“Infirmity that decays the wise doth ever make a better fool” – though uttered by one of his own characters Shakespeare does not seem to conform to this ideal. The fools carved by Shakespeare in his plays showed no resemblance to the mentally and physically challenged people who were treated as pets and used for amusement during the medieval period. Rather Shakespeare’s fools appear to be in the best of their wits when they are in possession of the wisest minds. Fools whether in their rustic vigour displaying grotesque humour or in the forms of the sophisticated court jesters with their polished puns occupied a substantial position in his plays. Not only they added the element of humour but often alluded a deeper context under their apparent comic facade. Shakespeare’s plays embodied a varied range of comic characters whose treatment obviously differs in those produced by the mature playwright to those depicted in his earlier works. In which we find certain nonsensical clowns appearing just to create ludicrous entertainment. In ‘Love’s Labour Lost’ we find three such characters Costard, Dull and Adrian de Armado who are of very little importance to the plot but as we move on to the ‘Mid Summer Night’s Dream’, Bottom the daft artisan though intended to project humour for his supreme vanity, we see this same attribute of his being exploited by Oberon the king of the fairies to teach his queen a lesson. In this way we notice in Shakespeare’s comic characters a gradual pattern of upgradation from those included just for the sake of insipid humour to the ones actually taking part in the plot. As Shakespeare proceeds to incorporate his oeuvres with further comic elements he chooses humorists over clowns. His comic characters reveal more contemplative and methodical homour which actually camouflages underneath the unsavoury truths. These personas were not only part of his comedies but also his tragedies. In ‘Hamlet’ the two Grave-diggers
“Infirmity that decays the wise doth ever make a better fool” – though uttered by one of his own characters Shakespeare does not seem to conform to this ideal. The fools carved by Shakespeare in his plays showed no resemblance to the mentally and physically challenged people who were treated as pets and used for amusement during the medieval period. Rather Shakespeare’s fools appear to be in the best of their wits when they are in possession of the wisest minds. Fools whether in their rustic vigour displaying grotesque humour or in the forms of the sophisticated court jesters with their polished puns occupied a substantial position in his plays. Not only they added the element of humour but often alluded a deeper context under their apparent comic facade. Shakespeare’s plays embodied a varied range of comic characters whose treatment obviously differs in those produced by the mature playwright to those depicted in his earlier works. In which we find certain nonsensical clowns appearing just to create ludicrous entertainment. In ‘Love’s Labour Lost’ we find three such characters Costard, Dull and Adrian de Armado who are of very little importance to the plot but as we move on to the ‘Mid Summer Night’s Dream’, Bottom the daft artisan though intended to project humour for his supreme vanity, we see this same attribute of his being exploited by Oberon the king of the fairies to teach his queen a lesson. In this way we notice in Shakespeare’s comic characters a gradual pattern of upgradation from those included just for the sake of insipid humour to the ones actually taking part in the plot. As Shakespeare proceeds to incorporate his oeuvres with further comic elements he chooses humorists over clowns. His comic characters reveal more contemplative and methodical homour which actually camouflages underneath the unsavoury truths. These personas were not only part of his comedies but also his tragedies. In ‘Hamlet’ the two Grave-diggers