PRAISE OF FOLLY, The En wittiest of all Erasmus's writ ings') (Froude), was written at Sir Thomas More's house in Bucklersbury immediately after Erasmus's return from Italy in 1509, but was not published until two years later when Eras mus went to Paris to see it through the press. At least 12 editions followed within the next 10 years; and several English translations quickly appeared, so that Milton in 1628 speaks of it as being ain everyone's hands° at Cam bridge. In a dedicatory letter to More, Eras mus tells us that ethe first hint (of the work) was your own surname of More, which comes as near the literal sound of the word (Maria) as yourself are distant from the signification of it, and that in all men's judgments is vastly wide?) From a subsequent letter to John Botz heim (1523) it appears that Erasmus had in tended at the same time to write three essays in praise of Folly, Nature and Grace, respec tively, but that the carping disposition of cer tain persons made him change his mind. (The Praise of Folly,' which is very entertainingly written and is filled with proverbs, classical allusions and quotations from the poets, scourges the abuses and follies of the various classes of contemporary society, although not by lashing particular persons by name. ((I did not) Erasmus tells us, ((so far imitate Juvenal as to rake into the sink of vices to procure a laughter rather than create a hearty abhor rence.' The entire work is put into the mouth of Folly herself, who, after describing her de scent, education and attendants, proceeds to show that no class of human beings is free i from her influence. In this process, it is shown
tc what extent grammarians and poets, philoso phers and theologians, religions and monks, princes and courtiers, popes, cardinals and bishops and all other classes of men are under Folly's sway. The work is comparatively free from the coarseness of speech prevalent at the time, and men like More said that it needed no defense. It has been charged, however, that it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Church, but this charge is unfounded. unless by the words ((the Church)) one means wicked and unfaithful ministers of the Church.' Among these indeed it produced consternation, although its author did not incur the disfavor of secular princes, many fellow-clerics and even Pope Leo X. Hard as he had struck at the ex isting evils he had said nothing for which the Church courts could openly punish him. When it is remembered that The Praise of Folly' ap peared after the pontificates of such Popes as Alexander VI and Julius II, at a time when simony and similar abuses had made such an inroad into the Church that plans were laid for convening the great reformatory Council of Trent, it is not difficult to imagine that such outspoken works as the one under discussion were needed to speed the day.