54
against the church dignitaries in a drunken singing match, each group attempting
to sing its rival down; it ended in jeers, howls, lewd gestures, and mockeries
against the vanquished team. Lowly clerics and higher clergy partook in the
merriment with equal fervor. In a rare example of a Feast of Fools held by a
religious house at Antibes as late as 1645, it was recorded that the choir and
office were left to the lay brothers, the queteurs, the cooks, and the gardeners.
These put on the vestments inside out, held the books upside down, and wore
spectacles with rounds of orange peel instead of glasses. They blew ashes from
the censers upon each other's faces and heads and instead of the proper liturgy
chanted confused and inarticulate gibberish (Chambers 1:317).
In the fifteenth century at Aries, women also took part in the foolery. An
"archbishop of Innocents" would pay a visit to the "abbess of fools" of the
convent of Saint-Cesaire, who was bound to provide chicken, bread, and wine
for his regaling (Chambers 1:317). Another typical scene is given in a passage
from a 1445 letter of the Faculty of Theology of Paris to all bishops and chapters
of France prohibiting the Feast of Fools:
Priests and clerks may be seen wearing masks and monstrous visages at the
hours of office. They dance in the choir dressed as women, panders or minstrels.
They sing wanton songs. They eat black puddings at the horn of the altar while the
celebrant is saying mass. They play at dice there. They cense with stinking smoke
from the soles of old shoes. They run and leap through the church, without a blush
at their own shame. Finally they drive about the town and in theatres in shabby
traps and carts; and rouse the laughter of their fellows and bystanders in infamous
performances, with indecent gestures and verses scurrilous and unchaste.
(Chambers 1:294).
Nevertheless, it is true that in addition to mockery and lewd comportment
during the Mass inside the church, the Feast of Fools also prompted festivities
outside the church. The spirit of irreverence and the giddiness of inverting the
hierarchy and appropriating for one day the seat of authority was inevitably
contagious to the townspeople. It was not unusual to have the Feast of Fools
55
be the occasion for mock religious processions led by the Bishop of Fools and
his entourage of boisterous subdeacons, vicars, and chaplains, vulgar games,
unbridled cavalcades, and irreverent or scatological drama in makeshift theaters
and carts on the streets. In 1444, the public town square at Troyes was the site
of the consecration of an Archbishop of Fools in a play that mimicked the
consecration of a pontiff. Though the feast itself took place in the cathedral, the
Archbishop of Fools gave benediction to the people and rode in procession
throughout the town. Then the vicars who had defied their bishop, Jean Leguise,
by holding the Feast of Fools in spite of his express prohibition impersonated
him in a play where he and his two canons were portrayed as Hypocrisie (hy
pocrisy), Faintise (trickery), and Faux-semblant (falsehood). Rebuked by their
insolence, Leguise invoked the Faculty of Theology at Paris and even filed a
complaint with the king, who forbade the impious festivities (Chambers 1:296).
A most singular development of the Bishop of Fools outside the confines of
the church was his role as organizer and judge of the dramatic performances
that took place during the Grande Procession in Lille during the month of June.
"Through much of the fifteenth century the dramatic activities associated with
the procession were organized by the Bishop of Fools, who had been elected
by the clerics of the collegiate church of St. Pierre the previous Twelfthnight''
(Knight, "Image" 154). The Church of St. Peter's even provided funds for the
Bishop of Fools to award prizes to the best dramatic performances staged by
the different neighborhood associations as part of the procession. The dramatic
repertory consisted of hystoires or scenes from the Passion, tableaux vivants
staged on wagons that moved in the procession, and later, plays proper: "The
plays were written by members of the clergy at St. Peter's and presented to the
neighborhood associations to be staged. In this way the content of the plays was
controlled, and the fear of offending God by speaking heresy or blasphemy was
alleviated" (Knight, "Sponsorship" 282). We see, therefore, that the Bishop of
Fools of Lille, though a lower cleric, was the instrument whereby the church
held in check public dramatic manifestations while providing an orderly vehicle
56
for neighborhood associations to enact religious drama.
The shift that occurred at Lille, where the Bishop of Fools was made the
organizer of performances staged by townspeople, shows what became of this
historic fool character. This clerical figure was eventually secularized. Already
in 1499 the bourgeois of Tournai were so keen on holding the Feast of Fools
that they violently intervened to enforce the election of a Bishop of Fools by
the vicars of Notre-Dame (Chambers 1:307). In the towns where the Feast of
Fools did not die off, it was appropriated by the lay society, and the role reversal
enacted by the Bishop of Fools moved on to the sociopolitical sphere. Bourgeois
civic fraternities, trade guilds, or clerkly groups (the societes joyeuses, the
confreries, the literary puys, or the lawyers' Basoches) secularized the core essence
of this renowned personage and took over his license to parody the ruling class.
' 'And so we find a second tradition of Feasts of Fools, in which the fous are
no longer vicars but bourgeois, and the dominus festi is a popular 'king' or
'prince' rather than a clerical 'bishop' " (Chambers 1:373).
The reversal of roles enacted by "the Bishop of Fools—where the lowly
appropriate for themselves the seat of the powerful for one day, wear their garb,
and mimic their authority with irreverence—is a multifaceted phenomenon of
human ritual and performance. Its emergence, continuance, and transformation
in society have been analyzed using different approaches. Sociopolitical,
sociocultural, phenomenological, philosophical/literary, and theological viewpoints
have been expounded and are useful in interpreting this historical fool.
The first approach that comes to mind when analyzing the character of the
Bishop of Fools is the Bakhtinian sociopolitical theory of the carnivalesque
impulse of the simple folk in obdurate opposition to the authority in place.
According to Bakhtin, "All these forms of protocol and ritual based on laughter
and consecrated by tradition . . . were sharply distinct from the serious official,
ecclesiastical, feudal and political cult forms and ceremonials" (Bakhtin 5). He
severs medieval life into two separate modes of existence, pitting the serious
feudal/ecclesiastical authority against the laughing folk. This bipolar vision does
57
not apply to the Bishop of Fools. The laughter and mockery generated by the
Feast of Fools, its carnivalesque role reversal, not only occurred in the church,
but also, as we have seen, fit within its very own liturgy. The Bishop of Fools
impersonates an ecclesiastic and mimics the rituals of holy office. He is not a
fool figure emerging from a popular movement. Though elected from among
the lowest in the church's hierarchy, he still functions within the sphere of
religion.
Nevertheless, the question of social class and political empowerment is an
important one. The Bishop of Fools can be seen as an indicator of the social
and political preoccupations of the times. This figure parodied both the symbols
of power and the elements of ritual that characterized the church's ruling class.
By personifying a higher prelate, the Bishop of Fools sketched, in a condensed
form, what were the common abuses of power (Heers 26). By giving shape to
the injustices experienced throughout the year, the role reversal embodied by
the Bishop of Fools allowed the lowest in the hierarchy to vent repressed anger
and resentment, to blow off steam, and thus to actually perpetuate the social
order by acting out their frustrations within the all-embracing liturgy of the
church.
An interesting phenomenological theory proposes that the function of the
role reversal and of the deformations of the Mass "was not so much to release
tension as it was to create arousal in the participants" (Gilhus 46). In this view,
the excitement produced by the role reversal of the Feast of Fools served as the
fuel that kept the feast in existence. It continued through time because the intensity
of the emotions it generated gave it life. Though rather reductionist, this
view that the "minor priests held their feast primarily for the fun of doing it"
(Gilhus 46) adds an important dimension in understanding the continued popularity
of the feast.
A sociocultural view expounded by Victor Turner highlights the concepts of
liminality and root paradigms. Turner states that in human ritual there is "a
moment when those being moved in accordance with a cultural script were
58
liberated from normative demands, when they were, indeed, betwixt and between
successive lodgments in jural political systems. In this gap between ordered
worlds almost anything may happen" (Turner 13). In this moment of
liminality there exists the possibility of stepping aside "not only from one's
own social position but from all social positions and of formulating a potentially
unlimited series of alternative arrangements" (Turner 14). If we take the
hierarchical feudal and ecclesiastical social structures as the "models, patterns and
paradigms for behavior and thinking" (Turner 15), in other words, as the root
paradigm, the Feast of Fools offers an alternative paradigm, a moment of time
in this system when the permanent and formal order is inverted, altered in favor
of another temporary, carnivalesque structure based on folly and derision. In
Turner's view, liminality is a transformative force in society, since the alternate
paradigms eventually lose their marginal status to become themselves the root
paradigm. It is questionable whether the Bishop of Fools occasioned such a
transformative action. On the one hand, he can be seen as perpetuating the
established order by allowing for accumulated frustrations to be vented within
the controlled structures of the church; on the other, we see appropriation of the
the Bishop of Fools by the domain of the secular as a movement to the mainstream
of social activity.
A philosophical/literary case can be made for the "Janus" effect occasioned
by the Bishop of Fools and the mise-en-abime this figure creates in the domain
of the sacred. The Bishop of Fools and the feast he led present us with a paradox.
Irreverent and scatological, they nevertheless functioned within the universe of
the sacred. Through the enactment of a distorted version of the liturgy of the
Mass, the two mutually exclusive realms of the Mass and of the Feast of Fools
form the two faces of the same entity (Boucquey 5). By providing an upsidedown,
motley rendering of the church's liturgy, the Feast of Fools provides a
medium for the underside to surface. This upside-down world ruled by foolery
creates an altered picture-in-a-picture, a mise-en-abime that complements and
completes the domain of the sacred.
59
A theological view links the elements of festivity and fantasy inherent in the
Bishop of Fools with man's sense of belonging in history and in the cosmic
order, as well as his ability to envision his future. "Festivity, with its essential
ingredients—excess, celebration, and juxtaposition—is itself an essential
ingredient in human life" (Cox 26). Festivity allows man to feel anchored in a
higher scheme, a divine order, that reconstitutes the balance between man's mortal
state and his divine nature. Similarly, ' 'Fantasy is the richest source of human
creativity. . . it is the image of the creator God in man" (Cox 59). It institutes a
link for mankind between daily reality and the realm of the possible, providing
a way for uniting both man's divine essence and his human form.
Another theological argument can be made whereby the Bishop of Fools can
be seen as impersonating the folly inherent in the very person of Christ. As
Erasmus pointed out, folly finds its roots in the most sacred:
Christ too, though he is the wisdom of the Father, was made something of a
fool himself in order to help the folly of mankind, when he assumed the nature of
man and was seen in man's form; just as he was made sin so that he could redeem
sinners. Nor did he wish them to be redeemed in any other way save by the folly
of the cross and through his simple, ignorant apostles, to whom he unfailingly
preached folly. He taught them to shun wisdom, and made his appeal through the
example of children, lilies, mustard-seed and humble sparrows, all foolish,
senseless things, which live their lives by natural instinct alone, free from care or
purpose. (198-199) By bringing to light the scatological and carnal dimension of
existence within the domain of the sacred, the Bishop of Fools can be seen as the
symbol of the human presence of Christ in Jesus of Nazareth, the paradoxical
mystery of the Incarnation.
CRITICAL RECEPTION
With these different views in mind, it is possible to see the Bishop of Fools
as a figure that incarnates the essential paradox of Christ's message. By
impersonating
60
a superior in an irreverent and scatological fashion, the Bishop of Fools
portrayed a higher being in the carnal and animalesque dimension that is common
to all, ecclesiastical authorities and lowly clerics alike. In this impersonation,
the Bishop of Fools embodies a paradox. As Gilhus correctly points out,
the elevation of the lower clergy to the seat of the powerful was a ' 'paradoxical
elevation of lowness still being low, not of lowness becoming highness" (Gilhus
42). The lowly impersonated the powerful, not in their preeminence, but as fools.
The role reversal enacted by the Bishop of Fools creates a new sphere of existence
for all the participants. The higher domain of divine rites, ecclesiastical
authority, and sacred mysteries is derided and brought down to the level of
earthly, animalesque, and primal carnal impulses. Another entirely different
dimension is brought to human experience. The customary notions of duality, low/
high, human/divine, body/soul, and lowly/powerful are fused together, confused,
altered. For a moment in time, the participants of the Feast of Fools—powerful
prelates, lowly clerics, and the different ranks of the faithful who partook of
this unique Mass—existed in the essence of the Christian experience, of the
divine brought down to the carnal, of the powerful brought down by the lowly.
For a brief moment, the unlikely, precarious, and temporary fusion of two eternally
opposed realms of existence converged in the scurrilous ridicule of the
sacred led by the Bishop of Fools.
NOTE
1. My translation of "jamais, a bien y regarder, la fete des Fous n'a quitte la
constellation du sacre.»
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Chambers, E. K. The Medieval Stage. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903.
Hone, William. Ancient mysteries described, especially. . . the festivals of fools and
asses, the English boy-bishop.. . . London, 1823.