Definition of “subtext”: Any situation that is set up to provide sexual tension and unacknowledged lust between two characters in a fictional genre, whether of traditional or alternative pairings, and that is not of the main plot to the story. Examples, traditional: Xena and Gabrielle, Qui-Gon Jinn and Shmi Skywalker, Sarah and Jareth, Mulder and Scully. Examples, nontraditional: Xena and Callisto, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee. Also discussed are characters from the Hitchcock film Rope.

The purpose of this essay is to categorize and define the varieties of subtext that can be found in various fictional genres, principally in the science fiction/fantasy category. Therefore a certain amount of leniency and, dare I say, irreverence will be liberally applied to this analysis, because it is after all fiction we’re talking about here and nothing to get all worked up over. Also, please note I have no psychological degree (although I have read most of Carl Jung’s stuff), so please don’t write me long nasty e-mails about how my theories are holey as Swiss cheese, okay? I am doing this merely for my own entertainment (and hopefully your own, gentle reader), and am making no money off of any of the genres described in this analysis. George Lucas still holds copyright over any and all Jedi (and Goblin Kings), Chris Carter still reigns over the fictional FBI, and Rob Tapert is indeed the mastermind behind the Warrior Princess and Battlin’ Bard. I’m just writing about their characters in ways they’ve never dreamed. :)

When we think “subtext”, the definition that first pops into our heads is the one found in dictionaries: an underlying “theme” or message in a piece of work. This can be expanded to include any sort of idea that runs through an overall concept, and isn’t directly acknowledged. The word subtext was first used to explicitly mean “unacknowledged sexual tension” in the Xena: Warrior Princess fandom, and the concept was received with overwhelming popularity in the second season (having been introduced in the first season). I am not certain whether or not the term has ever been expanded to include various other genres, but for the sake of this essay, I will be applying that exact meaning to other genres; namely, to six genres in total, and no less than eight distinct pairings in all, both heterosexual (straight) and homosexual (gay and lesbian). I will also be covering fantastical pairings from J.R.R. Tolkien’s world, so if the idea makes you squeamish, you’d best turn back now.

I’ve had it put to me why I have not included anti-subtext or subtext-neutral viewpoints in my essay. This is not the issue; I am not about to debate the moral veracity of subtext with the opposition. This is a simple examination of the similarities of subtext in various fictional genres. If you disagree with my opinion that the concept of subtext or homosexual relationships are morally fine, then well, you’re reading the wrong things. Go listen to your precious Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh, you narrow-minded hypocrite. If you’re not opposed to the idea of alternative relationships, but simply don’t see the “chemistry” between the pairings listed, I’d like to hear from you! Mature, well-thought out opinions are welcome. Likewise I am always open to suggestions for other subtext pairings...I’d be happy to add to this analysis. The conditions are simple: I have to be familiar with the genre, and agree with your interpretation of the relationship. You may not like those conditions, but tough chips; it’s my essay.

I have broken up the subtext categories into “traditional” and “nontraditional”. What is considered traditional may surprise you, and what is considered nontraditional may shock you. Please do not think that the label of “nontraditional” implies that it is “inferior” or immoral, or otherwise wrong or bad in some way. It simply means that the subtext for the couples is perhaps a bit more subtle, and not as noticable as in the traditional pairings (although personally, having such a weather eye out for subtext as I do, all of the pairings pretty much hit me right in the face with, “It’s so OBVIOUS! How can anyone miss this!” and so on).

The most common (modern) definition for subtext implies that the characters engaging in subtext are of the same gender, or differ vastly in age, or have some other extreme difference that makes them difficult, incompatible, or downright unacceptable to pair in a more obvious way (direct romantic involvement). This is not true; two of the subtext pairs discussed in this analysis are perfectly socially acceptable and compatible in terms of age, obvious heterosexual inclinations, and other factors that would make it otherwise simple for them to get together, as it were. The most unusual thing about these pairings is, the creators have simply chosen to completely ignore any romantic potential whatsoever, and focus on other elements of the genre. However, due to certain chemistry between the actors involved, the romantic potential is made evident anyway, and there you have the subtext in question.

We begin with the originators of the subtext concept, and the two whom we can truly give credit to the very idea of subtext; the two upon whom the subtext axle turns: Xena and Gabrielle. Here you have a situation that by its mere character descriptions implies subtext: the tall dark, strong, silent warrior and the petite blonde, cheerful, loyal, creative bard. Your classic butch/femme pairing right there; no wonder there were rumors and wink-wink jokes right off the bat. You could have just stopped right there, and had more than enough meat for various fan fictions.

But TPTB decided to go even further, and established that not only were the warrior and bard friends, they were soulmates, and possessed an absolute, undying love for each other and a mysterious, eternal, spiritual bond--a true connection of souls--and they were fated to be together for all eternity. And this was just in the second season episode The Xena Scrolls, with the establishment of canonUber (for further discussion and explaination of Uberfic, go here).

Bam. The subtext meter went off the charts, and the concept exploded like a rocket. It got to the point where if you were a fan of the show, you were automatically considered a) a lesbian or at least b) a subtext fan. Subtext became instantly mainstream, far overshadowing any potential heterosexual relationships attempted on the show. It was just too strong. And the best part (or worst, depending on your point of view) was, since the show revolved around a female couple, the pairing was considered too controversial to allow them to consummate their relationship on screen, so Xena and Gabrielle were kept in permanent subtext limbo for six years. There was touching, hugging, hand-holding, even kissing and hot-tubbing, but the big S was taboo, so that particular minefield was carefully ignored by the creators, allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions (and after all, isn’t that what subtext is all about?).

Unfortunately, this very same reluctance to allow closure to the relationship is what drove many fans away, and ratings dropped sharply in the fifth season (which has been persistantly criticized for the lack of warmth in Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship). One last-ditch effort at reliving the glory days (namely the second and third seasons) of subtext was attempted, with much success: Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship (and indeed the quality of the show as a whole) markedly improved during the sixth season, culminating in a controversial (in many ways) open-mouthed kiss during the series finale. And even Lucy Lawless herself accepted the perceived nature of her character’s relationship with Gabrielle, admitting that she indeed think that they were romantically involved. So it seemed that the fans did indeed get closure after all (albeit not in the most satisfying way), and subtext now has its acknowledged place in television history.

Next on the subtext list: Jareth and Sarah, from the film Labyrinth. Since I have created a separate analysis based on this film, I believe I may skip many comments I would otherwise make (for the sake of avoiding redundancy) and simply state that since there is such a wide age gap between the two, and yet such obvious mutual (if unhealthy) attraction, for the most part evaded by the creators, they do indeed qualify as a subtextual couple. It is even stated directly in the film that, “the King of the Goblins had fallen in love with the girl...” only the age gap and evident enmity between the two characters (and, of course, the theoretical status of Jareth...he exists in her head) prevents them from forming a relationship. Actually, it’s a lot more than that, but like I said, I cover that more fully in my Labyrinth analysis. Go read that. :)

One subtext couple that is given every advantage in regards to a potential relationship, but suffers from extraordinarily poor timing, is Qui-Gon Jinn and Shmi Skywalker, from (duh) Star Wars: Episode One. They have it all: compatible in age, sexual preference (I’m going to assume here that they’re both straight, since we’re given no evidence of otherwise in the film, although you never know), are not opposed in beliefs--that is, it’s not like the hero(ine) and the villain(ess) having the hots for each other--and appear to have similar dispositions, in addition to being attracted to each other. It’s almost blatantly obvious: leapt out at me the first time I watched the damn thing in the theater. I swear, first time she showed up on screen and started with the furtive little looks, I was like, “Hmm, there’s something going on there.” Turns out, I was right! Apparently the actors did add little vocal inflections and gestures that could be taken as attraction, just to “add a little something” to the film, for those who looked close enough. And evidently, I’m one of the ones who noticed. Unfortunately, with everything else going on in the film (treaties, Gungans, space battles, finding the Chosen One, Darth Maul) the relationship got just completely buried, and is very well-hidden, almost to the point of undetectable. It’s mostly noticable during the scene where they’re watching Anakin fix his podracer; watch the look on Qui-Gon’s face when Shmi tells him Anakin wasn’t conceived in the traditional way. It’s almost speculative, like, “Hmm, she’s never been with a man before.” (I’m trying to put this in the most delicate way I know. Bear with me.) Other things (like little shoulder touches and the like) tend to pop up with subtle, but unerring frequency whenever the two are onscreen together. Try watching for it next time you see the film; it’s fun! And that way you can ignore most of Anakin’s dialogue too. :)

Another couple who seems to “have it all” in the relationship department, but has been repeatedly foiled by plot holes and the whims of its creators, are Mulder and Scully on The X-Files. Two attractive, healthy (well, comparitively...they both have personal problems that could fill several textbooks, but all that aside...) adults, compatible in social standing and intelligence, sharing a driving passion for their mutual career, partners who have saved each others’ lives time after time, who have pretty much gone through hell and back for the other and basically admitted they belong together...all of this “togetherness” has been rewarded with years and years of nothing. Well, I shouldn’t say this. At present writing they have (sort of) had a child together, then finally kissed--for real, no damn bee in the way or anything--in the last few minutes of the series finale. So I guess this is sort of a moot point. Hmmm. Although I must point out that only Mulder and Scully would go about the most back- asswards way to have a relationship...most people kiss, then have sex, THEN have the child. But whatever works for them. :)

Indeed, since they are SO obviously compatible AND since the bulk of the show rests on their relationship, you are probably wondering why I am bothering to include them in this analysis at all. Simple: BECAUSE it is so obvious, and yet the creators ignored the potential for eight whole seasons. This is more than a novelty, it’s an anomaly, and quite refreshing when compared to most televisions shows nowadays (where the two likeliest heterosexual leads are promptly paired off into a relationship). It also isn’t as obvious as blatant sexual attraction and continuous flirting. They deeply care for each other, and shallower emotions are usually ignored (except on the rare occasion when Mulder got his digs into Scully, and that was in an obviously facetious manner...well, obvious to Scully, at any rate).

In the previous paragraphs, I have covered traditional pairings for subtext; the ones that most people would either notice as prominent, or are more acceptable in society yet aren’t immediately obvious (although the bit with Mulder and Scully is cutting it close). Now I will start discussing the nontraditional pairings; the subtle, even unsettling ones.

To kick off the nontraditional pairings, let’s dive into deep water, starting with Sam Gamgee and Frodo Baggins from The Lord of The Rings. This is usually an uncomfortable concept for most people, due to the obvious facts that a) they’re both male and b) they’re not even human (although they are “people”). They mainly choose to ignore the evidence right in front of them. Sam and Frodo are two of the closest, most physical, sickeningly sweet subtextual couples I have ever seen. They are constantly holding hands, calling each other “dear”, professing love and undying devotion to each other, etc etc etc. There is even a paragraph in The Two Towers where Sam is watching Frodo sleep and thinks to himself, “I love him.” In Return of The King they fall asleep in each others’ arms. Sam’s unshakable loyalty to his “dear master” is one of the most beautiful, heartbreaking things I have ever read. He is willing to risk life, limb and his very soul and sense of self, for something that his master believes in (even though he’s not entirely sure of the full meaning of it, but if his master thinks it's important, then by god old Sam Gamgee’s going to carry it out, and be with him to the end), and he is willing to go into the very depths of hell, as long he can be by Frodo’s side. He possesses more devotion and loyalty than most dogs I know. He goes without food for Frodo, giving his share away, and when Frodo is injured and unable to walk, he carries him to Mordor on his back, though it injures him. He even carries the Ring for awhile, when he thinks Frodo is dead, and endures unspeakable mental agonies. And when the entire adventure is over (well, as far over as it can be), it is assumed by both him and Frodo that he will live in Frodo’s house to the end of his days, and he actually feels guilty for wanting to marry Rose Cotton. The issue is settled by having both Sam and Rose move in with Frodo, and presumably (or one can only hope) Sam and Frodo continue their relationship. Hey, I’m a sucker for a good romance.

I recently re-watched the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, and was delighted to notice that, among the other favorable attributes (non-stop action, gorgeous scenery, fabulous acting, cute blond elf), it has simply loads of subtext. Not just Sam and Frodo (yes, the film has oodles of that, which I will return to), but Aragon/Boromir, Merry/Pippin, and--scarily enough--Gandalf/Sauron (I think I officially need mental help). The Aragorn/Boromir was just screamingly obvious...I didn’t think they would go that far. Kudos to Peter Jackson for not being afraid to show the forehead kiss...made this little subtexter very happy indeed.

Back to Sam and Frodo, though...the subtext was everything I hoped for; they didn’t shy from it one iota. The little looks, comforting caresses...all intact. The sweetest part was right at the end when Frodo prepares to leave for Mordor. Frodo turns to Sam and tells him that he’s glad for his company, and Sam just gives him the sweetest little flickery puppy-dog look. Frodo then walks ahead, and Sam gazes at him in pure adoration. Awww.

During the entire series it’s made very clear who has what status in the relationship; Sam is most clearly the “passive” one. Frodo’s the one who carries the ring, does most of the fighting (although Sam is incredibly fierce when it comes to defending him, especially from Gollum), and has dominance over Sam, despite his protests to the contrary. Sam is the one who cooks the meals, carries the equipment, and continually submits to Frodo’s wishes, no matter how small. If master wants something done, then that’s what happens, and Sam follows him along and supports him in all decisions. He is not exactly feminized or made weaker--he’s definately got spirit, and has decided talents and strengths (as previously mentioned, he is a fair fighter, and apparently can recite stories quite well--more similarities to Gabrielle), he’s simply established as the submissive partner in the relationship, which is just fine with him; he’s perfectly willing to follow Frodo’s lead. He seems to harbor a kind of “hero-worship” sentiment where Frodo is concerned...to quote the book, ‘he...firmly held the belief that Mr. Frodo was the wisest person in the world (with the possible exception of old Mr. Bilbo and of Gandalf)’. He holds Frodo to impeccable, almost impossibly high standards, with the only apparent fault being that he is too kind-hearted and good-natured, and tends to be taken advantage of (which is hardly even a fault, and far more complimentary than most).

Actually, if you think about it, in a way the entire Ring trilogy is about Sam’s growth and progress, comparable to Gabrielle’s emotional and spiritual growth on Xena (I’m a big Samfan, can you tell?). In the beginning Sam simply thinks of it as a big adventure (“Me go with Master Frodo and see elves and all?”), as does Gabrielle (“You’ve got to take me with you, and teach me everything you know...”) and picks up all sorts of knowledge along the way, and loses his innocence (he is no longer a mere gardner, just like Gabrielle is no longer a mere peasant...they have both seen and done things that make them both wiser and more spiritually damaged). They even both receive promotions at the end of it all: Sam takes over from Frodo as Mayor of Hobbiton, and Gabrielle is willed the chakram after Xena’s death, officially becoming a true warrior, and essentially taking her place.

In fact, Sam and Gabrielle share a lot of things in common, but that will probably be for another analysis. That would be interesting...a compare and contrast between the relationships of X&G versus F&S. I think I’ll do that one of these days. Yeah. Later. :)

Another little-noticed (or even accepted) subtextual couple is Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Now this is usually where people get all, “Eww, GROSS!” and stop reading. So if you want to escape, now’s your chance. Because the scary stuff starts below the asteriks, right about...now!

Still with us? Heh...it’s ok. We won’t judge you. :) Most people, when watching Star Wars for the first time (or the second, or fortieth, or zillionth) don’t immediately jump to the conclusion of, “Hey, it sure looks like Han and Luke were flirting during that scene where (fill in the blanks)!” Of course, most people are not weird little me (whether this is a good or bad thing, is left up to you, gentle reader)...that particular partnership sent this little fan’s subtext radar going full speed ahead (insert your own space pilot joke here). I mean, it was so BLATANT: the soulful looks, the suspicion due to Leia’s presence (I mean, were they actually fighting over her, or did they consider her an impediment?), and what REALLY capped it for me, the scene when Luke was preparing to leave and attack the Death Star in A New Hope, and he and Han have a nice long heart-to-heart, and Han gets this sad little puppy-dog look and says, “May the Force be with you.” You can easily imagine it being an uncomfortable “morning after” moment, if you get my drift. The dialogue is stilted and they appear unsure of the others’ reaction, darting quick little looks and shy smiles at each other. You can even interpret Han’s smile following Luke’s dismissal of him and Leia ever having a relationship to be, “Oh, that’s so cute, the kid’s got a crush on me.” While I highly doubt the actors intended on inserting innuendo in their scenes (this being the 1970s, it would NOT have been appreciated), as the actors in Episode One did, it came through with flashing lights and sirens. Another lovely instance of subtext was in the very beginning of The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke is lost in the snow, and Han finds him and (presumably) warms him up and cares for him. Just that one little description alone is fodder for any number of potential “scenes from the cutting room floor” fan fic. Unfortunately, after that the subtext pretty much trickles off, as Han gets more involved with Leia, but it was decidedly present while it lasted.

Directly following the “snow scene” in The Empire Strikes Back, Luke and Han part ways, and don’t meet again til quite aways into Return of the Jedi. In fact, since Han is stuck in carbonite practically the whole time, he misses hearing of Luke’s training to be a knight, and is incredulous when Chewie tells him. “He can barely take care of himself, let alone anyone else!” is his reply. He clearly considers himself to be in the competant caretaker role, having dominance over Luke, and his entire world-view is picked up and shaken quite hard. Now blind, he is forced to rely on the skills of the very person whose abilities he devalued and dismissed. The roles are decidedly reversed.

Actually, *WARNING! WARNING! Pure speculation ahead!* I’ve always thought it would be cute to see Han and Luke teemed up, as hero and sidekick (this would be early Luke as the sidekick), saving the galaxy from evildoers, a la Xena and Gabrielle. “Gee willikers, Han! You sure zapped that pesky Rodian in a jiffy!” “I sure did, kid. C’mon, let’s go kick some Hutt butt!” Heh heh. So cheesy. Me likes. :)

When most people think of subtext on Xena: Warrior Princess, they immediately assume it will involve Xena and Gabrielle...they’re the “parents and original” (to quote A Midsummer Night’s Dream...had to get my snotty intellectual reference in somewhere!) of the whole subtext concept, right? Or at least the ones for whom the term was created. So any Xena subtext automatically implies warrior + bard, yes? Not necessarily. Think blonde...psychotic blonde.

Callisto has a LOT of mixed emotions towards Xena...principle among these is anger, followed by rage, loathing, wrath, hatred...and love. She is completely torn between desperately wanting to kill the warrior princess, and just desperately wanting her. She also has a lot of the abused little girl in her, that wants to be taken care of by the big strong protector. She harbours intense feelings of guilt over her attraction to Xena (increased many times over due to the burning of Cirra), and overcompensates with exaggerated fits of fury. She is extremely mannered in her behaviour...tends to strike poses, make elaborate hand gestures, and alters her voice from a sing-song falsetto to harsh and growled threats. This is part of the illusion she hopes to acheive. She also, paradoxically, behaves very flirtatiously towards everyone... Xena, Joxer, Ares (well, originally), and often makes veiled threats in the guise of seduction. The only person exempt from this treatment is Gabrielle...Callisto is extremely jealous of the attention the bard receives from Xena, and desires the same type of positive attention from her. However, due to her massive feelings of guilt, she is unable to directly request such attention, and instead is willing to settle for negative attention...in her situation, ANY sort of attention will suffice.

In personalities who crave attention, two distinctive types pop up with unstinting regularity: the “Kick Me” and the “Playground Bully”. They both want the same thing, but acheive different means to their ends. It’s sort of the difference between passive and aggressive. Kick Me types are the people who can be seen continually debasing themselves for others, simply to receive attention (preferably positive, but negative will do in a pinch). Sometimes you will run across people who are both...who are in fact passive-aggressive, and use the Kick Me guise as a way of manipulating others. True Kick Mes are generally unaware of their manipulative behaviour pattern; false Kick Mes can rightfully be considered serial victims, or Crybabies.

Joxer is a classic Kick Me individual. He is clumsy and socially inept, and his very existence assures that he is incapable of functioning on his own, and will require assistance in simple day-to-day living. He is also quite desperate to be liked by anyone, and will do nearly anything short of murder for approval. His self-esteem is truly rock-bottom. He still has morals, however.

Callisto is far more independent, but has the more obvious damage. She will do virtually anything (and I do mean anything) to get attention. Her outrageous and flamboyant manner is a natural product of such a personality. She is more neutral in her desire for the limelight...while positive attention is all fine and good, you can get a lot MORE attention via notoriety. She honestly doesn’t care which she receives (unlike Joxer, who does have a decided preference for positive, but will take all the negative he can stand in lieu of that). Callisto is a classic Playground Bully. She will torment others for the sheer pleasure of it, and she does get a lot of satisfaction from her deeds (think of her expression when she kills). While Kick Mes may be more socially acceptable, it’s the Bullies that have the real fun, and they DEFINATELY get attention! Leading armies and going to war will assert you that EVERYONE pays attention to you...what they can’t avoid, they watch out for. In this way she differs from Evil Xena, who was mainly out for 1) vengeance (which is a goal of Callisto’s) and b) power. Callisto doesn’t give a flying flaming rat’s ass about conquest...she wants to see people suffer, especially Xena (although if there are warm bodies in the way, so much the better).

Her goal in life is (or was...she’s currently a Happy Love Light Angel in “Paradise”, but I’m going by pre-Fallen Angel Callisto here, okiday?) to kill Xena--moreover, to make her suffer--but the relationship has gotten a lot more complicated than that. Whenever she is around Xena, her mood noticeably improves, and she becomes more playful (for lack of a better word). Much as she would refuse to admit it, she enjoys Xena’s company, which is another slice of guilt for her to chew on. She does NOT enjoy Gabrielle’s company (other than in subjecting the bard to her twisted sense of humor), and would do away with her in a heartbeat, if she got the chance.

This evening I accompanied my mother and sister to the theater; specifically, to a local university production of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. In addition to the pretty cossies, wonderful dialogue, and thought-provoking mind candy (for example, one can easily compare Shylock's desire to obtain a pound of flesh as compensating for the loss of his daughter, who is repeatedly referred to as his "flesh and blood"), it had, to my surprise and delight, some of the most unlikely subtext I've ever seen.

A bit of extremely simplified background: Basically this guy Antonio offers to pay the debts that his friend Gratiano owes to the mercenary Shylock, with the agreement that if the debts are not fully reimbursed in three month's time, Shylock gets to exact retribution in the form of a pound of flesh from any place on Antonio's body that Shylock sees fit. Shylock, being a Christian-hating vengeful Jew (a fact that is repeatedly expounded on, much to modern audiences' discomfiture), finds a way to make sure that there is no possible way for the debts to be repaid so that he gets his pound of flesh, which is what he wanted in the first place. Evidently his daughter Jessica is rebelling against him by marrying a Christian named Lorenzo, and he's highly bitter about this, and so takes it out on Antonio. While all this is going on, Gratiano is courting the lady Portia. If the debts are not repaid, he cannot marry her. He eventually refuses to allow Antonio to donate the promised pound of flesh. Antonio and Shylock go to trial over the pound of flesh (I'm skipping a lot of plot points here; read the book for the full story), and Portia disguises herself as a man to argue on Antonio's behalf. Antonio's case prevails, and Shylock basically gets EVERYTHING taken from him: his house, his money, his dignity, and even his faith (they force him to convert to Christianity). He basically gets the emotional and spiritual shit kicked outta him; I really felt for the poor man at the end. Anyway, all's well that ends well (if you'll permit the pun), and everything gets sorted out and everyone is happy and in love at curtain's close. Well, almost.

What really caught my attention was the emphasis placed on Antonio and Gratiano's relationship. They're portrayed as very close, closer than brothers, and Gratiano professes a deeper committment and devotion to Antonio than to his wife (which the latter STRONGLY objects to; she knows what’s going on...). While Gratiano is married during the course of the play, at the end Antonio is the only one left alone (save Lancelot Gabbo, the established "fool", or comic relief, and they as a rule don't get love interests). It's perhaps the strongest hint in a Shakespearean play that a character might be gay. Antonio arrives into the bargain with Shylock much to his friend's protest, insisting that he do this for him because he loves him so much. Indeed? So much that he's willing to forgo a body part, perhaps even an eye or (as Shylock eventually demands) his heart? That's one HECK of a friend! That's even bigger than a willingness to donate blood or organs, because for him there's no guarantee of survival after the procedure.

Granted, Gratiano gets married during the course of the play. However, the object of his affections is Portia, a very wealthy lady who has dozens of royal suitors clamoring for her hand (I believe it's hinted that she herself is royalty, or at least high nobility). Gratiano, by comparison, is rather poor. Marrying her assures his financial security, especially back in a time when most marriages where not conducted out of sentimental notions of love, but for practical financial and social reasons. Indeed, Shakespeare was one of the first authors to entertain the concept of marriage for love and romance alone; before his writings, it was almost exclusively pragmatic. Only the very wealthy could afford to marry for such frivolous reasons as romance. This would be ill tidings for Portia if he were really a "gold-digger" of sorts and she truly did love him, but I merely engage in conjecture.

In addition to all of this, there is the matter of a convenient plot device: the ring. When Gratiano and Portia are betrothed, the latter insists that her fiancee wear his ring for the rest of his life, and promise to not remove it until his death, to which he agrees. He later runs across his wife, disguised as a male doctor arbitrating for Antonio, and when she is successful in defending his friend, Antonio insists on giving "him" the ring as a token of appreciation. Initially Gratiano protests, but Antonio insists, and he finally caves in. Of course, Portia is aware of this entire exchange and this results in ever so many delightful misunderstandings. The point is: Why was Antonio so insistant that Gratiano break a vow to his wife and give away the ring? Was he TRYING to break up their marriage? And why did Gratiano agree to it? Was he TRYING to find an excuse for him to leave her? If they separated he would still be entitled to her land and property, so he would no longer be poor. Hmmmmm.