8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

1/14

Some Medieval Elements and Structural Unity in Erasmus' The Praise of FollyAuthor(s): Clarence H. Miller

Reviewed work(s):Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Winter, 1974), pp. 499-511Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2859948 .

Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2859948?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2859948?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

2/14

SomeMedieval

Elements

nd

Structural

nity

n

Erasmus' he

Praise

of

Folly

by CLARENCE H. MILLER

IN

the

courseof

editing

and

annotating

rasmus'ThePraise

f

Folly

for the

forthcoming

Amsterdam

dition

of

his

complete

works,

I

havecome

to

believe hatthe

461

years

ince tsfirst

publication

ave

produced

nly

two

original

ommentaries

n the

Moria.

n

1515

a

fairly

thorough

ommentary,

lmost

as

long

as the

work

itself

and

of a

sort

usually

reserved

or

ancient

works,

was

published

with The

Praise

f

Folly.

Reprinted

leven imes

during

Erasmus'

ifetime,1

t

hasretained

some

currency,

hough

not

much,

becauset was

reprinted

n

the

Ley-

den

Opera

mnia

f

1703-06.

Though

t

goes

under

he

name

of

Girardus

Listrius,

we

know

from

one

of

Erasmus'

etters hat

he himselfwrote

part

of it-how

much

we do not

know.2

The second

major

ommen-

tary

wasthat

by

I. B.

Kan,

published

t The

Hague

n

1898.

n

ourown

century

ome useful

nformation nd

suggestions

ave been

provided

byMauriceRat3 ndHoytHudson.4 herest,alas,snotsilence, ut(as

Douglas

Bush once

said

about

Shakespearean

riticism)

earless

epe-

tition.

Kan,

who was a classical

cholar,

added

a

great

dealof

precise

n-

formation bout

classical

llusions,

ut

his

commentary

as

tended

o

turn he attention

f

scholars ndcritics

way

rom

the

medieval

ide

of

Moriabecausehe

usually gnored

medieval

allusions,

ven

when

Lis-

trius

provided

ome

useful

hints.

ThePraise

fFollymight

be saidto

havesuffered

rom

a

too

thorough-going

ictory

of

the humanist

am-

paign

against

medieval

heology,

hagiography,

nd iterature.5

ut

in

fact,

men

like Erasmus

nd

More

borrowed

more

fromtheirenemies

than

we are

often

ikely

to

realize,

because

hey

themselves

were satu-

ratedwith the culture

hey

wished

to

reform.

For

all

its

brilliant he-

1

F.

van der

Haeghen,

Bibliotheca

elgica:

Bibliographie

e'neralees

Pays

Bas,

re-edited

by Marie-ThereseLenger (Brussels,1964),n, 874-883.

2

J.

Austin Gavin

and

Thomas

M.

Walsh,

'The

Praise

of Folly

in

Context:The Com-

mentary

of

Girardus

Listrius,'

Renaissance

Quarterly,

24

(1971),

195.

3

In his

commentary

on

Pierre de Nolhac's French

translation,Paris,

1936.

4

In

the notes

on

his

English

translation,

Princeton,1941.

5

C.

S.

Lewis,

English

Literature

n the

Sixteenth

Centuryexcluding

Drama

(Oxford,

1954),

pp.

20-26.

[499

]

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

3/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

torical

fanfare,

Folly's

proem

is

a

reworking

of a

thoroughly

medieval

topos,

the revival

of

nature and man in the

springtime.6

If

we

follow the leads

offered

by

Listrius,

we discover

that

Erasmus

knew a great deal about the scholastictheology he protested against

with

such

wit,

intensity,

and

perseverance.

Ernst-Wilhelm

Kohls

(in

Die

Theologie

des

Erasmus

Basel,1966])

and

John

Payne

(in

Erasmus'

Theology

f

the Sacraments

Richmond,

Va.,

1970])

have

begun

to

show

that

Erasmuswas

by

no

means

unsophisticated

r

inept

as

a

dogmatic

theologian,

though

naturally

he

wrote

no summa or

commentary

on

the

Sentences.

nd

Raymond

Himelick'srecent set of translations

alled

Erasmus nd the SeamlessCoatofJesus(Purdue University Studies,La-

fayette, Indiana,

1971)

shows how useful Erasmus'

ecclesiologymay

be

to

modern

readers. n

the Moria here

is,

of

course,

no

attempt

to

pre-

sent

positive

theology,

but

Erasmus'

knowledge

of

scholastic

heology

made

it

possible

for him

to

dispatch

his

enemieswith clean thrustsat

vulnerable

points-the

rapier

rather han

the

mace. His

four

years

at the

University

of

Paris

were not

entirely

spent

in

studying

classical

philol-

ogy

and

literature.7

The

Listrius

commentary

often

lets us know ex-

actly what distinction n the commentarieson Lombard'sSentences r

Gratian'sDecretum

olly

is

referring

o.

Conservative

heologians

ound

this

little

book

so

infuriating

not

merely

because

of

its

extravagant

wit

but

also because of

its

wicked

accuracy.

When we read the

questions

hat,

according

to

Folly,

make

great

and

illuminated

theologiansperk

up

their

ears,

they

sound

sufficiently

sur-

real:

'Whether there

is

any

instant

n

the

generation

of

the divine

per-

son? Whether there is more than one filial relationshipin Christ?

Whether the

following proposition

s

possible:

God

theFatherhates the

Son.

Whether God could have

taken

on

the nature

of a woman?

of

the

devil?

of an

ass?of a cucumber?

of a

piece

of

flint? And

then

how

the

cucumber

would

have

preached,performed

miracles,

and

been

nailed

6

F.

J.

E.

Raby,

A

Historyof

SecularLatin

Poetry

n

the

Middle

Ages (Oxford, 1934),

in,

193, 238-239,

245,

249;

and R.

Baldwin,

The

Unity

of

the

Canterbury

Tales,

Anglistica

v

(Copenhagen,

1955),

20-25.

In his

Ecclesiastes,

iue

de

ratione

oncionandi,

pera

omnia

(Leyden,

1703-06,

hereaftercited as

LB),

v, 868B,

Erasmus

mentions

the

kind of

proem

actually

employed byFolly

and

gives

a

medieval

llustration

f

it

(Prudentius,

assio

Petri

et

Pauli,

Peristephanon,

xn,

1-4,

Corpus

Scriptorum

cclesiasticorum

atinorum

XI,

420).

7

PaceAlbert

Hyma

in his

review

of

Payne's

book

in

Renaissance

uarterly,

4

(1971),

242-244.

See

Payne,

pp.

228-229,

and

Edward

Surtz,

S.J.,

The

Praise

of

Pleasure

(Cam-

bridge,

Mass.,

1957),

pp.

102-118.

500

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

4/14

ERASMUS'

THE PRAISE

OF FOLLY

to the

cross?'8 ut

however fantastic

hey

sound,

almost

all of

these

questions

an

be found

in the actual

writings

of

the scholastic

heolo-

gians,

some

of

them

repeated

with true

fearlessness

nd

some

not

only

in theworkof obscureheologiansutalso nthegreatest,ikeThomas

and

Bonaventure.Godefroid

f

Fontaines

sks

whether here

are

two

real

filial

relations

n

Christ,

one to

his

father

and one

to

his

mother.9

John

Buridan

sks

whether t

is

permissible

or

the

father

o

deny

the

son,

but

not

for the son to

deny

the father.10 eter

Lombard,

with a

knowing

smile,

askswhetherChristcould

have

been

incarnated

s a

woman.11

The sameGodefroid

sks

whether

Christ

might

have

taken

on thenatureof an irrational reature.12ut thedevil,thecucumber,

and the

piece

of

flint

are,

so

far as

I

can

tell,

Erasmus'

wn

exaggera-

tions.

Half

he

fun

of

Folly'sgame

s

to

push

he actual

just

a

bit

beyond

the

pale

nto

a

grotesque

wilderness

f

fantasy.

would have

ncluded

the

question

whetherChrist

ould

have

taken

on

the nature

of

an ass

among

he

exaggerations,xcept

hat

I

foundone

nameless

ractitioner

of

quaestiunculae,

sErasmusalled

hem,

who asks

whether

God s

truly

an

ass,

since

asses

have their

essence

by participation

n

the divine

essence.13

8

Kan,

pp.

116-117.

All

English

translations

re

my

own.

They

are basedon the

Latin

of

my

final text

(derived

rom

a collation

of

all editions

printed

n

Erasmus'

ifetime),

but

for

convenience

I

refer to

the

corresponding

pages

in

Kan's edition.

9

Les

quatre

remiers

Quodlibets,

d.

M. de Wulf and

A.

Pelzer

(Louvain,

904),

p.

6.

10

Questiones

uper

decemibrosEthicorum

ristotelis

Paris,

1513),

Bk.

vm,

q.

23,

fols.

189-189V.

11

Sententiae

m,

dist.

12,

3.

12

Quodlibeta,

d.

J.

Hoffinans,

iv

(Louvain,

1924),

208-210.

13

The discussion s

part

of a set of

questions

on Books I-rx of Aristotle'sMetaphysics

(fols.

1-49)

in

Peterhouse

MS.152

(Cambridge

University),

fol. 8v:

'Queritur

utrum deus

uere

sit asinus.... Omne tale

per

essentiam

prius

et uerius

est

tale

quam

quod

est tale

per

participationem.

Sed isti asini

particulares

unt asini

per participationem,

deus uero

est

asinus

per

essentiam,

quoniam

omne

tale

per participationem

educitur

ad

tale

per

es-

sentiam.

Si

igitur

asini

particulares

unt asini

per participationem,

unc

reducuntur

d ali-

quid

quod

est asinus

per

essentiam,

et illud uel erit

ydea

Platonis

uel deus. Nunc

autem

non

est

ponere

ydeas

Platonis.

Quare

deuserit asinus

per

essentiam

..'

(I

have

expanded

abbreviations

nd

suppliedcapitals

and

punctuation).

owe this

reference

o the

kindness

of

Prof.

Charles

Ermatinger

of

St.

Louis

University.

In his letter to

Dorp

in

defense

of

Erasmus'Moria

The

Correspondence

f

Sir Thomas

More,

ed. Elizabeth

Rogers

[Princeton

University

Press,1947],

pp.

38-40),

Thomas

More

attackedPeter

of

Spain's

Summulae

Logicales,

using

examples

that demonstrate

an intimate

acquaintance

with the

enemy.

Prof.

Richard

Sylvester

emarks hat n this etter 'whathe

[More]

is

really doing

is to

use

dialectic

gainst

tself

by redefining

the term

so

that it will embracea

level

of

rational

discourseavailable o all men and not

merely

to the academic

chools'

('Thomas

More:

Humanist

n

Action,'

Medieval

nd

Renaissance

tudies,

d. 0.

B. Hardison

University

of

North

Carolina

Press,

1966],

p.

130).

501

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

5/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

So

too,

when

Folly

draws

an ironical

contrastbetween modem

theo-

logians

and

the

apostles,

he asserts

hatthe

apostles

worshipped

God,

but

they

did

so

in the

spirit,

ollowing

no other

directive

han

he

one

given nthegospel: God s aspiritand hosewhoworshiphimshould

worship

him

in the

spirit

and

n

truth.

But

it

is

hardly

lear hat

at the

same

time

it was

revealed

o them

that a

charcoal

ketchdrawn

on

a

wall

should

be

worshipped

with

the same

worship

as Christ

himself,

provided

hat

he

picture

as

wo

fingers

xtended,

ong

hair,

and

hree

rays

n

the

halo

stuck

on

the backof

the

skull.

For

who

could

perceive

these

things

unless

he had

spent

thirty-six

whole

years

studying

he

physicsandmetaphysicsf Aristotleandthe Scotists?'Kan,

p.

120).

Folly

refers

o

the

drawings

f sidewalk

rtists,

s

Listrius

otes,

but the

doctrine

he ridicules

was

propounded

y Aquinas

imself

and

was

an

embarrassment

o

his

adherents

or

centuries fter

his

death.14

ecause

Erasmus

new

his

enemies

he

knew

where o look

for

the

weak

points

in

their

nvincible

nd

irrefragable

rmor.

But

not

all the

medieval

deas

n theMoria

re

exposed

o ridicule.

Some

of

Erasmus'

iews,

filtered

through

the

person

of

Folly,

are

thoroughly

eactionaryndmedieval-particularlyis view of mer-

chants.

The

mercantile

lassdoes

not

so muchas

appear

n

Folly's urvey

of the

social

classes,

ut

they

are

among

thatswarm

of

petty

fools

she

cannot ake

time

to

indict

ndividually.

Of them she

says:

The

most

foolish

and he

meanest

rofession

f

all is thatof

merchants,

ince

hey

seek

the

meanest

oal

by

the meanest

methods;

ven

though

they

tell

lies

everywhere,

perjure

hemselves,

teal,

cheat,

deceive,

still

they

think heyoutshine veryone lsejustbecauseheyweargoldringson

their

ingers.

Naturally

here

s no

lackof

flattering

riars

who stand

n

awe

of

them

and

openly

call them

venerable,

learly

or

no

other

reason

han

to

get

a

little

share

of

their

ll-gotten

gains'

(Kan,

pp.

98-

99).

This

reactionary

iew

is

explained

ndreinforced

y

thenote

n the

Listrius

ommentary,

which

Erasmus

t leastdid

not

reject

and

may

even

have

written

himself:

by

sordid

he

means lliberaland

un-

worthy

of a

lofty

spirit.

n

the

ranking

f

goods,

even

according

o

the

peripatetics,

othing

s vilerthan

money,

andmoney s the whole ob-

ject

of

the

merchant.

Even

Cicero

does

not

approve

he class

of

mer-

chants

who

buy

things

n

one

place

n order o

sell

them

at

a

higher

price

elsewhere.

And

very

few

of

them,

I

would

even

go

so faras

to

say

14

Aquinas,

Summa

heologica

IIa,

q.

25,

a.

3.

Dictionnaire e

the'ologie

atholique,

i

(Paris,

1923),

825-826.

502

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

6/14

ERASMUS'

THE PRAISE

OF FOLLY

none of

them,

grow

richwithout

resorting

o

fraud.

And

yet they

have

the

highest

tatus,

ven

thoughmerchandizing

s

clearly

ondemned,

f

we

may

believe

Gregory,

orhe

is

cited

n

Lombard's

entences,

r

if

we

may believeChrysostom,Augustine,and Cassiodorus,or they are

cited

n

the

88thdistinction

f Gratian's

ecretum.

he

opinions

f

these

holy

men

hasbeen

qualified

ndrestricted

y

somefriar

or otherwho

wished

o flatter

merchants...

'15The

friar

mentioned

n

the commen-

tary

might

well

have

beensuch

a

Franciscans

St.

Antoninus,

ifteenth-

century

bishop

of

Florence,

or

St.

Bernardino

f

Siena.

Both friars

recognize

he

dangers raditionally ointed

out

by

theologians,

but

both alsospendmuch time andeffortexplaininghow necessary nd

useful

mercatio'

s andunderwhat

circumstances

rofit

may

be taken

from

the

exchange

of

goods

or

money.16

But the

Moria

s

reactionary

ndmedieval ot

only

in the

knowledge

of scholastic

heology

it

displays

or

in

a

hyper-conservative

ttitude

toward

mercantilemembers

of

the middle

class.

Its social

satirealso

relies

ignificantly

n

the

techniques

f medieval

atire,

what is some-

times

called

he literature

f

complaint

r the

satire

of

estates.17 ras-

mus' surveyof socialtypeshas reminded ome criticsof the danse

macabre,

nd

until

recently

t seemed o be considered

e

rigeur

o

repeat

fearlessly

hat

the Moria

can

be

closely

related o

Sebastian

Brant's

enormously

opular

atire,

The

Ship

of

Fools.

But

Brant's

atire,

how-

ever

ively,

s

so formless nddiffuse

hat t

would

probably

ever

have

been

inkedwith

Erasmus t all

if

the two books

were

not

associated

y

their

itles.

Brant's

ocialview

is

fragmentary

nd

elementary;

e seems

to havelittleor no senseof societyas a large,complex, nterrelated

organism.

Erasmus'

ocial

views, however,

even

in

this

witty

little

book,

are

15

I

have

translatedListrius

rom

Froben's

1532

edition

(Bibliotheca

elgica

E872),

pp.

183-184.

The

passages

eferred o

by

Listrius re

Cicero,

De

officiis,

,

42,

150;

Peter

Lom-

bard,

Sententiae

v,

dist.

16,

2,

Patrologia

atina

Migne),

cxcn,

878-879;

DecretumGra-

tiani,

dist.

88,

c.

xi,

Corpus

uris

Canonici,

d. E.

Richterand

E.

Friedberg

Leipzig,

1922),

I,

307-309;

ibid.,

c.

xii,

I,

309-310, quoting

Augustine,

Enarratio

in

Psalmos,

Patrologia

Latina (Migne), xxxvi, col. 886-887; ibid., c. xiii,

i, 310.

16

St.

Antoninus,

Summa

heologica,

,

tit.

8

(Verona,

1740;

repr.

Graz,

1959),

m,

295-

307;

St. Bemardinus

Senensis,

De

euangelio

eterno

ermo

xxxm,

art.

1,

Opera

omnia

(Quaracchi-Florence, 1956),

IV,

140,

and

sermo

xxxrx,

art.

1-2,

IV,

266-294.

St.

Bernar-

dino

says

that the statement attributed

o

Chrysostom

by

Gratian

n

distinction

88

is

either

a

rhetorical

xaggeration

or

is

simply

wrong.

17

Ruth

Mohl,

The Three

Estates n Medieval

and

Renaissance

iterature

New

York,

1933),

and

John

Peter,

Complaint

ndSatire n

Early

English

Literature

Oxford,

1956).

503

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

7/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

far

wider

andmore

articulatedhan

Brant's.The middle ectionof

the

Moria

s a

survey

irstof

academic nd then of socialclasses.Thefirst

list ncludes

rammarians,oets,

rhetoricians,

riters

f

books,

awyers,

dialecticians,

hilosophers,

heologians,

nd

monks.18

he social

classes

are

kings,

courtiers,

ishops,

ardinals,

opes,

and

priests.

This

survey

occupies

about

a

quarter

f the text

(Kan,

pp.

101-153),

the

largest

share

being

devoted

to the

pivotal

groups,

the

theologians

nd the

monks.

Erasmus'

urvey

s more

intellectual han

medieval atire

of

estates

sually

s,

but

it

displays

similar enseof

hierarchical

ohesive-

ness.

Society

s

made

up

of

the

bodypolitic

and

the

mystical

body,

the

stateand hechurch, achwith distinct ndvarious roups ontributing

diversely

o

the

harmony

of the whole.

If

medieval atiristsike

Nigel

Wireker

or Longchamp)

r

Langland

robe

the diseases

nd

wounds

of these

bodies

iercely,

heir

outrage

evertheless

epends

n an

aware-

ness

of what the

healthy

social

organism

houldbe. Social lls

were

believed

o

spring

rom

the

failure

f

various lasses

o contributeheir

share

o the

whole.

So too Erasmus oncludes is

survey

with

two swift

'buck-passing'

progressions,

ecular

nd

ecclesiastic,

hich

show

society

n a stateof

collapse

because

arious lasses efuse o

fulfill

heirduties: But

priests

have

this

in

commonwith

laymen: hey

all

keep

a

sharp

ookout

to

harvest

heir

profits,

and in that

point

no one is

ignorant

of

the

laws.

But

if

there

s

some

responsibility,

hey

prudently

hift

hatonto

some-

one else's houlders

nd

pass

he buckdownthe line from one

to an-

other.

In

fact,

even

lay

princes,

ust

as

they

parcel

out

the

dutiesof

ruling o deputies, nd hedeputies ass hemon to subdeputies,o too

they

leave

all

the

practice

f

piety,

in

their

modesty,

o the

common

people.

The

people

oist t off on those

whom

they

call

ecclesiastics,

or

all

the world

as

if

they

themselves ad

nothing

o

do

with

the

church,

as

if

their

baptismal

ows

had

hadno

effectwhatever.

Then

the

priests

who

call

themselves ecular-as

if

they

were

united to the

world

rather han to

Christ-pass

on the burden o the canons

regular,

he

canons o the

monks,

he laxer

monks

o the stricter

nes,

both

groups

to

the mendicant

rders,

he mendicants

o the

Carthusians,

nd

with

them

alone

piety

lies

buried,

hidden

away

in such

a manner hat it

18

The sectionsdevoted

to

theologians

and monks

(which

are

the two

longest

sections,

having

been

greatly

enlarged

by

Erasmus

n

1514)

mediatebetween

the

academic

and

the

politicalsurveys:

Erasmus oncentrates

n the

speculative

work of

the

theologians

and

on

the

practical

piety

and

preaching

of

the

monks.

504

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

8/14

ERASMUS'

THE PRAISE OF FOLLY

hardly

ever

appears.

n

the same

way

the

popes,

however

diligent

n

harvestingmoney, delegate

heir

excessively

apostolic

abors

to the

bishops,

he

bishops

o the

pastors,

he

pastors

o

their

vicars,

he

vicars

to the mendicantriars, nd heytoo foistofftheircharge nthosewho

shear

he

fleeceof

the

flock'

(Kan,pp.

153-154).

Folly

herself s

aware hat

her

survey

does

not

entirely

it the

pattern

of

the

encomium,

or she

brings

t to a close

by

remarking,

But t

is

no

part

of

my

present

plan

to

rummage hrough

he lives of

popes

and

priests,

estI

should

eem o be

composing

satire

ather han

delivering

an encomium'

(Kan,

p.

154).

Some critics

have been

distressed

re-

ciselybecauseheythinkthat n hissocialsurveyErasmusetsushear

himself

directly

ather

han

ronically.19

ertainly

he

genre

to

which

the Moria

primarily elongs

s

not the satireof

estates,

but

rather

he

paradoxical

ncomium;

t is

one of

the

most

brilliant

examples

of

Paradoxa

pidemica,

s

Rosalie

Coliehas

dubbed he

genre.Hoyt

Hud-

son

gives

a

detailed

analysis

f

Folly's

whole

speech

as

a

Quintilian

oration,

hough

he

ong

survey

f

the

classes

auses

im

some rouble.20

WalterKaiser

upplements

he efforts f Hudson

by finding ignificant

traces f the

Aphthonian

ncomiumntheMoria.21ut there tillseems

to

remain

feeling

hat he

two

sides

of

the

work,

the

medieval

atire f

estates ndthe

Renaissance

aradox,

ave

not

quite

coalesced.

The

problem

may

remind

us

of

the similar

plit

n

critical

opinion

about

he other

great

Latinwork of the

early

Renaissancen

England,

ThomasMore's

Utopia.

R.

W.

Chambers,

n

his

great

biography

of

More

(London,

1935),

was

redressing

he balance

by

emphasizing

medieval urrentsn Utopia.At theotherendof thescale,RussellAmes

in

CitizenThomas

MoreandHis

Utopia

Princeton,

949)

emphasized

the

progressive,

iberal,

orward-looking

iewsof

Utopia.Anyone

who

has read he

handsome estschriftor Father

Surtz

ately

published y

Moreana ill

know

that the

friendly

conflict

perpetuated

n

the

con-

cordia

iscors

f

the two Yale

editors

of

Utopia

s far from

ended.

And

19

For

example,

A.

E.

Douglas,

'Erasmus

s a

Satirist,'

n

Erasmus,

d.

T. A.

Dorey

(Al-

buquerque,1970),pp. 47-49. A stimulatingpaperon theunityof theMoriadeliveredby

Prof.

Richard

Sylvester

during

the Notre

Dame Erasmus

ymposium

n

1970

encouraged

me to think

about the

subject

of

this

paper.Joel

Lefebvre,

n

Lesfols

et

lafolie

(Paris,

1968),

which

I

had not hadan

opportunity

o

seewhen

I

wrote this

paper,

gives

a subtle

and

sensitive

analysis

of

the

interaction

and

interpenetration

f the

three

parts

of

the

Moria.

20

In

an

appendix

to his

translation

(Princeton,

1941),

pp.

129-143.

21

Praisers

f Folly

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1963),

p.

49.

505

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

9/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

some

may

even

suspect

hat this

is

exactly

he sort of

conflictMore's

book

was

designed

o

stir

up.

The Moria estsnot on one

but

on

two

basic

paradoxes,

hich deal

withhow individual

spirations

oward uccess ndfulfillment rere-

lated

o the

requirements

f

society

at

large.Apart

rom

some

graceful

and

amusingpreliminaries

bout

Folly'sbirthplace,ineage,

and

role

among

theHomeric

gods,

the first

section,

he

part

preceding

he

sur-

vey

of

intellectual

ndsocial

classes,

s

devoted

o

the

ironical

hesis hat

the

happiest

ife

is

a

fool's

ife.

Folly

enables

s

to

get

along

very

well

in

a

society

of fools.The wise

man s

not

only

inept

and neffective

n

the

practical ffairs f everyday iving, but his harshtruthswould also

destroy

heillusions

nd

deceptions

ecessary

o

keepup

the

stageplay

of life. Sexual

pleasure,

he

propagation

f

the

human

race,

the

plea-

sures

of

the

table,

riendship

nd

marriage,

he

glories

of

warfare,

he

investigations

f

science,

he inventions

f

technology,

he

harmony

f

civil

society

all

depend

on

illusions,

elf-deception,

nd

vainglorious

aspirations.

atural ools

are

among

the

happiest

f men.

Even mad-

ness,

as

long

as

it

is

not

violent,

canmake

people

ar

happier

hanwis-

dom.Protected

y

benevolent

uphoria,

anatics f allsorts-hunters,

gamblers,

lchemists,

uperstitious

orshippers

f saints-can maintain

the

illusion

of

happiness.

elf-love

and

flattery

il

the wheels

of

society

and

keep

it

runningsmoothly.22

All life is

dual,

like the Sileni

of

Alcibiades-ugly

and

beautiful

ccording

o the

viewer's

angle

of

vi-

sion.

The

comedy

of life

is a

play

that

can

be

entertainingnly

so

long

as

tsbasic llusion

s

keptup.

To

strip

away

disguises

uins he

play

and

leadsonly to disillusionment,utility,despair, r even suicide.

The ironic

double

vision

of

this first

part

of

ThePraise

f

Folly

has

been most

frequently

ummarized,

nalyzed,

dmired,

nd related

o

the outlook

of

other

great

writers

of the

Renaissance,

uch

as

Ariosto,

Rabelais,Cervantes,

r

Shakespeare.

s

in

the

Utopia

he reader s

piquantly

oised

between

eemingly

ontradictory

iews;

with

a

laugh,

22

As Folly sums up: 'In short, without me no companionshipamong friends,no

blending

of

lives

in

marriage

can

be

either

pleasant

or

stable-so

much

that

the

people

would

not

tolerate heir

prince,

nor

the servant

his

master,

nor the

maidservant

er

mis-

tress,

nor the teacher

his

pupil,

nor

one friend

another,

nor the husbandhis

wife,

nor the

worker his

employer,

one

lodger

would not

put

up

with

another,

one roommate

could

not stand

another,

f

in their

relations

with one another

hey

did not sometimes

err,

some-

times

flatter,

sometimes

wisely

overlook

things,

sometimes soothe themselves

with the

sweet salve of

folly'

(Kan,

pp.

34-35).

506

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

10/14

ERASMUS' THE PRAISE OF

FOLLY

or

a

smile,

or

a

sigh

he is

forced to admit that what seems absurd

s

sometimes,often,

very

often,

almost

always

true.

The

third

part

of

the

Moria,

he

part following

the

survey

of

academic

and

social

classes,

s

based

on a

paradox

which

seems

directly

opposed

to

the

first

part:

the

folly

of

Christian

ools

throws them out of

step

with

society

at

large.

This

sort

of

folly

does

not

integrate

men into

their

social

surroundings;

t

separates

hem from

the world

and

its

values.

Such

folly

may

lead

to

ridiculous

eccentricity,

mental

alienation,

a

kind

of

ecstatic madness

n

which even

ordinary

sense

perceptions may

be

lost.

Indeed,

this

folly

seems to be

oriented

toward the

final,

perfect

alienationof thebeatificvision. Folly capsherargumentwith a brilliant

and

daring

pun:

ecstasy,

he alienation

of

a

mind

drawn out

of

itself

into

union

with

God,

is

'Moriae

pars,' Folly's

portion,

'which

is

not taken

away by

the transformation

f life but

is

perfected'

(Kan,

p.

188).

Placed

between

these two

contradictoryparadoxes,

he

middle third

of the

Moria,

he

survey

of

academicand

social classes

n

the

mannerof

medieval

satire,

is

essential

to the

impact

of

the whole work.

The

easiest

way

to

discover how

essential

s

to

read the first

and

last

parts

alone:

it

is like

being

served

two

different kinds of

sweet-sour sauce

with no

meat

for

them

to flavor. Erasmus

claimed that in

the

Moriahe

was

presentingmany

of

the same

goals

as in his

more

serious

and

straightforward

works,

except

that in

the

Moria

he was

doing

it

'via

diuersa.'23His

voice does not

entirely

replace

Folly's,

but

blendswith it

so

that Erasmus'

own

intellectual

and social

aims

can

be

apprehended

more

directly.

I

suppose

that

Erasmus

would

have had a

reply ready

for

anyone who objectedto his appropriatingFolly'svoice: he noted that

the

only

fool

he

mentioned

by

name

in

the

Moria

was

himself.24

At

any

rate,

like

More,

he

could

not

be

satisfied

with

the

witty spoofing

of

Lucian,

who

is

genial

and

caustic,

witty

and

flagrant,

but

so

thoroughly

disillusioned

that he seems

to

have

little

hope

of

ameliorating

man's

absurditiesand

follies.

Erasmus

ntended

the

Moria

to

be 'non

minus

festiuus

quam

salutaris,'25

o

less

witty

than

pithy,

not

less

pleasant

han

profitable.

Hence,

when he

added the

longest

sections

to

the

Moria

n

1514,

the

expansions

ell

mainly

in

the

sections

devoted

to

theologians

and

monks.

In

doing

so

he

placed

more

emphasis

on

his

practical

pro-

23

Opus

Epistolarum

Des.

Erasmi

Roterodami,

d.

P.

S.

Allen

(Oxford,

1906-47),

Ia,

93.

24

Allen,

In,

95.

25

Gavin and

Walsh,

p.

197.

507

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

11/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

gram

or ecclesiastical

eform.

But the additions

re n

keeping

with the

mediating

haracter f

themiddle

section.

The

medial

surveyagrees

with

the first

part

in that

both find the

'establishment'

uite

foolishand even the

happier

oritsfolly.Would

not

grammarians

ndschoolteachers

e

among

the

most miserable f

men,

tyrannizing

utilely

over a wretched

and

filthy pack

of

cowed

schoolboys,

f

they

werenot

puffed

up

by arrogant

nd oolishdelusions

of

grandeur?

he

almost

ncredible

elf-deception

f

quibbling

heolo-

gians

lets

them

imagine

that

by

their

petty

labors

hey support

he

whole

church ike

Atlas

holding

he world

on

his

shoulders.

f a

king

consideredisresponsibilities,ouldhenot be mostmiserable?

But

these

happy

ools

n

themiddle

ection

alsodiffer

romthe

fools

in

the

first

part.

However

beatific

olly

may

be for individual

cademic

and social

eaders,

t

has

a disastrous

ffect

on

society

as

a whole.

The

fools

n

the

first

part

arenot

usually

resented

n

responsible

oles;

hey

are

alchemists,unters,

amblers,

ortune-hunters,

echerous ld

men

and

women,

thick-skulled

oldiers.

Even

the

gods

indulge

n

folly

in

their

off-duty

hours,

as

it

were,

when

they

havefinished

ettlingquar-

relsand

hearing etitions

Kan,

p.

97).

Inthefirst

part

he

ineptness

f

wise

men

n

public

affairs

might

be

borne

we

are

old)

f

they

werenot

such

awkward

and cantankerous

oresat

parties,

dances,

plays

(Kan,

pp.

41-42).

One

important

reason

why

Folly

is

able to

carry

off

the

ironical

paradox

f

the

first

part

s

precisely

hat

she

does

not sort out

people

according

o their ocial

unctions

ut

rather

reats

rivate

ices

or

depicts

arge,

indiscriminatewarms

of

mankind.The

fabric

of

society spresentedsessentiallynreal, pageant r a playwhichcan

be

maintained

nlyby

hiding

reality

and

accepting

isguises.

But

the

very

wise

men

who

would

disrupt

he

play

of life

in the first

part

comprise

he

intellectual,

olitical,

and

ecclesiastical

eaders

n-

cluded

n

the

survey

of the second

part.

And their

ndividual

appiness

consists

recisely

n

avoiding

he

responsibilities

f

their

roles.

Thus n

the first

part

he

robes

of

a

king

are

only

one of the costumes

ecessary

to

keep

up

the

llusions

f life: Now the

whole ife

of mortal

men,

what

isit butasortof

play,

nwhichvarious

ersons

make heirentrancesn

various

costumes,

nd

each one

plays

his

own

part

until

the director

gives

him his

cue to

leave he

stage?

Often

the

director lso

orders

ne

and

the

same

actor

o come

on

in

different

ostumes,

o

that he

person

who

was

ust

now dressed

n

royal

scarlet

o

play

the

part

of the

king

now

comes

on

in

rags

to

play

a

miserable

ervant.

True,

all these

508

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

12/14

ERASMUS'

THE

PRAISE

OF FOLLY

images

are

unreal,

but this

play

cannot

be

performed

n

any

other

way'

(Kan,

pp. 48-49).

In

the

second

part,

however,

the

trappings

of

a

king

are

symbols

of

his

responsibilities:

Then

put

a

gold

chain

around his

neck,

a

sign

of the

interlockingagreement

of all the virtues.Then

give

him

a

crown

set

with

precious gems,

a

timely

reminder

that

he

is

sup-

posed

to excel

everyone

in the

exercise

of

all

the heroic

virtues.

Give

him

a

scepter,

a

symbol

of

justice

and

of

a

heart

completely

fortified

against

the assaults

of

corruption,

from whatever

source.

And

finally,

give

him

a

robe of

royal

scarlet,

symbolizing,

as it

were,

an

extraor-

dinary

love

of

the

commonwealth.

If a

prince

should

compare

these

accoutermentswith his own way of life, I cannot but think that he

would

be

thoroughly

ashamed

of

his

splendid apparel

and would

be

afraid

that some clever wit

might

make

a

laughing

stock

of

all

this

solemn

and

lofty

costume'

(Kan, pp.

142-143).

We are

not

surprised

to

learn that

the

emblematic

royal

costume

which

provides

the

basis for

this

ironic contrast

n the Moria

s

presented

n

a

more

straightforward

manner

n The Education

f

a

Christian

rince.26 ut when we

learn that

most

of the

symbolic

meaningsFollyassigns

o

a

bishop's

clothes

can

be

found

almost

exactly

in the

writings

of Innocent III and William

Durandus,27

t

may

serve

to remind us

of

the serious and traditional

view

of

social

duties which is

presented

n

Folly'ssurvey.

This

survey

not

only

leads

us

out

of

Folly's

first

paradox,

but also

prepares

us

for the Christian

paradox

of the third

part.

Here,

the whole

fabric

of

society

is

again

dissolved.

The world and

all

its

ways

are

rejected

by

Christian fools.

They

refuse

to

love

even

their

country,

parents,children,andfriendsexceptinsofarasthey reflectthe goodness

of God.

The

survey agrees

with

this

view

in

that it too

rejects

he

foolish

establishment-the

academics,

politicians,

and ecclesiastics

who

fail to

fulfill their functions.

Society

as

it

has

degenerated

under their

manage-

ment

is

indeed

the

very

world

which

is

rejected

by

Christian

fools.

We

can

accept

the

final ironic

paradox

of the

Christian

who

is

absurd

and

foolish

in the

eyes

of

the world because

hat

world

has

already

been

presented

as

vitiated

by

another

less

basic

ironic

contrast:the

rulers

of

26

Institutio

principis

Christiani,

LB

rv,

566E-F

and

582C-D.

27

Innocent

II,

De sacro ltaris

mysterio,

atrologia

atina

Migne),

ccxvI,

col.

793,

795.

Durandus,

Rationale diuinorum

officiorum

Venice,

1568?),

m,

i, 3, lo-11, 12-13,

15

(pp.

42-43,

49V-50,

51v);

Iv,

6

(p.

67).

The

traditional

symbolism

is

traced

in

detail

by Joseph

Braun

in Die

liturgische

ewandung

mOccident

nd

Orient

Freiburg

m

Breisgau,1907),

pp.

701-726.

509

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

13/14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

the world

remain

happy

by

ignoring

heir

duty

to

regulate

nd

purify

the world.

Folly's

Christian

aradox

has been

frequently,

nd

rightly,

inked

with Plato.28But it would be well to remember lsothat Erasmus

himself,

asked o

explain passage

n the

last

part

of

the

Moria,

eferred

not

only

to Plato

but also to Aristotle and St.

Paul.29

In

fact,

St.

Thomas

Aquinas'

discussion f

ecstasy

provides

a

closer

parallel

o

Folly's

double

paradoxes

hanPlato.

According

o

Aquinas,30

cstasy

may

proceed

rom a

movement

of

either he will or the intellect.

The

ecstasy

which arises rom

knowledge

may

lead

man

beyond

reason o

unionwith Godor below reason o thelevelof the animals.For such

irrationality

lso

goesby

the

nameof

ecstasy.

Here

n

Thomas'

ool

and

straightforward

ccount

of

ecstasy

s the basisfor the

grand

ronic

dichotomy

of the Moria: he

elevation

above

human

faculties o the

vision

of God

goes

by

the same

nameas

pathological

madness.

olly's

opening

paradox

depends

on

an

irrational

cstasy,31

ust

as her con-

cludingparadox

eadsto

suprarational

cstasy.

The medial

survey

of

estates

xposes

he

discrepancy

etweenwhat

society

can

reasonably

expect

from its membersand what

they

in fact do-or do not do.

The middle hirdof the Moria

s

medieval

n

what it includes

bout

the

hierarchy

nd

responsibilities

f various lasses f

society.

But it

is

also

peculiarly

rasmiann

what

t omits.The common

people

andthe

mercantilemiddleclasses realmost

otally gnored.

Erasmusncludes

intellectuals,

ings

and

courtiers,

opes,

cardinals,

ishops,

and

priests

because

hesearethe classes

hrough

which

he

hoped

to

carry

out his

reform.Writing n Latinas he did,Erasmus everwroteto thecom-

mon

people, hough

he

wrote

or

them.

Without

ts middle

ection,

he

Moria ould neverhave servedas the finest

quintessence

f Erasmian

ideals.

n

annotating

t

I

have become

aware

not

only

of its medieval

roots

but also of how well it

agrees

with Erasmus'ater

views.

Very

28

Most

recently,

for

example, by

Paul

0. Kristeller

n 'Erasmus rom

an Italian

Per-

spective,'

Renaissance

Quarterly,

23 (1970),

1l,

and

by

A. H.

T.

Levi

in

his introduction

and notes to the Penguin edition of Betty Radice's translation (1971), pp. 21-24,203-204.

29

Opus

Epistolarum,

ed.

Allen,

IV, 289.

30

Summa

heologica

a-nae,

q.

28,

a.

3.

Cf.

also

Iia-Iiae,

q.

46,

a.

1.

A

penetrating

com-

ment

made

by

Prof. William

Gilbert

when

I

read this

paper

at

the Central

Renaissance

Conferenceset me

to

thinking

about

the relation

of

the three

parts

to

reason.

31

In

this

partFolly

urges

men to

emulate he carefree ase

of

animals,

admires

Gryllus

for

refusing

to

be

changed

rom a

pig

back

to a

man,

and

alludes

o

happy

hunters

who

have

become like the

animals

hey

hunt

(Kan,

pp.

57-63,

74).

510

8/20/2019 2859948.pdf

14/14

ERASMUS' THE PRAISE OF FOLLY 511

often the Moria is best

illuminated

by

such

later works

as

Institutio

principis

Christiani,

Annotationes n Nouum

Testamentum,

atio verae

Theologiae,

r

Ecclesiastes,

iuede

ratione oncionandi.

he

middle

third of

the Moria tself not

only

holds

together

the

contradictory

paradoxes

of

the first and last

parts,

but also is an

important

reason or the centraland

commandingplace

it

holds

in the

large

and varied

body

of Erasmus'

works.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY