Erasmus, the Praise of Folly1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Primary Source 7.1 ERASMUS, THE PRAISE OF FOLLY1 The author, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) was an extraordinarily learned Christian humanist. He advocated returning to the original sources of the faith and as such published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament 1516 (as well as subsequent editions), which strongly influenced several of the main actors of the Reformation, including Martin Luther. The Praise of Folly (1511), his most famous work, is a biting satire told through the person of the Goddess Folly (or Foolishness) who claims to inspire a vast range of human action, from lovers who fail to see their beloveds’ faults to clergy and popes enjoying worldly pleasures while shunning their duties to Christ’s flock. For Erasmus, the Christian faith was the most awesome treasure of humanity and should stir people’s souls to ecstasy and self-transformation. He had no patience for the dry intellectualizing of scholastic philosophers, as is obvious from the passage below. The complete text is available here. For a freely accessible audio recording, click here. And next these come our philosophers, so much reverenced for their furred gowns and starched beards2 that they look upon themselves as the only wise men and all others as shadows. [They] give out that they have discovered ideas, universalities, separated forms, first matters, quiddities, haecceities,3 formalities, and the like stuff; things so thin and bodiless that I believe even Lynceus4 himself was not able to perceive them. But then chiefly do they disdain the unhallowed crowd as often as with their triangles, quadrangles, circles, and the like mathematical devices, more confusing than a labyrinth, and letters disposed one against the other, as it were in battle array, they cast a mist before the eyes of the ignorant. Nor is there wanting of this kind some that pretend to foretell things by the stars and make promises of miracles beyond all things of soothsaying, and are so fortunate as to meet with people that believe them.5 But perhaps I had better pass over our divines6 in silence and not stir this pool or touch this fair but unsavory plant, as a kind of men that are supercilious beyond comparison, and to that too, implacable; lest setting them about my ears, they attack me by troops and force me to a recantation sermon, which if I refuse, 1 Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, (Trans.) John Wilson (Oxford: Claerendon Press, 1913), 112-23, 133-38. 2 Throughout the passage, Erasmus continuously makes veiled reference to works of classical antiquity and medieval philosophy. See the copious footnotes and a more accessible translation in Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, (Trans. and Ed.) Clarence H. Miller (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1979). 3 Quiddity and haecceity are medieval philosophical terms referring, respectively, to an object’s universal and particular qualities. 4 A mythic Greek hero supposedly able to see through dense physical objects. 5 Astrology was highly popular among the learned in Erasmus’s day. 6 Theologians. 2 they straight pronounce me a heretic. For this is the thunderbolt with which they fright those whom they are resolved not to favor. And truly, though there are few others that less willingly acknowledge the kindnesses I have done them, yet even these too stand fast bound to me upon no ordinary accounts; while being happy in their own opinion, and as if they dwelt in the third heaven, they look with haughtiness on all others as poor creeping things and could almost find in their hearts to pity them; while hedged in with so many magisterial definitions, conclusions, corollaries, propositions explicit and implicit, they abound with so many starting-holes that Vulcan's net7 cannot hold them so fast, but they'll slip through with their distinctions, with which they so easily cut all knots asunder that a hatchet could not have done it better, so plentiful are they in their new-found words and prodigious terms. Besides, while they explicate the most hidden mysteries according to their own fancy—as how the world was first made; how original sin is derived to posterity; in what manner, how much room, and how long time Christ lay in the Virgin's womb; how accidents subsist in the Eucharist without their subject.8 But these are common and threadbare; these are worthy of our great and illuminated divines, as the world calls them! At these, if ever they fall athwart them, they prick up—as whether there was any instant of time in the generation of the Second Person9; whether there be more than one filiation in Christ; whether it be a possible proposition that God the Father hates the Son; or whether it was possible that Christ could have taken upon Him the likeness of a woman, or of the devil, or of an ass, or of a stone, or of a gourd;10 and then how that gourd should have preached, wrought miracles, or been hung on the cross; and what Peter had consecrated if he had administered the Sacrament at what time the body of Christ hung upon the cross; or whether at the same time he might be said to be man; whether after the Resurrection there will be any eating and drinking, since we are so much afraid of hunger and thirst in this world. There are infinite of these subtle trifles, and others more subtle than these, of notions, relations, instants, formalities, quiddities, haecceities, which no one can perceive without a Lynceus whose eyes could look through a stone wall and discover those things through the thickest darkness that never were. Add to this those their other determinations, and those too so contrary to common opinion that those oracles of the Stoics, which they call paradoxes, seem in comparison of these but blockish and idle—as 'tis a lesser crime to kill a thousand men than to set a stitch on a poor man's shoe on the Sabbath day;11 and that a man should rather choose that the whole world with all food and raiment, as they say, should perish, than tell a lie, though never so inconsiderable. And these most subtle 7 In Greco-Roman mythology, the god of fire, Vulcan, captured his wife, Venus, and her lover Mars in a net. 8 The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation holds that during Holy Communion the bread and wine retain their properties (accidents) while becoming the actual substance of Christ’s body and blood. 9 That is, Christ. 10 Scholastic philosophers really discussed many such questions. See Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, 88n5. 11 The latter is a crime against God; the former, against one’s neighbor. 3 subtleties are rendered yet more subtle by the several methods of so many Schoolmen,12 that one might sooner wind himself out of a labyrinth than the entanglements of the realists, nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists.13 Nor have I named all the several sects, but only some of the chief; in all which there is so much doctrine and so much difficulty that I may well conceive the apostles, had they been to deal with these new kind of divines, had needed to have prayed in aid of some other spirit. Paul knew what faith was, and yet when he said, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen," he did not define it doctor- like.14 And as he understood charity well himself, so he did as illogically divide and define it to others in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter the thirteenth. And devoutly, no doubt, did the apostles consecrate the Eucharist; yet, had they been asked the question touching the "terminus a quo" and the "terminus ad quem"15 of transubstantiation; of the manner how the same body can be in several places at one and the same time; of the difference the body of Christ has in heaven from that of the cross, or this in the Sacrament; in what point of time transubstantiation is, whereas prayer, by means of which it is, as being a discrete quantity, is transient; they would not, I conceive, have answered with the same subtlety as the Scotists dispute and define it. They knew the mother of Jesus, but which of them has so philosophically demonstrated how she was preserved from original sin as have done our divines? Peter received the keys, and from Him too that would not have trusted them with a person unworthy; yet whether he had understanding or no, I know not, for certainly he never attained to that subtlety to determine how he could have the key of knowledge that had no knowledge himself.16 They baptized far and near, and yet taught nowhere what was the formal, material, efficient, and final cause17 of baptism, nor made the least mention of delible and indelible characters.18 They worshiped, 'tis true, but in spirit, following herein no other than that of the Gospel, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship, must worship him in spirit and truth;"19 yet it does not appear it was at that time revealed to them that an image sketched on the wall with a coal was to be worshiped with the same worship as Christ Himself,20 if at least the two forefingers be stretched out, the hair long and uncut, and have three rays about the crown of the head. For who can conceive these things, unless he has spent at least six and thirty years in the philosophical and supercelestial whims of Aristotle and the Schoolmen? 12 Scholastic philosophers.