The frame of Das Leiden eines Knaben is dominated by Louis XIV and Fagon—antagonists whose very special relationship and interaction give this Novelle both its form and its meaning. The frame is a kind of dramatic dialogue and subsumes the interior tale as both an extended argument within the dialogue and as a part of the subject matter of the dialogue. The specific subject of the dispute between Louis XIV and Fagon is whether Père Tellier, the priest who has just been chosen father-confessor to the King, is the villain Fagon alleges him to be. Louis doubts Fagon's claim that Tellier murdered a young boy and the interior tale, the story of Julian Bouffiers, is, on one level at least, presented by Fagon as evidence to substantiate his accusation. While the question of Tellier's guilt is certainly important, in itself it is also the point of departure for a confrontation on questions of more universal significance. Likewise, the story of Julian Bouffiers is not without interest or merit when read independently. However, while the bulk of the work is devoted to telling his story, it does not stress the boy's psychology or delve into the workings of his stunted mind as much as it stresses the reaction and attitude of others to him. Its true significance lies in its role within the larger context of the frame.

Louis XIV and Fagon are introduced in turn in the first few pages of Das Leiden eines Knaben The Novelle opens with the words 'Der König,' giving Louis a preeminence of place that not only is commensurate with his station and historical importance, but also properly, although perhaps surprisingly, places him at the centre of the story. Louis is shown in old age and in a very private situation. He has just entered his wife's chambers and thrown open a window, letting in cold air which causes her to shiver. This is the entire content of the first paragraph. The prominent position of this act and the language in which it is couched suggest that it has special significance. The King is described as 'für die Witterung unempfindlich,' suggesting in this context an insensitivity to more than just the climate. Since Frau von Maintenon is his wife and consort of many years, one would expect the King to be aware of and sufficiently concerned about her fragile constitution to have foregone his own desire for fresh air. By introducing this seemingly trivial incident at the outset of the Novelle, we are led to wonder what to expect of the King's attitude to his subjects.

The King has come to tell his wife an amusing story, as she divines from his expression. He does so succinctly, describing how Fagon, during the presentation of Père Tellier, whispered an insult at the priest. The King repeats the insult twice, and is inconsistent, once using the term 'Nichtswürdiger,' the second time 'Niederträchtiger.' This variation in the King's narration of the episode reveals that he refuses to repeat the actual insult for he considers it too crude and therefore replaces it with more moderate expressions. The King's commitment to decorum implicit here is made explicit further on in the passage and in fact becomes one of several motifs sustained throughout the story.

After the King concludes his anecdote, a servant arrives with two candelabras which illuminate the room and reveal Fagon standing in the doorway eavesdropping. He angrily corrects the King's expurgated anecdote, adding that he had spoken only the truth. The word 'truth' occurs again a little further on in the same paragraph, and a concern for the truth is thereafter associated with Fagon, as the counterpart to the King's commitment to decorum. Fagon also confirms Madame de Maintenon's suspicion that his insult must have been occasioned by something more important than Tellier's display of false humility. It is here that Fagon accuses Tellier of having murdered a noble lad and identifies him as Julian Bouffiers. The King expresses his disbelief, calling Fagon's assertion a fairy tale. In a beautifully ironical reversal of roles Fagon euphemizes his own original assertion: "Sagen wir: er hat ihn unter den Boden gebracht," milderte der Leibarzt höhnisch seine Anklage.' This is an obvious ironic allusion to the King's earlier attempt to find more moderate words for the insults Fagon flung at Tellier. And thus Fagon is suggesting that the rewording of the original accusation, although it is only a euphemism for the first, will none the less be more palatable to the King. This implies Fagon's belief that the King is all too willing to sacrifice the truth to decorum. From the very outset, then, the King's tendency to euphemize reality is contrasted with Fagon's apparent preference for the truth. A discussion ensues which ultimately leads into the narration of the story of Julian Bouffiers.

The introductory pages of the Novelle already hint at a rather unusual relationship between Louis and Fagon, for Fagon dares to behave in a very impertinent and familiar manner without apparent fear of retribution. This relationship between King and subject may be explained if one considers Fagon as having been cast in the role of court jester. It is in fact possible to enumerate a surprising number of attributes that Fagon has in common with the traditional court jester. For this purpose it will be useful to cite a brief standard description:

Zur Hofharrentracht gehörten Narrenkappe, Hofnarrenzepter (eine Rohrkolben-order lederne Keulenform), übergrosser Halskragen auch Schellen. Zum H. machte man mitunter Männer von verkrüppeltem oder zwerghaftem Wuchs, hauptsächlich aber solche mit kritisch-satir. Witz, die unter der Maske der Torheit ein Zerrbild ihrer Zeit zu entwerfen fähig waren; als lustige Räte unterhielten sie die Hofgesellschaft und genossen dafür 'Narrenfreiheit.' Gelegentlich gewannen sie auch politischen Einfluss als fürstl. Ratgeber.

Fagon's physical appearance presents us with the first similarity to the jester as described above. His deformity is stressed several times. The first of these references is an extended and impressive description, not accorded anyone else in the Novelle: 'eine wunderliche Erscheinung, eine ehrwürdige Missgestalt: ein schiefer, verwachsener, seltsam verkrümmter kleiner Greis, die entfleischten Hände unter dem gestreckten Kinn auf ein langes Bambusrohr stützend, das feine Haupt vorgeneigt, ein weises Antlitz mit geisterhaften blauen Augen. Es war Fagon.' His bamboo cane topped with a golden knob reminds one of the Hofnarrenzepter. [The author states in a footnote: The Hofnarrenzepter was often also a cane or much like a cane.] It is not only that we know him to be in possession of such a cane, but the cane is mentioned so frequently that it becomes a fixed part of our image of him.

More important than these physical similarities, however, is Fagon's position at court. He is allowed certain liberties in the presence of or directed against the King which would not go unpunished if attempted by anyone else: 'Frau von Maintenon wusste, dass der heftige Alte, wenn er gereizt wurde, gänzlich ausser sich geriet und unglaubliche Worte wagte, selbst dem Könige gegenüber, welcher freilich dem langjährigen und tiefen Kenner seiner Leiblichkeit nachsah, was er keinem anderen so leicht vergeben hätte.' His Narrenfreiheit is made explicit in Fagon's request for three liberties before narrating his story, which is ostensibly meant to entertain the King and Maintenon. He is in possession of a finely honed satiric wit, and he meets the condition of creating a caricature of his time. Finally, it may be said that the entire narrative is an effort to advise the King, completing the portrait of the court jester.

The similarities between Fagon and the court jester are too many to be discounted as accidental or insignificant. While I am inclined to believe that they are intentional, it does not seem very important whether in fact Meyer consciously endowed Fagon with these characteristics. In speaking of the painter Mouton's Pentheus sketch, Meyer himself allows for the likelihood that this insightful and prophetic drawing was produced, 'in dumpfer Genialität.' This criterion may be applied to Meyer as well, for the subconscious plays a role in the creativity of both 'primitive' and sophisticated artists alike. What is important, however, is the nature of the traditional relationship between a jester and his master, especially if the jester is a 'wise fool,' as Fagon most certainly is. Such a relationship is usually based on a considerable amount of mutual good will, in spite of a necessary tension between the two parties. If the master, in this case Louis XIV, is afflicted with some kind of self-delusion, it is the fool's mission to exorcise it or, in literary tradition, at least to expose it to the reader or audience. In Das Leiden eines Knaben the interior tale will be Fagon's weapon in unmasking Tellier and also functions as a mirror, holding up and exposing to the King and the reader his insensitivity, abrogated responsibility, and blindness to the significance of his power.

The introduction of Saint-Simon just before the narration of the interior tale begins serves to bring out the real issue on which Fagon wishes to engage the King. Meyer acknowledges that the Novelle was inspired by Saint-Simon and draws heavily on his account of the reign of Louis XIV. Both Saint-Simon's and the Novelle's accounts are intimate, gossipy, and often critical of Louis. Saint-Simon is introduced for the immediate reason that he, too, had a connection to Julian, in that he dubbed him 'le bel idiot.' More important, however, is that mention of Saint-Simon and his activities disturbs the King: '"Nichts mehr von Saint-Simon, ich bitte dich Fagon," sagte der König, die Brauen zusammenziehend. "Mag er verzeichnen was ihm als die Wahrheit erscheint. Werde ich die Schreibtische belauern? Auch die grosse Geschichte führt ihren Griffel und wird mich in den Grenzen meiner Zeit und meines Wesens lässlich beurteilen. Nichts mehr von ihm. Aber viel und alles, was du weisst, von dem jungen Bouffiers. Er mag ein braver Junge gewesen sein. Setze dich und erzähle!"' The salient aspect of this passage is that the King's words contain an implicit distinction between the 'grosse Geschichte,' which, he seems to feel, will judge him fairly and positively, and the kind of history dealing with more intimate or private matters that Saint-Simon is engaged in writing and which the King expects to be critical of him and his reign. He clearly places greater stock in the grosse Geschichte' which he thinks will vindicate him. It should be pointed out that, while his annoyance with Saint-Simon is great, he makes a point of his refusal to stifle him: 'Werde ich die Schreibtische belauern?' However, he also fails to make any meaningful connection between the 'grosse Geschichte' and what we may call the 'kleine Geschichte.' The story which Fagon is encouraged to tell and which is the content of the interior tale parallels Saint-Simon's efforts and clearly falls into the category of the 'kleine Geschichte.' But, as we shall see, Fagon does not accept the assumption that grosse and kleine Geschichte are unconnected, but instead wishes to demonstrate that they are in fact inextricably intertwined.

The traditional relationship and distinction between the historian and the court jester might also be mentioned here: 'for what a chancellor refuses to say and a court Chaplain may not say, a jester and a historian will. The latter tells us what has happened, a jester what is happening now.' Seen as only the story of Julian Bouffiers, the interior tale properly belongs to the historical past, and the outcome is made known before the tale is even told. Seen as an integral part of Fagon's dialogue with the King, however, it exposes what is current in Louis's realm, and also points to the future.

The three characters of the frame have rather different expectations of the story that is to follow. Madame von Maintenon is clearly relieved that she has found a means of entertaining the King. The King also expects to be entertained, but for him the story which earlier had seemed unpromising ('Ludwig zuckte die Achseln. Nichts weiter. Er hatte etwas Interessanteres erwartet') has now become more interesting because it promises to be flattering to him: 'Und wäre er wie bei dem Ende des Kindes zugegen gewesen, wie es in der Illusion des Fiebers, den Namen seines Königs auf den Lippen, in das feindliche Feuer zu stürzen glaubte . . .' . Fagon must already know that his story is going to be more than just a means to while away a few hours, for before he begins he requests his three liberties:

'Sire, ich gehorche,' sagte Fagon, 'und tue eine untertänige Bitte. Ich habe heute den Père Tellier in Eurer Gegenwart misshandelnd mir eine Freiheit genommen und weiss, wie ich mich aus Erfahrung kenne, dass ich, einmal auf diesen Weg geraten, an demselben Tage leicht rück fällig werde . . . In ähnlicher und verschiedener Weise bitte ich mir, soll ich meine Geschichte erzählen, drei Freiheiten aus—' 'Welche ich dir gewähre,' schloss der König.

The actual story satisfies Maintenon's hope that it entertain the King, for he becomes sufficiently enthralled by it to postpone his dinner in order to hear it to the end. Being a man of strict habit, this is sufficient testimony to his unusual interest in the tale. Fagon has succeeded in holding the King's interest by repeatedly placing him at the centre of the tale, thereby appealing to his vanity: 'Allein Fagon las in den Zügen des Allerchristlichsten nichts als ein natürliches Mitleid mit dem Lose des Sohnes einer Frau, die dem Gebieter flüchtig gefallen hatte, und das Behagen an einer Erzählung, deren Wege wie die eines Gartens in einen und denselben Mittelpunkt zusammenliefen: der König, immer wieder der König!' While the King's centrality to the interior tale may have been intended by the narrator to hold his attention, its ultimate purpose is of a different kind altogether. It is a carefully developed motif that has been adumbrated in the first sentence of the Novelle, and underscores the King's responsibility for conditions at court and in all of France. Thus, Fagon's unflattering and extremely critical descriptions of the court and the country become oblique criticisms of the King.

This admixture of compliments and criticisms is very much in the tradition of the court jester: 'The three compliments and the three truths, or rather insults, have survived to this day in the game of forfeits.' While Fagon's three liberties are explicitly identified as such, corresponding compliments are not as obvious. However, there are three different levels of compliments, the first two of which do occur in conjunction with Fagon's liberties. The King is called a model of decorum for Fagon and all of France. Fagon equates the King with the sun: 'Hat Mouton die Sonne unserer Zeit gekannt? Wusste er von deinem Dasein, Majestät? Unglaublich zu sagen: den Namen, welcher die Welt und die Geschichte füllt—.' Finally, the King is said to be the only one with the power to undo the humiliation that must necessarily lead to Julian's death: 'Erzählt alles der Majestät. Sie wird Julian die Hand geben und zu ihm sprechen: "Der König achtet dich, dir geschah zu viel! und der Knabe ist ungegeisselt." Ich gab ihm recht. Das war das Beste, das einzig gründlich Heilsame, wenn es nicht zu spät kam.' The use of the three liberties or insults negates the compliments and exposes the King's flaws.

The first liberty is used after Fagon tells of a kind of conspiracy by the Jesuits to neglect and thereby damage Julian Bouffiers in order to avenge themselves on his father. The King expresses his incredulity and Fagon becomes enraged, charging that force is being used to convert the Huguenots to Catholicism. It is this charge that costs him his first liberty: '"Diese Frage," erwiderte der König sehr ernsthaft, "ist die erste deiner heutigen drei Freiheiten. Ich beantworte sie. Nein, Fagon. Es wird, verschwindend wenige Fälle ausgenommen, bei diesen Bekehrungen keine Gewalt angewendet, weil ich es ein für allemal ausdrücklich untersagt habe und weil meinen Befehlen nachgelebt wird."' Fagon's reaction is described by the third person narrator: 'Entsetzen starrte aus seinen Augen über diesen Gipfel der Verblendung, diese Mauer des Vorurteils, diese gänzliche Vernichtung der Wahrheit. Er betrachtete den König und sein Weib eine Weile mit heimlichem Grauen.' Fagon, therefore, is horrified by the King's blindness and unwillingness to see or admit the truth. It is not the details of the tragic fate of a boy that are at issue here, but the facts of history. The King's blindness is seen as a direct function of his vanity, and prevents him from exercising his power responsibly.

The second liberty is used up by introducing the uncourtly Mouton into the tale. Interestingly, it is Fagon himself who suggests that the introduction of Mouton means the expenditure of a liberty, and only later do we discover that the King must have concurred. The reason why the introduction of Mouton is offensive to the King is not, as Fagon seems to suggest, his uncourtly appearance and manners, nor even his ignorance of the glory and achievements of Louis and his reign. Rather, it is offensive because the King realizes he has been introduced to suggest an invidious comparison between the values of the King and his court and those values Mouton represents—a kind of natural decency and independence which point up the petrification, sterility, and meanness that are actual characteristics of the reign of the Sun King.

The third liberty is used up when Fagon confesses that he suggested to the Jesuits that the King may have been Julian's natural father in order to secure the preferential treatment which the somewhat retarded boy so desperately needs. While this lie was told with the best of intentions, it is the only instance in which Fagon is shown as transgressing against the truth and, therefore, deserving of censure. However, the King is not incensed by the lie; rather he would have wished Fagon to compound it in the name of decorum: ' "Fagon," sagte der König fast strenge, "das war deine dritte und grösste Freiheit. Spieltest du so leichtsinnig mit meinem Namen und dem Rufe eines von dir angebeteten Weibes, hättest du mir wenigstens diesen Frevel verschweigen sollen, selbst wenn deine Geschichte dadurch unverständlicher geworden wäre."' The King's commitment to decorum is therefore again shown as fostering untruth.

Fagon, therefore, in keeping with the proper role of the court jester, has exposed Louis's flaws both to the King himself and to the reader, while none the less consistently underscoring his stature and centrality in the story. Yet what does this have to do with the suffering and destruction of Julian Bouffiers to whom so much attention is devoted? Clearly, Fagon seems somehow to hold the King responsible for the boy's demise, yet alternative sources of responsibility, which have been understood by other critics as the sole or at least primary causes of his death, are suggested within the text. Both Fagon and fate have been understood this way. Fagon in fact does accuse himself of negligence, while the strange incident concerning Mouton's sketch suggests that fate is at work. However, both of these alternate sources of responsibility are in a sense dependent on or connected with the King. Fagon's responsibility consists essentially in hesitating to act swiftly by taking Julian out of school and sending him to join his father at the front. It is, however, considerations of decorum, in a sense the king's values, that restrain him from acting: 'Wenig fehlte, ich schlug ihm vor: ohne weiteres eines meiner Rosse zu satteln und stracks an die Grenze zum Heere zu jagen; aber dieser kühne Ungehorsam hätte den Knaben nicht gekleidet.'

As far as fate is concerned, it is the King himself who, in a real sense, has been shown as the fate of the age. This is underscored by his very centrality to the Novelle, particularly the interior tale—he is the dominant presence without ever making an actual physical appearance, and it is his values which determine Julian's fate. Julian, like his mother, is dumb, beautiful, and in possession of many moral virtues. The crucial difference between the two is that she, the wife of a strong-willed husband, is given no responsibilities that are beyond her means, is completely accepted, even admired, by the society of the court, while her son, the offspring of France's greatest military hero, is expected to cut an impressive figure at court, yet in fact seems destined to be an object of universal scorn or pity. Fagon is able to understand both mother and son, appreciate their virtues, and show true compassion for their limitations. The King, however, rejects the boy out of hand, while he has nothing but praise for the mother who once adorned his environment. His attitude, then, is reflected in the attitude displayed by Marshal Boufflers—the blindness and insensitivity he, too, shows his own son. Most important, however, is the explicit assertion that Louis had the power to prevent Julian's demise. The story of Julian Bouffiers, then, illustrates the king's ultimate responsibility for the kleine Geschichte.

The frequency and importance of parallelism and antithesis in Meyer's works is generally recognized, and examples of each occur quite often in this Novelle. One of many clear-cut examples of parallelism is that between Louis XIV and Marshal Bouffiers. The particular instance cited above indicates at least two things: that the King's attitude and values are reflected in his subjects and that Louis never really understands the significance of what happened to Julian, in contradistinction to W.D. Williams's view where he suggests that Marshal Bouffiers recognizes the wrong he has done. In fact Marshal Bouffiers does not know the full story that implicates Tellier. The parallelism King/Marshal Bouffiers signals that the King will not really understand either, and therefore will not understand his responsibility.

The tale that Fagon has been telling is in the realm of the kleine Geschichte, dealing with seemingly trivial matters. Furthermore, it treats events that occurred in the past—the destruction of Julian and the immediate responsibility of Tellier for his death. However, Fagon uses the past to castigate the follies of the present, and to suggest that the individual fate of a retarded boy may reflect the sickness of an entire society. Finally, towards the end of the interior tale, we learn that Fagon's purpose in its telling is not simply to condemn Tellier for the past, or to block his appointment, for Fagon seems to know that Louis will not reconsider his choice of father-confessor. Rather, he also wants to warn or advise the King of the danger to the future of his reign in elevating Tellier to a position of such importance and influence. The third-person narrator indicates that Fagon's foreboding is justified: 'Nicht dass er sich schmeichelte, Louis werde seine Wahl widerrufen. Warnen aber hatte er ihn wollen vor diesem Feinde der Menschheit, der mit seinen Dämonenflügeln das Ende einer glänzenden Regierung verschatten sollte.' Furthermore, the knowledgeable reader is specifically aware that under the influence of Tellier Louis will revoke the Edict of Nantes leading to the open persecution of the Huguenots and ultimately to the destruction of the Bourbon monarchy. Fagon's prophetic warning concerning the danger in elevating Tellier to a position of influence is borne out by history, just as Mouton's prophetic sketch suggesting Tellier's destruction of Julian Bouffiers is borne out by the interior tale.

Tellier, then, not only links the past, the present, and the future, but he also illustrates the connection between grosse and kleine Geschichte. Fagon knows, the reader learns, and Louis fails to see that his disregard of Tellier's abuses in the realm of the kleine Geschichte may have overwhelming consequences for the kind of history he considers significant. In general he fails to learn that what seems inconsequential from a larger historical perspective may in fact have drastic ramifications.

The closure of the frame is somewhat perplexing. The delirious Julian dies, phantasizing that he is on the front fighting for the King. The interior tale is now concluded and the frame closes with the sentences: 'Fagon hatte geendet und erhob sich. Die Marquise war gerührt. "Armes Kind!" seufzte der König und erhob sich gleichfalls. "Warum arm," fragte Fagon heiter, "da er hingegangen ist als ein Held?"' Thus it is confirmed that to the very end the King fails to see that Fagon's tale is anything more than a moving account of the demise of a rather pathetic boy. The perplexing aspect of the closure is Fagon's expressed attitude towards Julian's death. His remark that Julian was not pathetic because he died a hero's death is difficult to take at face value and his apparent cheerfulness in uttering it is even more difficult to explain. The remark is probably ironic—a thrust at the King. Fagon's cheerfulness is then an expression of his pleasure at having gotten away with another liberty. He has failed to exorcise the King's folly, but as a wise fool in the literary tradition he has succeeded in his primary mission, in the only matter still left open—making the reader aware of the follies of the past and how they affect the future.