nature of insanity—mere surface work, a “writing down” to the lowest type of contemporary play-goer. Such prostitution of art appears to us, in the light of Shakespeare’s plays and of our own opinions, unworthy and base. Yet it must not be forgotten that many of the “madhouse scenes” of our plays contain much genuine humour which from the point of view of the day was harmless and legitimate. And as we have already agreed to take up, as far as possible, the position of the author himself, we shall restrain our Puritanical or artistic indignation, and pass on to consider our mad folk themselves, as men and women rather than as puppets of a playwright, from the point of view not of construction but of character.
FOOTNOTES:
[45:1] “King Lear,” v., 3, 313.
[47:1] Taking the Play Scene (iii., 2.) as the crisis.
[47:2] Indeed many critics find incipient madness in Lear’s conduct even earlier, i.e. from the very beginning of the play. This view I cannot hold; Lear’s actions in the early part of the play do not seem to me to be the result of anything but the childishness of old age. The King is quite responsible for his actions. If he were not, he would be the one exception to Shakespeare’s practice in his tragedies.
[48:1] Sh. Trag., p. 53.
[56:1] Eng. Dram. Lit.: Vol. ii., p. 297.
[57:1] “Match Me in London,” Act v., Sc.1.
[58:1] Ibid., v., 1.