excess, becomes its own opposite, and turns to wrong. It was Ulrici who first applied to the play the legal maxim: Summum jus, summa injuria. He goes still further, and shows that the Poet, on account of the contradictory_nature_of right, introduces the doctrine of Mercy, which is the reconciling principle. In this instance, and in many instances, Ulrici has a deeper insight into Shakespeare than any other commentator; around his view the exposition of the present drama must turn either by way of acceptance or denial. Ulrici, however, in his excellent remarks (Shakespeare's Dramatische Kunst Zweiter Theil, s. 332, et seq.), seems to lay stress upon the conflict of justice, and not upon its mediation, though he certainly suggests the latter. We, however, shall seek to emphasize the mediatorial element, as it reveals itself both in the characters and in the whole society of which they are a part. For it is mediation which makes comedy in general, and it is the special manner of mediation which makes this particular comedy.

In the Merchant of Venice, accordingly, we behold a conflicting and reconciling element. The conflicting element is mainly the contest between Antonio and Shylock, and is to be considered first; we are to behold the dramatic economy ordered to this end, and to watch how every incident contributes either to call forth

their struggle, or to harmonize it after it has arisen. A glance at the leading events of the play will show that this conflict is the one central point from which the entire action radiates which organizes and vivifies the whole piece. The incidents relating to Portia, which, at the first look, seem somewhat remote from the main action, are the reconciling part, and bring forth, in fact, the profoundest mediation of the drama. Bassanio loves Portia, and applies to his friend, Antonio, the wealthy merchant, for the money to carry on his courtship in a suitable style of magnificence. For magnificent it must be since it requires such a large amount of money, and, besides, it appears already to have exhausted his own purse. In this fact we see the motive for the account of such an elaborate wooing. Shakespeare has brought before us lords and princes, with grand retinues, suing for the hand of the fair Portia. To compete with these, Bassanio has to apply to the merchant for the ducats. But the merchant's ventures are all at sea; he has not the cash on hand, hence he must go to the money-lender. This brings him into contact with the Jew, and the main circumstances of the play are thereafter rapidly developed. Thus Portia was indirectly the cause of Antonio's falling into the hands of the Jew, and, in ideal justice, the Poet makes her the instrumentality by which Antonio is released. Even the inci

dents of the last Act, which take place after the culmination of the play, are logically necessary for the harmonization of the lesser contradictions which have been called forth by the main struggle. Every part must be rounded off with the perfection of art; no shreds are left to draggle from the edges of this well-woven garment. The Poet is like the sculptor, who finishes the fingernail as exquisitely, in its way, as he does the face the expression of intelligence.

The general movement of the play, therefore, lies in the conflict between the right of Property and the existence of the Individual, and in the mediation of this conflict through the Family, which owes its origin, in the present case, to that same individual whom it rescues. That is, the Family, represented by Portia, the wife, returns and saves the man who aided, by his friendship and generosity, to bring it into being. All the characters of the play, though possessing peculiarities of their own, must be seen in their relation to this fundamental theme of the work.

There are three essential movements, which may be named in order: the Conflict, the Mediation, the Return. Of the first movement there are two threads, showing, respectively, the Property-conflict and the Love-conflict, though the former is raised to the highest spiritual significance by the underlying religious element. These two threads, moreover, are interwoven in

the subtlest manner; still, an analysis has to tear them asunder temporarily. In the first thread the antagonists are Antonio, the Christian, and Shylock, the Jew. Antonio is the center of a group of five friends, who, in a variety of ways, ingraft themselves upon the action; around Shylock also are to be placed his daughter, Jessica, his clownish servant, Gobbo- both of whom are leaving him and going over to his opponentsand his friend, Tubal. The contrast between the two men in these personal relations is this: Antonio is the object of the warmest friendship, while Shylock is disrupting his own familydriving away daughter and servant. The second thread unfolds the Love-conflict, which has here three phases, represented by Portia, Jessica, and Nerissa. The second movement the Mediation has the same two threads the Propertyconflict is brought to a successful conclusion by Portia, disguised as a lawyer; the Love-conflict has ended in all three cases with a happy solution, namely, marriage. But both friends and lovers have been torn asunder in the performance of their various functions; hence the third movement will be the Return, which brings all to Belmont the blissful abode of harmony.

I.

The first movement, accordingly, unfolds the realm of conflict in its double phase. Two legal

documents are introduced, which, in their very right are violating right; in both, the outer realized Law is turning against the inner Law not yet realized in forms of legality. These two documents are the testament of Portia's father, and the Jew's contract with Antonio. We see Justice and Equity, which ought to remain one and in harmony, to divide and to be set against each other; Law, which should protect, is made to assail its most precious trusts. It is a dualism which cuts to the heart of man as well as of social order. The life of the individual is assailed by the right which guards it; the Family is disregarded by forcing it to submit in its inner essence to what seems an outer accident.

1. We shall start with the conflict between Antonio and Shylock, which we have called, in a general way, the Property-conflict. Each of these men has a good and a bad side to his character, though in different degrees. The question, therefore, arises - what do they respectively represent? What principles does each one maintain? For men, without some great motive lying at the basis of their action and giving color to their endeavor, can have no interest for us. It is the conflict of these principles, represented and carried into execution by men, that excites our sympathy, our fear, our delight. The first thing which we find much stress laid upon is that Shylock is a Jew-a circumstance which should