Back in the early modern period, marriage was defined by competing motives of love and money, along with the competing interests of their significant others, families, and friends (Kaplan 311). Economic concerns were also significant factors when selecting suitability between a couple (311). Judgement of a couple from family and friends often came from class, property, and overall temperament of the couple (311). Laws and customs revolving around marriage in the early modern period prioritized the interests of men and often forced women into surrendering their legal identity for their spouses, demonstrating the limitations of female behavior, speech, and public involvement (311-313). Male obligations included consulting family and friends about possible suitors, marrying for moral reasons, and financially sustaining their families (312). Female obligations often included sustaining the household and fostering healthy families for the husband. Though marriage and partnership were viewed as fundamental building blocks within society during this period, same-sex friendships were frequently viewed as a more fundamental aspect to social order (312). Due to prominent segregation in social events and activities, these bonds of brotherhood often developed and surpassed family and spouse loyalties (312). Though marriage and homosociality competed for higher prioritization within society, the two social bonds provided means for developing social, economic, and political alliances during this era (312).

The primary differences between marriage and friendships during this period were defined as marriage securing financial and legal rights, and friendships embodying virtue and selflessness (Kaplan 315). Editor Lindsay Kaplan quotes Cicero’s treaty pertaining to the significance of friendship stating, “friends act without greed or foolhardiness and are characterized by liberality, constancy, and selflessness”, and that these bonds ultimately secure social order (315). Another quote mentioned in this chapter describes the bond between two friends, Titus and Gisippus: “…that they seemed to be on in form and personage,…[and] nature wrought in their hearts such a mutual affection, that their wills and appetites daily more and more…confederated themselves” (315, 318). These two quotes depict this commitment to friendship, demonstrating the emotional and personal connection in comparison to any relationship with a woman, and implying that marriage ultimately impedes these brotherly bonds (318). This tension between marriage and friendship is prevalent throughout Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, specifically between Bassanio and Antonio. Shakespeare exhibits this competition between, “the emotional intensity of male bonds as they were fostered by Renaissance patriarchy and the necessity of marrying to acquire full status within that patriarchy” (318). Both Bassanio and Antonio represent the two competing arguments in this significant debate between marriage and friendship within the early modern era, and they demonstrate where this tension can foster conflict.

Within the competition between marriage and friendship for societal prioritization, Antonio best represents the argument for friendship through his sacrifices for Bassanio throughout the play. This can be seen through his commitment to finance Bassanio’s appeal to take Portia’s hand in marriage. Though there is much uncertainty surrounding his wealth coming back with his ships, Antonio is still committed to upholding this commitment to Bassanio and agrees to take out a loan from Shylock, who threatens Antonio’s life if reimbursement is not followed through. When speaking with Bassanio, Antonio states,
I pray you, good Bassanio, let me know it;
And if it stand, as you yourself still do,
Within the eye of honor, be assured
My purse, my person, my extremest means
Lie all unlocked to your occasions. (Shakespeare I.i.134-138)
This statement to Bassanio demonstrates Antonio’s commitment to their undying friendship and willingness to give up everything to ensure Bassanio’s happiness. Later in the play, Antonio realizes he won’t be able to pay off the loan immediately to Shylock and must face the repercussions specified. He states, “For if the Jew do cut but deep enough, It’ll pay it instantly with all my heart” (IV.i. 275-276). As seen in these examples, Antonio embodies the argument for homosociality within society simply by identifying his imminent outcome and stating it’ll be paid for with all his heart for Bassanio. Antonio furthers this divide between marriage and friendship by encouraging Bassanio to give up his ring from Portia as a token of gratitude stating, “My lord Bassanio, let him have the ring. Let his deservings and my love withal Be valued ‘gainst your wife’s commandment” (IV.i. 444-446).

Bassanio, on the other hand, depicts the prioritization of marriage within society during this era at the beginning of the play, but slowly transgresses to prioritize his relationship with Antonio towards the end of the play. Bassanio, when requesting money to court Portia, expresses his love for Antonio stating,
To you, Antonio;
I owe the most, in money and in love,
And from your love I have a warranty
To unburden all my plots and purposes
How to get clear of all the debts I owe. (Shakespeare I.i. 129-133)
Though he expresses his love and commitment to Antonio, he prioritizes Portia by borrowing money from Antonio which then places Antonio under Skylock’s jurisdiction. Later in the play during the Antonio’s trial, Bassanio states, “Good cheer, Antonio. What, man, courage yet! The Jew shall have my flesh, blood, bones, and all, Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood (Shakespeare IV. i. 111-113). This demonstrates the progression from Bassanio’s commitment to Portia to his commitment to Antonio, going as far as promising his life. He also states that if Shylock does not take the loan paid ten times over, “On forfeit of my hands, my head, my heart (IV. i. 206-207). The progression of Bassonio’s commitment from marriage to friendship is ultimately depicted in his statement to Antonio where he claims that life and his wife are in no comparison to his commitment and bond with Antonio.
Antonio, I am married to a wife
Which is dear to me as life itself;
But life itself, my wife, and all the world
Are not with me esteemed above thy life.
I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all
Here to this devil, to deliver you. (IV.i. 277-282)
Towards the end of this scene, Bassanio hesitantly gives up his ring which Portia gave him as an embodiment of their commitment. Bassanio was encouraged by Antonio, displaying his prioritization of upholding his relationship with Antonio by abandoning his commitment to his wife. Based on the comparison of Antonio’s unyielding commitment to friendship and Bassanio’s slow conversion of priorities, one can assume that Shakespeare’s emphasis on friendships overrides the significance of marriage in this play, thus implying that the author may believe friendships play a greater role in upholding social order during this era.