Talk:Jester/Archives/2015

George Buchanan is not really a jester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Buchanan -- I mean, wtf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.35.138 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to make the same point. George Buchanan was a respected statesman and scholar, and a senior tutor of James VI and I. Calling him a court jester is like saying Aristotle was the court jester of Alexander the Great... -- Imladros (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Support A single reference to one author referring to Buchanan as a jester does not make it so. It might be noted that said author did so, however a court advisor who also happened to have been the childhood tutor of the regent in question, having a quick wit and the daring to tweak the nose of that regent does not perforce make him or her a "jester", unless they can be shown to share a significant number of other traits common of the definition. I believe the whole section should be rewritten or removed entirely. Besieged (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one author that supports that he was considered the court jester of James the 1st at times. See Williamson&Williamson, "George Buchanan". Also, see George Buchanan by J. Campbell Smith and Robert Wallace. Not calling him a jester is like calling Marc Favreau only a scholar; since Buchanan had many "hats" (poet&courier as well), we got to do some justice here... However, there is also a question of dividing the legend from the man, which get really difficult (see Beatrice K. Otto, Fools are Everywhere on that one). Ask an historian from university.

173.183.97.185 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)