under this malady of folly. This lady’s delight was, never to sign any
document brought to her by her ministers, till she had worn them out
by her refusals. When the Grand Chancellor Besterfchef laid before her
a paper which required her name at the bottom of it in order to give
it validity, she would toss the pen across the room, begin dancing
round the minister, who turned upon his knees to meet her face and to
implore her, with tears in his eyes, to cease from such folly. The
Czarina only danced on, laughing the more immoderately as she observed
the embarrassment and the tears of the Chancellor. The latter however
seldom left her till he had made her ashamed of playing the fool, and
of interrupting public business by refusing to scrawl her name to a
state paper.
At a semi-barbarous court like that of Russia, the above traits are
not very surprising. At that of Spain, which boasted so loudly of its
solemn grandeur, dignity, and refinement, we find a more surprising
instance, but quite different from that I have mentioned of the
Princess of the Asturias.
The Spanish royal family of the last century affords us an instance
of the Heir to the Throne not only being his own fool, but of his
raising his friends to the dignity of folly, by conferring on them its
insignia. Lord Ligonier, the husband of one of Alfieri’s worthless
idols, was English Ambassador at the court of Madrid during a portion
of the reign of Charles III., which lasted from 1759 to 1788. After
Lord Ligonier’s introduction to the King, he was conducted to the
apartments of the Heir to the Crown, the Prince of the Asturias. The
latter was, subsequently, that Charles IV. who was his own Queen’s
especial fool throughout the term of their married lives. As Lord
Ligonier approached the Prince’s chamber, he saw issuing therefrom
a number of grandees, each wearing, with proud gravity, a fantastic
fool’s cap. On inquiring the meaning of such a pageant, he was informed
that his Royal Highness possessed the fancy of distinguishing his most
cherished friends as his “fools.” The Prince, too, was often pleased
to confer this mark of his favour on celebrated foreigners. Lord
Ligonier was alarmed.
“I represent,” he said, “a great sovereign; and am myself a foreigner
not altogether unknown. I must add, that my gracious master would
be seriously offended, if the Prince of the Asturias were to think
proper to cover the representative of the King of England with this
decoration. You had better go in, Sir,” said he to his introducer, “and
say as much to his Royal Highness.”
The reluctant official undertook the mission; but he presently
returned, with the intimation that the Prince could not give up an
old-established custom. Upon which, Lord Ligonier turned on his
heel, declaring that he would not visit a Prince who thus exposed
an Ambassador to insult. The court officials were thrown into a
state of amusing terror by this declaration; they maintained, that
if the Ambassador retired, it would be a flagrant insult on the
Prince. Ultimately, and after many messages and countermessages had
passed between the Prince in his room, and the English Envoy in the
antechamber, announcement was made that the Prince of the Asturias
would not attempt to clap the fool’s-cap on the head of Lord Ligonier.
His lordship consequently entered the apartment, but not without being
more than usually vigilant against surprise. He found the sage Prince
with his back to the hearth, and with his hands behind him. The Prince
remained in that position, and invited the Ambassador to approach. The
English lord obeyed; but as he advanced, he perceived that the Prince
held a paper object, and the Ambassador stopped short to converse with
his Royal Highness at a very respectful distance. At the conclusion
of the interview, he had to bow low; but, as a sailor might say, his
weather eye was open, and he watched the Prince narrowly. The latter
was resolved upon effecting his object, and as narrowly watched the
Ambassador. The bow was almost at its lowest, when the Prince, seizing
the most favourable opportunity, suddenly brought the fool’s cap from
behind him, and endeavoured to fix it on the head of Lord Ligonier;
but the old soldier who, by one glorious action at Laffeldt, had
disconcerted all the projects of Marshal Saxe, was not to be foiled by
a foolish prince. As soon as his eye caught sight of the cap, his hand
was upon it, and almost as soon it lay crumpled up beneath his feet.
His sudden action nearly threw the Prince out of his equilibrium; and
leaving that illustrious fool’s-cap maker to recover himself as he best
might, the old warrior quitted the apartment with a smile of scorn upon
his lip.
Turning now from the Envoy from, to the King of, England, I may observe
that the greatest opportunity for court fools to exhibit their wit or
slyness, occurred when great political events were passing before them.
They were then the merry scholiasts of living history. At no period in
England, since the foundation of the monarchy, could a professional
fool have found more incentives to fun or satire, than during the
eventful reign of George III. And of all that reign, the time of “the
Coalition,” in 1783, was that on which a witty court fool, in the
secret of what was passing and what was about to pass, would have had
most to say, hint, or laugh at. The Shelburne Administration had gone
to pieces, and that fatal “Coalition” had been forced on George III.,
who indignantly saw himself compelled to accept a union of men who had
for years been denouncing each other as void of principle, and worthy
of the hangman. Lord North and Charles Fox, antipodes in everything
but wit and good temper, came together, with other bitter foes, who
had salved over their old sores, but wounded their reputation, for
ever. When the new ministers first appeared at court before that good
and obstinate old sovereign whom they and other ministers helped or
harassed into madness, George III. had made up his mind to rid himself
of them at the very earliest opportunity. Had there been a court fool
present who knew the royal intention, he would have revelled in jokes,
gibes, and inuendoes. As it was, the King was his own fool, and could
not avoid showing a sign of his resolve. How he did it, is whimsically
and authentically told in the second volume, page 28, of Russell’s
Memoirs of Fox. Lord Holland is speaking, and in these words:--“I
cannot help relating a saying of that lively and humorous old man” (the
Marquis of Townshend) “on this occasion. He said he had always foreseen
the Coalition Ministry could not last, for he was at court when Mr. Fox
kissed hands; and he observed George III. _turn back his ears and eyes_
just like the horse at Astley’s, when the tailor he had determined to
throw was getting on him.” This was the very action of a court fool,
and not one of the fraternity could have performed it more felicitously
than the King, who, on this occasion, was his own.
The eldest son of George III. had his comic aspect too, and was an
excellent mimic. If we may believe the very respectable authority of
Mr. Raikes, whose journals show him to have been a visitor at the
Pavilion, and the intimate friend of many who visited there more
frequently than himself, George IV., in playing the fool, was not at
all scrupulous as to sacrificing his own ministers, for the sake of
effect. Indeed, they were very good objects for the ridicule of a
monarch who was his own jester. The “best wigged Prince in Christendom”
had in perfection one of the chief qualities of the professional
fool,--the power of imitation. Mr. Raikes affords an illustration of
this in a story told him by the Duke of Wellington. “When the King
sent for me,” said the Duke, “to form a new administration, in 1828,
he was then seriously ill, though he would never allow it. I found him
in bed, dressed in a dirty silk jacket and a turban night-cap, one as
greasy as the other; for, notwithstanding his coquetry about dress in
public, he was extremely slovenly and dirty in private. The first words
he said to me were, ‘Arthur, the Cabinet is defunct;’ and then he began
to describe the manner in which the late ministers had taken leave
of him, in giving in their resignations. This was accompanied by the
most ludicrous mimicry of the voice and manner of each individual, so
strikingly like, that it was quite impossible to refrain from fits of
laughter.”
If George IV. was strong in the fool’s quality of mimicry, Louis
Philippe was not less so in coarser mockery; but then the latter King
was too grave an actor to allow of his playing the fool in presence
even of a friend or minister. He, however, could indulge in a brief
private performance of the character, and he was once unwittingly
caught in the fact by one of his private secretaries, who had concealed
himself behind a door, in order to escape the observation of the
King. His Majesty was approaching in deep conversation with the old
republican, Dupont de l’Eure. The monarch at the head of “the best of
republics,” treated the aged confederate, of whom he wished to be well
rid, with an excess of warmth and courtesy. Louis Philippe professed
ideas liberal enough to gratify a republican so advanced as M. Dupont,
of whom he finally took leave in the most condescending and friendly
manner. “No sooner, however,” says Mr. Raikes, who was the confidant
of the secretary, “had the other turned his back to go out, and before
he quitted the room, than Louis Philippe began to hold up his finger
at him, with a face of mockery, and made a movement with his foot,
as if he could hardly prevent himself from kicking him.” This bit of
pantomimic incivility was often the manner of the most comic of court
fools, and probably Triboulet himself could not have enacted it in
superior style.
But I must draw my instances to a close, and perhaps I cannot do
so more appropriately than by showing the merits, as a jester, of a
sovereign whose country has since been the scene where martyrs have
died, and heroes have avenged them. I refer to Oude, and I will add,
that perhaps few monarchs ever so perfectly played the fool for his own
satisfaction and that of his court, as Nassir-u-Deen, the late King
of that country. His great delight was in puppet-shows, and it was
on the occasion of one being exhibited before him that the following
occurrence took place, as recorded in the ‘Private Life of an Eastern
King.’
“His Majesty laughed heartily at the performances of the little
burlesques of men and women.... At length he gave a whispered order to
his barber,” (who, it may be mentioned, began life as a hair-dresser in
London, and rose to the combined offices of barber and prime-minister
to a King,) “who went out, brought something in his hand, and gave
it to the King. The royal chair was pushed back, and his Majesty
condescended to advance to the front of the puppet-show, going round
the table, as if to inspect it more closely. The owners exerted
themselves to give still more satisfaction, regarding their fortunes as
made. The King watched for a little; his hand was advanced suddenly,
and as suddenly drawn back, and one of the innocent marionettes fell
motionless upon the stage. It was very plain that his Majesty had a
pair of scissors in his hand, and had cut the string. The performers
must have been as well aware of this as we were, but they gazed in
affected, wonder at the catastrophe.... The King turned round, his
face beaming with fun, and looked at us knowingly, as much as to say,
‘Did I not do that well?’ The barber laughed loudly in reply, and
other courtiers joined in the chorus. But this was not the whole of
the royal wit. The hand was pushed forward and drawn back again and
again, and again and again did one after another of the puppets fall
dead and immovable upon the stage, every successive fall eliciting a
shout of laughter from the table and a blank look of astonishment
from the general manager of the show, who was visible directing
and superintending. When nearly all had fallen, the royal wit was
satisfied, returned to his chair, ordered a handsome present to be
given to the owner of the show, and it was withdrawn.”
With this court jest, I too will withdraw, leaving my puppets to
be dealt with according as my readers may have found them more or
less awkwardly handled by their showman. If the latter has amused or
instructed the public audience, whose generous indulgence he has so
often had to gratefully acknowledge, his aim has been accomplished.
He has not pretended to instruct, but has simply brought together
materials for instructors, and for _con_structors of future histories
of a class which, in some shape or other, has existed from the
legendary days of Momus down to those of contemporary Christian
patriarchs in Asia, of whose households the buffoon is still sometimes
a member. To effect this, demanded only a little industry;--small merit
in a country where industry is the recognized duty of every citizen,
and the only merit claimed by the author of these essays towards the
History of Court and Household Fools.
THE END.
JOHN EDWARD TAYLOR, PRINTER,
LITTLE QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS.
DR. DORAN’S POPULAR WORKS.
MONARCHS RETIRED FROM BUSINESS.
_Second Edition_, 2 Vols., with Illustrations, 21_s._
“Emphatically a book that will please all classes.”--_Gentleman’s
Magazine._
LIVES OF THE QUEENS OF ENGLAND UNDER THE HOUSE OF HANOVER.
2 Vols., post 8vo, New Edition, with Portraits, 21_s._
“Indicates the wealth and variety of the Author’s collections, and the
electric readiness with which they are put to use.”--_Athenæum._
KNIGHTS AND THEIR DAYS.
_Second Thousand_, post 8vo, 10_s._ 6_d._
“Satirical, anecdotical, quizzical--full of most wise conceits and
ridiculous stories--a book of knights of the stage and knights of
the thimble--of mock knights and smock knights--of royal knights and
knights of the road,--it is very laughable and very provoking. There is
only one word to be said about it--_read_ it.”--_Athenæum._
HABITS AND MEN;
WITH REMNANTS OF RECORDS TOUCHING THE MAKERS OF BOTH.
_Third Edition_, post 8vo, 7_s._ 6_d._
“Never was a book written more after the model of an after-dinner
conversation, where the feast has been partaken by three or four
gentlemen full of anecdote. That such a book is easy reading follows
from its very nature. Nearly every page contains something amusing. Dr.
Doran’s book is not only amusing, but full of strange information that
every one would like to possess. It is the note-book of an intelligent,
educated, and studious man, enabling the reader by skimming over pages
to obtain, almost without a thought, an amount of knowledge for which
the author has ransacked libraries.”--_Times._
TABLE TRAITS AND SOMETHING ON THEM.
_Second Edition_, crown 8vo, 6_s._
“It is rare to meet with a volume so well worth reading as this. The
subject includes almost everything connected with the pleasures of the
table. Dr. Doran is a man of very wide reading, of very agreeable wit,
and very refined scholarship. Of anecdotes, both collected from his
reading, and picked up in many a lively chat between the courses, or
over the walnuts and the wine, he has a wonderful store.”--_Manchester
Times._
BOOKS FOR PRESENTS.
THE INGOLDSBY LEGENDS;
Or, MIRTH AND MARVELS. _Tenth Thousand_, crown 8vo, with Illustrated
Title-Page, 5_s._
THE BENTLEY BALLADS:
A Companion Volume to the ‘Ingoldsby Legends;’ being a Selection
of Choice Songs, Ballads, etc., contributed to ‘Bentley’s
Miscellany.’ Edited by Dr. DORAN. _Third Thousand_, crown 8vo,
with Illustrated Title-Page, 5_s._
CURIOSITIES OF NATURAL HISTORY.
By FRANCIS T. BUCKLAND, Esq., Son of the late Dean. Fcap. 8vo, with
Illustrations, 6_s._
FAIRY FABLES.
By CUTHBERT BEDE. Square crown 8vo, with numerous Illustrations,
7_s._ 6_d._
FAIRY CHARADES.
By M. G. AVELINE. Crown 8vo, 2_s._; cloth, 3_s._
GHOST STORIES AND PHANTOM FANCIES.
By HAIN FRISWELL. Crown 8vo, 2_s._ boards; 3_s._ cloth.
HISTORY OF COURT FOOLS.
By Dr. DORAN, Author of ‘Monarchs Retired from Business.’ Post 8vo,
10_s._ 6_d._
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
FOOTNOTES
[A] ‘_Geschichte der Hof-Narren._’
[B] A similar story is told of Triboulet.
[C] See Somner’s ‘Canterbury,’ edited by Batteley, p. 39, where the
donation is thus recorded:--“Anno Domini MII., Villæ de Chertham et
Walworth concessa et confirmata fuerunt per sanctum Edwardum, cum
maneriis jam habitis et multis libertatibus concessis. Predictam villam
Walworth Edmundus Rex dedit cuidam joculatori suo, nomine Hitardo.
Tempore tandem Regis Edwardi idem Hitardus, volens limina Apostolorum
Romæ visitare, venit ad Ecclesiam Christi in Dorobernia, et per
consensum et concessionem Regis Edwardi, dedit eandem villam eidem
Ecclesiæ Christi, chartam quoque ejusdem terræ posuit super altare
Christi,” etc.
[D] See also Dugdale, Mon. Ang. vol. ii. p. 166.
[E] Father of Harry Jermyn, first Earl of St. Alban’s.
[F] “_Trunchman._” In ‘Revels at Court,’ p. 126, in an account of a
“Maske of Amasones” (A.D. 1577), appears a “Troocheman” among the
characters represented. At p. 140 we read of a payment made “To
Patrochius Ubaldinus, by the Commandment of the Lord Chamberlain, for
the translating of certain speeches into Italian, to be used in the
mask.” I therefore take the “_trunchman_” of Archie, to mean Dragoman,
or Interpreter. In Pepys’s time the word was written “Druggerman.”
[G] There can be no doubt, I think, that the Danish writer alludes to
our old friend, Tom Derry.
[H] In the ‘Scout’s Discovery’ it is said that Archie himself pleaded
before the Star Chamber his privileges of coat. “For,” said he, “if
neither fool nor wise man may escape this court, I will be neither.”
[I] Dr. Binder, ‘Allgemeine Realencyclopädie,’ vol. v.
[J] The above is related on the authority of Flögel, who follows
Fugger. The Flemish Chroniclers give an entirely opposite version, as
far as regards Maximilian, declaring that he repeatedly attempted to
escape. In the third volume of the Chronicles, page 74, the Flemish
writer says:--“Soo dat Maximiliaen, op verscheyde tyden, sig selven
begonde te verkleeden in verscheyde verworpe kleedern, nu als eene
vrouw, dan als een godsgewyde, weederom als een heerenknecht, om
behendelyk zyne langdurige gevangenis te ontloopen; maer alles was te
vergeefs. Hy was te well bekent, ende syne bewaerders hadden grooter
sorge als hy meynde.” Literally,--“So that Maximilian, at different
times, began to disguise himself in different cast-off suits,--now as
a woman, then as a fool, again as a nobleman’s follower, that at last
he might escape from his tedious captivity; but all was in vain. He was
too well known, and his guards had greater care of him than he thought
for.”
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a
predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they
were not changed.
Several periods in unexpected places have not been changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected silently; unpaired
quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and
otherwise left unpaired. Ambiguous situations are documented below.
Unpaired quotation marks on pages 87, 174, 187, 196, 202, 206, 208,
213 and 355 were not changed.
Archaic placement of quotation marks in poetry on page 132 and 157 was
changed to meet current conventions.
Footnotes have been collected, resequenced, and moved to the end of the
book, following the advertisements.
Page 79: “sleeping-off” was printed with the hyphen.
Page 108: “who sang as well as Fayditt himself,” originally ended with
a period. In context, that seemed to be a misprint, and the Transcriber
changed it to a comma.
Page 117: “Bolingbroke” and page 118: “Bonligbroke”, appear to refer to
the same person.
Page 136: “gard and gentlewomen” was printed that way; may be a
misprint for “garb”.
Page 140: Missing closing quotation mark added after “both dead and
rotten.”
Page 164: “her maidenly qualities. the subjoined paragraphs” was
printed that way; at least one word, perhaps “In”, seems to be missing
after the period.
Page 193: “His middle thick. as I have said before;” was printed that
way. Either the period should be a comma or “as” should be capitalized.
The X’s on pages 200 and 217 represent signature marks.
Page 203: “If I can obtain this, I rest” ended without a period. This
may have been intentional.
Page 224: “3lbs.” was printed without a space.
Page 279: “an odd man” was printed that way, but perhaps was intended
to be “an old man”.
Page 289: Both “Angoulevent” and “Angoulement” are used to refer to the
same person.
Page 319: Both “Perettus” and “Perretus” are used to refer to the same
person.