The substance of this document, the original of which was found in the
then Royal Library of France, is given in my description of it, above;
I will only add, therefore, that ample pains seem to have been taken
to settle this estate upon Picol the fool. It may be doubted, however,
whether the fools of Edmund Ironside, William the Conqueror and John
were the only merry officials who held land. The celebrated Baldwin
Lepetteur (in another reign) must have belonged to the profession, and
we know that, in return for some royal grace, he was bound on every
Christmas-day to execute before his lord the King, at Hemmingston
Manor, a _saltus_, a _sufflatus_, and a _bumbulus_. At no time, indeed,
do our Kings seem to have been reluctant to pay for mirth. Henry
III. once gave a crown to a witty fellow who had caused him to laugh;
but we are not told what the jest was that earned so great a guerdon.
Edward II. was even more liberal, for he gave _four_ crowns for the
same cause. It does not appear that wit was always the provocation to
royal laughter, a fool’s trick would do as well. We see as much by an
entry in one of the last King’s accounts, cited in the ‘Antiquary’s
Repertory.’ “Item--When the King was at Woolmer, to Morris, then clerk
of the kitchen, who, when the King was hunting, did ride before the
King, and often fall down from his horse, whereat the King laughed
greatly: 20_s._”
To return, however, to the reign of Henry III., the successor of John,
I may notice as an incident of the social history of the period, that
there were few places where the itinerant jester was more warmly
welcomed than at the lonely cells of the Friars. We have an instance
of this in a story told by Wood, and quoted by Warton, to this effect.
A couple of strangers applied one night at the gates of a cell of
Benedictines near Oxford, for admission. The itinerants were taken for
jesters, and gained a ready admission under that supposition. Cellarer,
sacrist, and the whole of the confraternity looked forward to having
a merry night of it with the _gesticulatoriis ludicrisque artibus_ of
their guests. But these proved to be grave men of long prayers and
short meals; very poor in purse, but rich in saving knowledge; without
power or taste to make a joke, but with will and ability to enjoin
their hosts to live cleanly and soberly and religiously, to serve God
faithfully, honour the King loyally, and to put away from themselves
all naughtiness. The Benedictines did not care a fig for such serious
persons, or their admonitions. They had admitted the wayfarers,
supposing them to be jesters; and illogically concluding, because the
supposed jesters were monks, they themselves had been deceived by them,
they set upon the poor fellows, thrashed them soundly, and turned them
out-of-doors.
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