In Praise of Folly

it. Which yet they do with so happy an impudence that oftentimes the civilians envy them that

faculty.

For what is it in a manner they may not hope for success in, when this great doctor (I had almost

bolted out his name, but that I once again stand in fear of the Greek proverb) has made a construction

on an expression of Luke, so agreeable to the mind of Christ as are fire and water to one another.

For when the last point of danger was at hand, at which time retainers and dependents are wont in

a more special manner to attend their protectors, to examine what strength they have, and prepare

for the encounter, Christ, intending to take out of his disciples’ minds all trust and confidence in

such like defense, demands of them whether they wanted anything when he sent them forth so

unprovided for a journey that they had neither shoes to defend their feet from the injuries of stones

and briars nor the provision of a scrip to preserve them from hunger. And when they had denied

that they wanted anything, he adds, “But now, he that hath a bag, let him take it, and likewise a

scrip; and he that hath none, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.” And now when the sum of all

that Christ taught pressed only meekness, suffering, and contempt of life, who does not clearly

perceive what he means in this place? to wit, that he might the more disarm his ministers, that

neglecting not only shoes and scrip but throwing away their very coat, they might, being in a manner

naked, the more readily and with less hindrance take in hand the work of the Gospel, and provide

themselves of nothing but a sword, not such as thieves and murderers go up and down with, but

the sword of the spirit that pierces the most inward parts, and so cuts off as it were at one blow all

earthly affections, that they mind nothing but their duty to God. But see, I pray, whither this famous

theologian wrests it. By the sword he interprets defense against persecution, and by the bag sufficient

provision to carry it on. As if Christ having altered his mind, in that he sent out his disciples not so

royally attended as he should have done, repented himself of his former instructions: or as forgetting

that he had said, “Blessed are ye when ye are evil spoken of, despised, and persecuted, etc.,” and

forbade them to resist evil; for that the meek in spirit, not the proud, are blessed: or, lest remembering,

I say, that he had compared them to sparrows and lilies, thereby minding them what small care they

should take for the things of this life, was so far now from having them go forth without a sword

that he commanded them to get one, though with the sale of their coat, and had rather they should

go naked than want a brawling-iron by their sides. And to this, as under the word “sword” he

conceives to be comprehended whatever appertains to the repelling of injuries, so under that of

“scrip” he takes in whatever is necessary to the support of life. And so does this deep interpreter

of the divine meaning bring forth the apostles to preach the doctrine of a crucified Christ, but

furnished at all points with lances, slings, quarterstaffs, and bombards; lading them also with bag

and baggage, lest perhaps it might not be lawful for them to leave their inn unless they were empty

and fasting. Nor does he take the least notice of this, that he so willed the sword to be bought,

reprehends it a little after and commands it to be sheathed; and that it was never heard that the

apostles ever used or swords or bucklers against the Gentiles, though ’tis likely they had done it,

if Christ had ever intended, as this doctor interprets.

There is another, too, whose name out of respect I pass by, a man of no small repute, who from

those tents which Habakkuk mentions, “The tents of the land of Midian shall tremble,” drew this

exposition, that it was prophesied of the skin of Saint Bartholomew who was flayed alive. And

why, forsooth, but because those tents were covered with skins? I was lately myself at a theological

47

Desiderius Erasmus

In Praise of Folly

---

dispute, for I am often there, where when one was demanding what authority there was in Holy

Writ that commands heretics to be convinced by fire rather than reclaimed by argument; a crabbed

old fellow, and one whose supercilious gravity spoke him at least a doctor, answered in a great

fume that Saint Paul had decreed it, who said, “Reject him that is a heretic, after once or twice

admonition.” And when he had sundry times, one after another, thundered out the same thing, and

most men wondered what ailed the man, at last he explained it thus, making two words of one. “A

heretic must be put to death.” Some laughed, and yet there wanted not others to whom this exposition

seemed plainly theological; which, when some, though those very few, opposed, they cut off the

dispute, as we say, with a hatchet, and the credit of so uncontrollable an author. “Pray conceive

me,” said he, “it is written, ’Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ But every heretic bewitches the

people; therefore, etc.” And now, as many as were present admired the man’s wit, and consequently

submitted to his decision of the question. Nor came it into any of their heads that that law concerned

only fortunetellers, enchanters, and magicians, whom the Hebrews call in their tongue

“Mecaschephim,” witches or sorcerers: for otherwise, perhaps, by the same reason it might as well

have extended to fornication and drunkenness.

But I foolishly run on in these matters, though yet there are so many of them that neither Chrysippus,

nor Didymus, volumes are large enough to contain them. I would only desire you to consider this,

that if so great doctors may be allowed this liberty, you may the more reasonably pardon even me

also, a raw, effeminate divine, if I quote not everything so exactly as I should. And so at last I return

to Paul. “Ye willingly,” says he, “suffer my foolishness,” and again, “Take me as a fool,” and

further, “I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly,” and in another place, “We are fools

for Christ’s sake.” You have heard from how great an author how great praises of folly; and to what

other end, but that without doubt he looked upon it as that one thing both necessary and profitable.

“If anyone among ye,” says he, “seem to be wise, let him be a fool that he may be wise.” And in

Luke, Jesus called those two disciples with whom he joined himself upon the way, “fools.” Nor

can I give you any reason why it should seem so strange when Saint Paul imputes a kind of folly

even to God himself. “The foolishness of God,” says he, “is wiser than men.” Though yet I must

confess that Origen upon the place denies that this foolishness may be resembled to the uncertain

judgment of men; of which kind is, that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.”

But why am I so careful to no purpose that I thus run on to prove my matter by so many testimonies?

when in those mystical Psalms Christ speaking to the Father says openly, “Thou knowest my

foolishness.” Nor is it without ground that fools are so acceptable to God. The reason perhaps may

be this, that as princes carry a suspicious eye upon those that are over-wise, and consequently hate

them—as Caesar did Brutus and Cassius, when he feared not in the least drunken Antony; so Nero,

Seneca; and Dionysius, Plato—and on the contrary are delighted in those blunter and unlabored

wits, in like manner Christ ever abhors and condemns those wise men and such as put confidence

in their own wisdom. And this Paul makes clearly out when he said, “God hath chosen the foolish

things of this world,” as well knowing it had been impossible to have reformed it by wisdom. Which

also he sufficiently declares himself, crying out by the mouth of his prophet, “I will destroy the

wisdom of the wise, and cast away the understanding of the prudent.”

48

Desiderius Erasmus

In Praise of Folly

---