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 [email protected].
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