(Fool as in jester, and Quality as in "Don't go mixin' with the quality", as people above your social level.)

BTW, there is a subtitle: ...or, the History of Henry Earl of Moreland

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-12-03 09:46:29 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

http://www.polybiblio.com/finch/7748.html

(I am unfamiliar with Brooke as well, but I looked up several synopses of this work, and came up with this interpretation of the title based on these.)

some facts: the novel was inspired by the theories of Rousseau, reveals Brooke’s acute awareness of the political and social situation of his day.

Brooke's novel was first published 1766-72. Its fame resides not in any of the usual novelistic virtues of believability and interest of plot, for it rather lacks these, but in the frequent interpolated passages on a wide variety of subjects, including in the latter part of the book on the mystical aspects of Christianity, and in the Sterne-like device of discussions between the author and a 'friend' on passages in the book itself. Full of benevolent sentiment, the book breathes the spirit of Rousseau, the revolt against oppression and suffering, and anticipates the doctrines of Godwin and Paine. (http://www.polybiblio.com/finch/7748.html)The characters of this book, which relates the education of an ide~al nobleman by an ideal merchant-prince, are gifted with a passionate and tearful sensibility, and reflect the real humour and tenderness df the writer.

I think there are five volumes, I have only read a bit of the first one. These links should help you a bit

Has to do with games I think.

Like one would say "I'm a fool for you"
here it would be "I'm a fool for quality"

"The Quality" is an old-fashioned way of referring to the "upper echelons" of society, mainly the nobility - so this simply means the person is, for some reason, a foolish person who comes from an aristocratic background.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-12-03 10:52:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and \"fool\" used to mean \"innocent, naive\" (as \"silly\" did before its meaning became restricted to being stupid)

amongst 18th.century liberal English aristoctats it was fashionable to speak, act and have attitudes of revolt against the oppression of 'reactionary conservatism' - in terms of political, social, moral and intelectual attitudes. They argued for greater freedom. Such liberal aristocrats did so because they themselves felt oppressed morally, spiritually and intellectually, even if they had wealth and power, and/or out of human sympathy for the suffering of members of other classes without their advantages. Many of them would have sympathized with the poet who wrote about the outbreak of the French revolution, "bliss it was to be alive that dawn"
(or whatever it was:-).
Watching the later "terror" of the French Revolution from across the channel may have been responsible the end of this English liberal aristocratic fashion, or channeling it in different directions, in the 19th century, but Byron expressed those sort of ideas then too, eg: when he spoke in the House of Lords in defence of the machine breakers (despite being less sympathetic to his creditors).

I'm not familiar with the book, so can't say from that point of view, but it would be entirely in the spirit of the 18th century liberal aristocratic tradition to imagine the son of an earl revolting against oppression.
I leave it to those who know the book (or have studied Jane and Laurel's excellent references:-) to shed more light whether this is happening here, or otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs 27 mins (2003-12-03 21:34:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

typo.error \'...may have been partly responsible for...\'