The argument of the present book is based on a comparison of two Shakespearean figures: the Fool of Lear and Iago from Othello. Regarding the number of the obvious differences between the Fool and Iago, a question may be raised as to the validity of such an undertaking. The characters clearly embody opposite poles of behaviour and even their function may be contrasted. It is enough just to think of the Fool who always utters the truth, while Iago is the great liar and deceiver. The Fool says things that are true but difficult to accept, while Iago tells credible lies. If we leave out the character of the Fool from the play (as he was indeed left out after Shakespeare had been ironed to fit the neoclassical taste) the play may still be called The Tragedy of King Lear, while Othello without Iago is just unimaginable. The Fool is not an intriguer, he does not have a direct effect on the events, he is rather a mere commentator, while Iago is the engine of the plot in his play. Still, in spite of all these differences, there are a number of generic, dramatic and functional similarities between them that I would like to expand.