If it be true that the official fool was not restored with Monarchy,
at the accession of Charles II., because the Puritan voice and the
religious sentiment of the country generally, were against such
officials and their foolery, foolery itself did not go out. See what
solemn Evelyn says to it, under the date of January 1, 1661–2:--“1st
January. I went to London, invited to the solemn foolery of the
Prince de la Grange, at Lincoln’s Inn, where came the King, Duke,
etc. It began with a grand masque, and a formal pleading before the
mock princes, grandees, nobles, and knights of the Sun. He had his
Lord Chancellor, Chamberlain, Treasurer, and other royal officers,
gloriously clad and attended. It ended in a magnificent banquet. One
Mr. Lort was the young spark who maintained the pageantry.”
A little more than six years later, we meet with an entry in ‘Pepys’
Diary’ which seems to introduce us to an official fool, and which is to
this effect:--“1667–8. Feb. 13. 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 jeere
anybody, the greatest person, without offence, by the privilege of his
place.”--Pepys, vol. iv. p. 353.
Oldys is quite as explicit. In one of his MS. notes to ‘Langbain’s
Memoirs of Dramatic Authors,’ he says, under the head of Killigrew:
“He was Master of the Revels, and the King’s jester, while Groom of
the Bedchamber.” Various writers, when commenting on these passages,
have suggested that Killigrew never held a patent of official fool, and
that his actual appointment was to the office of Master of the Revels.
According, however, to Chalmers, Tom Killigrew succeeded Herbert as
Master of the Revels in 1673, and was followed therein, on his death,
in 1682–3, by his brother Charles. The office in question was first
instituted in 1546, the last year of Henry VIII. (with a salary of
£10 per annum), and continued till 1725, when the Lord Chamberlain
was empowered to have rule and dominion over the court and public
entertainments; and the Master of the Revels being entirely ignored in
a new Act of Parliament, was snuffed out, and never heard of again.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account