The Fool: "Innocent" or Tormented Outsider?

Fools in the Eyes of Jesus

On this page I read that
Five times in the Bible Jesus chose to address people as "fools".

I searched the corresponding fragments from the King James Bible:


1. The Careless Fool - Mat. 7:24-27
7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock: 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded
upon a rock.
7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them
not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon
the sand: 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the
fall of it.


2. The Hypocritical Fool - Mat. 23:17-19
23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is
greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 23:18
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever
sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the
altar that sanctifieth the gift?


3. The Sleeping Fool - Mat. 25:1-8
25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins,
which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with
them: 25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet him.
25:7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our
lamps are gone out.
25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough
for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
yourselves.
25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that
were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.


4. The Materialistic Fool - Luke 12:16-20
12:16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a
certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 12:17 And he thought
within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where
to bestow my fruits? 12:18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull
down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my
fruits and my goods.
12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up
for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
12:20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be
required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast
provided? 12:21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is
not rich toward God.


5. The Unbelieving Fool - Luke 24:25
24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre,
and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe
all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

I agree with DoctorArcanus that in general "an Innocent fool is more modern and romantic: it makes me think of Wagner's Parsifal" - and yet precisely this aspect of the Fool as 'innocent' predates Wagner version.

Both Von Eschenbach German version (Parzival) and its precursor Chrétien de Troyes's French Perceval, depict or describe him as a peasant-fool as he leaves his mother's forest home. Meeting and killing the red knight, the armor is then placed over his FOOL's clothing.

Having said this, there is certainly a clear representation in the image, however, that it is not only his clothing that is fool-like, but his overall bearing: ie, not a Perceval clothed as the equivalent to the fairy-tale of princess donkey-skin, in which his face would be be significantly differently depicted.

So, outside of the image, there are both, I would suggest, contexts for fool as 'tormented' outsider, 'village idiot', and benign innocent fool that achieves highest possible state.

euripides said:

speaks of two fools: the 'natural' fool, incapable of understanding Law and therefore permitted to speak harsh truths without punishment, and the 'artificial fool', abnormally wise and seeing beyond the earthly, often outcasts because people fear their vision.

Click to expand...

The Hanged Man is akin to this 'artificial fool', a maverick-by-choice who has been outcast.

Holy fool

I don't think it's necessarily anachronistic to talk about "innocent fools" in connection with the early Tarot decks. In the early 13th century St Francis of Assisi was calling himself a "fool for Christ" having embraced a life of poverty among beggars and outcasts. This episode from his early life does remind one of some of the images that have been mentioned in this thread:

"emaciated with hunger and squalid with dirt, Francis was followed by a hooting rabble, pelted with mud and stones, and otherwise mocked as a madman."

Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06221a.htm

It's quite fitting that Robert Place has Francis as the Fool in his Tarot of the Saints.

Childhood outsider

There is one thing I think I would like to point out. I remember very well as a child being singled out for years in my school. I was often made fun of and was for all intense pourposes made the fool. Children are often the most crule individual and will do such things to their peers. They single one person out to be the butt of the joke.

Many of the pictures on the early cards had children as the aggressors, the tormentors of the fool. The fool by the look on his face tries to take it good naturedly. Like in the old cartoons where the kids pick on the "slow one" who believes the tormentors are his friends. This could be the catalist for the fool to begin his journy that he has finially wised up and left town to find a place where he is not the outcast.

le pendu said:

I've noticed what I might call a "slight trend" in the early depictions of the Fool as being a "teased and tormented outsider" rather than being an "innocent" as sometimes/often is discussed when regarding the Tarot.

Click to expand...

Outsider definitely, for bearing no number, he is pre-initiation, the no-thing of space, what logically precedes matter. All space, after all, remains outside matter in the sense that matter means particles consisting of one or more [but not infinite] locations or points, since these have no extent (though their fields may), this even though the points exist in space. (Matter means activated locations in space, or what initiation means in the hollow of man’s skull so to speak.) Moreover, H-(zero)-hawthorn is the hedge that keeps out the fool or vagabond.

. . . the "d'Este Tarot", which to me also shows the Fool with exposed genitalia:
http://tarothistory.com/images/deste_fool.jpg

Click to expand...

This image, forgive me, looks very much as if he has just amputated his genitalia, and this would fit the meaning of the H-(zero)-hawthorn month, which according to Graves was the month of chastity, of abstention. And this sheds new light perhaps (for me, anyway) on the Noblet, which I will finally admit seems closer to the probable original than the Grimaud in this instance, now that I think about it. But I will admit I still cannot quite understand how danger to his privates, posed by the dog, would translate into abstention from sex, unless the dog is enforcing said proscription in the name of its lord-and-master or something. Any suggestions, or should I just discard the notion this card might picture H-(zero)-huath, the hawthorn or may?

The Tarot of Jean Noblet from c. 1650 shows a remarkable image of the Fool with genitalia exposed. This is the only TdM images to show the Fool as such. Even though other TdM images seem to imply that the Fool's "leggings" are falling, only the Noblet shows that they are fallen and that his "privates" are not only exposed... but in "danger" by the approaching claws of the animal that follows him.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this leads, logically (as I see it), to a rejection of the idea that it was the dog pulled his leggings down, in favor of the idea it was the fool himself who did it, probably to poke his peck into something or someone not his own (while her husband abstained?), and the dog is retribution for this—as is the very fact that he is making haste. Thank you, Robert, for your persistence in reminding us of the earliest extant forms. It has certainly here again taught me something of importance.

. . . the "Charles VI Tarot" which seems (to me), to show children gathering rocks to throw at the Fool, and the Fool in a rather "exposed" state:
http://expositions.bnf.fr/renais/images/3/035.jpg

Click to expand...

Here I think I might be able to clarify the meaning somewhat. It appears to me, based again on the theme of the hawthorn month being one of abstention, that this fool is one who has defied the convention and indulged in blatant sexuality, his cloak not covering his loins, which act has caused him to be held up for ridicule (hence his increased height, exposed above the rest).

euripides said:

Fol - comes from the latin 'Folis' meaning 'bag of wind, bellows' (ie windbag, empty-headed) according to the online etymology dictionary. Perhaps his bag is a bag of wind!!!!

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Certainly ‘empty-headed windbag’ fits its number, which is the hollow of no-thing or space, but also the bellows aspect: it is an interesting fact of the way the heavens actually are (as opposed to how they are thought to be by gravity-worshiping Einsteinists) that the stellar reaches have to have great extent through space in order to be the electric power grid to feed the dynamo of this solar system, where man resides (upright sentience being central to things), as suggested somewhat by the image of an extensive bellows feeding air into a concentrated flame (the sun).

le pendu said:

Is there any historical information that "The Fool" was "Tormented", "Exposed", and an "Outsider".. as compared to an "Innocent"?

Click to expand...

Was not the Hunchback of Notredame made carnival fool and ridiculed? It took place in the Middle Ages, I believe. You are probably speaking of the card itself, but I thought this might be worth recalling

LadyRedwood said:

Children are often the most crule individual and will do such things to their peers. They single one person out to be the butt of the joke.

Click to expand...

. . . and . . .

Many of the pictures on the early cards had children as the aggressors, the tormentors of the fool. The fool by the look on his face tries to take it good naturedly. Like in the old cartoons where the kids pick on the "slow one" who believes the tormentors are his friends.

Click to expand...

Yes, and methinks adults are often like that in their hearts, though they usually express it more subtly.

This could be the catalist for the fool to begin his journy that he has finially wised up and left town to find a place where he is not the outcast.

Click to expand...

No, as I see it, it is more likely he has been driven away (excluded, fenced out, the H of H-zero-hawthorn showing a section of said fence, hawthorn itself being a hedge firm enough to exclude).

As has been alluded to, to be outcast from a group also makes you innocent of the actions of that group, so I don't see the ideas of "innocent" being exclusive of "outcast". I would suggest that the word "innocent" has been latched onto in more recent decks so as to depict the fool as more childlike when in older decks he may be one of those who have been cast out of their group for real or imagined crimes, and not so much an innocent in the "child-like" meaning of the word, but perhaps innocent of the crimes they were accused of.

Many people who have been outcast from their societies are only guilty of not fitting in to the time and place. Some are insane. Some are heretics. Some are disabled. Some are stricken with diesease. I once read about a tribe in Africa who would cast their children into the river to die if the wrong teeth grew in first.... In other words, different societies find different reasons to cast out members, and many of these reasons are based on superstition or belief systems that would not be applicable in other cultures. So those who are cast out are not only innocent of the crimes of the group they have been cast out by, I would say that innocence is a culturally malliable idea, and that there are likely relatively few actions that would be considered grounds for outcasting across every culture on earth... so in essence, many outcasts are really "innocent" in this light.

Another Bible quotation re. 'fools'...

"We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised." (1 Corinthians, 4:10).

I found it on a page about the idea of the 'Holy Fool' which comes from Russia-
here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurodivy

They would have often been people who would have been classed as mentally unbalanced by today's psychological standards...but I suppose even in a society where they were tolerated, they still would have been feared and avoided to some extend- so they still would have been outsiders.

Elnor