THE FEAST OF FOOLS (_continued_)
The history of the Feast of Fools has been so imperfectly written,
that it is perhaps worth while to bring together the records of its
occurrence, elsewhere than in Troyes and Sens, from the fourteenth
century onwards. They could probably be somewhat increased by an
exhaustive research amongst French local histories, archives, and the
transactions of learned societies. Of the feast in Notre-Dame at Paris
nothing is heard after the reformation carried out in 1198 by Eudes de
Sully[1058]. The _bourgeois_ of Tournai were, indeed, able to quote a
Paris precedent for the feast of their own city in 1499; but this may
have been merely the feast of some minor collegiate body, such as that
founded in 1303 by cardinal Le Moine[1059]; or of the scholars of the
University, or of the _compagnie joyeuse_ of the _Enfants-sans-Souci_.
At Beauvais, too, there are only the faintest traces of the feast
outside the actual twelfth-and thirteenth-century service-books[1060].
But there are several other towns in the provinces immediately north
and east of the capital, Île de France, Picardy, Champagne, where it
is recorded. The provision made for it in the Amiens _Ordinarium_ of
1291 has been already quoted. Shortly after this, bishop William de
Macon, who died in 1303, left his own _pontificalia_ for the use of
the ‘bishop of Fools[1061].’ When, however, the feast reappears in the
fifteenth century the _dominus festi_ is no longer a ‘bishop,’ but a
‘pope.’ In 1438 there was an endowment consisting of a share in the
profits of some lead left by one John le Caron, who had himself been
‘pope[1062].’ In 1520 the feast was held, but no bells were to be
jangled[1063]. It was repeated in 1538. Later in the year the customary
election of the ‘pope’ on the anniversary of Easter was forbidden, but
the canons afterwards repented of their severity[1064]. In 1540 the
chapter paid a subsidy towards the amusements of the ‘pope’ and his
‘cardinals’ on the Sunday called _brioris_[1065]. In 1548 the feast
was suppressed[1066]. At Noyon the vicars chose a ‘king of Fools’ on
Epiphany eve. The custom is mentioned in 1366 as ‘_le gieu des roys_.’
By 1419 it was forbidden, and canon John de Gribauval was punished
for an attempt to renew it by taking the sceptre off the high altar
at Compline on Epiphany. In 1497, 1499, and 1505 it was permitted
again, with certain restrictions. The cavalcade must be over before
Nones; there must be no licentious or scurrilous _chansons_, no dance
before the great doors; the ‘king’ must wear ecclesiastical dress in
the choir. In 1520, however, he was allowed to wear his crown _more
antiquo_. The feast finally perished in 1721, owing to _la cherté des
vivres_[1067]. At Soissons, the feast was held on January 1, with
masquing[1068]. At Senlis, the _dominus festi_ was a ‘pope.’ In 1403
there was much division of opinion amongst the chapter as to the
continuance of the feast, and it was finally decided that it must take
place outside the church. In 1523 it came to an end. The vicars of the
chapter of Saint-Rieul had in 1501 their separate feast on January 1,
with a ‘prelate of Fools’ and _jeux_ in the churchyard[1069]. From
Laon fuller records are available[1070]. A ‘patriarch of Fools’ was
chosen with his ‘consorts’ on Epiphany eve after Prime, by the vicars,
chaplains and choir-clerks. There was a cavalcade through the city
and a procession called the _Rabardiaux_, of which the nature is not
stated[1071]. The chapter bore the expenses of the banquet and the
masks. The first notice is about 1280. In 1307 one Pierre Caput was
‘patriarch.’ In 1454 the bishop upheld the feast against the dean, but
it was decided that it should take place outside the church. A similar
regulation was made in 1455, 1456, 1459. In 1462 the _servitium_ was
allowed, and the _jeu_ was to be submitted to censorship. In 1464 and
1465 mysteries were acted before the _Rabardiaux_. In 1486 the _jeu_
was given before the church of St.-Martin-au-Parvis. In 1490 the
_jeux_ and cavalcade were forbidden, and the banquet only allowed.
In 1500 a chaplain, Jean Hubreland, was fined for not taking part in
the ceremony. In 1518 the worse fate of imprisonment befell Albert
Gosselin, another chaplain, who flung fire from above the porch upon
the ‘patriarch’ and his ‘consorts.’ By 1521 the _servitium_ seems to
have been conducted by the _curés_ of the Laon churches, and the vicars
and chaplains merely assisted. The expense now fell on the _curés_,
and the chapter subsidy was cut down. In 1522 and 1525 the perquisites
of the ‘patriarch’ were still further reduced by the refusal of a
donation from the chapter as well as of the fines formerly imposed on
absentees. In 1527 a protest of Laurent Brayart, ‘patriarch,’ demanding
either leave to celebrate the feast _more antiquo_ or a dispensation
from assisting at the election of his successor, was referred to
the ex-‘patriarch.’ In this same year canons, vicars, chaplains and
_habitués_ of the cathedral were forbidden to appear at the farces of
the _fête des ânes_[1072]. In 1531 the ‘patriarch’ Théobald Bucquet,
recovered the right to play comedies and _jeux_ and to take the
absentee fines; but in 1541 Absalon Bourgeois was refused leave _pour
faire semblant de dire la messe à liesse_. The feast was cut down to
the bare election of the ‘patriarch’ in 1560, and seems to have passed
into the hands of a _confrérie_; all that was retained in the cathedral
being the _Primes folles_ on Epiphany eve, in which the laity occupied
the high stalls, and all present wore crowns of green leaves.
At Rheims, a Feast of Fools in 1490 was the occasion for a satirical
attack by the vicars and choir-boys on the fashion of the hoods
worn by the _bourgeoises_. This led to reprisals in the form of
some anti-ecclesiastical farces played on the following _dimanche
des Brandons_ by the law clerks of the Rheims _Basoche_[1073]. At
Châlons-sur-Marne a detailed and curious account is preserved of
the way in which the Feast of Fools was celebrated in 1570[1074].
It took place on St. Stephen’s day. The chapter provided a banquet
on a theatre in front of the great porch. To this the ‘bishop of
Fools’ was conducted in procession from the _maîtrise des fous_,
with bells and music upon a gaily trapped ass. He was then vested
in cope, mitre, pectoral cross, gloves and crozier, and enjoyed a
banquet with the canons who formed his ‘household.’ Meanwhile some of
the inferior clergy entered the cathedral, sang gibberish, grimaced
and made contortions. After the banquet, Vespers were precipitately
sung, followed by a _motet_[1075]. Then came a musical cavalcade round
the cathedral and through the streets. A game of _la paume_ took
place in the market; then dancing and further cavalcades. Finally
a band gathered before the cathedral, howled and clanged kettles
and saucepans, while the bells were rung and the clergy appeared in
grotesque costumes.
Flanders also had its Feasts of Fools. That of St. Omer, which existed
in the twelfth century, lasted to the sixteenth[1076]. An attempt was
made to stop it in 1407, when the chapter forbade any one to take the
name of ‘bishop’ or ‘abbot’ of Fools. But Seraphin Cotinet was ‘bishop’
of Fools in 1431, and led the _gaude_ on St. Nicholas’ eve[1077].
The ‘bishop’ is again mentioned in 1490, but in 1515 the feast was
suppressed by Francis de Melun, bishop of Arras and provost of St.
Omer[1078]. Some payments made by the chapter of Béthune in 1445 and
1474 leave it doubtful how far the feast was really established in
that cathedral[1079]. At Lille the feast was forbidden by the chapter
statutes of 1323 and 1328[1080]. But at the end of the fourteenth
century it was in full swing, lasting under its ‘bishop’ or ‘prelate’
from the vigil to the octave of Epiphany. Amongst the payments made
by the chapter on account of it is one to replace a tin can (_kanne
stannee_) lost at the banquet. The ‘bishop’ was chosen, as elsewhere,
by the inferior clergy of the cathedral; but he also stood in some
relation to the municipality of Lille, and superintended the miracle
plays performed at the procession of the Holy Sacrament and upon other
occasions. In 1393 he received a payment from the duke of Burgundy for
the _fête_ of the _Trois Rois_. Municipal subsidies were paid to him
in the fifteenth century; he collected additional funds from private
sources and offered prizes, by proclamation _soubz nostre seel de
fatuité_, for pageants and _histoires de la Sainte Escripture_; was, in
fact, a sort of Master of the Revels for Lille. He was active in 1468,
but in 1469 the town itself gave the prizes, in place _de l’evesque des
folz, qui à présent est rué jus_. The chapter accounts show that he was
reappointed in 1485 _hoc anno, de gratia speciali_. In 1492 and 1493
the chapter payments were not to him but _sociis domus clericorum_,
and from this year onwards he appears neither in the chapter accounts
nor in those of the municipality[1081]. Nevertheless, he did not
yet cease to exist, for a statute was passed by the chapter for his
extinction, together with that of the _ludus, quem Deposuit vocant_, in
1531[1082]. Five years before this the canons and vicars were still
wearing masks and playing comedies in public[1083]. The history of the
feast at Tournai is only known to me through certain legal proceedings
which took place before the _Parlement_ of Paris in 1499. It appears
that the young _bourgeois_ of Tournai were accustomed to require the
vicars of Notre-Dame to choose an _évesque des sotz_ from amongst
themselves on Innocents’ day. In 1489 they took one Matthieu de Porta
and insulted him in the church itself. The chapter brought an action
in the local court against the _prévost et jurez_ of the town; and in
the meantime obtained provisional letters inhibitory from Charles VIII,
forbidding the vicars to hold the feast or the _bourgeois_ to enforce
it. All went well for some years, but in 1497 the _bourgeois_ grumbled
greatly, and in 1498, with the connivance of the municipal authorities
themselves, they broke out. On the eve of the Holy Innocents, between
nine and ten o’clock, Jacques de l’Arcq, mayor of the _Edwardeurs_,
and others got into the house of Messire Pasquier le Pâme, a chaplain,
and dragged him half naked, through snow and frost, to a _cabaret_.
Seven or eight other vicars, one of whom was found saying his Hours
in a churchyard, were similarly treated, and as none of them would
be made _évesque des sotz_ they were all kept prisoners. The chapter
protested to the _prévost et jurez_, but in vain. On the following day
the _bourgeois_ chose one of the vicars _évesque_, baptized him by
torchlight with three buckets of water at a fountain, led him about
for three days in a surplice, and played scurrilous farces. They
then dismissed the vicar, and elected as _évesque_ a clerk from the
diocese of Cambrai, who defied the chapter. They drove Jean Parisiz,
the _curé_ of La Madeleine, who had displeased them, from his church
in the midst of Vespers, and on Epiphany day made him too a prisoner.
In the following March the chapter and Messire Jean Parisiz brought a
joint action before the High Court at Paris against the delinquents and
the municipal authorities, who had backed them up. The case came on for
hearing in November, when it was pleaded that the custom of electing
an _évesque des sotz_ upon Innocents’ day was an ancient one. The
ceremony took place upon a scaffold near the church door; there were
_jeux_ in the streets for seven or eight days, and a final _convici_
in which the canons and others of the town were satirized. The chapter
and some of the citizens sent bread and wine. The same thing was done
in many dioceses of Picardy, and even in Paris. It was all _ad solacium
populi_, and divine service was not disturbed, for nobody entered the
church. The vicar who had been chosen _évesque_ thought it a great
and unexpected honour. There would have been no trouble had not the
_évesque_ when distributing hoods with ears at the end of the _jeux_
unfortunately included certain persons who would rather have been
left out, and who consequently stirred up the chapter to take action.
The court adjourned the case, and ultimately it appears to have been
settled, for one of the documents preserved is endorsed with a note of
a _concordat_ between the chapter and the town, by which the feast was
abolished in 1500[1084].
Of the Feast of Fools in central France I can say but little. At
Chartres, the _Papi-Fol_ and his cardinals committed many insolences
during the first four days of the year, and exacted _droits_ from
passers-by. They were suppressed in 1479 and again in 1504[1085].
At Tours a _Ritual_ of the fourteenth century contains elaborate
directions for the _festum novi anni, quod non debet remanere, nisi
corpora sint humi_. This is clearly a reformed feast, of which the
chief features are the dramatic procession of the _Prophetae_,
including doubtless Balaam on his ass, in church, and a _miraculum_ in
the cloister[1086]. The ‘Boy Bishop’ gives the benediction at Tierce,
and before Vespers there are _chori_ (carols, I suppose) also in the
cloisters. At Vespers _Deposuit_ is sung three times, and the _baculus_
may be taken. If so, the _thesaurarius_ is beaten with _baculi_ by
the clergy at Compline, and the new _cantor_ is led home with beating
of _baculi_ on the walls[1087]. At Bourges, the use of the ‘Prose of
the Ass’ in Notre-Dame de Sales seems to imply the existence of the
feast, but I know no details[1088]. At Avallon the _dominus festi_
seems to have been, as at Laon, a ‘patriarch,’ and to have officiated
on Innocents’ day. A chapter statute regulated the proceedings in 1453,
and another abolished them in 1510[1089]. At Auxerre, full accounts of
a long chapter wrangle are preserved in the register[1090]. It began in
1395 with an order requiring the decent performance of the _servitium_,
and imposing a fee upon newly admitted canons towards the feast. In
1396 the feast was not held, owing to the recent defeat of Sigismund
of Hungary and the count of Nevers by Bajazet and his Ottomans at
Nicopolis[1091]. In 1398 the dean entered a protest against a grant of
wine made by the chapter to the thirsty revellers. In 1400 a further
order was passed to check various abuses, the excessive ringing of
bells, the licence of the _sermones fatui_, the impounding of copes
in pledge for contributions, the beating of men and women through
the streets, and all _derisiones_ likely to bring discredit on the
church[1092]. In the following January, the bishop of Auxerre, Michel
de Crency, intervened, forbidding the _fatui_ to form a ‘chapter,’
or to appoint ‘proctors,’ or _clamare la fête aux fous_ after the
singing of the Hours in the church. This led to a storm. The bishop
brought an action in the secular court, and the chapter appealed to
the ecclesiastical court of the Sens province. In June, however, it
was agreed as part of a general _concordat_ between the parties, that
all these proceedings should be _non avenu_[1093]. It seems, however,
to have been understood that the chapter would reform the feast. On
December 2, the abbot of Pontigny preached a sermon before the chapter
in favour of the abolition of the feast, and on the following day the
dean came down and warned the canons that it was the intention of the
University of Paris to take action, even if necessary, by calling in
the secular arm[1094]. It was better to reform themselves than to
be reformed. It was then agreed to suppress the abuses of the feast,
the sermons and the wearing of unecclesiastical garb, and to hold
nothing but a _festum subdiaconorum_ on the day of the Circumcision.
Outside the church, however, the clergy might dance and promenade
(_chorizare ... et ... spatiare_) on the _place_ of St. Stephen’s.
These regulations were disregarded, on the plea that they were intended
to apply only to the year in which they were made. In 1407 the chapter
declared that they were to be permanent, but strong opposition was
offered to this decision by three canons, Jean Piqueron, himself a
sub-deacon, Jean Bonat, and Jean Berthome, who maintained that the
_concordat_ with the bishop was for reform, not for abolition. The
matter was before the chapter for the last time, so far as the extant
documents go, in 1411. On January 2, the dean reported that in spite
of the prohibition certain _canonici tortrarii_[1095], chaplains and
choir-clerks had held the feast. A committee of investigation was
appointed, and in December the prohibition was renewed. Jean Piqueron
was once more a protestant, and on this occasion obtained the support
of five colleagues[1096]. It may be added that in the sixteenth century
an _abbas stultorum_ was still annually elected on July 18, beneath a
great elm at the porch of Auxerre cathedral. He was charged with the
maintenance of certain small points of choir discipline[1097].
In Franche Comté and Burgundy, the Feast of Fools is also found. At
Besançon it was celebrated by all the four great churches. In the
cathedrals of St. John and St. Stephen, ‘cardinals’ were chosen on St.
Stephen’s day by the deacons and sub-deacons, on St. John’s day by the
priests, on the Holy Innocents’ day by the choir-clerks and choir-boys.
In the collegiate churches of St. Paul and St. Mary Magdalen, ‘bishops’
or ‘abbots’ were similarly chosen. All these _domini festorum_ seem to
have had the generic title of _rois des fous_, and on the choir-feast
four cavalcades went about the streets and exchanged railleries (_se
chantaient pouille_) when they met. In 1387 the _Statutes_ of cardinal
Thomas of Naples ordered that the feasts should be held jointly in each
church in turn; and in 1518 the cavalcades were suppressed, owing to a
conflict upon the bridge which had a fatal ending. Up to 1710, however,
_reges_ were still elected in St. Mary Magdalen’s; not, indeed, those
for the three feasts of Christmas week, but a _rex capellanorum_ and
a _rex canonicorum_, who officiated respectively on the Circumcision
and on Epiphany[1098]. At Autun the feast of the _baculus_ in the
thirteenth century has already been recorded. In the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries some interesting notices are available in the
chapter registers[1099]. In 1411 the feast required reforming. The
canons were ordered to attend in decent clothes as on the Nativity; and
the custom of leading an ass in procession and singing a _cantilena_
thereon was suppressed[1100]. In 1412 the abolition of the feast was
decreed[1101]. But in 1484 it was sanctioned again, and licence was
given to punish those who failed to put in an appearance at the Hours
by burning at the well[1102]. This custom, however, was forbidden in
1498[1103]. Nothing more is heard of the _asinus_, but it is possible
that he figured in the play of _Herod_ which was undoubtedly performed
at the feast, and which gave a name to the _dominus festi_[1104]. Under
the general name of _festa fatuorum_ was included at Autun, besides
the feast of the Circumcision, also that of the ‘bishop’ and ‘dean’
of Innocents, and a _missa fatuorum_ was sung _ex ore infantium_ from
the Innocents’ day to Epiphany[1105]. In 1499 Jean Rolin, abbot of
St. Martin’s and dean of Autun, led a renewed attack upon the feast.
He had armed himself with a letter from Louis XI, and induced the
chapter, in virtue of the Basle decree, to suppress both Herod and the
‘bishop’ of Innocents[1106]. In 1514 and 1515 the play of _Herod_ was
performed; but in 1518, when application was made to the chapter to
sanction the election of both a ‘Herod’ and the ‘bishop’ and ‘dean’ of
Innocents, they applied to the king’s official for leave, and failed
to get it. Finally in 1535 the chapter recurred to the Basle decree,
and again forbade the feast, particularly specifying under the name
of _Gaigizons_ the obnoxious ceremony of ‘ducking.[1107]’ The feast
held in the ducal, afterwards royal chapel of Dijon yields documents
which are unique, because they are in French verse. The first is a
_mandement_ of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, in 1454, confirming,
on the request of the _haut-Bâtonnier_, the privilege of the fête,
against those who would abolish it. He declares
‘Que cette Fête célébrée
Soit à jamais un jour l’année,
Le premier du mois de Janvier;
Et que joyeux Fous sans dangier,
De l’habit de notre Chapelle,
Fassent la Fête bonne et belle,
Sans outrage ni derision.’
In 1477 Louis XI seized Burgundy, and in 1482 his representatives, Jean
d’Amboise, bishop and duke of Langres, lieutenant of the duchy, and
Baudricourt the governor, accorded to Guy Baroset
‘Protonotaire et Procureur des Foux,’
a fresh confirmation for the privilege of the feast held by
‘Le Bâtonnier et tous ses vrais suppôts[1108].’
There was a second feast in Dijon at the church of St. Stephen. In 1494
it was the custom here, as at Sens, to shave the ‘precentor’ of Fools
upon a stage before the church. In 1621 the vicars still paraded the
streets with music and lanterns in honour of their ‘precentor[1109].’
In 1552, however, the Feasts of Fools throughout Burgundy had been
prohibited by an _arrêt_ of the _Parlement_ of Dijon. This was
immediately provoked by the desire of the chapter of St. Vincent’s
at Châlons-sur-Saône to end the scandal of the feast under their
jurisdiction. It was, however, general in its terms, and probably put
an end to the _Chapelle_ feast at Dijon, since to about this period may
be traced the origin of the famous _compagnie_ of the _Mère-Folle_ in
that city[1110].
In Dauphiné there was a _rex et festum fatuorum_ at St. Apollinaire’s
in Valence, but I cannot give the date[1111]. At Vienne the _Statutes_
of St. Maurice, passed in 1385, forbid the _abbas stultorum seu
sociorum_, but apparently allow _rois_ on the Circumcision and
Epiphany, as well as in the three post-Nativity feasts. They also
forbid certain _ludibria_. No _pasquinades_ are to be recited, and
no one is to be carried _in Rost_ or to have his property put in
pawn[1112]. More can be said of the feast at Viviers. A _Ceremonial_
of 1365 contains minute directions for its conduct[1113]. On December
17 the _sclafardi et clericuli_ chose an _abbas stultus_ to be
responsible, as at Auxerre, for the decorum of the choir throughout
the year. He was shouldered and borne to a place of honour at a
drinking-bout. Here even the bishop, if present, must do him honour.
After the drinking, the company divided into two parts, one composed of
inferior clergy, the other of dignitaries, and sang a doggerel song,
each endeavouring to sing its rival down. They shouted, hissed, howled,
cackled, jeered and gesticulated; and the victors mocked and flouted
the vanquished. Then the door-keeper made a proclamation on behalf of
the ‘abbot,’ calling on all to follow him, on pain of having their
breeches slit, and the whole crew rushed violently out of the church.
A progress through the town followed, which was repeated daily until
Christmas eve[1114]. On the three post-Nativity feasts, a distinct
_dominus festi_, the _episcopus stultus_, apparently elected the
previous year, took the place of the _abbas_. On each of these days he
presided at Matins, Mass, and Vespers, sat in full pontificals on the
bishop’s throne, attended by his ‘chaplain,’ and gave the Benedictions.
Both on St. Stephen’s and St. John’s days these were followed by the
recitation of a burlesque formula of indulgence[1115]. The whole
festivity seems to have concluded on Innocents’ day with the election
of a new _episcopus_, who, after the shouldering and the drinking-bout,
took his stand at a window of the great hall of the bishop’s palace,
and blessed the people of the city[1116]. The _episcopus_ was bound to
give a supper to his fellows. In 1406 one William Raynoard attempted to
evade this obligation. An action was brought against him in the court
of the bishop’s official, by the then _abbas_ and his predecessor.
It was referred to the arbitration of three canons, who decided that
Raynoard must give the supper on St. Bartholomew’s next, August 24, at
the accustomed place (a tavern, one fears) in the little village of
Gras, near Viviers[1117].
Finally, there are examples of the Feast of Fools in Provence. At
Arles it was held in the church of St. Trophime, and is said to have
been presented, out of its due season, it may be supposed, for the
amusement of the Emperor Charles IV at his coronation in 1365, to have
scandalized him and so to have met its end[1118]. Nevertheless in the
fifteenth century an ‘archbishop of Innocents,’ _alias stultus_, still
sang the ‘_O_’ on St. Thomas’s day, officiated on the days of St. John
and the Innocents, and on St. Trophime’s day (Dec. 29) paid a visit to
the _abadesse fole_ of the convent of Saint-Césaire. The real abbess
of this convent was bound to provide chicken, bread and wine for his
regaling[1119]. At Fréjus in 1558 an attempt to put down the feast led
to a riot. The bishop, Léon des Ursins, was threatened with murder,
and had to hide while his palace was stormed[1120]. At Aix the chapter
of St. Saviour’s chose on St. Thomas’s day, an _episcopus fatuus vel
Innocentium_ from the choir-boys. He officiated on Innocents’ day, and
boys and canons exchanged stalls. The custom lasted until at least
1585[1121]. Antibes, as late as 1645, affords a rare example of the
feast held by a religious house. It was on Innocents’ day in the church
of the Franciscans. The choir and office were left to the lay-brothers,
the _quêteurs_, cooks and gardeners. These put on the vestments inside
out, held the books upside down, and wore spectacles with rounds of
orange peel instead of glasses. They blew the ashes from the censers
upon each other’s faces and heads, and instead of the proper liturgy
chanted confused and inarticulate gibberish. All this is recorded by
the contemporary free-thinker Mathurin de Neuré in a letter to his
leader and inspirer, Gassendi[1122].
It will be noticed that the range of the Feast of Fools in France, so
far as I have come across it, seems markedly to exclude the west and
south-west of the country. I have not been able to verify an alleged
exception at Bordeaux[1123]. Possibly there is some ethnographical
reason for this. But on the whole, I am inclined to think that it is
an accident, and that a more complete investigation would disclose a
sufficiency of examples in this area. Outside France, the Feast of
Fools is of much less importance. The Spanish disciplinary councils
appear to make no specific mention of it, although they know the
cognate feast of the Boy Bishop, and more than once prohibit _ludi_,
_choreae_, and so forth, in general terms[1124]. In Germany, again, I
do not know of a case in which the term ‘Fools’ is used. But the feast
itself occurs sporadically. As early as the twelfth century, Herrad
von Landsberg, abbess of Hohenburg, complained that miracle-plays,
such as that of the _Magi_, instituted on Epiphany and its octave by
the Fathers of the Church, had given place to licence, buffoonery and
quarrelling. The priests came into the churches dressed as knights, to
drink and play in the company of courtesans[1125]. A Mosburg _Gradual_
of 1360 contains a series of _cantiones_ compiled and partly written by
the dean John von Perchausen for use when the _scholarium episcopus_
was chosen at the Nativity[1126]. Some of these, however, are shown by
their headings or by internal evidence to belong rather to a New Year’s
day feast, than to one on Innocents’ day[1127]. A _festum baculi_ is
mentioned and an _episcopus_ or _praesul_ who is chosen and enthroned.
One carol has the following refrain[1128]:
‘gaudeamus et psallamus novo praesuli
ad honorem et decorem sumpti baculi.’
Another is so interesting, for its classical turn, and for the names
which it gives to the ‘bishop’ and his crew that I quote it in
full[1129].
1. Gregis pastor Tityrus,
asinorum dominus,
noster est episcopus.
R^o. eia, eia, eia,
vocant nos ad gaudia
Tityri cibaria.
2. ad honorem Tityri,
festum colant baculi
satrapae et asini.
R^o. eia, eia, eia,
vocant nos ad gaudia;
Tityri cibaria.
3. applaudamus Tityro
cum melodis organo,
cum chordis et tympano.
4. veneremur Tityrum,
qui nos propter baculum
invitat ad epulum.
The reforms of the council of Basle were adopted for Germany by the
Emperor Albrecht II in the _Instrumentum Acceptationis_ of Mainz in
1439. In 1536 the council of Cologne, quoting the decretal of Innocent
III, condemned _theatrales ludi_ in churches. A Cologne _Ritual_
preserves an account of the sub-deacons’ feast upon the octave of
Epiphany[1130]. The sub-deacons were _hederaceo serto coronati_. Tapers
were lit, and a _rex_ chosen, who acted as _hebdomarius_ from first to
second Vespers. Carols were sung, as at Mosburg[1131].
John Huss, early in the fifteenth century, describes the Feast of Fools
as it existed in far-off Bohemia[1132]. The revellers, of whom, to
his remorse, Huss had himself been one as a lad, wore masks. A clerk,
grotesquely vested, was dubbed ‘bishop,’ set on an ass with his face to
the tail, and led to mass in the church. He was regaled on a platter
of broth and a bowl of beer, and Huss recalls the unseemly revel which
took place[1133]. Torches were borne instead of candles, and the clergy
turned their garments inside out, and danced. These _ludi_ had been
forbidden by one archbishop John of holy memory.
It would be surprising, in view of the close political and
ecclesiastical relations between mediaeval France and England, if the
Feast of Fools had not found its way across the channel. It did; but
apparently it never became so inveterate as successfully to resist
the disciplinary zeal of reforming bishops, and the few notices of it
are all previous to the end of the fourteenth century. It seems to
have lasted longest at Lincoln, and at Beverley. Of Lincoln, it will
be remembered, Pierre de Corbeil, the probable compiler of the Sens
_Officium_, was at one time coadjutor bishop. Robert Grosseteste, whose
attack upon the _Inductio Maii_ and other village festivals served as a
starting-point for this discussion, was no less intolerant of the Feast
of Fools. In 1236 he forbade it to be held either in the cathedral or
elsewhere in the diocese[1134]; and two years later he included the
prohibition in his formal _Constitutions_[1135]. But after another
century and a half, when William Courtney, archbishop of Canterbury,
made a visitation of Lincoln in 1390, he found that the vicars were
still in the habit of disturbing divine service on January 1, in the
name of the feast[1136]. Probably his strict mandate put a stop to the
custom[1137]. At almost precisely the same date the Feast of Fools was
forbidden by the statutes of Beverley minster, although the sub-deacons
and other inferior clergy were still to receive a special commons
on the day of the Circumcision[1138]. Outside Lincoln and Beverley,
the feast is only known in England by the mention of paraphernalia
for it in thirteenth-century inventories of St. Paul’s[1139], and
Salisbury[1140], and by a doubtful allusion in a sophisticated version
of the St. George play[1141].
A brief summary of the data concerning the Feast of Fools presented
in this and the preceding chapter is inevitable. It may be combined
with some indication of the relation in which the feast stands with
regard to the other feasts dealt with in the present volume. If we
look back to Belethus in the twelfth century we find him speaking
of the Feast of Fools as held on the Circumcision, on Epiphany
or on the octave of Epiphany, and as being specifically a feast
of sub-deacons. Later records bear out on the whole the first of
these statements. As a rule the feast focussed on the Circumcision,
although the rejoicings were often prolonged, and the election of the
_dominus festi_ in some instances gave rise to a minor celebration
on an earlier day. Occasionally (Noyon, Laon) the Epiphany, once at
least (Cologne) the octave of the Epiphany, takes the place of the
Circumcision. But we also find the term Feast of Fools extended to
cover one or more of three feasts, distinguished from it by Belethus,
which immediately follow Christmas. Sometimes it includes them all
three (Besançon, Viviers, Vienne), sometimes the feast of the Innocents
alone (Autun, Avallon, Aix, Antibes, Arles), once the feast of St.
Stephen (Châlons-sur-Marne)[1142]. On the other hand, the definition
of the feast as a sub-deacons’ feast is not fully applicable to its
later developments. Traces of a connexion with the sub-deacons appear
more than once (Amiens, Sens, Auxerre, Beverley); but as a rule the
feast is held by the inferior clergy known as vicars, chaplains, and
choir-clerks, all of whom are grouped at Viviers and Romans under the
general term of _esclaffardi_. At Laon a part is taken in it by the
_curés_ of the various parishes in the city. The explanation is, I
think, fairly obvious. Originally, perhaps, the sub-deacons held the
feast, just as the deacons, priests, and boys held theirs in Christmas
week. But it had its vogue mainly in the great cathedrals served by
secular canons[1143], and in these the distinction between the canons
in different orders--for a sub-deacon might be a full canon[1144]--was
of less importance than the difference between the canons as a whole
and the minor clergy who made up the rest of the cathedral body,
the hired choir-clerks, the vicars choral who, originally at least,
supplied the place in the choir of absent canons, and the chaplains
who served the chantries or small foundations attached to the
cathedral[1145]. The status of spiritual dignity gave way to the status
of material preferment. And so, as the vicars gradually coalesced
into a corporation of their own, the Feast of Fools passed into their
hands, and became a celebration of the annual election of the head of
their body[1146]. The vicars and their associates were probably an
ill-educated and an ill-paid class. Certainly they were difficult to
discipline[1147]; and it is not surprising that their rare holiday,
of which the expenses were met partly by the chapter, partly by dues
levied upon themselves or upon the bystanders[1148], was an occasion
for popular rather than refined merry-making[1149]. That it should
perpetuate or absorb folk-customs was also, considering the peasant or
small _bourgeois_ extraction of such men, quite natural.
The simple psychology of the last two sentences really gives the
key to the nature of the feast. It was largely an ebullition of the
natural lout beneath the cassock. The vicars hooted and sang improper
ditties, and played dice upon the altar, in a reaction from the wonted
restraints of choir discipline. Familiarity breeds contempt, and
it was almost an obvious sport to burlesque the sacred and tedious
ceremonies with which they were only too painfully familiar. Indeed,
the reverend founders and reformers of the feast had given a lead to
this apishness by the introduction of the symbolical transference of
the _baculus_ at the _Deposuit_ in the _Magnificat_. The ruling idea of
the feast is the inversion of status, and the performance, inevitably
burlesque, by the inferior clergy of functions properly belonging to
their betters. The fools jangle the bells (Paris, Amiens, Auxerre),
they take the higher stalls (Paris), sing dissonantly (Sens), repeat
meaningless words (Châlons, Antibes), say the _messe liesse_ (Laon) or
the _missa fatuorum_ (Autun), preach the _sermones fatui_ (Auxerre),
cense _praepostere_ (St. Omer) with pudding and sausage (Beauvais) or
with old shoes (Paris theologians). They have their chapter and their
proctors (Auxerre, Dijon). They install their _dominus festi_ with a
ceremony of _sacre_ (Troyes), or shaving (Sens, Dijon). He is vested
in full pontificals, goes in procession, as at the _Rabardiaux_ of
Laon, gives the benedictions, issues indulgences (Viviers), has his
seal (Lille), perhaps his right of coining (Laon). Much in all these
proceedings was doubtless the merest horseplay; such ingenuity and
humour as they required may have been provided by the wicked wit of the
_goliardi_[1150].
Now I would point out that this inversion of status so characteristic
of the Feast of Fools is equally characteristic of folk-festivals.
What is Dr. Frazer’s mock king but one of the meanest of the people
chosen out to represent the real king as the priest victim of a divine
sacrifice, and surrounded, for the period of the feast, in a naïve
attempt to outwit heaven, with all the paraphernalia and luxury of
kingship? Precisely such a mock king is the _dominus festi_ with whom
we have to do. His actual titles, indeed, are generally ecclesiastical.
Most often he is a ‘bishop,’ or ‘prelate’ (Senlis); in metropolitan
churches an ‘archbishop,’ in churches exempt from other authority
than that of the Holy See, a ‘pope’ (Amiens, Senlis, Chartres). More
rarely he is a ‘patriarch’ (Laon, Avallon), a ‘cardinal’ (Paris,
Besançon), an ‘abbot’ (Vienne, Viviers, Romans, Auxerre)[1151], or is
even content with the humbler dignity of ‘precentor,’ ‘_bacularius_’
or ‘_bâtonnier_’ (Sens, Dijon). At Autun he is, quite exceptionally,
‘Herod.’ Nevertheless the term ‘king’ is not unknown. It is found at
Noyon, at Vienne, at Besançon, at Beverley, and the council of Basle
testifies to its use, as well as that of ‘duke.’ Nor is it, after all,
of much importance what the _dominus festi_ is called. The point is
that his existence and functions in the ecclesiastical festivals afford
precise parallels to his existence and functions in folk-festivals all
Europe over.
Besides the ‘king’ many other features of the folk-festivals may
readily be traced at the Feast of Fools. Some here, some there, they
jot up in the records. There are dance and _chanson_, _tripudium_ and
_cantilena_ (Noyon, Châlons-sur-Marne, Paris theologians, council of
Basle). There is eating and drinking, not merely in the refectory,
but within or at the doors of the church itself (Paris theologians,
Beauvais, Prague). There is ball-playing (Châlons-sur-Marne).
There is the procession or cavalcade through the streets (Laon,
Châlons-sur-Marne, &c.). There are torches and lanterns (Sens,
Tournai). Men are led _nudi_ (Sens); they are whipped (Tours); they
are ceremonially ducked or roasted (Sens, Tournai, Vienne, _les
Gaigizons_ at Autun)[1152]. A comparison with earlier chapters of the
present volume will establish the significance which these points,
taken in bulk, possess. Equally characteristic of folk-festivals
is the costume considered proper to the feasts. The riotous clergy
wear their vestments inside out (Antibes), or exchange dress with
the laity (Lincoln, Paris theologians). But they also wear leaves or
flowers (Sens, Laon, Cologne) and women’s dress (Paris theologians);
and above all they wear hideous and monstrous masks, _larvae_ or
_personae_ (decretal of 1207, Paris theologians, council of Basle,
Paris, Soissons, Laon, Lille). These masks, indeed, are perhaps the
one feature of the feast which called down the most unqualified
condemnation from the ecclesiastical authorities. We shall not be far
wrong if we assume them to have been beast-masks, and to have taken the
place of the actual skins and heads of sacrificial animals, here, as so
often, worn at the feast by the worshippers.
An attempt has been made to find an oriental origin for the Feast
of Fools[1153]. Gibbon relates the insults offered to the church
at Constantinople by the Emperor Michael III, the ‘Drunkard’
(842-67)[1154]. A noisy crew of courtiers dressed themselves in the
sacred vestments. One Theophilus or Grylus, captain of the guard, a
mime and buffoon, was chosen as a mock ‘patriarch.’ The rest were his
twelve ‘metropolitans,’ Michael himself being entitled ‘metropolitan
of Cologne.’ The ‘divine mysteries’ were burlesqued with vinegar and
mustard in a golden cup set with gems. Theophilus rode about the
streets of the city on a white ass, and when he met the real patriarch
Ignatius, exposed him to the mockery of the revellers. After the
death of Michael, this profanity was solemnly anathematized by the
council of Constantinople held under his successor Basil in 869[1155].
Theophilus, though he borrowed the vestments for his mummery, seems to
have carried it on in the streets and the palace, not in the church.
In the tenth century, however, the patriarch Theophylactus won an
unenviable reputation by admitting dances and profane songs into the
ecclesiastical festivals[1156]; while in the twelfth, the patriarch
Balsamon describes his own unavailing struggle against proceedings at
Christmas and Candlemas, which come uncommonly near the Feast of Fools.
The clergy of St. Sophia’s, he says, claim as of ancient custom to wear
masks, and to enter the church in the guise of soldiers, or of monks,
or of four-footed animals. The superintendents snap their fingers like
charioteers, or paint their faces and mimic women. The rustics are
moved to laughter by the pouring of wine into pitchers, and are allowed
to chant _Kyrie eleison_ in ludicrous iteration at every verse[1157].
Balsamon, who died in 1193, was almost precisely a contemporary of
Belethus, and the earlier Byzantine notices considerably ante-date any
records that we possess of the Feast of Fools in the West. A slight
corroboration of this theory of an eastern origin may be derived from
the use of the term ‘patriarch’ for the _dominus festi_ at Laon and
Avallon. It would, I think, be far-fetched to find another in the fact
that Theophilus, like the western ‘bishops’ of Fools, rode upon an ass,
and that the _Prose de l’Âne_ begins:
‘Orientis partibus,
adventavit asinus.’
In any case, the oriental example can hardly be responsible for more
than the admission of the feast within the doors of the church. One
cannot doubt that it was essentially an adaptation of a folk-custom
long perfectly well known in the West itself. The question of origin
had already presented itself to the learned writers of the thirteenth
century. William of Auxerre, by a misunderstanding which I shall hope
to explain, traced the Feast of Fools to the Roman _Parentalia_:
Durandus, and the Paris theologians after him, to the January
Kalends. Certainly Durandus was right. The Kalends, unlike the more
specifically Italian feasts, were co-extensive with the Roman empire,
and were naturally widespread in Gaul. The date corresponds precisely
with that by far the most common for the Feast of Fools. A singular
history indeed, that of the ecclesiastical celebration of the First
of January. Up to the eighth century a fast, with its mass _pro
prohibendo ab idolis_, it gradually took on a festal character, and
became ultimately the one feast in the year in which paganism made its
most startling and persistent recoil upon Christianity. The attacks
upon the Kalends in the disciplinary documents form a catena which
extends very nearly to the point at which the notices of the Feast
of Fools begin. In each alike the masking, in mimicry of beasts and
probably of beast-gods or ‘demons,’ appears to have been a prominent
and highly reprobated feature. It is true that we hear nothing of a
_dominus festi_ at the Kalends; but much stress must not be laid upon
the omission of the disciplinary writers to record any one point in a
custom which after all they were not describing as anthropologists,
and it would certainly be an exceptional Germano-Keltic folk-feast
which had not a _dominus_. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of
a _rex_ in the accounts of the pre-Christian Kalends in Italy itself.
There was a _rex_ at the _Saturnalia_, and this, together with an
allusion of Belethus in a quite different connexion to the _libertas
Decembrica_[1158], has led some writers to find in the _Saturnalia_,
rather than the Kalends, the origin of the Feast of Fools[1159]. This
is, I venture to think, wrong. The _Saturnalia_ were over well before
December 25: there is no evidence that they had a vogue outside Italy:
the Kalends, like the _Saturnalia_, were an occasion at which slaves
met their masters upon equal terms, and I believe that the existence of
a Kalends _rex_, both in Italy and in Gaul, may be taken for granted.
But the parallel between Kalends and the Feast of Fools cannot be held
to be quite perfect, unless we can trace in the latter feast that most
characteristic of all Kalends customs, the _Cervulus_. Is it possible
that a representative of the _Cervulus_ is to be found in the Ass,
who, whether introduced from Constantinople or not, gave to the Feast
of Fools one of its popular names? The Feast of Asses has been the
sport of controversialists who had not, and were at no great pains to
have, the full facts before them. I do not propose to awake once more
these ancient angers[1160]. The facts themselves are briefly these.
The ‘Prose of the Ass’ was used at Bourges, at Sens, and at Beauvais.
As to the Bourges feast I have no details. At Sens, the use of the
Prose by Pierre de Corbeil is indeed no proof that he allowed an ass to
appear in the ceremony. But the Prose would not have much point unless
it was at least a survival from a time when an ass did appear; the
feast was known as the _asinaria festa_; and even now, three centuries
after it was abolished, the Sens choir-boys still play at being _âne_
archbishop on Innocents’ day[1161]. At Beauvais the heading _Conductus
quando asinus adducitur_ in the thirteenth-century _Officium_ seems
to show that there at least the ass appeared, and even entered the
church. The document, also of the thirteenth century, quoted by the
editors of Ducange, certainly brings him, in the ceremony of January
14, into the church and near the altar. An imitation of his braying is
introduced into the service itself. At Autun the leading of an ass _ad
processionem_, and the _cantilena super dictum asinum_ were suppressed
in 1411. At Châlons-sur-Marne in 1570 an ass bore the ‘bishop’ to the
theatre at the church door only. At Prague, on the other hand, towards
the end of the fourteenth century, an ass was led, as at Beauvais,
right into the church. These, with doubtful references to _fêtes des
ânes_ at St. Quentin about 1081, at Béthune in 1474, and at Laon
in 1527, and the Mosburg description of the ‘bishop’ as _asinorum
dominus_, are all the cases I have found in which an ass has anything
to do with the feast. But they are enough to prove that an ass was an
early and widespread, though not an invariable feature. I may quote
here a curious survival in a _ronde_ from the west of France, said to
have been sung at church doors on January 1[1162]. It is called _La
Mort de l’Âne_, and begins:
‘Quand le bonhomme s’en va,
Quand le bonhomme s’en va,
Trouvit la tête à son âne,
Que le loup mangit au bois.
_Parlé._ O tête, pauvre tête,
Tâ qui chantas si bé
_L’Magnificat_ à Vêpres.
Daux matin à quat’ leçons,
La sambredondon, bredondaine,
Daux matin à quat’ léçons,
La sambredondon.’
This, like the Sens choir-boys’ custom of calling their ‘archbishop’
_âne_, would seem to suggest that the _dominus festi_ was himself the
ass, with a mask on; and this may have been sometimes the case. But in
most of the mediaeval instances the ass was probably used to ride. At
Prague, so far as one can judge from Huss’s description, he was a real
ass. There is no proof in any of the French examples that he was, or
was not, merely a ‘hobby-ass.’ If he was, he came all the nearer to the
_Cervulus_.
It has been pointed out, and will, in the next volume, be pointed
out again, that the ecclesiastical authorities attempted to sanctify
the spirit of play at the Feast of Fools and similar festivities by
diverting the energies of the revellers to _ludi_ of the miracle-play
order. In such _ludi_ they found a place for the ass. He appears for
instance as Balaam’s ass in the later versions from Laon and Rouen of
the _Prophetae_, and at Rouen he gave to the whole of this performance
the name of the _festum_ or _processio asinorum_[1163]. At Hamburg, by
a curious combination, he is at once Balaam’s ass and the finder of the
star in a _ludus Trium Regum_[1164]. His use as the mount of the Virgin
on January 14 at Beauvais, and on some uncertain day at Sens, seems to
suggest another favourite episode in such _ludi_, that of the Flight
into Egypt. At Varennes, in Picardy, and at Bayonne, exist carved
wooden groups representing this event. That of Varennes is carried in
procession; that of Bayonne is the object of pilgrimage on the _fêtes_
of the Virgin[1165].
Not at the Feast of Fools alone, or at the miracle-plays connected with
this feast, did the ass make its appearance in Christian worship. It
stood with the ox, on the morning of the Nativity, beside the Christmas
crib. On Palm Sunday it again formed part of a procession, in the
semblance of the beast on which Christ made his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem[1166]. A Cambrai _Ordinarium_ quoted by Ducange directs that
the _asina picta_ shall remain behind the altar for four days[1167].
Kirchmeyer describes the custom as it existed during the sixteenth
century in Germany[1168]; and the stray tourist who drops into the
wonderful collection of domestic and ecclesiastical antiquities in
the Barfüsserkirche at Basle will find there three specimens of the
_Palmesel_, including a thirteenth-century one from Bayern and a
seventeenth-century one from Elsass. The third is not labelled with its
_provenance_, but it is on wheels and has a hole for the rope by which
it was dragged round the church. All three are of painted wood, and
upon each is a figure representing Christ[1169].
The affiliation of the ecclesiastical New Year revelries to the pagan
Kalends does not explain why those who took part in them were called
‘Fools.’ The obvious thing to say is that they were called ‘Fools’
because they played the fool; and indeed their mediaeval critics were
not slow to draw this inference. But it is noteworthy that pagan
Rome already had its Feast of Fools, which, indeed, had nothing to do
with the Kalends. The _stultorum feriae_ on February 17 was the last
day on which the _Fornacalia_ or ritual sacrifice of the _curiae_ was
held. Upon it all the _curiae_ sacrificed in common, and it therefore
afforded an opportunity for any citizen who did not know which his
_curia_ was to partake in the ceremony[1170]. I am not prepared to
say that the _stultorum feriae_ gave its name to the Feast of Fools;
but the identity of the two names certainly seems to explain some of
the statements which mediaeval scholars make about that feast. It
explains William of Auxerre’s derivation of it from the _Parentalia_,
for the _stultorum feriae_ fell in the midst of the _Parentalia_[1171].
And I think it explains the remark of Belethus, and, following him,
of Durandus, about the _ordo subdiaconorum_ being _incertus_. The
sub-deacons were a regular _ordo_, the highest of the _ordines minores_
from the third century[1172]. But Belethus seems to be struggling
with the notion that the sub-deacons’ feast, closing the series of
post-Nativity feasts held by deacons, priests and choir-boys, was
in some way parallel to the _feriae_ of the Roman _stulti_ who were
_incerti_ as to their _curia_.