Merchant of Venice, I4v

This edited passage of The Merchant of Venice approaches the exchange between Portia, Nerissa, and Bassanio through the language of marital fidelity and gendered authority. I have preserved the original spelling while modernizing special characters that do not contribute directly to my analysis, and have attempted to retain the spatial arrangement, italics, and lineation of the original page. I chose to focus particularly on the repeated language surrounding the ring because, over the course of the passage, the ring ceases to function merely as a physical object and becomes a symbol through which the characters negotiate fidelity, sexual intimacy, knowledge, and honour. I have therefore coded language of possession and exchange in green, sexual and marital language in red, honour and fidelity in blue, and knowledge and belief in white.

The repeated use of “the ring,” particularly throughout Bassanio's explanation of why he surrendered it, emphasizes the competing obligations represented by the object. Bassanio appeals to his “honour” to justify giving the ring to the doctor, while Portia invokes his “owne honour” as precisely the reason he should have retained it. The language of possession simultaneously acquires a sexual significance: Portia and Nerissa connect the missing rings to the marital bed and repeatedly suggest that another “woman had the ring.” The passage consequently allows the women to assume the interrogative and jealous position more conventionally associated with husbands policing female fidelity. This reversal is heightened by the language of knowledge and belief. Bassanio repeatedly tells Portia, “If you did know,” even though Portia secretly possesses greater knowledge of the ring's exchange than he does. His insistence that “No woman had it, but a civill doctor” becomes particularly ironic because Portia herself was that doctor. Through the ring, the passage destabilizes the apparent distribution of authority between husband and wife: Bassanio possesses the ring neither physically nor epistemologically, while Portia controls both the object and the knowledge upon which the scene depends.

Works Cited

Newman, Karen. “Portia's Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Exchange in The Merchant of Venice.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, 1987, pp. 19–33.

Shell, Marc. “The Wether and the Ewe: Verbal Usury in The Merchant of Venice.” The Kenyon Review, new series, vol. 1, no. 4, 1979, pp. 65–92.

Parten, Anne. “Re-establishing Sexual Order: The Ring Episode in The Merchant of Venice.” Women's Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, 1982, pp. 145–55.

The comicall Historie of

Por. Even so voyd is your false hart of truth.
By heaven I will nere come in your bed
untill I see the ring?
Ner. Nor I in yours
till I againe see mine?
Bass. Sweet Portia,
if you did know to whom I gave the ring,
if you did know for whom I gave the ring,
and would conceave for what I gave the ring,
and how unwillingly I left the ring,
when naught would be accepted but the ring,
you would abate the strength of your displeasure?
Por. If you had knowne the vertue of the ring,
or halfe her worthinesse that gave the ring,
or your owne honour to containe the ring,
you would not then have parted with the ring:
what man is there so much unreasonable
if you had pleaded to have defended it
with any termes of zeale: wanted the modesty
to urge the thing held as a ceremonie:
Nerrissa teaches me what to beleeve,
ile die for't, but some woman had the ring?
Bass. No by my honour Madam, by my soule
no woman had it, but a civill Doctor,
which did refuse three thousand ducats of me,
and begd the ring, the which I did denie him,
and suffered him to goe displeased away,
even he that had held up the very life
of my deere friend. What should I say sweet Lady,
I was inforc'd to send it after him,
I was beset with shame and curtesie,
my honour would not let ingratitude
so much besmere it: pardon me good Lady,
for by these blessed candels of the night,
had you been there, I think you would have begd
the ring of me to give the worthy Doctor?
Por. Let not that Doctor ere come neere my house

since

Notes

1. "By heaven I will nere come in your bed / untill I see the ring?"

The proximity of "heaven" to Portia's refusal to enter the marital bed is significant because it brings religious obligation into a dispute concerning sexual intimacy. Portia makes the recovery of the ring a prerequisite for resuming that intimacy, transforming an object exchanged between spouses into an instrument through which their relationship is negotiated. Her declaration also reverses the conventional association of marital authority with a husband's possession of his wife. Here, Portia asserts her ability to determine the conditions of sexual access. The future construction "will nere come" is important because it establishes a conditional promise that resembles a new agreement between the spouses. Just as the original ring represented an obligation undertaken through an exchange, Portia's declaration creates another obligation dependent upon possession of that same object. The language thus presents marriage as a relationship that is continually shaped by promises, conditions, and symbolic possessions.

2. "If you did know to whom I gave the ring, / If you did know for whom I gave the ring"

Bassanio's repeated conditional construction, "If you did know," implies that Portia's anger results from her ignorance of the circumstances surrounding his decision. The dramatic irony, however, is that Portia possesses considerably more information than Bassanio realizes: disguised as the doctor, she was herself the recipient of the ring. His attempt to establish his superior understanding consequently reveals his ignorance. Equally important is the distinction between "to whom" and "for whom." The former identifies the person who physically received the object, whereas the latter potentially refers to the individual whose interests prompted its surrender. This difference invites consideration of Antonio, whose circumstances and intervention contributed to Bassanio's decision. Through this seemingly minor grammatical variation, Bassanio's explanation introduces the tension between his responsibilities to his wife and his obligations to his friend. His repeated appeal to knowledge exposes both his misunderstanding of Portia's position and the competing relationships involved in the exchange.

3. "And would conceave for what I gave the ring, / And how unwillingly I left the ring"

The verb "conceave" continues the passage's emphasis on understanding, as Bassanio attempts to persuade Portia that knowledge of his motivations would alter her judgment. Particularly revealing is his insistence that he surrendered the ring "unwillingly." By emphasizing his reluctance, Bassanio seeks to distinguish his intentions from the action he ultimately performed. The verbs "gave" and "left" nevertheless reiterate the material fact that the ring has passed from his possession. His explanation depends upon a distinction between what he wanted to do and what he actually did. Portia's interrogation challenges precisely this distinction. The passage also raises a question about the nature of marital fidelity: whether the preservation of a promise depends principally upon one's conduct or whether the intentions accompanying a broken promise can diminish the significance of its violation. Bassanio's linguistic emphasis on unwillingness attempts to reconcile his surrender of the ring with his continued commitment to his wife.

4. "If you had knowne the vertue of the ring, / Or halfe her worthinesse that gave the ring, / Or your owne honour to containe the ring"

Portia responds to Bassanio by adopting his own language of knowledge. Her "If you had knowne" echoes his repeated "If you did know," but reverses the accusation of ignorance. Whereas Bassanio maintains that Portia misunderstands the circumstances of the exchange, Portia suggests that Bassanio has failed to comprehend the ring's significance. She identifies three reasons for preserving it: its inherent "vertue," the "worthinesse" of the woman who gave it, and Bassanio's personal "honour." These successive appeals transform the ring from a material possession into an object representing marital obligation and moral integrity. The verb "containe" is revealing because it connects the preservation of honour to the continued possession of the object. For Portia, relinquishing the ring constitutes more than the loss of a valuable gift; it represents a failure to maintain the obligations associated with receiving it. Her repetition of Bassanio's grammatical construction also intensifies the scene's dramatic irony, since she possesses the knowledge that he mistakenly assumes is unavailable to her.

5. "Nerrissa teaches me what to beleeve, / ile die for't, but some woman had the ring?"

Portia's claim that Nerissa instructs her in what to "beleeve" is interesting because she presents herself as dependent upon another person's interpretation despite knowing exactly what happened to the ring. The distinction between knowledge and belief becomes central to her manipulation of Bassanio. Rather than revealing her direct knowledge, she performs the role of a wife who must interpret suspicious circumstances. Her declaration "ile die for't" intensifies the apparent conviction with which she advances her accusation. The suggestion that "some woman had the ring" simultaneously introduces sexual jealousy into a dispute previously concerned with the transfer of an object. Possession of the ring now implies the possibility of an intimate exchange between Bassanio and another woman. Yet Portia's statement is deliberately misleading rather than entirely false: a woman did receive the ring, but that woman was Portia herself. The audience's awareness of her disguise makes her accusation ironic, since its literal truth conceals the falsity of its apparent implication of infidelity.

6. "No by my honour Madam, by my soule / no woman had it, but a civill Doctor"

Bassanio attempts to establish the credibility of his explanation through two appeals: his personal "honour" and his "soule." Their juxtaposition introduces both moral and religious authority into his defence, suggesting that he regards his account as consistent with his ethical and spiritual obligations. Nevertheless, his categorical insistence that "no woman had it" is factually incorrect, although he apparently believes it to be true. The audience knows that Portia, disguised as the doctor, received the ring. His appeal to honour accompanies an unwittingly false assertion. The designation "civill Doctor" is also important. By emphasizing the recipient's professional identity and legal authority, Bassanio attempts to distinguish an honourable transaction from the potentially compromising exchange implied by Portia's accusation. His defence depends upon the supposed distinction between surrendering the ring to a respectable male professional and giving it to another woman. Portia's disguise undermines that distinction because she simultaneously occupies the positions of the wife who bestowed the ring and the doctor who received it.

7. "I was beset with shame and curtesie, / my honour would not let ingratitude / so much besmere it"

Bassanio's renewed appeal to "honour" is especially important when compared with Portia's earlier invocation of his "owne honour." The same word supports two opposing understandings of his obligations. For Portia, honour required Bassanio to retain the ring and preserve his marital promise. For Bassanio, honour demanded that he surrender the ring rather than demonstrate ingratitude toward the doctor who had saved Antonio's life. His references to "shame," "curtesie," and "ingratitude" emphasize the social obligations informing his decision. Retaining the ring would, according to his explanation, have compromised his integrity even though relinquishing it violated his promise to Portia. Shakespeare consequently exposes the difficulty of appealing to honour when different relationships impose conflicting demands. The circumstances of the exchange make this contradiction important: Bassanio gives away a symbol of his marriage in response to the doctor's intervention on behalf of Antonio. The ring thereby becomes an object through which the obligations of marriage and friendship come into conflict.

8. "Let not that Doctor ere come neere my house"

Portia's concluding declaration introduces another possessive construction: "my house." Rather than describing the marital household as a shared possession, she claims it linguistically as her own and asserts her authority to determine who may enter it. This declaration recalls her earlier refusal to enter the marital bed, establishing a connection between her control over sexual intimacy and her control over domestic space. Her prohibition also continues the sexual implications of her suggestion that another woman possesses the ring. Bassanio believes the doctor to be a man, whereas Portia knows that she herself occupied the role. Her declaration produces another instance of dramatic irony: she forbids the doctor from entering the very household she already inhabits. The apparent contradiction reinforces the importance of knowledge to the passage. Because Portia understands the circumstances of the exchange while Bassanio remains ignorant of her disguise, she can manipulate both his interpretation of events and the apparent distribution of authority within their marriage.

Editorial note