Part 38

"By my trouth the thing that I desire most Is in my cappe to have a _goodly feather_."

The head was frequently shaved in imitation or perhaps ridicule of a monk's crown. This practice is very ancient, and can be traced to the twelfth century. In one instance the hair exhibits a sort of triple or Papal crown.[80] The tails of foxes or squirrels were often suspended to the garment. Godfrey Gobilive, the fool in Hawes's _Pastime of pleasure_, 1517, 4to, is described as so habited. In _The pope's funerall_, 1605, 4to, the author says, "I shall prove him such a noddy before I leave him that all the world will deeme him worthy to weare in his forehead a coxcombe for his foolishness, and on his back, a _fox tayle_ for his badge." It was likewise the dress of the fool in the plough pageant and morris dance.[81] One might almost conclude that this custom was designed to ridicule a fashion that prevailed among the ladies in the reign of Edward the Third, and which is mentioned by the author of the old chronicle of England, erroneously ascribed to Caxton the printer, in the following terms: "And the women more nysely yet passed the men in aray and coriouslaker, for they were so streyt clothed that they let hange _fox tailles_ sowed bineth within hir clothes for to hele and hide thir a--, the which disguysinges and pride paradventure afterward brouzt forth and encaused many myshappes and meschief in the reame of Englond." The idiot or natural was often clothed in a calf or sheep's skin.[82]

A large purse or wallet at the girdle is a very ancient part of the fool's dress. Tarlton, who personated the clowns in Shakspeare's time, appears to have worn it.[83] The budget given by Panurge to Triboulet the fool is described as made of a tortoise shell.[84]

We may suppose that the same variety of dress was observed on the stage which we know to have actually prevailed in common life. The fools, however, did not always appear in a discriminative habit, and some of their portraits still remaining confirm this observation. A very fine painting by Holbein, in Kensington palace, represents Will Somers the fool of Henry the Eighth, in a common dress.[85] In a wardrobe account of that sovereign, we find these articles: "For making a dubblette of wursteede lyned with canvas and cotton, for William Som'ar oure foole. Item for making of a coote and a cappe of grene clothe fringed with red crule and lyned with fryse, for our saide foole. Item for making of a dublette of fustian, lyned with cotton and canvas for oure same foole." Yet he sometimes wore the usual hood instead of a cap; for in the same account is an article "For making of a coote of grene clothe with a _hoode_ to the same, fringed with white crule lyned with fryse and bokerham, for oure foole aforesaid;"[86] and there is a print of him after a picture by Holbein, in which he is represented in a long tunic with a chain and horn in his hand.[87] In the celebrated picture of Sir Thomas More's family by Holbein, Patenson the fool is not distinguished by any peculiarity of dress, and, in one instance at least, the same remark applies to Archy, the fool of James I.[88] In those families where the fool acted as a menial servant, it is possible that he might have reserved his official habit for particular occasions. The paucity of materials that illustrate the theatrical character in question, must necessarily leave this part of the subject still more imperfect than the rest; but the plays of Shakspeare have furnished more information than those of any other writer. It is surprising, on the whole, that the character of the domestic fool is so seldom found in the old dramas that remain; because it was not only capable of affording considerable mirth to the unrefined part of the audience, but of giving the authors an opportunity of displaying a great deal of ingenuity so far as regarded extemporary wit. It is certain that the fools in Shakspeare's plays were pre-eminent above all others. For this we have the authority of Shadwell, who makes one of his characters say that they had more wit than any of the wits and critics of his time.[89] Beaumont and Fletcher have but rarely introduced them; Ben Jonson and Massinger never. Indeed, the originals had rapidly declined at the period in which most of their plays were written, and another character of a mixed nature been substituted in their room. This was the witty servant or clown (Class II. No. 3.), and of course his dress was not distinguished by any peculiarity.

The practice of introducing the fools and clowns between the acts and scenes, and after the play was finished, to amuse the audience with extemporaneous wit and buffoonery, has been so well illustrated by the able historian of the English stage, that very little can remain to be said on the subject.[90] It has been traced from the Greek and Roman theatres; and, as their usages were undoubtedly preserved in those of the middle ages that belonged to the countries where Roman influence had been spread, it would not of course be peculiar to the early stage in England. Indeed, the records of the French theatre amply demonstrate the truth of this position, and furnish several examples of the practice in question. In the mystery of _Saint Barbara_ we find this stage direction, "Pausa. Vadant, et Stultus loquitur;" and he is several times introduced in like manner between the scenes, in order that the amusement of the spectators might not be suspended whilst something was in agitation for the further prosecution of the piece.[91] Perhaps the most singular _pause_ in any dramatic composition whatsoever is one which occurs in the very rare morality of _La condamnation des banquetz_ in the following words: "Pause pour pisser le fol. Il prent ung coffinet en lieu de orinal & pisse dedans, et tout coule par bas," sign. M iiij. Nor was the English stage in Shakspeare's time allowed to remain empty. Lupton has related a story of the clown at the Red Bull theatre, who was suddenly called for between the acts, and forgot his fool's cap.[92] Puttenham, speaking of verses that rhime in the middle and end, observes that "they were more commodiously uttered by the buffoons or vices in plays than by any other person."[93] It was likewise part of the stage fool's office to introduce at his own discretion a great many old songs, or at least the fragments of them.[94]

The first symptoms of the decline of the domestic fools, and the causes of it, have been already touched on; and the same reasons may partly be assigned for their exile from the stage. In the præludium to Goffe's _Careless shepherdess_, 1656, 4to, there is a panegyric on them,[95] and some concern is manifested for the fool's absence in the play itself. It is likewise expressly stated that "the motly coat was banish'd with trunk-hose." Yet during the reign of Charles the Second occasional efforts were made to restore the character. In the tragedy of _Thorney abbey, or the London maid_, 1662, 12mo, the prologue is spoken by a fool who uses these words, "the poet's a fool who made the tragedy to tell a story of a king and a court and leave a fool out on't, when in Pacy's and Sommer's and Patche's and Archee's times, my venerable predecessours, a fool was alwaies the principal verb." Shadwell's play of _The woman captain_, 1680, is perhaps the last in which a regular fool is introduced, and even there his master is made to say that the character was then exploded on the stage.

The following is some additional and necessary explanation of the cuts belonging to this dissertation.

Plate II. fig. 1, is from _Catzii emblemata_. Fig. 2 is the duke of Suffolk's fool in the time of Henry VIII., copied from a print in Mr. Brydges's _Memoirs of the peers of England_. Figs. 3 and 4 are from paintings in the author's possession. The centre fig. is from a print by Breughel.

Plate III. All these instruments, excepting fig. 3, before described, are taken from various Dutch and German prints.

Plate IV. fig. 1, is from an old German print by an unknown master.

Figs. 1 and 3 below are from _A booke of Christian prayers_, &c., 1590, 4to, being figures belonging to a dance of Death. Fig. 2 is from the frontispiece to Heywood's comedy of _The fair maid of the exchange_. Similar figures of the costume of fools in the time of James I., or Charles I., may be seen in _The life of Will Summers_, compiled long after his time. Figs. 4 and 5 are from _La grant danse Macabre_, printed at Troyes without date, but about the year 1500, in folio, a book of uncommon rarity and curiosity. Fig. 6 is from the _Stultarum virginum scaphæ, seu naviculæ_ of Badius Ascensius, another work of much rarity, and far exceeding that of the ship of fools by Sebastian Brandt. In all the editions of the latter, a great variety of the fools of the fifteenth century will be found. Fig. 7 is from a French translation of St. Augustine on the city of God, printed at Abbeville 1486. It exemplifies the use of the tabor and pipe by fools; a practice that seems to have been revived by Tarlton in the time of Elizabeth. Figures 3, 4, and 6, have been introduced to show the costume of female fools. Among others of this kind that might deserve notice is a very interesting one in the picture, by Holbein, of Henry the Eighth's family already mentioned.

FOOTNOTES:

[45] See a note by Mr. Ritson in _Twelfth night_, Act II. Scene 3, edit. Steevens, vol. iv. p. 53.

[46] Defence of poesie, near the end.

[47] Mirrour of monsters, 1587, 4to, fo. 7.

[48] Arte of English poesie, 1589, 4to, fo. 243.

[49] _The devil is an ass_, Sc. 1.

[50] _The fox_, Act II. Sc. 1.

[51] Marston's Malcontent, Sc. 7.

[52] See p. 94.

[53] _The devil is an ass_, Sc. 1.

[54] Roman des ducs de Normandie, MS. Reg. 4, C. xi.

[55] Holy state, p. 182.

[56] This person was probably the subject of the following lines in Bancroft's _Epigrams_, 1639, 4to:

"How plumpe's the libertine! how rich and trimme! He jests with others, fortune jests with him."

Mr. Garrard, in a letter to lord Strafford, says, "There is a new fool in his [Archee's] place, Muckle John, but he will ne'er be so rich, for he cannot abide money."--_Strafford papers_, ii. 154.

[57] Biogr. hist. of England, i. 116.

[58] _The woman captain_, 1680, Sc. i.

[59] Bigland's _Collect. for Gloucest._

[60] Perroniana, inter Scaligerana, &c. i. 115.

[61] Vigneul de Marville, Mêlanges, ii. 50.

[62] Table talk, Art. Evil-speaking.

[63] This appears from many of our old plays. Lear threatens his fool with the whip, Act I. Scene 4; and see _As you like it_, Act I. Scene 2. In Dr. Turner's _New booke of spirituall physik_, 1555, 12mo, fo. 8, there is a very curious story of John of Low, the king of Scotland's fool, which throws light on the subject in question. Yet the chastising of the poor fools seems to have been a very unfair practice, when it is considered that they were a privileged class with respect to their wit and satire. Olivia, in _Twelfth night_, says, that "there is no slander in an allowed fool though he do nothing but rail;" and Jaques, in _As you like it_, alludes to the above privilege. See likewise other instances in Reed's _Old plays_, iii. 253, and xi. 417. Yet in cases where the free discourse of fools gave just offence to the ears of modest females they seem to have been treated without mercy, and to have forfeited their usual privilege. This we learn from Brantôme, who, at the end of his _Dames galantes_, relates a story of a fool belonging to Elizabeth of France, who got a whipping in the kitchen for a licentious speech to his mistress. A representation of the manner in which the flagellation of fools was performed may be seen in a German edition of Petrarch _De remediis utriusque fortunæ_, published more than once at Frankfort, in the sixteenth century, part ii. chap. 100.

[64] See his note in _All's well that ends well_, Act I. Scene 3.

[65] Plate II. fig. 1; also figs. 2 and 3, p. 516; and fig. 4, p. 517.

[66] Plate II. fig. 3.

[67] Plate III. figs. 7, 8, 9; also the centre fig. in Plate II. Hence the French call a bauble _marotte_, from _Marionnette_, or little Mary; but if the learned reader should prefer to derive the word from the Greek μορος, or the Latin _morio_, he is at full liberty to do so; and indeed such preference would be supported by the comparatively modern figure of the child's head, which the term _marotte_ might have suggested. The bauble originally used in King Lear is said to have been extant so late as the time of Garrick, and the figure of it would certainly have been worth preserving. To supply its place a representation is given of the head of a real bauble very finely carved in ivory. See Plate IV. figs. 3, 4. A bauble is very often improperly put into the hands of Momus.

[68] Plate III. figs. 2, 6, 7, 9; also figs. 1 and 3, p. 516.

[69] Plate III. fig. 4; and see Strutt's _Dress and habits of the people of England_, Plate LXXI.

[70] Blomefield's _History of Norfolk_, ii. 737.

[71] Plate III. fig. 1. In the Imperial library at Vienna, there is a manuscript calendar, said to have been written in the time of Constantius the son of Constantine the great, with drawings of the twelve months. April is represented as a man dancing with a _crotalum_ in each hand. This instrument was probably constructed of brass, in order to make a rattling noise. See it represented in Plate III. fig. 3, which is copied from a print in _Lambecii Bill. Cæsar. Vindobon._ tom. iv. p. 291. These months are also given in Montfaucon's antiquities.

[72] See Ben Jonson's _Devil is an ass_, Scene 1.

[73] Penry's _O read over John Bridges_, fo. 48.

[74] Plate III. fig. 5. copied from Schopperi ΠΑΝΟΠΛΙΑ, _omnium illiberalium artium genera continens_, &c. Francof. 1568, 12mo, sign. O. 8.

[75] Figs. 1 and 2, p. 516.

[76] Prologue to _King Henry the Eighth_. Marston's _Malcontent_, Act I. Scene 7, and Act III. Scene 1.

[77] Malone's Shakspeare, vol. i. part ii. p. 301.

[78] Plate II. fig. 4. Plate IV. fig. 1.

[79] Plate IV. fig. 1.

[80] Plate II. fig. 2.

[81] Coryat's _Crudities_, p. 9. edit. 1611, 4to. Brand's _Observ. on popular antiquities_, p. 176.

[82] See the notes on a passage in _King John_. Steevens's _Shakspeare_, viii. p. 79, edit. 1793. "The scribe claims the manor of Noverinte, by providing _sheep-skins and calves skins to wrappe his highness wards_ and idiotts in."--_Gesta Grayorum_, 1688, 4to.

[83] See the quotation from Tarlton's _Newes out of purgatory_ given in a preceding page (509). The portrait of Tarlton in Hardinge's _Biographical mirror_, and a print in the title of Greene's _Tu quoque, or the cittie gallant_, show the costume of the purse and feather. See likewise Plate IV. fig. 2; and the centre fig. in Plate II.

[84] Rabelais, book iii. ch 45.

[85] This picture is very well engraven in Caulfield's _Portraits of remarkable persons_, vol. ii. There is a beautifully illuminated psalter preserved among the royal manuscripts in the British Museum, 2 A xvi, written by John Mallard the chaplain and secretary of Henry the Eighth, with several marginal notes in the king's own hand-writing, some of which are in pencil. Prefixed to psalm 52, "Dixit insipiens," according to a very ancient custom, are the figures of king David and a fool, in this instance evidently the portraits of Henry and his favourite Will Somers. That of the latter person is here copied in Plate IV. fig. 2, but rather enlarged. The countenance bears a strong resemblance to that of the figure in Holbein's picture of Henry the Eighth and his family, already noticed in p. 336.

[86] Archæologia, ix. p. 249.

[87] In Tatham's play of The Scot's _figgaries_, 1652, 4to, the king's fool is described as habited in a long coat with a gold rope or chain about his neck.

[88] See the print of Archy engraved by Cecill and prefixed to his _Jests_, in which, unless Mr. Granger could have been certain with respect to what he has called "a parti-coloured tunic," there is nothing discriminative of the fool's dress. This portrait has been copied in Caulfield's above-cited work.

[89] _The woman captain_, Scene I.

[90] See Mr. Malone's _Historical account of the English Stage_.

[91] Parfait, _Histoire du theatre François_, II. pp. 27, 46, 62.

[92] See Mr. Steevens's note at the end of the second act of _The taming of the shrew_.

[93] Arte of English poesie, 69.

[94] See Mr. Steevens's note in _King Lear_, Act III. Scene 6.

[95] See Mr. Malone's note in _All's well that ends well_, Act I. Scene 3.

DISSERTATION II.

ON THE GESTA ROMANORUM.

Enquiries like the present, however unimportant to the generality of readers, will not fail of being duly appreciated by those who take an interest in tracing the origin and progress of literary genius, which has perhaps been never more successfully, and even laudably, employed, than in the composition of such works as combine amusement with instruction. Of these the simple and engaging apologues of many ancient writers form a considerable portion, and have always been justly and generally esteemed. This mode of conveying instruction became so attractive in the middle ages, that the ecclesiastics themselves were under the necessity of introducing narrations both historical and imaginary into their discourses, in order to acquire that degree of popularity and attention which might otherwise have been wanting, and also for the purpose of enforcing their morality by such examples as should touch the feelings of the hearers, and operate, with respect at least to ruder minds, more efficaciously than precept. The work before us was designed to answer these purposes; and it not only proceeded on this ground in common with others of a similar nature, but has even furnished the materials to some of the best writers, and more especially poets, of ancient and modern times.

It will perhaps be expected that some reason should be assigned why the present essay has been attempted, after the labours of Mr. Warton on the same subject, which some may think has been amply and satisfactorily treated, if not exhausted; and if the judgment and accuracy of that pleasing and elegant writer had been commensurate with his taste and industry, the expectation had been exceedingly well founded. This however is, unfortunately, not the case. He has, in this and many other instances, left much to be done and undone; but we ought to feel very grateful to him for having founded a school that has already produced some accomplished pupils, and will, no doubt, contribute to form many a future one. Thus much seems due to an amiable man and excellent character, who has been most undeservedly insulted for errors of small moment, and censured for opinions of the most innocuous kind. Even his antiquarian dullness and perseverance have been arraigned, as if in a work like the history of English poetry, genius should have occupied the place of industry, and have created those facts which honest men are content to discover; a method not uncommon with some writers who have derived too much of their importance from the indolence and superficiality of their readers, and who are unwilling to submit to those laws of providence which justly impose on man the duty of penetrating to the mine before he be permitted to enjoy the precious metal. Such was not Warton. His taste and research will remain the admiration of future ages, when the flimsy compositions of some of his opponents shall be totally forgotten. He has effected, however imperfectly, more for the illustration of English poetry than any or all of his predecessors, or than has hitherto been, accomplished for the poetry of other nations, by any writer whatever.

Mr. Warton's dissertation would, no doubt, have been rendered more perfect, had he been aware of a fact which had not only escaped his own attention, but even that of Mr. Tyrwhitt. Neither of these gentlemen, in consulting the manuscripts of the _Gesta Romanorum_, had perceived that there were _two_ works so entitled, totally distinct from each other, except as to imitation, and certainly compiled by different persons. Of that treated of by Mr. Warton, it is presumed _no manuscript has been yet described_; of the other several manuscripts remain, _but it has never been printed, except in some translated extracts_. It will be better to postpone for the present any further mention of the latter, and to proceed to submit some additional remarks on the other. And first of its use and design.

A particular mode of instruction from the pulpit has been already hinted at, and will admit of some enlargement. Mr. Warton has mentioned one of the earliest instances of introducing Æsop's fables, as recorded by Vincent of Beauvais in the thirteenth century.[96] Supplies of another kind were furnished to those who might be more scrupulous as to the use of profane examples, not only in that great repertory of pious fictions, _The golden legend_, but in multitudes of similar stories, denominated in France _contes devots_, and composed for the purpose of counteracting the great influence which the witty and licentious stories of the minstrels had obtained, of which they were palpable imitations both in construction and versification. Most of these were founded on miracles supposed to have been operated by the Virgin Mary. The earliest known specimens of them were composed in the twelfth century by Hugues Farsi, a monk of St. John de Vignes at Soissons, who was soon followed by many imitators both in prose and verse.[97] His own work was turned into French verse by Gautier de Coinsi, another monk of Soissons, about 1230. A similar collection is the _Lives of the holy fathers_, chiefly from Saint Jerome, and anonymously composed in French verse by some person whose name deserved to have been recorded on account of the great merit of the work, which would be deemed an ornament to any period, for the excellence of the poetry.

The promptuary of examples for the use of preachers, at the end of Herolt's _Sermones discipuli_, composed in 1418, has been already mentioned by Mr. Warton, who has given a curious and correct account of that work; but he has omitted to notice, that, among a multitude of pious authors cited in it, the name of Ovid appears. This practice of indiscriminate quotation became afterwards very common. It was, indeed, sanctioned by a preceding custom, among religious writers, of _moralizing_ works of all denominations. Thus, to mention only a few, Thomas Walleys, a Welsh Dominican friar, had published his moralizations of Ovid's metamorphoses, in the fourteenth century.[98] The _Bestiarium_, a treatise on animals, is, as well as the _Gesta Romanorum_, perhaps an earlier instance. Afterwards the celebrated, but licentious, _Romance of the rose_ was moralized by Jean Molinet. Even the game of chess was moralized; for the reader who may take up Caxton's translation of Jacobus de Cæsolis, will be grievously disappointed should he expect to find any didactic or even historical information. We are not to wonder, therefore, if on the restoration of letters, a system of morality was extracted from Æsop and other fabulists; and, accordingly, some of the early printed editions of Æsop were published under the title of _Æsopus moralizatus_, and this, no doubt, led the way to the moral applications to his fables which afterwards appeared in other languages.