The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-23 00:00:00

38

lished reputation, or now making his first
essay towards amusing the public, we should
not feel inclined to say a single word in his
disparagement. But under existing circum-
stances we feel compelled to act differently.
Being professedly a caterer of light literature,
the Doctor is here very ponderous ; and he
has now had too much practice at his trade to
merit any applause for mere research and in•
dustry. In a " light writer" these qualities
are worthless for their own sake. On serious
subjects, the man of research who brings out
a great mass of information, in however cum-
brous a shape or• repulsive a style, performs a
service to the world. But no "Joculator " is
entitled to plead industry as a set-off against
dulness or dryness, and both dull and dry we
are obliged to pronounce " The History of
Court Fools."
One work, however,Dr.Doran must he allowed
to have performed completely, even if ho has
lowered his own reputation in the process.
He has for ever dissipated any exalted notions
we might have entertained concerning the wit
and wisdom of the class whose history he has
undertaken to write. if his facts are correct—
and even with a very large deduction they would
prove the same—the professional jester who has
filled so conspicuous a place in our fictions of
the middle ages, and been represented as the
ancestor of the Jerrolds,Thackerays,and Sydney
Smiths of the present, was nothing but a stupid
and impudent parasite. He served to gratify
the taste for practical jokes which distin-
guished our ancestors, and to please his patron
by gibing at those whom he disliked, but whom
it was not politic to insult in person. But
that he had any of those qualities which many
of our best writers have attributed to him,
and which, strange to say, Dr. Doran himself
believes in, none can any longer believe after
a perusal of the Doctor's own pages. We will
hazard an assertion that, from the first page
to the last, not a single saying is recorded
that has the faintest flavour of wit ; and,
making all allowance for differences of taste,
and any other changes which might rob a joke
of its point, we must confess that the staple
humour of our ancestors as herein repre-
sented is such as to inspire us with much
envy of the facility with which they were
amused.

But the learned Doctor has exhumed much
information to delight the antiquary, many little
picturesque tableaux to entertain the general
reader? We are sorry to say that here, too, his
volume is a failure. It would perhaps be impos-
sible that it should not contain some few scraps
either curious or interesting, or both. . But
they are as few as can well be imagined. The
book abounds in names and dates, births
and deaths, and is spun out by a succession of
witticisms attributed to the Fools of various
European countries. But if the latter are
bad we do not care for the former. An author
is in some measure bound to show that his
work is worthy of the pains bestowed upon it.
We should not thank the Doctor for giving us
the lives of London scavengers, however
curious the information which they must in-
evitably contain. The " Fools " are not in-
teresting in themselves, throw no light on
things or parsons who are, and are unadorned
by either elegance or wit at the hands of their
historian. Some passages which are least
stupid we subjoin :

ZIOLISII MINSTREL AND JESTER.

Tim Court always thought better of them than the
Church. " Actors and jesters," says John of Salisbury
(1180 arc.), may not be admitted to the Sacrament. —His.
trionss et mini non possunt recipere sacrists Communionem."
And forty years later, there were some people who as
much objected to marry their daughters to the King's
jesters, as the coachman of George 11. did to his son
ing a utaid-of-honour. One of the Pipe Rolls, sup-
pose to be of the date of 1200, informs us that " Nicola,
wife of Girard of Canville, accounts to the King for one
hundred malice, for the privilege of marrying her daughter
Maud to whatever person she pleases,—the King's jester
excepted—exceptis tnimicis Regis." The mimici, whatever
their exact othce was, had as part of their duty, evidently,
to amuse the King (John), and they would appeal,
from the reference made to them, to have been but a
disreputable set of fellows. They were probably a sort of
actors,—pantomimic, if not altogether dramatic; for the
descent of the ancient minstrel through poet and player
to mere jester, is easy to be traced in the history of the
profession in nearly every nation.