What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fool: His Social and Literary History
1935. First Edition. 374 pages. No dust jacket. Blue cloth covered boards. Pages remain clear with minimal tanning and foxing. Text block edge is moderately foxed. Minor pencil marking to front free end-paper. Cracking to hinges, no damage to end papers. Binding remains firm. Boards have mild edge wear with slight rubbing to surfaces. Mild crushing to spine ends, with fraying cloth and small splits. Sunning to spine. Boards have minor damp and dust stains. Book has a slight forward lean.
441 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1935
5 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
About the author
Enid Welsford
10 books4 followersFrom Wikipedia Enid Elder Hancock Welsford (26 February 1892, Harrow on the Hill – 4 December 1981, Cambridge) was an English literary scholar, a Fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge, and twice winner of the Rose Mary Crawshay Prize – in 1928 and 1967. She is best known for her book The Fool: his Social and Literary History, published in 1935.
Life
Enid Elder Hancock Welsford was born in 1892 to Mildred L. Hancock, an artist, and Joseph W. W. Welsford, a teacher at Harrow School. She attended Conamur School in Kent, then took her undergraduate degree at University College, London in 1911. In 1914, she obtained first class degree with a distinction in Old English from Newnham College, Cambridge, where she was to remain for the rest of her career.[1]
Her book of poems The Seagulls and other poems, published in 1904, was appreciated as the work of a prodigy.[2]
Welsford was a practising Christian, a member of the Anglican Franciscans, and a member of the interdenominational Conference of University Teachers. Keen to promote and support women scholars, she co-founded and presided over the University Women's Research Club.[3]
After a stroke in 1978, Welsford struggled for several years. She died at her home in Cambridge, on 4 December 1981.[3]
Life
Enid Elder Hancock Welsford was born in 1892 to Mildred L. Hancock, an artist, and Joseph W. W. Welsford, a teacher at Harrow School. She attended Conamur School in Kent, then took her undergraduate degree at University College, London in 1911. In 1914, she obtained first class degree with a distinction in Old English from Newnham College, Cambridge, where she was to remain for the rest of her career.[1]
Her book of poems The Seagulls and other poems, published in 1904, was appreciated as the work of a prodigy.[2]
Welsford was a practising Christian, a member of the Anglican Franciscans, and a member of the interdenominational Conference of University Teachers. Keen to promote and support women scholars, she co-founded and presided over the University Women's Research Club.[3]
After a stroke in 1978, Welsford struggled for several years. She died at her home in Cambridge, on 4 December 1981.[3]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 9, 2025
Welsford traces the history of the fool from early appearances in Ancient Egypt, through medieval Italy, France and England, and up to some of the comic movie stars of her time, most notably Charlie Chaplin.
The book seemed to me extremely well-researched: along with classic texts like Erasmus's Praise of Folly and Shakespeare's King Lear, Welsford has consulted court records, diaries, as well as early printed books retelling the pranks and jokes of this or that fool (and more than once, Welsford declines to go into detail in discussing some of these pranks, as the humor involved, she assures us, is unsavory).
Welsford discusses many aspects of the fool, from the costume of motley and cap and bells to the position of the fool in society to the belief that the fool had "second sight." She goes over the distinctions between "natural" and "artificial" fools, as well as those among fools, jesters and buffoons.
Although I disagreed with some of her grammatical conventions, for the most part I did enjoy her style of writing, which I found to be easily accessible (I would add the caveat here, however, that there are many passages of untranslated pre-modern French in the text, along with passages of untranslated Italian and German in the endnotes).
I have an interest in theatrical history, and feel that Welsford's book has contributed to my knowledge on the subject.
The book seemed to me extremely well-researched: along with classic texts like Erasmus's Praise of Folly and Shakespeare's King Lear, Welsford has consulted court records, diaries, as well as early printed books retelling the pranks and jokes of this or that fool (and more than once, Welsford declines to go into detail in discussing some of these pranks, as the humor involved, she assures us, is unsavory).
Welsford discusses many aspects of the fool, from the costume of motley and cap and bells to the position of the fool in society to the belief that the fool had "second sight." She goes over the distinctions between "natural" and "artificial" fools, as well as those among fools, jesters and buffoons.
Although I disagreed with some of her grammatical conventions, for the most part I did enjoy her style of writing, which I found to be easily accessible (I would add the caveat here, however, that there are many passages of untranslated pre-modern French in the text, along with passages of untranslated Italian and German in the endnotes).
I have an interest in theatrical history, and feel that Welsford's book has contributed to my knowledge on the subject.
October 4, 2007
the best reference for the history of fools in literature and history. enid welsford laid the foundation for years of study to follow. most analytical and historical musings on the subject of the fool look to welsford's knowledge to establish the framework for their arguments. also extraordinarily interesting.
August 24, 2024
“The Fool, in fact, is an amphibian, equally at home in the world of reality and the world of imagination, and it is this striking difference between him and the tragic hero which suggests an additional reason for the study of his peculiarities” (xii).
“But it takes two to make a joke” (27).
“It is indeed evident that, whether rightly or wrongly, those practical men of affairs did not share the modern horror of what is called poetry of escape. Our intellectual dictators shake their heads in Puritanical disapproval at the suggestion of a spiritual holiday. Actuality, they say, must never be forgotten, our poetry must throb with the internal combustion engine, the factor chimney must smoke even into our dreams. The Italian despots, on the other hand, spared neither pains nor expense in the effort to give to their fancies, both good and evil, a substantiality that could rival that of the world of politics and business” (28).
“True, one must regard other men as puppet of sawdust, but then identification with Eulenspiegel does, for the time being, delude one into the intoxicating fancy that other men are made of sawdust, that sensation is not real, that fact is not inexorable and that pain itself is comic. This momentary release from the pressure sympathy and fear is surely one of the secrets of comedy” (51).
“The men of those days had a robust tastes in comedy, their real and their mythical buffoons were gross men of the earth, who knew well that the normal physical function so the body have always provided the human race with an inexhaustible source of merriment” (51).
“Moreover, most people have only got to exercise a little honest introspection to discover that they are constantly acting from mixed motives and completely incompatible ideas” (87).
“The Irish candidate for a degree in poetry was put through a severe test in which he had to show himself acquainted with the history, laws, and antiquities of his country; able to recite by heart many poems and tales for purposes of social recreation; capable of composing an extemporary poem on any subject, and of completing correctly a verse, of which the first half had been uttered by some other poet” (88).
“The advent of a new religion is apt to cause the destruction of the higher manifestations of the old beliefs, and to leave their lower aspects undisturbed” (111).
“It is clear that the distinction so often made in Elizabethan times between the ‘natural’ and the ‘artificial’ fool goes back to at least the twelfth century. Piculf, who received feudal honors for his folly, must have been sane, Grant-Jehan was capable of receiving his own monthly wages; on the other hand both Haincelin Coq and Jehan le Fol seemed to have been unable to look after themselves, and Haincelin Coq must have been a real madman addicted to frenzied leaping and dancing, for he wore out an inordinate quantity of shoe leather and on one occasion tore his clothes into shreds when playing before the King. Canel makes an attempt to distinguish between sane and insane fools according to whether they had valets or keepers…” (119).
“It is interesting to find this evidence for the clothing of half-witted town-fools; for it has been suggested that the traditional fool’s uniform (i.e. motley coat, cowl-shaped hood adorned with ears, bells and sometimes a cockscomb on the head, sword, bladder or marotte in the hand) belonged rather to the amateur actor sin fool-societies than to the real professional court-fools, who, if we ma judge by the accounts were usually dressed like ordinary courtiers” (121-122).
“Something has been lost. We feel drawn to the fool as he weeps in the emptiness of Versailles. Scientific enlightenment is good, yet it would also be good to regain the sense of glory, which does somehow seem to be connected with humility, and the acceptance of limitation” (193).
“Nevertheless, it is impossible to study facts without forming opinions, and even conjecture need not be devoid of value, if clearly recognized for what it is” (314).
“The fool is not only physically, he is morally and spiritually resilient. He is none the worse for his slapping, often he turns the tables on the slappers, but sometimes he shrugs his shoulders and enquires: ‘What to slaps matter to me, since I can render them not only innocuous but lucrative and funny?’” (317).
“In the first place we are creatures of the earth, propagating our species like other animals, in need of food, clothing and shelter and of the money that procures them. Yet if we need money, are we so wholly creatures of the earth? If we need to cover our nakedness by material clothes or spiritual ideals, are we so like the other animals? This incongruity is exploited by the Fool The Fool is an unabashed glutton and coward and knave, he is—as we say—a natural; we laugh at him and enjoy a pleasant sense of superiority; he looks at us oddly and we suspect that he is our alter ego; he winks at us and we are delighted at the discovery that we are also gluttons and cowards and knaves. The rogue has freed us from shame. More than that, he has persuaded us that wasted affection, thwarted ambition, latent guilt are mere delusions to be laughed away. For how can we feel spiritual pain if we are only animals?” (318).
“Are not poets still regarded with the same curious mixture of contempt and awe which was excited centuries ago by the ‘hoary thul’ and by Buhlul the Madjnun? And is it not still possible to maintain that the fool’s resilience, the poet’s genius, the mystic’s sanctity are not so much the same as the result of their social defects?” (319).
“The tragic writer takes the world seriously and interprets it; the comic writer creates a new world, a world where bad people are harmless, where stupid people are merry, where Fate is transformed into Puck-like Chance, strongly biased in favor of those who have a sense of humor and a proper appreciation of cakes and ale” (321).
“The Fool is a creator not of beauty but of spiritual freedom” (322).
“Many of our contemporaries combine Hamlet’s idea that the world is a dungeon with a curious reluctance to unlock the prison door…” (322).
“But it takes two to make a joke” (27).
“It is indeed evident that, whether rightly or wrongly, those practical men of affairs did not share the modern horror of what is called poetry of escape. Our intellectual dictators shake their heads in Puritanical disapproval at the suggestion of a spiritual holiday. Actuality, they say, must never be forgotten, our poetry must throb with the internal combustion engine, the factor chimney must smoke even into our dreams. The Italian despots, on the other hand, spared neither pains nor expense in the effort to give to their fancies, both good and evil, a substantiality that could rival that of the world of politics and business” (28).
“True, one must regard other men as puppet of sawdust, but then identification with Eulenspiegel does, for the time being, delude one into the intoxicating fancy that other men are made of sawdust, that sensation is not real, that fact is not inexorable and that pain itself is comic. This momentary release from the pressure sympathy and fear is surely one of the secrets of comedy” (51).
“The men of those days had a robust tastes in comedy, their real and their mythical buffoons were gross men of the earth, who knew well that the normal physical function so the body have always provided the human race with an inexhaustible source of merriment” (51).
“Moreover, most people have only got to exercise a little honest introspection to discover that they are constantly acting from mixed motives and completely incompatible ideas” (87).
“The Irish candidate for a degree in poetry was put through a severe test in which he had to show himself acquainted with the history, laws, and antiquities of his country; able to recite by heart many poems and tales for purposes of social recreation; capable of composing an extemporary poem on any subject, and of completing correctly a verse, of which the first half had been uttered by some other poet” (88).
“The advent of a new religion is apt to cause the destruction of the higher manifestations of the old beliefs, and to leave their lower aspects undisturbed” (111).
“It is clear that the distinction so often made in Elizabethan times between the ‘natural’ and the ‘artificial’ fool goes back to at least the twelfth century. Piculf, who received feudal honors for his folly, must have been sane, Grant-Jehan was capable of receiving his own monthly wages; on the other hand both Haincelin Coq and Jehan le Fol seemed to have been unable to look after themselves, and Haincelin Coq must have been a real madman addicted to frenzied leaping and dancing, for he wore out an inordinate quantity of shoe leather and on one occasion tore his clothes into shreds when playing before the King. Canel makes an attempt to distinguish between sane and insane fools according to whether they had valets or keepers…” (119).
“It is interesting to find this evidence for the clothing of half-witted town-fools; for it has been suggested that the traditional fool’s uniform (i.e. motley coat, cowl-shaped hood adorned with ears, bells and sometimes a cockscomb on the head, sword, bladder or marotte in the hand) belonged rather to the amateur actor sin fool-societies than to the real professional court-fools, who, if we ma judge by the accounts were usually dressed like ordinary courtiers” (121-122).
“Something has been lost. We feel drawn to the fool as he weeps in the emptiness of Versailles. Scientific enlightenment is good, yet it would also be good to regain the sense of glory, which does somehow seem to be connected with humility, and the acceptance of limitation” (193).
“Nevertheless, it is impossible to study facts without forming opinions, and even conjecture need not be devoid of value, if clearly recognized for what it is” (314).
“The fool is not only physically, he is morally and spiritually resilient. He is none the worse for his slapping, often he turns the tables on the slappers, but sometimes he shrugs his shoulders and enquires: ‘What to slaps matter to me, since I can render them not only innocuous but lucrative and funny?’” (317).
“In the first place we are creatures of the earth, propagating our species like other animals, in need of food, clothing and shelter and of the money that procures them. Yet if we need money, are we so wholly creatures of the earth? If we need to cover our nakedness by material clothes or spiritual ideals, are we so like the other animals? This incongruity is exploited by the Fool The Fool is an unabashed glutton and coward and knave, he is—as we say—a natural; we laugh at him and enjoy a pleasant sense of superiority; he looks at us oddly and we suspect that he is our alter ego; he winks at us and we are delighted at the discovery that we are also gluttons and cowards and knaves. The rogue has freed us from shame. More than that, he has persuaded us that wasted affection, thwarted ambition, latent guilt are mere delusions to be laughed away. For how can we feel spiritual pain if we are only animals?” (318).
“Are not poets still regarded with the same curious mixture of contempt and awe which was excited centuries ago by the ‘hoary thul’ and by Buhlul the Madjnun? And is it not still possible to maintain that the fool’s resilience, the poet’s genius, the mystic’s sanctity are not so much the same as the result of their social defects?” (319).
“The tragic writer takes the world seriously and interprets it; the comic writer creates a new world, a world where bad people are harmless, where stupid people are merry, where Fate is transformed into Puck-like Chance, strongly biased in favor of those who have a sense of humor and a proper appreciation of cakes and ale” (321).
“The Fool is a creator not of beauty but of spiritual freedom” (322).
“Many of our contemporaries combine Hamlet’s idea that the world is a dungeon with a curious reluctance to unlock the prison door…” (322).
March 24, 2021
First published in 1935, The Fool is a rich, extensively researched, and one of the few existing studies of the character of the buffoon in history across cultures, literature, the stage, and finally the screen. From his first recorded appearance in ancient Greece all the way to Charlie Chaplin as the latest successor of the characters' traditions at the time of writing.
Enid Welsford tells the wild stories of witty parasites, laughter-makers (and/or laughed at), hunchbacks, dwarves, dimwits, jokers, and mischief makers - first through historical accounts, then imagined, and sometimes both.
Fun fact: the paperback re-edition from 1968 I managed to find boasts a sticker saying the original price of the book was £1.10. I paid about 30 times that amount.
The Fool, Court-fool, Court-jester, Buffoon, Harlequin, and Clown are all related characters, sometimes one and the same, even. Though the author splits the book between recorded history and fantasy, it seems challenging to be clear cut about exactly where reality ends (often for lack of clear records beyond royal accounting books) and mythical traits begin.
I'd never read anything quite like this, nearly everything I was reading was completely new, or new perspectives on knowledge I took for granted. Research is also in original language: whole passages of the book are in French and German.
On the topic of myth, the chapter about the Fool as Poet and Clairvoyant, talks about Merlin, the Arthurian legend character - who typically makes me think of a classic high wizard or mage. In fact, the character is correctly named Myrddin, and in the 1932 The Growth of Literature, a Professor Chadwick apparently makes a credible argument for the character to appear as a naked, hairy madman and bard, in two different documents and poems from Wales and Scotland.
The book doesn't feature many actual examples of witty jests, though I enjoyed this story, apparently from the 14th century, in La Nef des fols du monde:
"It happened one day in Paris that a quarrel broke out between a street porter having sat down to eat his dinner near the shop-door, in order that his fare of plain bread might be made more savoury by the smell of the roasted meat, was annoyed to find the shopkeeper avaricious enough to charge him for this privilege. A fight ensued and the court-fool 'Seigni Johan', who was called in to conciliate the brawlers, pronounced the solemn judgement that the porter should pay for the smell of the roast with the sound of his money."
I wanted to read this because I found the character of the Fool and Joker quite fascinating, and close to my interests about studying play. I was also curious about the historical relationship between this figure, comedy, and power. This comedian figure had a place next to kings in the middle ages (admittedly it was also a tragic figure at times), then in some cases was pitted against religious authorities, and finally seems to have ended up as an entertainer - separate from power.
Comedy and humour, even though important and human, don't seem to have much dedicated space and time in the modern corporate world, which I think is kind of interesting, and I might have a book idea about it. I also figured that reading books few others have read these days, may lead to thinking and ideas few others have too.
To paraphrase a point made by the author at the end of the book, if one imagines wisdom on a spectrum, you might find a rational intellectual, learned wisdom on one end, and perhaps something opposite on the other end, a kind of natural, instinctual wisdom, so obvious it's silly - that is where the Fool lives, and thrives.
"So perhaps we may add a fourth order of fools; there are those who get slapped, there are those who are none the worse for their slapping, there are those who adroitly change places with the slappers, and occasionally there are those who enquire, 'What do slaps matter to the man whose body is made of indiarubber, and whose mind is of quicksilver, and who can even - greatest triumph of all - persuade you for the moment that such indeed is your case?' For the Fool is a great untrusser of our slaveries, and comedy is the expression of the spirit of the Fool." - Enid Welsford
Enid Welsford tells the wild stories of witty parasites, laughter-makers (and/or laughed at), hunchbacks, dwarves, dimwits, jokers, and mischief makers - first through historical accounts, then imagined, and sometimes both.
Fun fact: the paperback re-edition from 1968 I managed to find boasts a sticker saying the original price of the book was £1.10. I paid about 30 times that amount.
The Fool, Court-fool, Court-jester, Buffoon, Harlequin, and Clown are all related characters, sometimes one and the same, even. Though the author splits the book between recorded history and fantasy, it seems challenging to be clear cut about exactly where reality ends (often for lack of clear records beyond royal accounting books) and mythical traits begin.
I'd never read anything quite like this, nearly everything I was reading was completely new, or new perspectives on knowledge I took for granted. Research is also in original language: whole passages of the book are in French and German.
On the topic of myth, the chapter about the Fool as Poet and Clairvoyant, talks about Merlin, the Arthurian legend character - who typically makes me think of a classic high wizard or mage. In fact, the character is correctly named Myrddin, and in the 1932 The Growth of Literature, a Professor Chadwick apparently makes a credible argument for the character to appear as a naked, hairy madman and bard, in two different documents and poems from Wales and Scotland.
The book doesn't feature many actual examples of witty jests, though I enjoyed this story, apparently from the 14th century, in La Nef des fols du monde:
"It happened one day in Paris that a quarrel broke out between a street porter having sat down to eat his dinner near the shop-door, in order that his fare of plain bread might be made more savoury by the smell of the roasted meat, was annoyed to find the shopkeeper avaricious enough to charge him for this privilege. A fight ensued and the court-fool 'Seigni Johan', who was called in to conciliate the brawlers, pronounced the solemn judgement that the porter should pay for the smell of the roast with the sound of his money."
I wanted to read this because I found the character of the Fool and Joker quite fascinating, and close to my interests about studying play. I was also curious about the historical relationship between this figure, comedy, and power. This comedian figure had a place next to kings in the middle ages (admittedly it was also a tragic figure at times), then in some cases was pitted against religious authorities, and finally seems to have ended up as an entertainer - separate from power.
Comedy and humour, even though important and human, don't seem to have much dedicated space and time in the modern corporate world, which I think is kind of interesting, and I might have a book idea about it. I also figured that reading books few others have read these days, may lead to thinking and ideas few others have too.
To paraphrase a point made by the author at the end of the book, if one imagines wisdom on a spectrum, you might find a rational intellectual, learned wisdom on one end, and perhaps something opposite on the other end, a kind of natural, instinctual wisdom, so obvious it's silly - that is where the Fool lives, and thrives.
"So perhaps we may add a fourth order of fools; there are those who get slapped, there are those who are none the worse for their slapping, there are those who adroitly change places with the slappers, and occasionally there are those who enquire, 'What do slaps matter to the man whose body is made of indiarubber, and whose mind is of quicksilver, and who can even - greatest triumph of all - persuade you for the moment that such indeed is your case?' For the Fool is a great untrusser of our slaveries, and comedy is the expression of the spirit of the Fool." - Enid Welsford
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews