Praise of Folly and Letter to Maarten van Dorp (Penguin Classics)

( . . . from introduction by A.T.H. Levi . . . )“What was at stake was simply the attempt to make the Christian revelation rationally intelligible, a problem the Christian theologians inherited from Islam. In the thirteenth century the full-scale exploitation of Islam’s Aristotelianism in the interests of elaborating a rational system capable of supporting the Christian revelation was finally undertaken by Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74).’’Some scholars conclude ‘Aquinas became more a follower of Aristotle than Christ’.“Aquinas was impelled by the old problems in the psychology of cognition raised by the controversy between realists and nominalists, and he provided the basis for a more optimistic understanding of the world and human experience than that inherited from Augustine, whose later writings had emphasized the effects of original sin on man’s natural powers.’’Seems to me (and others) this unjustified trust in ‘human reason’ collapsed in WW1 and has not returned.“In particular, Aquinas believed in a rationally ordered universe that reflected the rationality of the divine mind in its laws and structure. Since the human intellect was a created derivative of the eternal mind of God, it was itself capable of judging what was and what was not in accordance with ‘right reason’, or the rational norms imprinted on the cosmos by its creator. In other words the human intellect was capable of making moral judgements that necessarily accorded with divine law because both were based on the same rational norms.’’This belief that ‘human reason derived from mind of creator’ underpins science. Darwin pulled out these pins . . .“For Aquinas the norm of morality was the conformity of some particular object with the rationally perceived end of man, and this norm was necessarily in accordance with the divine law and the natural law, which was its reflection.’’This ability to find ‘rationally known purpose for humans’ essential to engine driving ‘Reason’. Without goal, no road . . .What other choice?“Duns Scotus (1265–1308) reacted strongly against Aquinas by restoring in psychology primacy to the will over the intellect. He thereby emphasized both the freedom of the human will at the expense of the rationality of the act of choice.’’‘Will controls reason’ shows alternate explanation of human thought. This interpretation seems (to me) can be used to support ‘post-truth’, ‘fake news’, etc.. If all ‘reason’ will be — controlled, adjusted, changed by the ‘will’ — why pretend to trust logic, facts, evidence, etc., when we ‘know’ they are useless!( . . . Nietzsche, Foucault, Marcuse, etc. . . . )Notice this question surfaces over a thousand years ago!What influence Erasmus have on Christendom?“There can no longer be any real doubt that the central feature of Jesuit spirituality, the celebrated ‘rules for the discernment of spirits’ at the heart of Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises, derives from Erasmus.’’Jesuit’s program from Erasmus! Wow!“The early Jesuits, at least, came very near to venerating his memory, and the Jesuit Peter Canisius spoke very highly of him. Most of his educational theory was taken up into their own carefully elaborated educational program expressed in the ‘Ratio Studiorum’ which was the immensely influential charter for their schools in the late sixteenth century.’’Erasmus’ ideas Foundation for Jesuit education!This detailed introduction is a treasure. One reason I avoided Erasmus all these years due to my obvious lack of background in medieval thought. Levi’s great explanation just what I needed!Nevertheless, Erasmus’ writing still obscure. Assumes detailed knowledge of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, etc.. That is not me. I did grasp most of his references to scripture, but, even then, took serious effort.Levi explains . . .“Folly’s final panegyric of unlettered Christian piety is the entirely serious if now mature derivative of his boyhood piety. It was only superficially neoplatonist, although permeated with a devotion to the authentic text of Scripture that by 1514 made a virtually public announcement of the forthcoming edition of the New Testament in Greek which Erasmus was to publish in 1516. The Pauline folly seriously praised by Folly at the end of her mock sermon, essentially derived from the spiritual combat as envisaged by à Kempis and Pico, can now be seen to have become the point of Erasmus’s text and the focus of scholastic hostility towards it.’’Erasmus’ new Greek text of the Bible was a dramatic event in Christendom . . .Another insight . . .“The heresy of Pelagius, who had come from Britain to Rome in the late fourth century and had been strongly attacked by Augustine, centred on his aristocratic view that the human will could attain to religious perfection, define its own values and reform society. Pelagius held that man could merit his salvation unaided by grace. The ‘semi-Pelagian’ heresy consisted in holding that man, by his unaided efforts, could at least merit the first gratuitous gift of God which, if accepted, could lead towards the subsequent state of justification in the eyes of God. By extension, it was also semi-Pelagian to hold that man by his own unaided efforts had the power even to accept grace that was offered to him, but this was the conclusion to which Scotus’s emphasis on the will’s freedom seemed naturally destined to lead. Scotus, however, guarded against any such implication of his psychology by affirming God’s ‘absolute’ predestination of the elect, that is without reference to any foreseen merit.’’I have often puzzled why predestination is so . . . so . . . important. This paragraph gives one clue . . .Henry VIII and Erasmus! What!“At the suggestion of Henry VIII and with startling accuracy he picked on the essence of Luther’s spiritual position, the denial of any autonomous power of self-determination in man. Luther’s rebellion against fifteenth-century religion had been less humanistically motivated but more sudden and more radical than that of Erasmus. Above all, he had attacked the Pelagianism of the scholastics and the religious tension which it had bred. For Luther, justification consisted in the non-imputation of guilt. The need for straining to do all that lay within one was thereby removed. Justification had become a clearly gratuitous act of God, and Luther’s concept of faith as trust and confidence in God further removed the need for moral tension. It made it possible for the truly devout to be virtually assured of their salvation.’’No guilt! No free-will! No moral effort! Salvation guaranteed! No wonder Luther popular!A few gems . . .“But wisdom makes men weak and apprehensive, and consequently you’ll generally find the wise associated with poverty, hunger, and the reek of smoke, living neglected, inglorious, and disliked. Fools, on the other hand, are rolling in money and are put in charge of affairs of state; they flourish, in short, in every way. For if a man finds his happiness in pleasing princes and spending his time amongst those gilded and bejewelled godlike creatures, he’ll learn that wisdom is no use at all to him, and is indeed decried above all by people like this.’’Well . . . who can dispute this — five hundred years later?Last paragraph . . .“There’s an old saying, ‘I hate a fellow-drinker with a memory’, and here’s a new one to put alongside it:‘I hate an audience which won’t forget.’And so I’ll say goodbye. Clap your hands, live well, and drink, distinguished initiates of FOLLY.’’

Bottom Line: This review is of the Kindle edition of Erasmus’s In Praise of folly. Mine has a very good intro written by Jean Asta and no additional footnotes or commentary. My opinions aside, Praise of Folly is an important book in Western Civilization. It is worthy of your time on its own merit. The style of the period tends to weigh the humor down and a lack of internal division can make it a difficult read.Unless you come to this book as a student of Western Literature or a related educated background having some context before you begin In Praise of Folly is critical. This is fairly well provided in the Introduction. From small things like; the original Latin title can be read as a playful pun directed at England’s Sir Thomas Moore. The two had become friends while Erasmus was visiting him in England and the book was begun if not entirely written under Moore’s roof. The historic context is that Erasmus was also in close contact with Martin Luther. Much of what Erasmus prints in In Praise of Folly is at the expense of some contemporary Roman Catholic practice. Luther had an expectation that its author would follow him into the Protestant schism. Luther would not take it well when Erasmus chose to remaina Catholic. Indeed he had been a monk and am ordained priest. He lived as a scholar, thinker and writer. He is best known as a central figure in the creation of the Humanist Philosophy.In Praise of Folly is written in the form of a speech given by the Goddess of Folly making her claim of the primacy of Folly in human affairs. Her argument is intentionally faulty and occasionally contradictory but this is all part of the satire. Typical of Folly’s argument is an early one wherein she states that all humans are born in an act of folly. This is a favorite passage of mine, if only because it is early in the book. By the end of the book, about 85 pages, intro included, Folly has touched upon every phase of human life and made some pointed jests some of the extremes and apparent contradictions in religious practice.It is said that humor does not travel well across time. There are parts to this short book that left me smiling. I cannot claim to have understood many references. There is near the end an appeal to a very aesthetics religious outlook even at the expense of what we now call the sciences. Does Folly/Erasmus intend this to be taken literally or sardonically? Annotation and or footnoting would be a major help in addressing that which is obscured by history or requiring additional context.By the end of Folly, I felt as though I had been reading a run on sentence. There are distinct parts built into the flow of Folly’s speech. These could have been sectioned off, if only by skipping a few lines between them. The author may not have them in the original. Either way, the cascade of words with no breaks and the heavy, wordy style of the day made this a less pleasant read than it was intended. The right scholars may be able to read this and savor every joke and twist. For the rest a few explanations would help. These are not the fault of the Erasmus, but a recommendation that a better edition might include this additional help.

The front cover is a distorted Holbein of 'Erasmus', stretched right to left , the back cover has indeed another Holbein engraving ? What is contained with in are poorly produced and in some cases badly reproduced engravings from who knows what source , the alleged artist named at the back ,I presume ? Who should try selling the work under their own name . I wont be buying any .

Exceptionally clever book that sits comfortably with Plato, Montaigne, St Augustine, Marcus Aurelius and Pliny (younger) et al. A must reader for observers of humanity.

Like? Nothing. Utter total boredom. I gave up after 30 pages. It just droned on and on.

Arrived undamaged & on time.

As relevant today as it was 500 years ago when it was written!