July 19, 2024
Thanks to Alissa Simon, HMU Tutor, for today’s post.
Last week, I took a look at some of the uncomfortable humor in Aristophanes’ The Wasps. I wondered why (or how) a play can poke fun at the very group that it also needs to please. How does this type of humor please an audience? It’s pretty widely known that sometimes we like to laugh at ourselves, even though sometimes it may cause discomfort. In fact, laughing at ourselves actually benefits our mental health! But how does the playwright know where the line is and how to stay within the bounds of satire without giving offense? Or, can that even be a concern when writing successful satire?
Erasmus also uses satire and his work Praise of Folly will help us continue analyzing the cause of laughter. In fact, Praise of Folly includes a preface which defends his decision to use satire. Likely, he expected the most fight from the religious community, though in truth, he makes fun of almost everything and everyone. He outlines some of his reasoning in a letter “To His Friend Thomas More” which acts as the preface. In defense of his own actions, Erasmus writes:
“Nothing is so trivial as treating serious subjects in a trivial manner; and similarly, nothing is more entertaining than treating trivialities in such a way as to make it clear you are doing anything but trifle with them. The world will pass its judgement on me, but unless my ‘self-love’ entirely deceives me, my praise of folly has not been altogether foolish.
“Now the charge for biting sarcasm. My answer is that the intelligent have always enjoyed freedom to exercise their wit on the common life of man, and with impunity, provided that they kept their liberty within reasonable limits. This makes me marvel all the more at the sensitivity of present-day ears which can bear to hear practically nothing but honorific titles. Moreover, you can find a good many people whose religious sense is so distorted that they find the most serious blasphemies against Christ more bearable than the slightest joke on pope or prince, especially if it ‘touches their daily bread.’ And to criticize men’s lives without mentioning any names – I ask you, does this look like sarcasm, or rather warning and advice? Again, on how many charges am I not my own self-critic? Furthermore, if every type of man is included, it is clear that all the vices are censured, not any individual. And so anyone who protests that he is injured betrays his own guilty conscience, or at any rate his apprehensions. St. Jerome amused himself in this way with far more freedom and sarcasm, sometimes even mentioning names. I have not only refrained from naming anyone but have also moderated my style so that the sensible reader will easily understand that my intention was to give pleasure, not pain. Nowhere have I stirred up the hidden cesspool of crime as Juvenal did; the ridiculous rather than the squalid was what I set out to survey. Finally, if anyone is still unappeased by all I have said, he should at least remember that there is merit in being attacked by Folly, for when I made her the narrator I had to maintain her character in appropriate style.”
This passage makes it clear that Erasmus identifies himself with some of the same follies he seeks to elucidate. He also clearly states that no human can escape unscathed by folly, hypocrisy, or ridicule. He seems to revel in the jokes that he makes, even the ones about himself. Perhaps he wrote this piece as a form of catharsis.
It’s important to note that Erasmus was an illegitimate child of a priest. The priest paid for his early education, which then required him to become an Augustinian monk, despite Erasmus’ objections. Encyclopedia Britannica offers this biographical detail: “Erasmus was compelled by his guardians to become an Augustinian monk at Steyn and was ordained a priest in 1492. He was a recalcitrant monk and soon escaped the constraints of the monastery by becoming in 1494 the Latin secretary of the bishop of Cambrai. That life, however, was also not to his liking, and, with the bishop’s help, he soon went to the University of Paris to continue his studies, thus embarking upon what was to become the life of a wandering scholar.” So, while Erasmus does poke fun at religious figures, one can surely see that he also pokes fun at himself. His critique comes from an inside view of the life of scholars, philosophers, scientists, theologians, etc. None of these figures escape his sharp tongue.
Next week, we will continue the discussion of Erasmus and his humor. There’s still time to read Erasmus with us. Join our upcoming Quarterly Discussion. Visit the HMU events page for more details, or email in*********@*mu.edu for more information.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/ Alfio Finocchiaro
