassanio and Portia. Although Antonio is now part of the community formed by Bassanio’s and Portia’s marriage, it is not evident in the play that Antonio has learned what friendship truly is. Lowenthal, Shakespeare and the Good Life , 147-48, 170-72; Joan Ozark Holmer, “The Education of The Merchant of Venice ,” Studies in English Literature 25 (1985), 307-35.

[17] It is important to note, particularly for the next section of this article, that by Shakespeare’s time, the notion that a woman could be owed by her father or husband was being challenged. While fathers and potential husbands did have a claim to a woman’s legal persona, they had no rights to her actual person. Furthermore, married women were not considered property and a woman’s interest in property could not be entirely denied. Probate evidence of the period indicates that woman had control over property, particularly over land, than what the law had admitted. This was particularly true for women of higher social status or who possessed greater wealth than their husbands. Finally, sealed bonds that dictated a daughter’s marital choice would have been unusual during Shakespeare’s period, as daughters had some say in their choice of a husband. David Seipp, “The Concept of Property in Early Common Law,” Law and History Review 12 (1994), 29-91;  Amy Louise Erickson, Women and Property in Early Modern England (London: Routledge, 1993); B. J. Sokol and Mary Sokol. Shakespeare, Law, and Marriage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

[18] For critics who disagree with this similarity between Belmont and Venice, refer to endnote one.

[19] Surprisingly critics have failed to see the contractual and commercial language and thinking of Portia. For other interpretations of her role, refer to Robert Hapgood, “Portia and the Merchant of Venice: The Gentle Bond”; Herbert S. Donow, “Shakespeare’s Caskets: Unity in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Studies 4 (1968), 86-93; Monica J. Hamill, “Poetry, Law, and the Pursuit of Perfection: Portia’s Role in The Merchant of Venice ”; Joan Ozark Holmer, “Loving Wisely and the Casket Test: Symbolic and Structural Unity in The Merchant of Venice ,” Shakespeare Studies 11 (1978), 53-76; Alice N. Benston, “Portia, the Law, and the Tripartite Structure of The Merchant of Venice ”; Harry Berger, Jr. “Marriage and Mercifixion in The Merchant of Venice : The Casket Scene Revisited,” Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981), 155-62; Karen Newman, “Portia’s Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Exchanges in The Merchant of Venice ”; Lynda Boose, “The Comic Contract and Portia’s Golden Ring”; Michael Zuckert, “The New Medea: On Portia’s Comic Triumph in The Merchant of Venice ”; Barbara Tovey, “The Golden Casket: An Interpretation of The Merchant of Venice .” In Shakespeare as Political Thinker , ed. John E. Alvis and Thomas G. West (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2000), 261-87.

[20] Tovey points out that Portia’s song contains several words that rhyme with “lead,” such as “bred” and “head.” Barbara Tovey, “The Golden Casket: An Interpretation of The Merchant of Venice”; also see Michael Zuckert, “The New Medea: On Portia’s Comic Triumph in The Merchant of Venice.”

[21] For more about a feminist interpretation of the play, refer to the critics listed in the first, nineteenth, and twenty-third endnotes.

[22] Other references where Bassanio abstracts his body as part of his marital contract with Portia can be found in III.ii.183-85 and V.i.177-79. [23] For more about the relationship between fathers and daughters in the play, refer to Leo Rockas, “’A Dish of Doves’: The Merchant of Venice,” English Literary History 40 (1973): 339-51; Camille Slights, “In Defense of Jessica: The Runaway Daughter in The Merchant of Venice ”; Karen Newman, “Portia’s Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Exchanges in The Merchant of Venice ”; Lynda Boose, “The Comic Contract and Portia’s Golden Ring”; Carol Leventen, “Patrimony and Patriarchy in The Merchant of Venice ”; Olvia Delgado de Torres, “Reflections on Patriarchy and the Rebellion of Daughters in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice and Othello .”

[24] Jessica is one of the few, if not only, Shakespeare female characters, who at the end of the play does not reconcile with her father and is possibly happy. When patriarchal approval is withheld, the result is often the fate of a Juliet or Desdemona. A significance difference between Jessica and these other two heroines is her conversion to Christianity, whereas both Juliet and Desdemona remain Christian throughout their plays. Jessica’s faith in her husband and religion to save her suggest an explanation as to why her fate may be different: “I shall be sav’d by my husband, he hath / made me a Christian (III.v.19-20)!

[25] For more about Launcelot, who breaks the master-servant contract in the play, refer to René E. Fortin, “Launcelot and the Uses of Allegory in The Merchant of Venice ,” Studies in English Literature 14 (1974), 259-70.

[26] It is interesting to note that the melancholy of Antonio at the beginning of the play parallels the melancholy of Jessica and Lorenzo at the beginning of the second scene of the fifth act. Both parties are sad but they do not know why.

[27] Harold C. Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, 96, 98-101; Sigurd Burckhardt, “ The Merchant of Venice : The Gentle Bond,” 248.

[28] Shylock’s forced conversion strikes most critics as controversial. For the numerous interpretations on its significance, refer to the second endnote.

[29] For more about republicanism in early modern Europe, refer to J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1975), 333-60; Blair Worden, “Classical Republicanism and the Puritan Revolution.” In History & Imagination: Essays in Honor of H.R. Trevor-Roper ,  Hugh Lloyd-Jones, ed. Valerie Peltonent, and Blair Worden (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1981), 182-200.

[30] Markku Peltonen shows how widely republican attitudes extended among Elizabethan writers. Classical Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 1570-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); also refer to Nicolai Rubenstein, “Italian Political Thought 1450-1530.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450-1700 , ed. J. H. Burns with Mark Goldie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 30-65; David Norbrook, Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric, and Politics, 1627-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 15-20; Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

For republicanism in Shakespeare’s own work, refer to Andrew Hadfield, “Shakespeare and Republicanism: History and Cultural Materialism.” Textual Practice 17 (2003), 461-83; Shakespeare and Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Julia Reinhard Lupton, Citizen-Saints: Shakespeare and Political Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 75-101.

This article was originally published with the same title in Perspectives on Political Science 43:4 (2014): 204-12.

Lee Trepanier is Chair and Professor of the Political Science Department at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama and former editor-in-chief of VoegelinView (2016-21). He is author and editor of several books and editor of Lexington Books series Politics, Literature, and Film (2013-present).

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

• previous post: Emending Othello; Explaining Othello: A Critique of Contemporary Principles of and Practices in Editing Shakespeare and A Historical-Literary Interpretation of Othello’s Jealousy
• next post: Romancing the Sources: Framing Tales in Hamlet and King Lear

Subscribe to VoegelinView via Email

Stay informed with the best in arts and humanities criticism, political analysis, reviews, and poetry. Just enter your email to receive every new publication delivered to your inbox.

Email Address

thesis in greek