an
absolute test of excellence, for it is remarkable that "King Lear" is
very much behind it, and also behind "Othello," in this respect; and
indeed there are several plays, including "Macbeth," "Julius Caesar,"
"Henry IV.," "As You Like It," and "The Merchant of Venice," which are
richer than "King Lear" in passages familiarly quoted; and yet as to the
superiority of "King Lear" to the other plays I think there can be no
doubt. It is the greatest tragedy, the greatest dramatic poem, the
greatest book, ever written; so great is it, in fact, so vast in its
style, so lofty in its ideal, that to those who have reflected upon it
and justly apprehended it, it has become unplayable. As well attempt to
score the music of the spheres, or to paint "the fat weed that roots
itself in ease on Lethe wharf." In "King Lear" there is a personage who
may be very instructively compared with others of the same kind by the
student of Shakespeare's mental development. This is the Fool.
Shakespeare's fools or clowns (such as those in "Love's Labor's Lost"
and in "Hamlet") are among the most remarkable evidences of his ability
to make anything serve as the occasion and the mouthpiece of his wit and
his wisdom. He did not make the character; he found it on the stage, and
a favorite with a considerable part of the play-goers. It was, however,
as he found it, a very coarse character, rude as well as gross in
speech, and given to practical joking. He relieved it of all the
rudeness, if not of all the grossness, and reformed the joking
altogether; but he also filled the Fool's jesting with sententious
satire, and while preserving the low-comedy style of the character,
brought it into keeping with a lofty and even a tragic view of life. In
"King Lear" the Fool rises into heroic proportions, and becomes a sort
of conscience, or second thought, to Lear. Compared even with Touchstone
he is very much more elevated, and shows not less than Hamlet, or than
Lear himself, the grand development of Shakespeare's mind at this period
of its maturity. In the representation of Shakespeare's plays there has
been no greater affront to common sense than the usual presentation of
this Fool upon the stage as a boy, except the putting a pretty woman
into the part, dressed in such a way as to captivate the eye and divert
the attention by the beauty of her figure. It is disturbing enough to
see Ariel, sexless, but, like the angels, rather masculine than
feminine, represe