THE COMMON FOLK OF SHAKESPEARE. 



By FELIX E. SCHELLING, A.M., LL.D. 



(Read April 13, 1916.} 



" Shakespeare . . . seems to me," says Walt Whitman, " of astral 

 olenitis, first class, entirely fit for feudalism. His contributions, 

 especially to the literature of the passions, are immense, forever dear 

 to humanity — and his name is always to be reverenced in America. 

 But there is much in him ever offensive to democracy. He is not 

 only the tally of feudalism, but I should say Shakespeare is incar- 

 nated, uncompromising feudalism in literature." 



With such an arraignment of Shakespeare's universality and his 

 sympathy with his fellow men, let us consider the common folk of 

 his plays with a view to discover the poet's actual attitude towards 

 that humbler station in life into which he was himself indisputably 

 born. For our purpose we exclude all personages of rank, all his 

 characters of gentle birth, together with all those, whatever their 

 varying degrees of servitude who wait upon royalty or form in any 

 wise a part or parcel of the households of great folk. This excludes 

 all of Shakespeare's heroes. It will also exclude Shakespeare's 

 fools, from trifling Launce and the delectable Feste to the sad-eyed 

 companion in folly of King Lear. And even Falstafif, who was 

 sometime page to Sir Thomas Mowbray and a gentleman, however 

 unlanded, mvist stand in his dignity without our bounds. 



There remain for us, in our middle domain, some ihree or four 

 score personages who have speaking parts, of a diversity the equal 

 of their betters and inferiors, even although their actual roles are, 

 for the most part, subordinate. Conveniently to treat so many of 

 the undistinguished, we must group them, a process the more justifi- 

 able when we consider that thus we can best ascertain, what are 

 really Shakespeare's prejudices and whether they are of class or 

 individual. 



471 



