the fashion of keeping court and household fools, writes voltaire in his age de louis xiv., was for a time the grande mode of all the courts of europe. some sovereigns, however, discarded the practice, and when charles louis, electoral prince of the rhine, was asked why he did not keep a court fool, he replied: “well, it is easily accounted for. when i am inclined to laugh, i send for a couple of professors from college, set them an argument, and laugh at their folly.”
the emperor henry iii., surnamed the black, despised the court fool—“a licensed scoundrel,” he said, “who obtained for his nonsense rewards that had never properly been showered on the benefactors of mankind.” and christian i. of denmark once remarked, that if he were in want of court fools he had only to give license to his courtiers, who were capable of exhibiting themselves as the greatest fools in europe. frederick barbarossa hated court fools; and in france, philip augustus and charles vii. had no sympathy for mirth-makers of this description.
on the other hand, few sovereigns extended greater favour to their fools than maximilian i.;{314} and yet, as it has been remarked, “he found as much peril as profit in his intercourse with them.” on one occasion, when he was loading a fowling-piece, his house fool coming into his presence with a lighted candle was about to place it on an open cask of powder; and at another time his majesty was playing at snowballs with his fool, when the latter threw one so violently at his right eye, that the imperial sight was damaged for a month. his principal fool or jester was konrad, popularly styled “the soldier and wit of maximilian,” for, on more than one occasion, he proved himself wiser in his generation than some of the political advisers who counselled their imperial master. sometimes, however, konrad’s jokes were of so astounding a nature that he would scarcely have dared to make them on his own responsibility. such an instance occurred at a banquet given in honour of the venetian ambassadors, and their government, who had presented to the emperor a costly goblet of the purest crystal; when konrad, in the midst of the revelry and mirth, contrived to hook his spur in the tablecloth, and dancing off to pull with him everything on the table, the crystal goblet lying in fragments on the ground.
the ambassadors demanded the immediate punishment of konrad, but maximilian refused to gratify them, for he remarked, “the thing was only of glass, and that glass is very fragile. had it been of gold, it would not have broken; and, even if it had, its fragments at least would have been valuable.” a somewhat similar story is told of the{315} french wit brusquet, at a banquet given in the house of the duke of alva, when the cardinal of lorraine had negotiated the peace of cateau-cambresis with philip ii. of spain. brusquet at the close of the dessert jumped on the table, and, laying himself flat, rolled himself up in the cloth with plates, spoons, &c., and fell off at the other end of the table. philip ii. took the matter in good part, and laughed immoderately, ordering that brusquet should be allowed to leave the room with what he had carried off under the cloth. although oftentimes konrad was open to reproach for his extraordinary conduct, there can be no doubt he loved his imperial master, and in emergency maximilian had no truer friend.
one of the many fools of his successor, charles v., was a pole, corneille de lithuanie, who distinguished himself at a tournament held in brussels in 1545, by carrying off the second prize for general gallantry. another of his court fools was pedro de san erbas; and it is related that, after charles had abdicated, he held a court at valladolid to receive the farewell compliments of the nobles and ladies of the vicinity. at the conclusion of the ceremony, pedro drew near to take leave of his old patron, whereupon charles raised his hat, at which pedro asked if the act was one of courtesy, or as an indication that he was no longer emperor.
“neither, pedro,” answered charles; “i do it to signify that all i can give you now is this simple token of civility.”
an amusing story is told of nelle, the fool{316} attached to the court of matthias, who not only attended the celebrated meeting of the states, held at ratisbon, but he had the effrontery to present to the emperor an exquisitely bound volume, containing, as he said, a record of all that had been accomplished by the statesmen. on opening the book matthias found it all blank paper, and exclaimed, “why, there is nothing hidden here.”
“exactly,” replied nelle, “because there was nothing done there, and so my record is truthful.”
another humorous anecdote relates how one day, at the court of ferdinand ii., a silly courtier fancied he could amuse those present by his frivolities, which prompted jonas, ferdinand’s favourite fool, to answer him according to his folly. but this so enraged the courtier that he shouted, “fellow, be silent; i never stoop to talk with a fool.”
“well, i do,” retorted jonas, “and therefore be good enough to listen to me in your turn.”
maximilian, son of frederick iii., was taken prisoner when a revolt broke out at bruges. his jester formed a scheme for his liberation; he provided horses for flight, and a rope-ladder by which he might descend from the window of his prison. then the jester plunged into the canal which encircled the castle to swim across. but the town kept swans in the moat, and when these swans saw the man swimming, they rushed at him with their great flapping wings and beaks, and so beat, pinched, and frightened the poor fellow, that he made the best of his retreat.{317}
the smaller german courts, says dr. doran,[131] followed the fashion set by the emperors, and lips was so great a favourite that he actually sat in the council-chamber when the margrave philip was presiding. as may be gathered, however, from the following incident, the position of a fool was not always an enviable one. thus when the duke ludwig of bavaria was murdered on the bridge over the danube at kehlheim in 1231, the perpetrators of the crime laid it on the duke’s fool, stich, who was charged with having stabbed his patron with a bread-knife, because he had exasperated him by his bad jokes. “ah,” said the unfortunate man, as he stood at the gallows, “that some one ought to be hanged for murdering the duke i can very well comprehend, but that that some one should be me i do not comprehend at all.”
it would seem that as late as the sixteenth century the fool could be bought and sold, for when louis ii. of hungary visited erlau in 1520, he found that the governor possessed one of the best-trained hawks and one of the merriest fools that he had ever seen, both of which he obtained for between three and four thousand pounds. another famous fool was jenni von stocken, who was attached to the household of leopold the pious. and of killian, the fool of albert of austria, it is said that, when he was asked why, being so wise, he should play the fool, he replied, “the more thoroughly i play the fool, the wiser do men{318} account me, and there is my son, who thinks himself wise, and whom everybody knows to be a fool.”
but, as it has been often remarked, although the fool was mostly in request for his tricks and his waggery, he was frequently employed as a political adviser; and when the elector frederick was threatened with invasion, he consulted his fool klaus as to whether he should treat with the enemy, who said to him, “give me your best mantle, and i will tell you.” whereupon klaus tore the mantle in two, and presented himself before his master with one half hanging from his shoulders. the elector inquiring what he meant by so strange an act, klaus replied, “if you treat with the foe, you will soon look as ridiculous with half your dominions as i do with half a cloak.”
the unbridled language of the court fool was oftentimes as amazing as it was insulting; for when one morning philip, landgrave of baden, complained of a headache to his fool peter after a drinking bout, and asked him his remedy, the latter replied, “drink again to-day.” “then i shall only suffer more to-morrow,” added the prince. “then,” rejoined peter, “you must drink still more.” “but how would such a remedy end?” asked the landgrave. “why,” said peter, “in your being a bigger fool than i am.”
and, as dr. doran tells us, the qualifications for a court fool were extraordinary, as may be gathered from the following incident. a cowherd, conrad pocher, was once sent afield with a sickly boy to{319} attend him, when, out of compassion, he hung him to the branch of a tree. he was tried for murder, but defended himself with such humour—arguing that he had greatly helped the little cow-boy—that philip the upright, elector palatine, made him official jester. another cowherd who gained a similar distinction was clause hintze, court fool to duke john frederick of stettin, who so gained his patron’s favour as to be made by him lord of the village of butterdorf. one of his successors was hans miesko, a wretched imbecile, but who was specially honoured at his death by a funeral sermon being preached over him.
and among those who were fools in a non-professional capacity may be mentioned the celebrated baron von gundling at the court of frederick william i., and also david fassman, who, for losing a key entrusted to him by frederick, was condemned to carry a heavy wooden one an ell long round his neck for several days. incidents of this kind, as dr. doran observes, makes it difficult to decide which was the greater fool, it being “inconceivable that reasonable creatures should be guilty of the absurd follies attributed to them.” one day frederick ii. commissioned baron von poelnitz to procure a pair of turkeys. these he sent with the message, “here are the turkeys, sire.” annoyed at the style of note, frederick ordered the leanest ox that could be found to be decked ridiculously with flowers, and the horns to be gilded, after which the animal was tied up in front of the baron’s house, with this inscription: “here is the ox, poelnitz.{320}”
many of the french kings had their fools, and in the court accounts for 1404 we find an entry of forty-seven pairs of shoes for hancelin coc, fool of charles vi. and when the fleet of philip was destroyed by that of edward iii., no one except a court fool had the courage to tell the king. going into the royal chamber, he kept muttering “those cowardly englishmen! the chicken-hearted britons!”
“how so, cousin?” asked philip, “how so?”
“why, because they have not courage enough to jump into the sea like your french sailors, who went headlong over from their ships, leaving those to the enemy, who did not care to follow them!”—by which artful means the king learnt his defeat.
louis xi. took into his service the fool of his deceased brother charles, duke de guyenne; and amongst the many amusing anecdotes told of the famous “le glorieux,” fool to charles the bold, who used to compare himself with hannibal, it is related how, after the overthrow at granson, as the two were riding in search of safety, le glorieux exclaimed to charles, “this is the prettiest way of being like hannibal that i ever saw.”
with francis i. are associated two of the most famous fools—caillette and triboulet—to whom all kinds of good stories have been attributed. thus one day, when the latter complained to francis that a nobleman had threatened his life for some impertinent lie, the king exclaimed, “if he does i will hang him a quarter of an hour afterwards.{321}”
“ah, sire!” replied triboulet, “couldn’t you contrive to hang him a quarter of an hour previously?”
on the death of the duke of orleans, henry ii. raised his fool thony to the rank of patented buffoon; and a personage who, without being a professional fool, was the source of much merriment at henry’s court, was mendoza. it appears that henry celebrated the obsequies of his predecessor in a grand manner, and, when the priest in his funeral oration asserted that the soul of king francis had gone to paradise without passing through purgatory, he was accused of heresy. but mendoza, then a chief officer of the court, by a witty speech turned into a humorous ending what might have been just the reverse, remarking, “gentlemen, if you had known the good king francis as well as i did, you would better have understood the words of the preacher. francis was not a man to tarry long anywhere; and if he did take a turn in purgatory, believe me, the devil himself could not persuade him to make anything like a sojourn”—words which were greeted with general laughter.
a jester to three kings—henry ii., francis ii., and charles ix.—was brusquet, originally, as some say, a hard-up lawyer, and, according to others, a quack doctor. by his wit he managed to gain court favour, being made by henry posting-master-general of paris. when on a visit to flanders at the peace of cateau-cambresis, brusquet met the ex-emperor charles v., who, recognising him, said,{322} “brusquet, do you remember the day when the constable de montmorency wanted to have you hanged?” “right well do i remember it,” he replied. “it was the day on which your majesty purchased those splendid rubies and carbuncles which now adorn your imperial hand”—alluding to the inflamed gouty swellings which disfigured the emperor’s fingers. philip ii. of spain was so delighted with brusquet that he sent his own fool to france to learn wit from associating with him; and during this visit brusquet seems to have used every opportunity for imposing on and cheating him. but brusquet in turn met his match in strozzi, the son of a princess de medicis, his great antagonist, to whom he probably owed his fall in 1562, when he was obliged to fly, accused of being a huguenot, and of suppressing despatches which contained news unfavourable to the huguenot cause.
a noted fool of henri iii. was chicot, who, indeed, was not only his jester but his friend, and, according to dumas, his protector. in the same capacity he entered the service of henri iv.; and it was his bravery at the siege of rouen that cost him his life. it appears that he made henri of lorraine, count of chaligny, prisoner, and leading him to the king, said, “here i make you a present of the count, keep what i took and now give you!” so enraged was the count at being captured by a court fool that he gave chicot a violent blow on the head with the hilt of his sword, from the effects of which he died.{323}
jeanne, queen of charles i. of france, maintained a female fool named artaude du puy.
at the court of henri iv. there was a mathurine who held the office of female fool for the amusement of the court, and who is said to have employed her wit in laughing people out of the huguenot faith into roman catholicism. but this sort of foolery almost cost her her life. it seems she was present in 1594 when jean chastel wounded the king, and almost shared the fate of the would-be assassin. henri, well aware of her zeal for the roman catholic church, and that she only regarded him as half a romanist, ordered her arrest as an accomplice, but she proved her innocence, and was set free.
much merriment was caused at the court of louis xiii. by maret, who imitated the gascon twang of gascon nobles; and with louis xiv. we come to the last of the official jesters, l’angeli, originally a stable-boy, and whose memory has been thus immortalised by boileau:—
“un poête à la cour fut jadis à la mode,
mais des fous aujourd’hui c’est le plus incommode,
et l’esprit le plus beau, l’auteur le plus poli,
ne parviendra jamais au sort de l’angeli.”
although on the death of l’angeli in 1640 louis xiv. appointed no successor, we occasionally meet with amateur fools who kept the court amused. thus vardis, “after throwing the whole court and household of the king into confusion by his audacious gallantries, was exiled to provence for nearly{324} thirty years,” and the duke de roquelaure figures in many jest-books as a buffoon at the court of louis xiv.
when don john of austria accompanied pimentel to paris to negotiate the marriage of maria theresa of spain with the young louis xiv., he introduced at court capiton, a spanish folle, whose wit and jokes were much appreciated. louis enjoyed her fun and merriment, and she was so popular that no party was thought complete without her.
according to a spanish decree, “from ancient times it has been lawful for mimes or jesters to reside in princes’ households, for the execution of their office is a provocative to gladness. wherefore, we will and ordain that in our court there shall always be five jesters, of which five two may be trumpeters, and a third our letter-carrier.” martin of aragon had a favourite jester in the famous borra, who, however, killed his royal patron by a joke. the story goes that, as the king lay on his bed groaning from indigestion through eating an entire goose, borra rushed into the room laughing. on his inquiring whence he came, borra replied, “out of the next vineyard, where i saw a young deer hanging by his tail from a tree, as if some one had so punished him for stealing figs”—a joke which caused the king to die of laughter. and luis lopez, the fool of alfonso, king of aragon, lies buried in the cathedral of cordova.
amongst the fools that figured at the italian court may be mentioned fagotto, who was officially associated with alboin, king of the lombards; and{325} bertoldo, of whom, writes dr. doran, little mention has been made by those who have dealt with the subject of italian jesters. he is said to have been “hideously ugly,” with “hair as red as carrots,” but possessed of no ordinary wit. when asked by the king if he could contrive to bring him water in a sieve without spilling it, he answered, “in a hard frost i could bring any quantity.” all manner of questions were put to him to try his wit, and one day the king thought he had outwitted him by asking him to demonstrate—as he had asserted—that daylight was whiter than milk. he accepted the challenge, and having entered the king’s bedchamber at night, and closed the blinds, he placed a pail of milk in the middle of the room. alboin rising in the dark, overturned the pail, and on calling for light, was answered by bertoldo, who triumphantly remarked that “if the milk had been clearer than daylight, he would have seen the former without the aid of the latter.” another well-known fool was gonella, jester of borso, duke of ferrara, whose post seems to have been a profitable one, from the fact of his betting a hundred crowns with his master that there were more doctors in ferrara than there were members of any other profession.
“fool,” said borso, “there are not half-a-dozen to be found in the ‘city directory.’”
“i will bring you a more correct list in three or four days,” replied gonella; whereupon he went with his face bound up and sat at the church-door, and, as the passers-by learnt he had the toothache,{326} they severally prescribed “an infallible remedy,” gonella writing down the name and address of each instead of the prescription. in this way the fool managed to get a list of 299 names. and, on his appearing before his master with his head still bound up, he was informed there was no remedy but extraction, at which he added his name to the list of ferrara doctors, which now numbered 300. but gonella’s jokes cost him his life. having offended his master, he resolved to punish him by fright, and sentenced him to be put to death. after the usual formalities had been enacted, gonella placed his head on the block, and the executioner stepping forward let fall from a phial a single drop of water on his neck, which had all the effect of the sharpest instrument, for it was soon discovered that he was dead, which caused the spectators to exclaim, “a shocking bad joke, indeed!”
it was a practical joke that almost killed menicucci, the jester of the grand duke ferdinand i. one of his follies was conceit, and, to show his superiority, he once had his dinner served on the top of a high closet in the stone hall of the palace. but, while engaged in his repast, the ladder by which he had mounted was removed, and the floor covered with damp straw, which, being lighted, would have suffocated the terrified fool but for the timely assistance of the archduke, who ordered his immediate release. and when vincentius, duke of mantua, entertained frederick, duke of wurtemberg, in 1600, he arranged a contest{327} between his fool and a young wild boar, deprived of its tusks and upper teeth. a strange mode of diversion, which apparently gave much satisfaction.
but some of the most extraordinary scenes in connection with court fools were those witnessed in russia, where the position of jester was no sinecure. thus, when ivan iv. was depressed, his professional fools were summoned to amuse him, and they must have had a lively time, for a bad joke was sure to be strangled in the throat of the utterer. on one occasion he threw over prince gorsdorf, who had failed to be witty, a tureen of scalding-hot soup, and as the prince endeavoured to escape the czar plunged a knife into his side. the unhappy noble fell dead, and ivan, remarking that he had carried the joke far enough, bade his physician attend to him.
“it is only god and your majesty,” replied the medical man, “that can restore the prince to life. he is quite gone!”
the czar, somewhat disconcerted, took, writes dr. doran,[132] “a pleasant way of forgetting it. it chanced that a favourite noble came at this moment, whereupon his majesty took hold of him by the ear, and, using his knife, he cut it off and flung it into the face of his old friend.” and “the noble received the same with many acknowledgments of his master’s condescension.”
peter the great maintained any number of fools, composed of imbeciles and those who, having been convicted of some grave offence, feigned madness,{328} and were treated as such. another class of fools consisted of those who, having committed some act of folly, were condemned to wear the dress of a fool. oftentimes by the side of peter the great at table, and in his cups, was to be seen a personage addressed as the “patriarch of russia,” and sometimes as the “king of siberia.” he was attired in sacerdotal robes, covered with loosely hung gold and silver medals. it was a favourite trick with peter, when he and the patriarch were equally drunk, “to suddenly overturn him, chair and all, and exhibit the reverend gentleman with his heels in the air.” but there was one official fool he favoured above all others, and he was sotoff, a dwarf. he is said to have been ugly and deformed, the sound of his voice having been likened to the harsh croakings of frogs. but, although his appearance was not prepossessing, peter admired his wit and humour, and would often grow weak from mere excess of laughter. and the title of “king of the samoieds” was generally conferred by peter on his occasional fools, as in the case of a portuguese jew, whom he saw among the patients at the “water cure” at alonaitz in 1719, and whose “singularities and comic bearing” amused him much.
like peter the great, the czar paul was fond of jesters; but on one occasion, when fougère the actor abused his privilege by speaking too freely at supper, he was dragged from his bed at night, placed in a dark van, and was informed{329} that his destination was siberia. after travelling for several weeks he reached his destination, and on quitting the van found himself in the presence of paul, who laughed heartily at the joke, whereby fougère had believed that he was being conveyed to siberia, when he was only being drawn round and round st. petersburg.
english court fools seem in many cases to have had a lively time, besides making themselves occasionally of valuable service in times of emergency. thus, going back to early times, it is recorded how gollet aroused william the conqueror when a conspiracy was formed against his life; and tradition tells how blondel, “that buffoon of a minstrel,” discovers his captive master, richard i., by means of a song. king john appears to have recompensed his fool in an unusual and a liberal fashion by giving him a landed estate; and edward i. kept a joculator in constant attendance upon him, one of whom is said to have slain an assassin at ptolemais, that wounded his patron with a poisoned knife. a female jester amused the court of edward ii., and when this monarch was keeping whitsuntide at westminster hall, “this joculatrix rode into the hall on a closely clipped horse, and caracolled round about the tables, to the great amusement of the company.” a noted jester was scogan, who was attached to the court of edward iv.; and, of the many amusing stories told respecting him, it is said that he borrowed a sum of money from the king, which, when he was unable to pay back, he fell{330} sick and died, requesting his friends to take care that the king encountered the funeral. his majesty did so, and, regretting the loss of his merry follower, he freely forgave scogan his debt, upon hearing which, to the astonishment of edward, he jumped up, exclaiming, “it is so revivifying that it has called me to life again.”
patch, fool to henry viii., once besought the king to permit him to exact an egg from every husband who was dissatisfied with his wife. the king granted him a warrant, the ink of which was scarcely dry when the jester, with mock gravity, demanded the first egg from the king, remarking, “your grace belongs to the class of husbands on whom i am entitled to make levy.”
will sommers, whose alleged portrait at hampton court is familiar to most persons, was another jester at the court of henry viii., and will saxton, the first court fool to wear a wig, amused the king up to the last, and held office under edward vi.
many laughable anecdotes are told of john heywood, named by henry viii. “king’s jester,” whose wit and humour moved, writes warton, mary’s “rigid muscles” and “her sullen solemnity was not proof against his songs, his rhymes, and his jests.” once when the queen remarked that the priests must forego their wives, he replied, “then your grace must allow them lemmans (sweethearts), for the clergy cannot live without sauce.” on another occasion, when mary asked, “what wind has blown you to court?” he familiarly answered,{331} “one that i might see your majesty, and the other that your majesty might see me.” on the death of mary in 1558 he withdrew to mechlin, where he passed the closing years of his life.
queen elizabeth had her jesters, and a notable personage was clod, who occasionally exercised his wit at her expense. thus, one day when she reproached him with neglecting his duties, he asked, “how so, in what have i failed?”
“in this,” answered the queen, “you are ready enough to point your sharp satire at the faults of other people, but you never say a word of mine.”
“ah,” exclaimed clod, “why should i remind your majesty of your faults, seeing that these are in everybody’s mouth, and you may hear of them hourly?”
then there was tarleton, who, writes fuller, “when queen elizabeth was serious, i dare not say sullen, and out of good humour, he could undumpish her at his pleasure.” tarleton wore his fool’s attire when the queen dined, and when she dined abroad he attended her “in his clown’s apparel; being all dinner-while in the presence with her, to make her merry.” and so great was his popularity, that “the year of tarleton’s death” was as common a saying as “the year of the armada.”
at the court of james i. both king and queen maintained a fool; and we find the latter paying thirteen shillings a week “for the diet and lodging of tom derry,” who seems to have been held of some importance, since a gallery at somerset{332} house where he used to loiter and make jokes was named after him. we find sir thomas jermyn, sir ralph sheldon, and thomas badger mentioned as “fools or buffoons,” and on sir edward zouch, sir george goring, and sir john finett was bestowed the honour of being “the chief and master fools.” archie armstrong was a special favourite of james, and seems to have been on familiar terms with him, and howell thus writes of him: “our cousin archie hath more privilege than any; for he often goes with his fool’s coat when the infanta is with her meninas and ladies of honour, and keeps a blowing and a blustering among them, and flirts out what he lists.” after the death of james he passed into the service of charles, but his fall came through his insulting laud—whom he hated—by saying the following grace in his presence: “great praise be to god, and little laud to the devil.”
for this offence archie was taken before the king, and despite his pleading his privilege of jester, he was punished, as the following order, dated march 11, 1637. will show:—
“it is this day ordered by his majesty that archibald armstrong, the king’s fool, for certain scandalous words of a high nature, spoken by him against the lord archbishop of canterbury, his grace, and proved to be uttered by him by two witnesses, shall have his coat pulled over his head, and be discharged of the king’s service, and banished the court, for which the lord chamberlain of the king’s household is prayed and required to give order to be executed.” and{333} immediately the same was put into force, the king himself being present when archie’s coat was stripped from him.
at the court of charles ii., tom killigrew, whom pepys styles “a merry droll, but a gentleman of great esteem with the king,” seems to have been in much requisition as a jester; and under february 13, 1667-68, the diarist makes this entry: “mr. brisband tells me, in discourse, that tom killigrew hath a fee out of the wardrobe for cap and bells, under the title of the king’s foole or jester, and may revile or jeer anybody, the greatest person without offence, by the privilege of his place.” for a time he is said to have been the most conspicuous man at court, and to have kept up the traditions of his class by his eccentric pranks. one day he appeared before charles in the disguise of a pilgrim, whereupon his majesty inquired, “whither away?”
“i am going to hell,” replied killigrew, “to ask the devil to send back oliver cromwell to take charge of the affairs of england; for, as to his successor, he is always employed in other business.”
the patronage bestowed by queen anne on tom d’urfey, the song-writer of her era, resembled that extended by the sister queens, mary and elizabeth, to their dramatic buffoons, heywood and tarleton. after dinner d’urfey took his stand by the sideboard at the time of dessert, to repeat political gibes or doggerel ballads, so framed as to flatter some of the well-known prejudices of his royal mistress.
