Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536)

Written from the viewpoint of the character Folly, Erasmus' "The Praise of Folly" is a satirical and perceptive work that examines the nature of foolishness and its place in society. Erasmus highlights the value of embracing joy and simplicity while simultaneously criticizing the religious and social conventions of his day through wit and irony.

Erasmus offers a biting but humorous critique of social evils, especially in the church and among the educated elite, through the character of show more Folly. The book examines how embracing foolishness—in the form of joy, pleasure, and a straightforward lifestyle—can be advantageous and even essential for contentment and kinship. The book also sheds important light on the early 16th-century social and religious climate, including the shift from medieval to modern ideas.
Using irony and a first-person narrative, the book is a masterwork of satire that makes for an engaging and thought-provoking read. For readers today, the book's examination of human nature, societal imperfections, and the pursuit of happiness is still pertinent and perceptive. Even readers who are not familiar with the era will find the book to be entertaining and captivating due to Erasmus's keen wit and sense of humor.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, "The Praise of Folly" provides an insightful perspective on the Renaissance and the shift to the Reformation. show less

In this splendid Norton Critical Edition there is plenty of Erasmus: The Praise of Folly (including illustrations by Hans Holbein), The Complaint of Peace, Two Forwards to the Latin Translation to the New Testament, Julius Excluded from Heaven, excerpts from The Colloquies and a few letters. There is also a selection of critical commentary as well as a chronology and a short selected Bibliography.

The selections of Erasmus' writings give the reader the opportunity to sample the different show more facets of this 16th century scholar who wrote almost exclusively in Latin. He wrote passionately about the need to take religion back to the scriptures and put it in the hands of the people, and away from the dead intellectuals in the universities. He wanted to turn the catholic church from the path of over reliance on indulgences, pilgrimages, and ritual and so came into conflict with mendicant clerics and theologians. In his introduction to his translation of the New Testament he says:

"I absolutely dissent from those people who don't want the holy scriptures to be read in translation by the unlearned - as if, forsooth, Christ taught such complex doctrine that hardly anyone outside a handful of theologians could understand it, or as if the chief strength of the Christian religion lay in peoples ignorance of it. perhaps the state secrets of kings have to be concealed, but Christ wanted his mysteries to be disseminated as widely as possible. I should prfer that all women, even of the lowest rank, should read the evangelists and the epistles of Paul.........."

It is as a satirist that Erasmus is most often read and enjoyed today and the full text of "The Praise of Folly" will still provide some amusement as all classes of society come in for criticism in this lively essay. Oh to be a fool says Erasmus, how blissful this would be, but always listen to a fool because even a foolish man says something to the point. Erasmus launches into his critique with gusto and no one is spared, here is what he says about the theologians:

"perhaps I ought to pass over the theologians in silence and just not go near that open sewer, or touch that stink weed. They are a class of men so arrogant and irritable that they are likely to attack me by squadrons with their six hundred conclusions and force me into a recantation: then if I refuse they'd promptly have me up as a heretic............For they cocker up their own self esteem, as if raising themselves to a seventh heaven, and from that vantage point look down on the rest of the human race as so many dumb beasts crawling on the ground......"

Julius Excluded from Heaven is another biting satire. Pope Julius II had recently died and Erasmus imagines him appearing at the gates of heaven and demanding to be let in. Julius boasts of his irreligious behaviour while he was Pope, how he sold various offices to the highest bidder, how he used his position for his own and his families advantage, how he made war against fellow Christians etc.....

Erasmus was a popular figure, his writing was witty and to the point. He was also excellent company and well liked by friends in high places, but having said all that I wondered how he could have got away with the satires that he wrote. What protected him from charges of heresy while he was alive.

I was particularly keen to read the Critical commentary in this Norton Critical edition to see if the essays would enhance my appreciation of Erasmus. H R Trevor Roper's essay is typical of the historian, broad brush strokes and some startling assertions paint a lively picture of Erasmus and his legacy. R S Allen in "The Transatlantic Renaissance" shows how Erasmus as a representative of the Northern European renaissance was influenced by the Italian renaissance and this filled in some background to his works. There followed an extract from J Huizinga's biography, which I have previously read, but would be useful material for readers wanting to get an idea of the character and mind of Erasmus. Up next was an extract from Mikhail Bakhtin's [Rabelais and his World] which dealt with Medieval and Renaissance folk humour and this proved to be a gem. It grounded Erasmus writing in the long tradition of satire and comedy that was an essential part of medieval life. Bakhtin says that this stream of writing, play acting and comedy ran concurrently with the serious issues of Church services and law making and was often practiced by the same people. For me it shone a light on Erasmus' satires and convinced me that in this climate they would have been read and enjoyed by those very same people that were subjects of the satires.

There were two further essays one of which explored the wide definitions of humanism and provided more useful background material. All in all this Norton Critical Edition is extremely successful in presenting some important texts of a writer who may not be widely known to the general public and the essays provide enough background to enhance the appreciation of both the man and his works. A five star book. show less

In The Education of a Christian Prince, Desiderius Erasmus set out his vi-sion of a properly administered state, by means of published advice to young Archduke Charles. Erasmus clearly valued Christian virtues and wanted those qualities to be the hallmarks of the state. He looked to Catholic theology as pro-claimed by notable authors like Augustine and Aquinas; he sought guidance in the practices and teachings of the bishops and the popes; but, most importantly, he referred primarily upon show more the words of Christ and the Apostles as his foundation.
Neither a firebrand nor rebel, Erasmus hesitated to denounce openly spe-cific bishops or condemn papal practices. However, he made clear that ecclesi-astical practices, as well as teachings, often differed significantly from what Je-sus or St. Paul said. By illuminating this dilemma and by choosing the Bible as the basis of resolution, he made known his position on church corruption.

The state Erasmus envisioned, though rooted in Christianity, was no Zwinglistic theocracy, no regimented Calvinist compound designed to churn out soldiers for Christ. Rather, Erasmus’s state offered tranquility and tolerance. Erasmus’s solution did not call for the bitter and rigorous cathartic cleansing that characterized several of the reformers who came soon after his time. Erasmus proposed a state where people were, more or less, free to pursue their daily lives in relative liberty. Their obligations were to God, the prince, their fellow citizens and their families. Those obligations were not burdensome. Erasmus felt that happy, prosperous people made useful, productive and loyal citizens. He wrote, “The good prince will be fully convinced that he can have no more worthwhile task than that of increasing the prosperity of the realm. . .�€? However, he be-lieved those who lived in fear of war, taxes or royal abuse made treasonous, cowardly, traitors who would betray the prince for the chance to better their lives.

Erasmus’s vision strikes the modern reader as somewhat naïve in its hope that people will live harmoniously, that government officials will remain uncorrupt and that physical violence can be avoided. However desirable his ideas may be, short of the extraordinary combination of well-educated princes and administra-tors for a period long enough for these principals to take root, there was no way his ideas could be accepted in a practical, large-scale way. This is not to take a pessimistic approach that holds people to be evil; rather, it is the realistic position that, although basically good at heart, people are flawed.

It is tempting to see Erasmus as weak, naïve, or merely sycophantic in his bid to obtain office. On the contrary, Erasmus knew that what he proposed were ideals to be sought after, not the exact prediction of things to come. Erasmus was no fool, blind to man’s weaknesses. He stated, “For the most part the nature of man inclines toward evil . . .â€? He was no Rodney King, whining pitifully, “Why can’t we all get along?â€?
As for his sycophancy, Erasmus risked tweaking Charles’s nose with his veiled references to corrupt or absent rulers. He criticized the drive to extend the size of the realm, particularly by means of marriage alliances, specifically devot-ing a section of the work to that subject. He criticized taxes and tolls. He chal-lenged bishops who were lax in their duties.
The ideas he suggested did not wholly disappear. His idea of govern-ment, wherein one part acts as check upon another part, finds obvious manifes-tation in the great democracies. He indicated that the prince’s rule should be tempered by aristocracy and democracy. His idea of a contractual relationship between the prince and the subject adumbrates the Enlightenment. (I was sur-prised by his proposal of punishment when he suggested that a man guilty of some common crime could be advertised as being guilty of some crime of which the state wished to make an example. This struck me as terribly characteristic of the twentieth century, in a state where a minister of propaganda and public rela-tions would operate.)
Erasmus offered a compelling counterpoint to Machiavelli. Each man manifested an interesting mixture of practicality with idealism. These men’s writ-ings illustrated how similar circumstances, similar goals, and attempts to solve similar problems could produce almost opposite results.

Alex Hunnicutt show less

You know, before I read this, I imagined it was satire.

I couldn't have been more wrong! Indeed, after listening to Dame Folly, goddess extraordinaire, I think I will convert myself wholeheartedly to her teachings.

There has never been a more persuasive tract in literature. Hide thy wisdom, folks! There is no greater treasure than to proclaim just how much folly you possess!


It's especially good for churchmen and writers. The former generally do not know they are being made fun of and the show more latter can derive a sort of sick satisfaction that they, more than any other breed of fools, exemplify the teachings of Dame Folly.

For who else could go about the rest of their lives putting words down for nothing more than faint praise, outright scorn, and little to no money for their extensive efforts?

Exactly.

:) show less