Jump to content

Talk:Jester: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 96: Line 96:


I believe John Ballanger & 'Fools Paradise' should be included in here cause that's why I made the search in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/207.249.136.254|207.249.136.254]] ([[User talk:207.249.136.254|talk]]) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)José Pamplona Muñoz[[Special:Contributions/189.136.159.181|189.136.159.181]] ([[User talk:189.136.159.181|talk]]) 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe John Ballanger & 'Fools Paradise' should be included in here cause that's why I made the search in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/207.249.136.254|207.249.136.254]] ([[User talk:207.249.136.254|talk]]) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)José Pamplona Muñoz[[Special:Contributions/189.136.159.181|189.136.159.181]] ([[User talk:189.136.159.181|talk]]) 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

== This Page is Terrible ==

Section after section with references from what looks likes a single BBC article, more or less. There have to be scholarly works on the origin of Tarot, playing cards, et. Instead there is a bunch of mumbo jumbo and the first paragraph of the whole page stinks in particular. Clean it up, people!

Revision as of 18:21, 10 June 2008

Prehistoric times?

Do the origins of the jester really date back to prehistoric times?

Duplication

There seems to be a fair bit of duplication in the article...? --Shallot 13:16, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I cannot judge this, but this article, although a good start, only tells you information about famous jesters, but does not explain, what the fool and court jester meant, especially during the middle ages. If able to understand German, have a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narr. Perhaps I will edit the article here sometime, but this will be a lot of work...--KarlNapf 01:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fools and Folly

Fool redirects here, but there is little that explains medieval symbolism of fool and folly. A section discusses modern occult Tarot symbolism, which turned the Fool into an honorific figure -- this is very misleading. Naturally enough, the traditional symbolism of fools was almost entirely negative. The same is true today: just imagine the last time you were called a fool or said to be acting foolishly. From the Bible a fool was a moral reprobate, and the atheist/fool of Psalms 14 and 52 was often illustrated with a jester/fool. A fool, naturally representing Folly, is one of Giotto's seven vices. To fool someone is to deceive them, and so on. Having Fool redirect here and yet ignoring the basic meaning of fools and folly is weirdly misleading, even foolish. Michael Hurst (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spun plates

This is a pretty random question but would some one happen to know if court jesters ever spun plates? And if so what year might they be doing such a thing? - Beans

Cut from article

The joker (playing card) often shows a court jester. The original version is The Fool card (Number Zero) in the Tarot pack. The Tarot was devised during the Dark Ages as a 'blind' or 'smokescreen' in which esoteric, metaphysical sacred symbols were hidden in the form of a children's pack of playing cards, or as a fortune-telling toy to throw off religious inquisitors. The symbols used in these cards came from Occult Mystery Schools along the Greek Gnostic, the Kabbalist Judaism, the Hermetic Schools of Egypt, the Medieaval Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and Far Eastern religions. The symbols can be found in Egyptian and Babylonian pyramids, and in Sanskrit texts (ie., Hiranya Garbha).

Perkeo, the dwarf-jester from Heildelberg

I made a specific question about this jester on the issue "comprachicos". Could any history specialist please help me? Thanks. Stella.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprachicos <- This would explain it. Basically, it is Spanish for someone who buys children.

not jesters

Two Clowns in Hamlet 

This is a mistake the clowns were not jester, one of them tells Hamlet that he has been a grave-digger for thirty years (since Hamlet was born [1]):

Questions this article leaves unanswered

  • Is there a difference between a Jester and a clown?
  • Where did the characteristic bell-hat come from, and what colors was it originally?

--Nerd42 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The three-pointed, belled hat is a representation of the ears and tail of Ass that jester's were once required (or chose) to wear. The cockscomb was a later symbolic representation, likely for more refined courts or company. Given the later name "coxcomb" or "cockscomb", I would imagine there is a combined symbolism with the rooster's comb, but I am unaware of any specific contextual basis for humorous representation; however the current-day colloquialism "ass-hat" takes on a deeper meaning when related to the ears and tail context of the jester's cockscomb.

Besieged 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

liliripe or liripipe

Minor point, but the article parenthetically names the pointed, floppy, belled ornaments of the fool's cap as liliripes. I have never heard of this word, but think it must be a typo or corruption of liripipe, which has had many meanings over the years, including meaning "a cord or sash hanging from the point of a hood, esp. in academic regalia." Can anyone corroborate that the correct term is liripipe, or for that matter, that liripipe can be used to describe the parts of a coxcomb?

adoarns 16:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The art of the jester

There is too much information in "The art of the jester" which does not link well with the rest of the article — for instance, the sentence on Freud, Please, make this article about court jesters and not other things. Rintrah 11:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All jesters and fools in those days were thought of as special cases whom God had touched with a childlike madness—a gift, or perhaps a curse. Mentally handicapped people sometimes found employment by capering and behaving in an amusing way. In the harsh world of medieval Europe, people who might not be able to survive any other way thus found a social niche.

This sounds like something that would be told to children. Which sources verify it? It seems altogether too fanciful. Rintrah 11:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court?

Why isn't this simply at jester? There seems to be no disambiguation.

Peter Isotalo 13:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neckpiece?

What are the neckpieces called? Their similar to the caps, with the dangling ends... JackOfHearts 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Two things

From the current article:

"All royal courts in those days employed entertainers"...

"All" is rather presumptive and is quite a serious blanket statement. Additionally, exactly *when*, precisely, is "in those days"?

Besieged 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob Dylan is often seen" . . .

I'd love to see a source for this. And there must be one out there. 128.147.38.10 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"Other things distinctive about the jester were his incessant laughter"

Did they really never stop laughing? Even in court? How is that possible? --124.197.54.130 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffoon

The wiki article "Buffoon" has recently been "merged" with jester, but there was nothing in the article to differentiate, the origins, so I have copied the old text to a new section in this article, as there are some differences (ie, by my understanding, a Jester is a buffoon, but a buffoon is not necesarily a jester.)

Please feel free to comment. Regards, Lynbarn 10:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibilical Definition

The word "fool" occurs 87 times in the Bible, but is defined differently than here: it denotes one who is morally deficient. (Reference: Holy Bible, New International Version; commentary on Proverbs 1:7). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.49.229 (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

END OF TRADITION

I believe John Ballanger & 'Fools Paradise' should be included in here cause that's why I made the search in the first place. 207.249.136.254 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)José Pamplona Muñoz189.136.159.181 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Page is Terrible

Section after section with references from what looks likes a single BBC article, more or less. There have to be scholarly works on the origin of Tarot, playing cards, et. Instead there is a bunch of mumbo jumbo and the first paragraph of the whole page stinks in particular. Clean it up, people!