' The Reviewer, in 1821, on the contrary, singles out the fools
as especial instances of the writer's abilities, and declares that in
this respect she shows a regard to character hardly exceeded by
Shakspeare himself. These are his words: 'Like him (Shakspeare) she
shows as admirable a discrimination in the character of fools as of
people of sense; a merit which is far from common. To invent indeed a
conversation full of wisdom or of wit requires that the writer should
himself possess ability; but the converse does not hold good, it is no
fool that can describe fools well; and many who have succeeded pretty
well in painting superior characters have failed in giving individuality
to those weaker ones which it is necessary to introduce in order to give
a faithful representation of real life: they exhibit to us mere folly in
the abstract, forgetting that to the eye of the skilful naturalist the
insects on a leaf present as wide differences as exist between the lion
and the elephant. Slender, and Shallow, and Aguecheek, as Shakspeare has
painted them, though equally fools, resemble one another no more than
Richard, and Macbeth, and Julius Caesar; and Miss Austen's {142} Mrs.
Pages:
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176