Fate Post #3--The Merchant of Venice

Fate plays an immense role in The Merchant of Venice, manifesting itself more clearly than in perhaps any play we have read thus far.  It appears primarily in the suitors’ courtship of Portia, as they must choose the chest in which her picture resides.  This method, chosen by her father before his death, robs her of all choice in marriage—“Besides the lott’ry of my destiny/Bars me the right of voluntary choosing” (II.2, 15-16).  Portia’s inability to perform “voluntary choosing” alludes to the relationship between fate and gender I discussed to in my last blog post on Taming of the Shrew.  Women in Renaissance society society, despite Shakespeare equipping them with both ability and intelligence, are robbed of choice by their male counterparts.

Fate in Merchant, however, extends beyond the boundaries of patriarchy.  Just as religion plays a significant role in the relationship of Shylock the Jew and the other Christian merchants, it influences Portia’s fate as well.  With her father being described as a “holy man” with “good inspiration” by Nerissa, the hint of a supernatural presence emerges.  Antonio’s victory in his trial further evidences this, and one can view his triumph over Shylock as a victory of Christianity over Judaism.  The New Testament teachings, which “doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy,” supersede those of the Old Testament that preaches the “justice” Shylock seeks.  Christian religion, therefore, serves as the determinant for disputes in the play, whether they are of legal or marital nature.  When Portia tells Bassanio, “There’s something tells me, but it is not love/I would not lose you…” (III.2, 4-5) it is not unreasonable to suppose, then, that this “something” is a predetermined supernatural act pairing the characters for marriage with one another. 

With all this said, does any true “supposition” actually exist in the play?  I mean “supposition” in terms of Shylock stating, “Yet [Antonio’s] means are in supposition,” or in question.  This is an important issue that would challenge the uncertainty surrounding the mercantilist practices of the time.  It is also interesting in terms of genre, as in the comedies we have read thus far the protagonist, whether this individual is “good” or “bad,” always achieves whatever he desires.  The Antipholuses achieved both sanity and familial union, Petruchio “tamed” Kate the shrew, and Antonio keeps his life and recovers his fortune: “Sweet lady, you have given me life and living,/ For here I read for certain that my ships/Are safely come to road” (V.1, 286-88).  Bassanio was always destined to win Portia in the “lott’ry” proposed by her father, and in doing so “bring [Antonio’s] latter hazard back again/And thankfully rest debtor for the first” (I.2, 151-52).  Bassanio’s acquisition of Portia’s wealth repays both “the first” and the “latter” debts, and of Portia herself allows for him—through Portia—to win Antonio’s life.  In living, Antonio soon discovers the means of his supposition, his merchant vessels, return to him unharmed.  The characters, except the unfortunate Shylock and perhaps to a lesser extent his daughter Jessica, all ultimately become “sufficient” through fate.