Bakhtin's narrowly self-terminating terminology became a serious hindrance in building further theoretical structures and as irrelevant issues of carnival came to the fore, the clown or fool figure was "lost in translation". 8 The immediate epistemological relatedness of the carnival and the "Lord of Misrule" was never taken seriously, its questions have been never thoroughly answered from the time of Welsford's The Fool.Regarded from a certain point of view, then, the folkfestivals seem to consist of concentric rings of folly. They are times of universal licentiousness, when all revellers who take part in them are in a vaguely defined way infected with the prevailing 'foolishness'. This 'foolishness' is, however, concentrated in certain performances which are regarded as buffoon-dances or fool-plays; and in these performances themselves, certain characters-often mere supernumeraries-specialize in folly, chief among whom is the grotesquely disguised figure, the Clown or Fool par excellence. Who then is this Fool? 9Of course, there were other serious dilemmas making "clown and fool scholars" even more hesitant. As Bakhtin's theoretical structure was problematic, but thought-provoking and inspiring as well, Welsford's work proved to be fragile and indeterminate, hard to rely on. The problem of the delicate The Fool was the unifying comparative historical view of its known and well criticized precursors. Because behind Welsford and her main source, the generally accepted E. K. Chambers "Stages" 10 , James George Frazer sat in his "arm chair" with his frequently challenged The Golden Bough, and the equally problematic Cambridge ritualist school 11 . The universal fool or clown par excellence character can typically be based only on the universal anthropological comparativism of Frazer and the "Covent Garden 7 Idem, pp. 51-52 8 It is revealing that Bakhtin himself does not even mention the concept of grotesque realism in his excerpts, written on Shakespeare, which he wanted to add to his Rabelais-book, anymore.