plainly as possible) depends largely on the presence of three characters, and on the affinities and contrasts between them; on our perception that the differences of station in King, Fool, and beggar-noble, are levelled by one blast of calamity; but also on our perception of the differences between these three in one respect,—­viz. in regard to the peculiar affliction of insanity.  The insanity of the King differs widely in its nature from that of the Fool, and that of the Fool from that of the beggar.  But the insanity of the King differs from that of the beggar not only in its nature, but also in the fact that one is real and the other simply a pretence.  Are we to suppose then that the insanity of the third character, the Fool, is, in this respect, a mere repetition of that of the second, the beggar,—­that it too is mere pretence?  To suppose this is not only to impoverish miserably the impression made by the trio as a whole, it is also to diminish the heroic and pathetic effect of the character of the Fool.  For his heroism consists largely in this, that his efforts to outjest his master’s injuries are the efforts of a being to whom a responsible and consistent course of action, nay even a responsible use of language, is at the best of times difficult, and from whom it is never at the best of times expected.  It is a heroism something like that of Lear himself in his endeavour to learn patience at the age of eighty.  But arguments against the idea that the Fool is wholly sane are either needless or futile; for in the end they are appeals to the perception that this idea almost destroys the poetry of the character.

This is not the case with another question, the question whether the Fool is a man or a boy.  Here the evidence and the grounds for discussion are more tangible.  He is frequently addressed as ‘boy.’  This is not decisive; but Lear’s first words to him, ’How now, my pretty knave, how dost thou?’ are difficult to reconcile with the idea of his being a man, and the use of this phrase on his first entrance may show Shakespeare’s desire to prevent any mistake on the point.  As a boy, too, he would be more strongly contrasted in the Storm-scenes with Edgar as well as with Lear; his faithfulness and courage would be even more heroic and touching; his devotion to Cordelia, and the consequent bitterness of some of his speeches to Lear, would be even more natural.  Nor does he seem to show a knowledge of the world impossible to a quick-witted though not whole-witted lad who had lived at Court.  The only serious obstacle to this view, I think, is the fact that he is not known to have been represented as a boy or youth till Macready produced King Lear.[177]