This is a modern-English version of The Praise of Folly, originally written by Erasmus, Desiderius.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
DESIDERIUS ERASMUS
DESIDERIUS ERASMUS
THE PRAISE OF FOLLY
Translated by John Wilson
1668
Translated by John Wilson
1668
ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM
to his friend
THOMAS MORE, health:
ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM
to his friend
THOMAS MORE, hope you're doing well:
As I was coming awhile since out of Italy for England, that I might not waste all that time I was to sit on horseback in foolish and illiterate fables, I chose rather one while to revolve with myself something of our common studies, and other while to enjoy the remembrance of my friends, of whom I left here some no less learned than pleasant. Among these you, my More, came first in my mind, whose memory, though absent yourself, gives me such delight in my absence, as when present with you I ever found in your company; than which, let me perish if in all my life I ever met with anything more delectable. And therefore, being satisfied that something was to be done, and that that time was no wise proper for any serious matter, I resolved to make some sport with the praise of folly. But who the devil put that in your head? you'll say. The first thing was your surname of More, which comes so near the word Moriae (folly) as you are far from the thing. And that you are so, all the world will clear you. In the next place, I conceived this exercise of wit would not be least approved by you; inasmuch as you are wont to be delighted with such kind of mirth, that is to say, neither unlearned, if I am not mistaken, nor altogether insipid, and in the whole course of your life have played the part of a Democritus. And though such is the excellence of your judgment that it was ever contrary to that of the people's, yet such is your incredible affability and sweetness of temper that you both can and delight to carry yourself to all men a man of all hours. Wherefore you will not only with good will accept this small declamation, but take upon you the defense of it, for as much as being dedicated to you, it is now no longer mine but yours. But perhaps there will not be wanting some wranglers that may cavil and charge me, partly that these toys are lighter than may become a divine, and partly more biting than may beseem the modesty of a Christian, and consequently exclaim that I resemble the ancient comedy, or another Lucian, and snarl at everything. But I would have them whom the lightness or foolery of the argument may offend to consider that mine is not the first of this kind, but the same thing that has been often practiced even by great authors: when Homer, so many ages since, did the like with the battle of frogs and mice; Virgil, with the gnat and puddings; Ovid, with the nut; when Polycrates and his corrector Isocrates extolled tyranny; Glauco, injustice; Favorinus, deformity and the quartan ague; Synescius, baldness; Lucian, the fly and flattery; when Seneca made such sport with Claudius' canonizations; Plutarch, with his dialogue between Ulysses and Gryllus; Lucian and Apuleius, with the ass; and some other, I know not who, with the hog that made his last will and testament, of which also even St. Jerome makes mention. And therefore if they please, let them suppose I played at tables for my diversion, or if they had rather have it so, that I rode on a hobbyhorse. For what injustice is it that when we allow every course of life its recreation, that study only should have none? Especially when such toys are not without their serious matter, and foolery is so handled that the reader that is not altogether thick-skulled may reap more benefit from it than from some men's crabbish and specious arguments. As when one, with long study and great pains, patches many pieces together on the praise of rhetoric or philosophy; another makes a panegyric to a prince; another encourages him to a war against the Turks; another tells you what will become of the world after himself is dead; and another finds out some new device for the better ordering of goat's wool: for as nothing is more trifling than to treat of serious matters triflingly, so nothing carries a better grace than so to discourse of trifles as a man may seem to have intended them least. For my own part, let other men judge of what I have written; though yet, unless an overweening opinion of myself may have made me blind in my own cause, I have praised folly, but not altogether foolishly. And now to say somewhat to that other cavil, of biting. This liberty was ever permitted to all men's wits, to make their smart, witty reflections on the common errors of mankind, and that too without offense, as long as this liberty does not run into licentiousness; which makes me the more admire the tender ears of the men of this age, that can away with solemn titles. No, you'll meet with some so preposterously religious that they will sooner endure the broadest scoffs even against Christ himself than hear the Pope or a prince be touched in the least, especially if it be anything that concerns their profit; whereas he that so taxes the lives of men, without naming anyone in particular, whither, I pray, may he be said to bite, or rather to teach and admonish? Or otherwise, I beseech you, under how many notions do I tax myself? Besides, he that spares no sort of men cannot be said to be angry with anyone in particular, but the vices of all. And therefore, if there shall happen to be anyone that shall say he is hit, he will but discover either his guilt or fear. Saint Jerome sported in this kind with more freedom and greater sharpness, not sparing sometimes men's very name. But I, besides that I have wholly avoided it, I have so moderated my style that the understanding reader will easily perceive my endeavors herein were rather to make mirth than bite. Nor have I, after the example of Juvenal, raked up that forgotten sink of filth and ribaldry, but laid before you things rather ridiculous than dishonest. And now, if there be anyone that is yet dissatisfied, let him at least remember that it is no dishonor to be discommended by Folly; and having brought her in speaking, it was but fit that I kept up the character of the person. But why do I run over these things to you, a person so excellent an advocate that no man better defends his client, though the cause many times be none of the best? Farewell, my best disputant More, and stoutly defend your Moriae.
As I was recently leaving Italy for England, I thought it would be a waste to spend all that time on a horse reading silly and uneducated stories. Instead, I decided to reflect on our shared studies and enjoy memories of my friends, some of whom are just as knowledgeable as they are enjoyable. Among them, you, my More, were the first to come to my mind. Your memory, even in your absence, brings me such joy that I feel the same happiness in your company as I always did when we were together; nothing in my life has ever been more delightful. So, knowing I needed to do something with my time and that it wasn’t suitable for anything too serious, I decided to have some fun with the theme of folly. But you might ask, who put that idea in my head? The first thing was your last name, More, which sounds so similar to the word Moriae (folly), even though you are far from folly. And the whole world would agree. Next, I figured you would appreciate this playful exercise, as you enjoy humor that’s not entirely uneducated or completely dull, and you have always embodied the spirit of Democritus. Even though your excellent judgment often goes against popular opinion, your incredible friendliness and kind nature allow you to connect with everyone. So, you will not only graciously accept this small piece of writing but also embrace its defense since it is dedicated to you, making it yours rather than mine. However, some critics might argue that this lightheartedness is unworthy of a scholar or too sharp for a Christian's modesty, claiming I resemble ancient comedies or another Lucian, grumbling about everything. But I encourage those offended by the lightness or foolishness of my writing to remember that I’m not the first to take this approach; many esteemed authors have done so before. Homer, ages ago, did something similar with his story of frogs and mice; Virgil wrote about a gnat and puddings; Ovid referenced a nut; Polycrates and his critic Isocrates praised tyranny; Glauco mocked injustice; Favorinus made fun of deformity and the quartan fever; Synesius joked about baldness; Lucian tackled flies and flattery; and Seneca brought humor to Claudius’ canonizations; Plutarch had his dialogue between Ulysses and Gryllus; Lucian and Apuleius wrote about an ass; and there were even others, like St. Jerome, who mentioned the pig that made its will. So, if they like, let them think I’m merely playing games or riding a hobbyhorse for fun. Why is it unjust that, while we allow every other lifestyle its leisure, study alone should be without any? Especially since such light topics can hold serious meanings, and folly can be presented in such a way that even an average reader can gain more insight from it than from others’ dull and convoluted arguments. Just as one person painstakingly pieces together a treatise on rhetoric or philosophy, another composes a tribute to a prince; another advocates for war against the Turks; another predicts the fate of the world after his death; and another finds a new way to handle goat's wool: because nothing is worse than treating serious subjects flippantly, nothing shows more grace than discussing trivial matters casually, making it appear as if you barely intended to. For my part, I’ll let others judge what I’ve written; although, unless I’m overly confident, I’ve praised folly—but not foolishly. Now, to address another concern about being sharp-tongued. This freedom has always been allowed for people to make witty critiques on the common faults of humankind without offense, as long as it doesn’t turn into shamelessness. This makes me wonder at how sensitive people have become nowadays, unable to handle serious discussions. You’ll find some are so ridiculously pious that they would rather endure mockery directed at Christ than allow any criticism of the Pope or a prince, especially if it touches on their interests; but when someone critiques the lives of men without naming anyone specifically, how can that be seen as biting, or rather, isn’t it a way to teach and guide? Or how many ways am I criticizing myself? Besides, one who spares no group of people can't be said to be angry with any particular individual, just with the vices of all. So, if anyone feels targeted, they are merely revealing their guilt or insecurity. Saint Jerome was much bolder and sharper in his critiques, sometimes even naming names. I have avoided that and moderated my tone to ensure that any discerning reader can recognize my intention here is simply to entertain rather than to offend. Additionally, unlike Juvenal, I haven’t dredged up the old muck of obscenities but presented things that are more ridiculous than shameful. And should anyone still be dissatisfied, let them remember that it is not a disgrace to be criticized by Folly; and having brought her into the conversation, I felt it right to maintain her character. But why do I go over these points with you, a person so capable of defending his case that no one does it better, even if the cause isn’t always the strongest? Farewell, my best debater More, and strongly support your Moriae.
From the country,
the 5th of the Ides of June.
From the country,
the 5th of June.
THE PRAISE OF FOLLY
An oration, of feigned matter,
spoken by Folly in her own person
An speech, of pretend content,
delivered by Folly herself
At what rate soever the world talks of me (for I am not ignorant what an ill report Folly has got, even among the most foolish), yet that I am that she, that only she, whose deity recreates both gods and men, even this is a sufficient argument, that I no sooner stepped up to speak to this full assembly than all your faces put on a kind of new and unwonted pleasantness. So suddenly have you cleared your brows, and with so frolic and hearty a laughter given me your applause, that in truth as many of you as I behold on every side of me seem to me no less than Homer's gods drunk with nectar and nepenthe; whereas before, you sat as lumpish and pensive as if you had come from consulting an oracle. And as it usually happens when the sun begins to show his beams, or when after a sharp winter the spring breathes afresh on the earth, all things immediately get a new face, new color, and recover as it were a certain kind of youth again: in like manner, by but beholding me you have in an instant gotten another kind of countenance; and so what the otherwise great rhetoricians with their tedious and long-studied orations can hardly effect, to wit, to remove the trouble of the mind, I have done it at once with my single look.
No matter how people talk about me (I'm aware of the bad reputation that foolishness has, even among the dimmest), the fact remains that I am she, the only one, whose presence brings joy to both gods and humans. This alone is proof that as soon as I stepped up to address this large gathering, all your faces lit up with a new and uncommon happiness. You've cleared your brows so suddenly, and with such lively laughter, you've shown me your approval that it feels like all of you around me resemble Homer’s gods, tipsy from nectar and nepenthe; before that, you were sitting here as dull and thoughtful as if you had just come from an oracle. Just like when the sun starts to shine or when spring warms the earth after a harsh winter, everything gets a fresh look, a new color, and seems to regain a kind of youthful spirit: in the same way, just by looking at me, you've all instantly changed your expressions. What the so-called great speakers struggle to achieve with their lengthy and carefully crafted speeches—lifting your spirits—I’ve accomplished in a moment with just my gaze.
But if you ask me why I appear before you in this strange dress, be pleased to lend me your ears, and I'll tell you; not those ears, I mean, you carry to church, but abroad with you, such as you are wont to prick up to jugglers, fools, and buffoons, and such as our friend Midas once gave to Pan. For I am disposed awhile to play the sophist with you; not of their sort who nowadays boozle young men's heads with certain empty notions and curious trifles, yet teach them nothing but a more than womanish obstinacy of scolding: but I'll imitate those ancients who, that they might the better avoid that infamous appellation of sophi or wise, chose rather to be called sophists. Their business was to celebrate the praises of the gods and valiant men. And the like encomium shall you hear from me, but neither of Hercules nor Solon, but my own dear self, that is to say, Folly. Nor do I esteem a rush that call it a foolish and insolent thing to praise one's self. Be it as foolish as they would make it, so they confess it proper: and what can be more than that Folly be her own trumpet? For who can set me out better than myself, unless perhaps I could be better known to another than to myself? Though yet I think it somewhat more modest than the general practice of our nobles and wise men who, throwing away all shame, hire some flattering orator or lying poet from whose mouth they may hear their praises, that is to say, mere lies; and yet, composing themselves with a seeming modesty, spread out their peacock's plumes and erect their crests, while this impudent flatterer equals a man of nothing to the gods and proposes him as an absolute pattern of all virtue that's wholly a stranger to it, sets out a pitiful jay in other's feathers, washes the blackamoor white, and lastly swells a gnat to an elephant. In short, I will follow that old proverb that says, "He may lawfully praise himself that lives far from neighbors." Though, by the way, I cannot but wonder at the ingratitude, shall I say, or negligence of men who, notwithstanding they honor me in the first place and are willing enough to confess my bounty, yet not one of them for these so many ages has there been who in some thankful oration has set out the praises of Folly; when yet there has not wanted them whose elaborate endeavors have extolled tyrants, agues, flies, baldness, and such other pests of nature, to their own loss of both time and sleep. And now you shall hear from me a plain extemporary speech, but so much the truer. Nor would I have you think it like the rest of orators, made for the ostentation of wit; for these, as you know, when they have been beating their heads some thirty years about an oration and at last perhaps produce somewhat that was never their own, shall yet swear they composed it in three days, and that too for diversion: whereas I ever liked it best to speak whatever came first out.
But if you ask me why I’m standing here in this strange outfit, please lend me your ears, and I'll explain; not those ears you bring to church, but the ones you perk up for jugglers, clowns, and fools, like our friend Midas once did for Pan. I’m in the mood to play the sophist with you; not the kind that nowadays confuses young people with superficial ideas and silly nonsense, teaching them nothing but a foolish stubbornness about arguing: instead, I’ll mimic the ancients who, to avoid the shameful title of sophi or wise, preferred to be called sophists. Their job was to celebrate the praises of the gods and brave men. And you'll hear a similar tribute from me, but not to Hercules or Solon, but to my own dear self, which means Folly. I don’t think it’s foolish or rude to praise oneself. No matter how silly they claim it is, if they admit it’s fitting: and what could be more fitting than that Folly sounds her own trumpet? Who could describe me better than I can myself, unless perhaps I were better known to someone else than to myself? Though I think it’s a bit more modest than the usual behavior of our nobles and wise men who, shamelessly, hire some flattering speaker or lying poet to hear their praises, which are just lies; and while pretending to be modest, they flaunt their peacock feathers and raise their heads high, while this shameless flatterer equates a nobody with the gods and presents him as a perfect model of virtue that he completely lacks, presenting a pathetic jay in borrowed feathers, whitening the blackamoor, and finally bloating a gnat into an elephant. In short, I’ll follow that old saying, “He can rightfully praise himself who lives far from neighbors.” Yet, I can’t help but be surprised by the ingratitude, or shall I say neglect, of people who, even though they honor me first and are quite willing to acknowledge my kindness, not one of them has taken the time over all these years to express thanks and sing the praises of Folly; meanwhile, there have been those whose detailed efforts have praised tyrants, fevers, flies, baldness, and other nuisances of nature, wasting their time and losing sleep. Now you’re about to hear from me a straightforward off-the-cuff speech, but that makes it all the more truthful. And don’t think it’s like the speeches of other orators, crafted to show off wit; because these, as you know, after spending thirty years struggling to write a speech, may finally produce something that was never theirs, yet will swear they wrote it in three days, and that too just for fun: while I’ve always preferred to say whatever comes to mind first.
But let none of you expect from me that after the manner of rhetoricians I should go about to define what I am, much less use any division; for I hold it equally unlucky to circumscribe her whose deity is universal, or make the least division in that worship about which everything is so generally agreed. Or to what purpose, think you, should I describe myself when I am here present before you, and you behold me speaking? For I am, as you see, that true and only giver of wealth whom the Greeks call Moria, the Latins Stultitia, and our plain English Folly. Or what need was there to have said so much, as if my very looks were not sufficient to inform you who I am? Or as if any man, mistaking me for wisdom, could not at first sight convince himself by my face the true index of my mind? I am no counterfeit, nor do I carry one thing in my looks and another in my breast. No, I am in every respect so like myself that neither can they dissemble me who arrogate to themselves the appearance and title of wise men and walk like asses in scarlet hoods, though after all their hypocrisy Midas' ears will discover their master. A most ungrateful generation of men that, when they are wholly given up to my party, are yet publicly ashamed of the name, as taking it for a reproach; for which cause, since in truth they are morotatoi, fools, and yet would appear to the world to be wise men and Thales, we'll even call them morosophous, wise fools.
But don’t expect me to define who I am like a rhetorician would, or to categorize myself; I think it’s just as bad to limit her who's a universal deity, or to make any divisions in a worship that everyone agrees on. What’s the point of describing myself when I’m right here in front of you, and you can see me speaking? Because, as you can see, I’m truly the one who gives wealth, whom the Greeks call Moria, the Latins Stultitia, and we simply call Folly in English. Why say so much, as if my appearance isn't enough to show you who I am? Or as if anyone who confuses me for wisdom wouldn’t be able to tell the real me just by looking at my face? I’m not pretending; I don’t present one thing on the outside and feel another inside. No, I’m exactly who I appear to be, so much so that even those who pretend to be wise and walk around like fools in fancy robes can’t hide their true selves—Midas’ ears will reveal their true nature. It’s a really ungrateful bunch of people who, even when they’re fully on my side, are embarrassed to be associated with my name, thinking it’s an insult. That’s why, since they’re truly morotatoi, fools, but want to appear wise like Thales, let’s just call them morosophous, wise fools.
Nor will it be amiss also to imitate the rhetoricians of our times, who think themselves in a manner gods if like horse leeches they can but appear to be double-tongued, and believe they have done a mighty act if in their Latin orations they can but shuffle in some ends of Greek like mosaic work, though altogether by head and shoulders and less to the purpose. And if they want hard words, they run over some worm-eaten manuscript and pick out half a dozen of the most old and obsolete to confound their reader, believing, no doubt, that they that understand their meaning will like it the better, and they that do not will admire it the more by how much the less they understand it. Nor is this way of ours of admiring what seems most foreign without its particular grace; for if there happen to be any more ambitious than others, they may give their applause with a smile, and, like the ass, shake their ears, that they may be thought to understand more than the rest of their neighbors.
It wouldn’t hurt to also mimic the speakers of our time, who see themselves as almost divine if they can seem to be two-faced, and think they’ve accomplished something significant if, in their Latin speeches, they can sprinkle in a few bits of Greek like a patchwork, even if it’s entirely out of place. And when they need fancy words, they dig through some tattered manuscript and pull out half a dozen of the most outdated and obscure ones to confuse their audience, believing that those who grasp their meaning will appreciate it more, and those who don’t will admire it even more the less they understand it. Our tendency to admire what appears to be the most foreign has its own charm; if some are more ambitious than others, they may applaud with a smile, shaking their ears like a donkey, hoping to be seen as more knowledgeable than their neighbors.
But to come to the purpose: I have given you my name, but what epithet shall I add? What but that of the most foolish? For by what more proper name can so great a goddess as Folly be known to her disciples? And because it is not alike known to all from what stock I am sprung, with the Muses' good leave I'll do my endeavor to satisfy you. But yet neither the first Chaos, Orcus, Saturn, or Japhet, nor any of those threadbare, musty gods were my father, but Plutus, Riches; that only he, that is, in spite of Hesiod, Homer, nay and Jupiter himself, divum pater atque hominum rex, the father of gods and men, at whose single beck, as heretofore, so at present, all things sacred and profane are turned topsy-turvy. According to whose pleasure war, peace, empire, counsels, judgments, assemblies, wedlocks, bargains, leagues, laws, arts, all things light or serious—I want breath—in short, all the public and private business of mankind is governed; without whose help all that herd of gods of the poets' making, and those few of the better sort of the rest, either would not be at all, or if they were, they would be but such as live at home and keep a poor house to themselves. And to whomsoever he's an enemy, 'tis not Pallas herself that can befriend him; as on the contrary he whom he favors may lead Jupiter and his thunder in a string. This is my father and in him I glory. Nor did he produce me from his brain, as Jupiter that sour and ill-looked Pallas; but of that lovely nymph called Youth, the most beautiful and galliard of all the rest. Nor was I, like that limping blacksmith, begot in the sad and irksome bonds of matrimony. Yet, mistake me not, 'twas not that blind and decrepit Plutus in Aristophanes that got me, but such as he was in his full strength and pride of youth; and not that only, but at such a time when he had been well heated with nectar, of which he had, at one of the banquets of the gods, taken a dose extraordinary.
But to get to the point: I’ve shared my name with you, but what title should I add? What else but the most foolish? After all, what better name could such a great goddess as Folly be known by to her followers? And since not everyone knows my origins, with the Muses' permission, I’ll try to satisfy your curiosity. But neither the first Chaos, Orcus, Saturn, nor Japhet, nor any of those tired, old gods were my father; it was Plutus, Wealth. That’s right, him, despite what Hesiod, Homer, and even Jupiter himself, the father of gods and men, have said. At his command, always and now, everything sacred and profane is turned upside down. According to his will, war, peace, empires, advice, judgments, gatherings, marriages, deals, treaties, laws, arts, all things light or serious—I’m running out of breath—in short, all public and private affairs of humanity are under his control; without his help, that crowd of poet-made gods, along with a few of the better ones, would either not exist at all, or if they did, they’d be like those who stay home and live modestly. And whoever he’s against, not even Pallas herself can help them; conversely, anyone he supports might lead Jupiter and his thunder like a pet. This is my father, and I take pride in him. He didn’t create me from his brain, like that grumpy and unpleasant Pallas came from Jupiter; instead, I was born of that lovely nymph called Youth, the most beautiful and lively of them all. And I wasn’t, like that limping blacksmith, born from the sad and burdensome chains of marriage. But don’t get it wrong, it wasn’t that blind and decrepit Plutus in Aristophanes who sired me; it was the strong and youthful version of him, particularly at a time when he had been well warmed up with nectar, of which he partook in a special dose at one of the divine banquets.
And as to the place of my birth, forasmuch as nowadays that is looked upon as a main point of nobility, it was neither, like Apollo's, in the floating Delos, nor Venus-like on the rolling sea, nor in any of blind Homer's as blind caves: but in the Fortunate Islands, where all things grew without plowing or sowing; where neither labor, nor old age, nor disease was ever heard of; and in whose fields neither daffodil, mallows, onions, beans, and such contemptible things would ever grow, but, on the contrary, rue, angelica, bugloss, marjoram, trefoils, roses, violets, lilies, and all the gardens of Adonis invite both your sight and your smelling. And being thus born, I did not begin the world, as other children are wont, with crying; but straight perched up and smiled on my mother. Nor do I envy to the great Jupiter the goat, his nurse, forasmuch as I was suckled by two jolly nymphs, to wit, Drunkenness, the daughter of Bacchus, and Ignorance, of Pan. And as for such my companions and followers as you perceive about me, if you have a mind to know who they are, you are not like to be the wiser for me, unless it be in Greek: this here, which you observe with that proud cast of her eye, is Philautia, Self-love; she with the smiling countenance, that is ever and anon clapping her hands, is Kolakia, Flattery; she that looks as if she were half asleep is Lethe, Oblivion; she that sits leaning on both elbows with her hands clutched together is Misoponia, Laziness; she with the garland on her head, and that smells so strong of perfumes, is Hedone, Pleasure; she with those staring eyes, moving here and there, is Anoia, Madness; she with the smooth skin and full pampered body is Tryphe, Wantonness; and, as to the two gods that you see with them, the one is Komos, Intemperance, the other Negretos hypnos, Dead Sleep. These, I say, are my household servants, and by their faithful counsels I have subjected all things to my dominion and erected an empire over emperors themselves. Thus have you had my lineage, education, and companions.
And as for where I was born, since that's considered a major part of nobility these days, it wasn't, like Apollo's, in the floating Delos, nor Venus’s on the rolling sea, nor in any of blind Homer's dark caves: but in the Fortunate Islands, where everything grows without plowing or sowing; where no one ever hears of work, old age, or sickness; and in whose fields no daffodils, mallows, onions, beans, or any such trivial things ever grow, but rather rue, angelica, bugloss, marjoram, clover, roses, violets, lilies, and all the lovely gardens of Adonis that please both your sight and your sense of smell. And being thus born, I didn’t start the world, as most kids do, with crying; instead, I immediately sat up and smiled at my mother. And I don’t envy the great Jupiter his goat, his nurse, since I was nursed by two cheerful nymphs, Drunkenness, the daughter of Bacchus, and Ignorance, of Pan. As for my companions and followers you see around me, if you want to know who they are, you probably won’t get any wiser from me, unless it’s in Greek: the one you notice with that proud look in her eye is Philautia, Self-love; the one with the smiling face who is always clapping her hands is Kolakia, Flattery; the one who looks like she’s half asleep is Lethe, Oblivion; the one sitting with her elbows on her knees and her hands clasped together is Misoponia, Laziness; the one with the garland on her head, smelling strongly of perfume, is Hedone, Pleasure; the one with those wide eyes, moving all over, is Anoia, Madness; the one with the smooth skin and plump body is Tryphe, Wantonness; and as for the two gods you see with them, one is Komos, Intemperance, and the other Negretos hypnos, Dead Sleep. These, I say, are my household servants, and with their loyal advice, I have dominated everything and built an empire over emperors themselves. So now you’ve learned about my lineage, upbringing, and companions.
And now, lest I may seem to have taken upon me the name of goddess without cause, you shall in the next place understand how far my deity extends, and what advantage by it I have brought both to gods and men. For, if it was not unwisely said by somebody, that this only is to be a god, to help men; and if they are deservedly enrolled among the gods that first brought in corn and wine and such other things as are for the common good of mankind, why am not I of right the alpha, or first, of all the gods? who being but one, yet bestow all things on all men. For first, what is more sweet or more precious than life? And yet from whom can it more properly be said to come than from me? For neither the crab-favoured Pallas' spear nor the cloud-gathering Jupiter's shield either beget or propagate mankind; but even he himself, the father of gods and king of men at whose very beck the heavens shake, must lay by his forked thunder and those looks wherewith he conquered the giants and with which at pleasure he frightens the rest of the gods, and like a common stage player put on a disguise as often as he goes about that, which now and then he does, that is to say the getting of children: And the Stoics too, that conceive themselves next to the gods, yet show me one of them, nay the veriest bigot of the sect, and if he do not put off his beard, the badge of wisdom, though yet it be no more than what is common with him and goats; yet at least he must lay by his supercilious gravity, smooth his forehead, shake off his rigid principles, and for some time commit an act of folly and dotage. In fine, that wise man whoever he be, if he intends to have children, must have recourse to me. But tell me, I beseech you, what man is that would submit his neck to the noose of wedlock, if, as wise men should, he did but first truly weigh the inconvenience of the thing? Or what woman is there would ever go to it did she seriously consider either the peril of child-bearing or the trouble of bringing them up? So then, if you owe your beings to wedlock, you owe that wedlock to this my follower, Madness; and what you owe to me I have already told you. Again, she that has but once tried what it is, would she, do you think, make a second venture if it were not for my other companion, Oblivion? Nay, even Venus herself, notwithstanding whatever Lucretius has said, would not deny but that all her virtue were lame and fruitless without the help of my deity. For out of that little, odd, ridiculous May-game came the supercilious philosophers, in whose room have succeeded a kind of people the world calls monks, cardinals, priests, and the most holy popes. And lastly, all that rabble of the poets' gods, with which heaven is so thwacked and thronged, that though it be of so vast an extent, they are hardly able to crowd one by another.
And now, just in case it seems like I'm claiming to be a goddess for no reason, you should next understand the extent of my power and the benefits I've brought to both gods and humans. If someone wisely said that the only true purpose of a god is to help people, and if those who first introduced crops and wine and other things beneficial to humanity rightly deserve to be called gods, then why shouldn’t I be considered the first of all the gods? I, who am singular yet provide for everyone. First of all, what is sweeter or more precious than life? And who can it be more appropriately said comes from than me? Neither Pallas with her spear nor Jupiter with his thunderbolt can create or nurture mankind; even he, the father of gods and king of men, who can shake the heavens with a word, has to set aside his thunder and fearsome gaze, which he uses to conquer giants and intimidate other gods, and dress up like a regular actor whenever he needs to do the one thing he does from time to time—namely, to father children. Also, the Stoics, who believe themselves closest to the gods, show me one of them, even the strictest adherent to the philosophy, and unless he shaves off his beard, which symbolizes wisdom, though it’s as common as goat hair, he must at least drop his pretentious gravity, smooth his brow, shake off his rigid beliefs, and for a while act foolishly. In short, no matter who that wise man is, if he wants to have children, he must turn to me. But please tell me, what man would willingly submit to the noose of marriage if, like wise men should, he first genuinely considered the drawbacks? Or what woman would ever enter into it if she seriously thought about the risks of childbirth or the challenges of raising kids? So, if you owe your existence to marriage, you owe that marriage to my follower, Madness; and what you owe to me, I have already explained. Furthermore, after trying the experience just once, do you think a woman would take the plunge again if it weren’t for my other companion, Oblivion? Even Venus herself, despite what Lucretius has said, would admit that all her charms would be useless without the support of my divine influence. For out of that little, odd, ridiculous game of May came the arrogant philosophers, who have now been replaced by a group the world calls monks, cardinals, priests, and the most holy popes. Lastly, all those countless gods of poets, with which heaven is so crowded and stuffed that even though it's so vast, they can hardly fit alongside one another.
But I think it is a small matter that you thus owe your beginning of life to me, unless I also show you that whatever benefit you receive in the progress of it is of my gift likewise. For what other is this? Can that be called life where you take away pleasure? Oh! Do you like what I say? I knew none of you could have so little wit, or so much folly, or wisdom rather, as to be of any other opinion. For even the Stoics themselves that so severely cried down pleasure did but handsomely dissemble, and railed against it to the common people to no other end but that having discouraged them from it, they might the more plentifully enjoy it themselves. But tell me, by Jupiter, what part of man's life is that that is not sad, crabbed, unpleasant, insipid, troublesome, unless it be seasoned with pleasure, that is to say, folly? For the proof of which the never sufficiently praised Sophocles in that his happy elegy of us, "To know nothing is the only happiness," might be authority enough, but that I intend to take every particular by itself.
But I think it’s a small thing that you owe your start in life to me, unless I also show you that any benefit you gain along the way is also a gift from me. What else is this? Can you really call it life if you remove pleasure? Oh! Do you agree with what I’m saying? I knew none of you could be so clueless, or maybe foolish, or wise, rather, as to think otherwise. Even the Stoics, who condemned pleasure so harshly, were just pretending and criticized it to the public solely to discourage them, so they could enjoy it more themselves. But tell me, by Jupiter, what part of human life isn’t sad, grumpy, unpleasant, dull, or bothersome unless it’s mixed with pleasure, which means folly? The proof of this, as the endlessly praised Sophocles said in his wonderful elegy about us, "To know nothing is the only happiness," could be enough evidence, but I plan to address each detail on its own.
And first, who knows not but a man's infancy is the merriest part of life to himself, and most acceptable to others? For what is that in them which we kiss, embrace, cherish, nay enemies succor, but this witchcraft of folly, which wise Nature did of purpose give them into the world with them that they might the more pleasantly pass over the toil of education, and as it were flatter the care and diligence of their nurses? And then for youth, which is in such reputation everywhere, how do all men favor it, study to advance it, and lend it their helping hand? And whence, I pray, all this grace? Whence but from me? by whose kindness, as it understands as little as may be, it is also for that reason the higher privileged from exceptions; and I am mistaken if, when it is grown up and by experience and discipline brought to savor something like man, if in the same instant that beauty does not fade, its liveliness decay, its pleasantness grow flat, and its briskness fail. And by how much the further it runs from me, by so much the less it lives, till it comes to the burden of old age, not only hateful to others, but to itself also. Which also were altogether insupportable did not I pity its condition, in being present with it, and, as the poets' gods were wont to assist such as were dying with some pleasant metamorphosis, help their decrepitness as much as in me lies by bringing them back to a second childhood, from whence they are not improperly called twice children. Which, if you ask me how I do it, I shall not be shy in the point. I bring them to our River Lethe (for its springhead rises in the Fortunate Islands, and that other of hell is but a brook in comparison), from which, as soon as they have drunk down a long forgetfulness, they wash away by degrees the perplexity of their minds, and so wax young again.
And first, who doesn’t know that a person’s childhood is the happiest part of life for themselves and the most endearing to others? What is it in children that we kiss, hug, and cherish, even enemies help them, but this enchanting innocence that wise Nature intentionally gives them to make it easier for us to deal with the challenges of raising them, flattering the care and attention of their caregivers? And then for youth, which is so highly regarded everywhere, how does everyone favor it, strive to uplift it, and lend it their support? And where does all this admiration come from? Where but from me? By my kindness, which it understands as little as possible, it is also why it is more privileged from criticism; and I would be wrong if I thought that when youth grows up and, through experience and discipline, starts to resemble adulthood, that at that same moment, its beauty doesn’t fade, its energy decrease, its appeal grow dull, and its liveliness diminish. The further it moves away from me, the less it lives, until it reaches the weight of old age, which becomes not only unpleasant to others but to itself as well. This would be completely unbearable if I didn't feel compassion for its state, being there with it, and, like the gods in poetry often did for those near death with some pleasant transformation, I help ease their frailty as much as I can by bringing them back to a second childhood, hence they are often called twice children. If you ask me how I do this, I’m happy to explain. I bring them to our River Lethe (for its source is in the Fortunate Islands, while that other one from hell is just a stream in comparison), from which, as soon as they drink deeply from, they wash away gradually the confusion of their minds and thus become young again.
But perhaps you'll say they are foolish and doting. Admit it; 'tis the very essence of childhood; as if to be such were not to be a fool, or that that condition had anything pleasant in it, but that it understood nothing. For who would not look upon that child as a prodigy that should have as much wisdom as a man?—according to that common proverb, "I do not like a child that is a man too soon." Or who would endure a converse or friendship with that old man who to so large an experience of things had joined an equal strength of mind and sharpness of judgment? And therefore for this reason it is that old age dotes; and that it does so, it is beholding to me. Yet, notwithstanding, is this dotard exempt from all those cares that distract a wise man; he is not the less pot companion, nor is he sensible of that burden of life which the more manly age finds enough to do to stand upright under it. And sometimes too, like Plautus' old man, he returns to his three letters, A.M.O., the most unhappy of all things living, if he rightly understood what he did in it. And yet, so much do I befriend him that I make him well received of his friends and no unpleasant companion; for as much as, according to Homer, Nestor's discourse was pleasanter than honey, whereas Achilles' was both bitter and malicious; and that of old men, as he has it in another place, florid. In which respect also they have this advantage of children, in that they want the only pleasure of the others' life, we'll suppose it prattling. Add to this that old men are more eagerly delighted with children, and they, again, with old men. "Like to like," quoted the Devil to the collier. For what difference between them, but that the one has more wrinkles and years upon his head than the other? Otherwise, the brightness of their hair, toothless mouth, weakness of body, love of mild, broken speech, chatting, toying, forgetfulness, inadvertency, and briefly, all other their actions agree in everything. And by how much the nearer they approach to this old age, by so much they grow backward into the likeness of children, until like them they pass from life to death, without any weariness of the one, or sense of the other.
But maybe you’ll say they’re silly and sentimental. Admit it; that’s just the essence of childhood; as if being like that weren’t foolish, or that condition didn’t have anything nice about it, except that it understands nothing. For who wouldn’t see a child with as much wisdom as an adult as a wonder?—according to the common saying, “I don’t like a child who grows up too fast.” Or who would want to have a conversation or friendship with an older person who, along with a wealth of experience, also had a sharp mind and keen judgment? This is why old age can be silly; and it’s because of me that it is. Yet, despite that, this old person is free from all the worries that weigh down a wise man; he’s still a great friend, and he doesn’t feel the burdens of life that a more mature person struggles to handle. Sometimes too, like Plautus’ old man, he goes back to his three letters, A.M.O., the most unfortunate of all living beings, if he really understood what it meant. And yet, I help him out by making him well-liked by his friends and not an unpleasant companion; for just as Homer says, Nestor’s words were sweeter than honey, while Achilles’ were both bitter and nasty; and in another part, he describes old men as flowery. For this reason, they have this advantage over children: they miss out on the only joy that life offers, let’s say the silly chatter. Additionally, older men find immense joy in children, and children, in turn, enjoy older men. “Like attracts like,” as the Devil said to the collier. What’s the difference between them, except that one has more wrinkles and years? Otherwise, their white hair, toothless smiles, physical frailty, love for gentle, broken speech, chatting, playing around, forgetfulness, carelessness, and all their other actions are exactly the same. And the closer they get to old age, the more they start to resemble children, until like them, they move from life to death without any weariness of life or awareness of death.
And now, let him that will compare the benefits they receive by me, the metamorphoses of the gods, of whom I shall not mention what they have done in their pettish humors but where they have been most favorable: turning one into a tree, another into a bird, a third into a grasshopper, serpent, or the like. As if there were any difference between perishing and being another thing! But I restore the same man to the best and happiest part of his life. And if men would but refrain from all commerce with wisdom and give up themselves to be governed by me, they should never know what it were to be old, but solace themselves with a perpetual youth. Do but observe our grim philosophers that are perpetually beating their brains on knotty subjects, and for the most part you'll find them grown old before they are scarcely young. And whence is it, but that their continual and restless thoughts insensibly prey upon their spirits and dry up their radical moisture? Whereas, on the contrary, my fat fools are as plump and round as a Westphalian hog, and never sensible of old age, unless perhaps, as sometimes it rarely happens, they come to be infected with wisdom, so hard a thing it is for a man to be happy in all things. And to this purpose is that no small testimony of the proverb, that says, "Folly is the only thing that keeps youth at a stay and old age afar off;" as it is verified in the Brabanders, of whom there goes this common saying, "That age, which is wont to render other men wiser, makes them the greater fools." And yet there is scarce any nation of a more jocund converse, or that is less sensible of the misery of old age, than they are. And to these, as in situation, so for manner of living, come nearest my friends the Hollanders. And why should I not call them mine, since they are so diligent observers of me that they are commonly called by my name?—of which they are so far from being ashamed, they rather pride themselves in it. Let the foolish world then be packing and seek out Medeas, Circes, Venuses, Auroras, and I know not what other fountains of restoring youth. I am sure I am the only person that both can, and have, made it good. 'Tis I alone that have that wonderful juice with which Memnon's daughter prolonged the youth of her grandfather Tithon. I am that Venus by whose favor Phaon became so young again that Sappho fell in love with him. Mine are those herbs, if yet there be any such, mine those charms, and mine that fountain that not only restores departed youth but, which is more desirable, preserves it perpetual. And if you all subscribe to this opinion, that nothing is better than youth or more execrable than age, I conceive you cannot but see how much you are indebted to me, that have retained so great a good and shut out so great an evil.
And now, let anyone who wants to compare the benefits they get from me, the transformations of the gods—without going into their petty moods but focusing on their positive changes: turning one into a tree, another into a bird, another into a grasshopper, snake, or something similar. As if there’s any difference between dying and becoming something else! But I bring the same person back to the best and happiest part of their life. If people would just stay away from all dealings with wisdom and let themselves be guided by me, they would never know what it means to grow old; instead, they'd enjoy a perpetual youth. Just look at our serious philosophers who are constantly racking their brains over complicated issues, and you'll often find they've aged before they’re even really young. Why is that? Because their endless and restless thoughts gradually wear down their spirits and dry up their energy. In contrast, my happy fools are as plump and round as a Westphalian pig and hardly feel the effects of old age, unless, perhaps, on rare occasions, they get infected with wisdom—how tricky it is for someone to be happy in everything. This is confirmed by the saying, "Folly is the only thing that keeps youth around and old age at bay," as shown in the Belgians, for whom there’s a common saying: "That age, which usually makes other men wiser, only makes them bigger fools." And yet, there’s hardly any nation that has a more cheerful spirit or feels the burden of old age less than they do. My friends the Dutch are close to them in both location and lifestyle. And why shouldn't I call them mine, since they're such keen observers of me that they are often called by my name? They are so proud of it, they wouldn't think of being ashamed. Let the foolish world go ahead and search for Medias, Circes, Venuses, Auroras, and whatever other fountains of youth they can find. I know that I am the only true source that can deliver. I am the one who possesses that amazing potion with which Memnon’s daughter kept her grandfather Tithon young. I am that Venus whose favor made Phaon so youthful that Sappho fell in love with him. Those herbs are mine, if they still exist, those charms are mine, and mine is the fountain that not only restores lost youth but, even more importantly, keeps it forever. And if you all agree that nothing is better than youth and nothing worse than old age, you must see how much you owe me for preserving such a great gift and keeping such a great evil at bay.
But why do I altogether spend my breath in speaking of mortals? View heaven round, and let him that will reproach me with my name if he find any one of the gods that were not stinking and contemptible were he not made acceptable by my deity. Why is it that Bacchus is always a stripling, and bushy-haired? but because he is mad, and drunk, and spends his life in drinking, dancing, revels, and May games, not having so much as the least society with Pallas. And lastly, he is so far from desiring to be accounted wise that he delights to be worshiped with sports and gambols; nor is he displeased with the proverb that gave him the surname of fool, "A greater fool than Bacchus;" which name of his was changed to Morychus, for that sitting before the gates of his temple, the wanton country people were wont to bedaub him with new wine and figs. And of scoffs, what not, have not the ancient comedies thrown on him? O foolish god, say they, and worthy to be born as you were of your father's thigh! And yet, who had not rather be your fool and sot, always merry, ever young, and making sport for other people, than either Homer's Jupiter with his crooked counsels, terrible to everyone; or old Pan with his hubbubs; or smutty Vulcan half covered with cinders; or even Pallas herself, so dreadful with her Gorgon's head and spear and a countenance like bullbeef? Why is Cupid always portrayed like a boy, but because he is a very wag and can neither do nor so much as think of anything sober? Why Venus ever in her prime, but because of her affinity with me? Witness that color of her hair, so resembling my father, from whence she is called the golden Venus; and lastly, ever laughing, if you give any credit to the poets, or their followers the statuaries. What deity did the Romans ever more religiously adore than that of Flora, the foundress of all pleasure? Nay, if you should but diligently search the lives of the most sour and morose of the gods out of Homer and the rest of the poets, you would find them all but so many pieces of Folly. And to what purpose should I run over any of the other gods' tricks when you know enough of Jupiter's loose loves? When that chaste Diana shall so far forget her sex as to be ever hunting and ready to perish for Endymion? But I had rather they should hear these things from Momus, from whom heretofore they were wont to have their shares, till in one of their angry humors they tumbled him, together with Ate, goddess of mischief, down headlong to the earth, because his wisdom, forsooth, unseasonably disturbed their happiness. Nor since that dares any mortal give him harbor, though I must confess there wanted little but that he had been received into the courts of princes, had not my companion Flattery reigned in chief there, with whom and the other there is no more correspondence than between lambs and wolves. From whence it is that the gods play the fool with the greater liberty and more content to themselves "doing all things carelessly," as says Father Homer, that is to say, without anyone to correct them. For what ridiculous stuff is there which that stump of the fig tree Priapus does not afford them? What tricks and legerdemains with which Mercury does not cloak his thefts? What buffoonery that Vulcan is not guilty of, while one with his polt-foot, another with his smutched muzzle, another with his impertinencies, he makes sport for the rest of the gods? As also that old Silenus with his country dances, Polyphemus footing time to his Cyclops hammers, the nymphs with their jigs, and satyrs with their antics; while Pan makes them all twitter with some coarse ballad, which yet they had rather hear than the Muses themselves, and chiefly when they are well whittled with nectar. Besides, what should I mention what these gods do when they are half drunk? Now by my troth, so foolish that I myself can hardly refrain laughter. But in these matters 'twere better we remembered Harpocrates, lest some eavesdropping god or other take us whispering that which Momus only has the privilege of speaking at length.
But why do I waste my breath talking about mortals? Look around at heaven, and let anyone who wants to criticize me with my name try to find a god who wouldn’t be seen as disgusting and contemptible if they weren’t made acceptable by my divinity. Why is Bacchus always depicted as a young man with wild hair? Because he’s crazy, drunk, and spends his life partying, dancing, and celebrating without even the slightest association with Pallas. And ultimately, he’s so far from wanting to be considered wise that he enjoys being worshiped through games and chaos; he doesn’t mind the saying that calls him a fool, “A greater fool than Bacchus,” which turned into Morychus, because the playful country people used to smear him with new wine and figs outside his temple. And as for the mockery—what haven’t the old comedies thrown at him? “Oh foolish god,” they say, “worthy of having been born from your father's thigh!” Yet, who wouldn’t prefer to be your fool and drunkard, always happy, forever young, entertaining others, rather than Homer's Jupiter with his twisted schemes, terrifying to everyone; or old Pan with his ruckus; or grim Vulcan, covered in soot; or even Pallas herself, so fearsome with her Gorgon's head and spear and a face that looks like tough beef? Why is Cupid always shown as a boy? Because he’s a real trickster and can’t even think of anything serious. Why is Venus perpetually in her prime? Because of her connection to me. Just look at the color of her hair, so reminiscent of my father, which is why she's called golden Venus; and lastly, she’s always laughing, if you believe the poets or their followers the sculptors. What deity did the Romans ever worship more devoutly than Flora, the founder of all pleasure? In fact, if you search the lives of the most sour and gloomy gods from Homer and other poets, you'd just find them to be ridiculous. And why should I go over any other gods' antics when you already know enough about Jupiter's scandalous affairs? What about chaste Diana forgetting her gender and hunting endlessly, almost perishing for Endymion? But I’d rather they hear these things from Momus, who was once the source of their shares until, during one of their angry moods, they threw him and Ate, the goddess of mischief, down to earth because his wisdom disrupted their happiness. Since then, no mortal dares to give him shelter, although I must admit he was almost welcomed into the courts of princes, had not my companion Flattery dominated there; there’s as much connection between them as between lambs and wolves. This is why the gods act foolishly, enjoying more freedom and contentment, “doing all things carelessly,” as Father Homer says, meaning without anyone correcting them. What ridiculous nonsense does that stump of a fig tree, Priapus, not provide them? What tricks and antics does Mercury not use to hide his thefts? What silliness is Vulcan not responsible for, making a fool of the other gods, one with his clubfoot, another with his dirty face, another with his foolishness? Also, that old Silenus with his country dances, Polyphemus keeping time with his Cyclops hammers, the nymphs dancing jigs, and satyrs with their antics; while Pan makes them all chuckle with some crude song, which they would rather hear than the Muses themselves, especially when they’re well-imbibed with nectar. Besides, why should I even mention what these gods do when they’re half-drunk? Honestly, it’s so silly I can hardly keep from laughing. But in these matters, it’s better to remember Harpocrates, so that no eavesdropping god overhears us saying what only Momus has the right to speak of at length.
And therefore, according to Homer's example, I think it high time to leave the gods to themselves, and look down a little on the earth; wherein likewise you'll find nothing frolic or fortunate that it owes not to me. So provident has that great parent of mankind, Nature, been that there should not be anything without its mixture and, as it were, seasoning of Folly. For since according to the definition of the Stoics, wisdom is nothing else than to be governed by reason, and on the contrary Folly, to be given up to the will of our passions, that the life of man might not be altogether disconsolate and hard to away with, of how much more passion than reason has Jupiter composed us? putting in, as one would say, "scarce half an ounce to a pound." Besides, he has confined reason to a narrow corner of the brain and left all the rest of the body to our passions; has also set up, against this one, two as it were, masterless tyrants—anger, that possesses the region of the heart, and consequently the very fountain of life, the heart itself; and lust, that stretches its empire everywhere. Against which double force how powerful reason is let common experience declare, inasmuch as she, which yet is all she can do, may call out to us till she be hoarse again and tell us the rules of honesty and virtue; while they give up the reins to their governor and make a hideous clamor, till at last being wearied, he suffer himself to be carried whither they please to hurry him.
And so, following Homer's example, I think it's about time to leave the gods to their own devices and take a look at what's happening down here on Earth; where, you'll find nothing fun or fortunate that doesn't somehow relate to me. Nature, that great parent of humanity, has made sure that nothing exists without a touch of folly mixed in. Since, according to the Stoics, wisdom is basically being guided by reason, while folly means being ruled by our passions, it seems like Jupiter has filled us with way more passion than reason—like, almost a pound of passion to every half ounce of reason. Plus, he has crammed reason into a tiny part of our brain and left the rest of our bodies at the mercy of our passions. He has also set up two unruly tyrants against reason—anger, which takes over the heart (the very source of life), and lust, which spreads everywhere. Let common experience show how weak reason is against this double force, as it can only shout out to us until it’s hoarse, reminding us of the rules of honesty and virtue, while our passions take the reins and create a chaotic uproar, ultimately leading reason to give in and let them drag it wherever they want.
But forasmuch as such as are born to the business of the world have some little sprinklings of reason more than the rest, yet that they may the better manage it, even in this as well as in other things, they call me to counsel; and I give them such as is worthy of myself, to wit, that they take to them a wife—a silly thing, God wot, and foolish, yet wanton and pleasant, by which means the roughness of the masculine temper is seasoned and sweetened by her folly. For in that Plato seems to doubt under what genus he should put woman, to wit, that of rational creatures or brutes, he intended no other in it than to show the apparent folly of the sex. For if perhaps any of them goes about to be thought wiser than the rest, what else does she do but play the fool twice, as if a man should "teach a cow to dance," "a thing quite against the hair." For as it doubles the crime if anyone should put a disguise upon Nature, or endeavor to bring her to that she will in no wise bear, according to that proverb of the Greeks, "An ape is an ape, though clad in scarlet;" so a woman is a woman still, that is to say foolish, let her put on whatever vizard she please.
But since those born to the tasks of the world have a bit more reasoning than others, they often seek my advice to manage things better; and I offer them guidance that reflects my own worth, namely, that they should marry a wife—a simple, foolish thing, but also lively and enjoyable, which softens and sweetens the harshness of a man's nature with her silliness. When Plato seemed unsure about whether to classify women as rational beings or animals, he meant to highlight the obvious foolishness of the gender. If any woman tries to appear wiser than others, she’s just acting foolishly on two counts, much like if a man tried to "teach a cow to dance," which is utterly ridiculous. Just as it compounds the offense for anyone to disguise Nature or force her into something she cannot accept, as the Greek proverb says, "An ape is an ape, though clad in scarlet;" a woman remains a woman, meaning foolish, no matter what mask she puts on.
But, by the way, I hope that sex is not so foolish as to take offense at this, that I myself, being a woman, and Folly too, have attributed folly to them. For if they weigh it right, they needs must acknowledge that they owe it to folly that they are more fortunate than men. As first their beauty, which, and that not without cause, they prefer before everything, since by its means they exercise a tyranny even upon tyrants themselves; otherwise, whence proceeds that sour look, rough skin, bushy beard, and such other things as speak plain old age in a man, but from that disease of wisdom? Whereas women's cheeks are ever plump and smooth, their voice small, their skin soft, as if they imitated a certain kind of perpetual youth. Again, what greater thing do they wish in their whole lives than that they may please the man? For to what other purpose are all those dresses, washes, baths, slops, perfumes, and those several little tricks of setting their faces, painting their eyebrows, and smoothing their skins? And now tell me, what higher letters of recommendation have they to men than this folly? For what is it they do not permit them to do? And to what other purpose than that of pleasure? Wherein yet their folly is not the least thing that pleases; which so true it is, I think no one will deny, that does but consider with himself, what foolish discourse and odd gambols pass between a man and his woman, as often as he had a mind to be gamesome? And so I have shown you whence the first and chiefest delight of man's life springs.
But by the way, I hope that sex isn’t so foolish as to take offense at this, since I, being a woman and Folly too, have attributed folly to them. If they think about it objectively, they have to recognize that they owe their good fortune to folly, which makes them luckier than men. First, there's their beauty, which they, not without reason, value above everything, since it gives them power even over tyrants; otherwise, where do those sour expressions, rough skin, bushy beards, and other signs of old age in men come from, if not from that affliction called wisdom? Meanwhile, women’s cheeks are always plump and smooth, their voices soft, and their skin tender, as if they embody a kind of eternal youth. Moreover, what greater thing do they desire in their entire lives than to please men? For what else are all those outfits, beauty products, baths, scents, and various tricks for painting their faces, shaping their eyebrows, and smoothing their skin? Now tell me, what better recommendation do they have with men than this folly? What don’t they allow men to do? And for what other purpose than to seek pleasure? In fact, their folly is one of the least problematic things that brings pleasure; so true is this that I think no one will deny it, if they just consider for themselves the silly conversations and strange antics that happen between a man and a woman whenever he wants to have fun. And so, I have shown you where the primary and greatest joy of a man's life comes from.
But there are some, you'll say, and those too none of the youngest, that have a greater kindness for the pot than the petticoat and place their chiefest pleasure in good fellowship. If there can be any great entertainment without a woman at it, let others look to it. This I am sure, there was never any pleasant which folly gave not the relish to. Insomuch that if they find no occasion of laughter, they send for "one that may make it," or hire some buffoon flatterer, whose ridiculous discourse may put by the gravity of the company. For to what purpose were it to clog our stomachs with dainties, junkets, and the like stuff, unless our eyes and ears, nay whole mind, were likewise entertained with jests, merriments, and laughter? But of these kind of second courses I am the only cook; though yet those ordinary practices of our feasts, as choosing a king, throwing dice, drinking healths, trolling it round, dancing the cushion, and the like, were not invented by the seven wise men but myself, and that too for the common pleasure of mankind. The nature of all which things is such that the more of folly they have, the more they conduce to human life, which, if it were unpleasant, did not deserve the name of life; and other than such it could not well be, did not these kind of diversions wipe away tediousness, next cousin to the other.
But you'll say there are some people, and not just the youngest ones, who care more about having a good time than about romance, finding their main joy in good company. If you can have a great gathering without a woman, good luck to you. I'm sure there’s never been a good time that didn’t have a touch of silliness to make it enjoyable. If they can’t find anything to laugh about, they’ll call in someone to make them laugh or hire a goofy entertainer whose ridiculous stories can lighten the mood. Why would we fill our stomachs with fancy dishes and treats if our eyes, ears, and even our minds aren’t entertained with jokes, fun, and laughter? As for these kinds of entertainment, I’m the one who creates them; though the usual party activities like choosing a king, rolling dice, toasting, passing drinks around, and dancing weren’t invented by the seven wise men but by me, all for the enjoyment of everyone. The nature of all these things is such that the more silliness they have, the better they are for our lives; because if life were dull, it wouldn’t really be worth living. It can’t be much different if these distractions didn’t chase away boredom, which is closely related to everything else.
But perhaps there are some that neglect this way of pleasure and rest satisfied in the enjoyment of their friends, calling friendship the most desirable of all things, more necessary than either air, fire, or water; so delectable that he that shall take it out of the world had as good put out the sun; and, lastly, so commendable, if yet that make anything to the matter, that neither the philosophers themselves doubted to reckon it among their chiefest good. But what if I show you that I am both the beginning and end of this so great good also? Nor shall I go about to prove it by fallacies, sorites, dilemmas, or other the like subtleties of logicians, but after my blunt way point out the thing as clearly as it were with my finger.
But maybe there are some who overlook this source of pleasure and are satisfied with enjoying their friendships, calling friendship the most desirable thing of all, even more essential than air, fire, or water; so delightful that someone who tries to remove it from the world might as well extinguish the sun; and, finally, so admirable, if that even matters, that even philosophers didn’t hesitate to include it among their greatest goods. But what if I show you that I am both the start and the end of this immense good as well? I won’t try to prove it with fallacies, sorites, dilemmas, or any of those tricky logician tactics, but instead, I will straightforwardly point out the truth as clearly as if I were using my finger.
And now tell me if to wink, slip over, be blind at, or deceived in the vices of our friends, nay, to admire and esteem them for virtues, be not at least the next degree to folly? What is it when one kisses his mistress' freckle neck, another the wart on her nose? When a father shall swear his squint-eyed child is more lovely than Venus? What is this, I say, but mere folly? And so, perhaps you'll cry it is; and yet 'tis this only that joins friends together and continues them so joined. I speak of ordinary men, of whom none are born without their imperfections, and happy is he that is pressed with the least: for among wise princes there is either no friendship at all, or if there be, 'tis unpleasant and reserved, and that too but among a very few 'twere a crime to say none. For that the greatest part of mankind are fools, nay there is not anyone that dotes not in many things; and friendship, you know, is seldom made but among equals. And yet if it should so happen that there were a mutual good will between them, it is in no wise firm nor very long lived; that is to say, among such as are morose and more circumspect than needs, as being eagle-sighted into his friends' faults, but so blear-eyed to their own that they take not the least notice of the wallet that hangs behind their own shoulders. Since then the nature of man is such that there is scarce anyone to be found that is not subject to many errors, add to this the great diversity of minds and studies, so many slips, oversights, and chances of human life, and how is it possible there should be any true friendship between those Argus, so much as one hour, were it not for that which the Greeks excellently call euetheian? And you may render by folly or good nature, choose you whether. But what? Is not the author and parent of all our love, Cupid, as blind as a beetle? And as with him all colors agree, so from him is it that everyone likes his own sweeter-kin best, though never so ugly, and "that an old man dotes on his old wife, and a boy on his girl." These things are not only done everywhere but laughed at too; yet as ridiculous as they are, they make society pleasant, and, as it were, glue it together.
And now tell me, isn't it at least a bit foolish to ignore, overlook, or be blind to the flaws of our friends, or even to admire and respect them for their good qualities? What does it mean when someone kisses the freckled neck of his girlfriend, and another kisses the wart on her nose? When a father claims his cross-eyed child is more beautiful than Venus? Isn’t this just pure folly? You might say it is, and yet, this is what brings friends together and keeps them connected. I'm talking about ordinary people, none of whom are born without flaws, and lucky is the one who has the fewest. Among wise leaders, there is either no friendship at all, or if there is, it’s awkward and reserved, and really only among a very few, though it would be wrong to say there are none. Most people are foolish; in fact, there's hardly anyone who isn’t foolish in some way. And friendship, as you know, is rarely formed among those who aren't equals. Yet if it so happens that there’s a mutual goodwill, it’s not stable or long-lasting; especially among those who are grumpy and overly cautious, acting like hawks spotting their friends' faults but are so blind to their own that they don’t notice the burden hanging on their own backs. Since the nature of humanity is such that it's rare to find anyone who isn’t prone to numerous mistakes, and considering the vast differences of minds and interests, the countless slips, oversights, and random events in life, how is it even possible for true friendship to exist between such eagle-eyed individuals, even for just an hour, if not due to what the Greeks wisely call euetheian? You might translate it as folly or good nature—your choice. But think about it: isn’t Cupid, the source of all our love, as blind as a beetle? Just as all colors blend together for him, it’s from him that everyone tends to love their own kind best, no matter how unattractive, and "that an old man dotes on his old wife, and a young guy on his girlfriend." These incidents happen everywhere and are even laughed at; yet, as ridiculous as they are, they make society enjoyable and, in a way, hold it all together.
And what has been said of friendship may more reasonably be presumed of matrimony, which in truth is no other than an inseparable conjunction of life. Good God! What divorces, or what not worse than that, would daily happen were not the converse between a man and his wife supported and cherished by flattery, apishness, gentleness, ignorance, dissembling, certain retainers of mine also! Whoop holiday! how few marriages should we have, if the husband should but thoroughly examine how many tricks his pretty little mop of modesty has played before she was married! And how fewer of them would hold together, did not most of the wife's actions escape the husband's knowledge through his neglect or sottishness! And for this also you are beholden to me, by whose means it is that the husband is pleasant to his wife, the wife to her husband, and the house kept in quiet. A man is laughed at, when seeing his wife weeping he licks up her tears. But how much happier is it to be thus deceived than by being troubled with jealousy not only to torment himself but set all things in a hubbub!
And what has been said about friendship can be even more reasonably applied to marriage, which is really just a deep connection of life. Good grief! What divorces, or worse, would happen every day if the interactions between a man and his wife weren't supported and nurtured by flattery, playfulness, kindness, ignorance, and deception, my certain accomplices as well! Hooray! How few marriages would exist if a husband really paid attention to all the tricks his sweet little wife pulled before they got married! And how many fewer would last if the husband didn't stay oblivious to most of his wife's actions because of his carelessness or foolishness! And for this, you owe me, as I help ensure that the husband is kind to his wife, the wife to her husband, and the home stays peaceful. People laugh at a man who, when he sees his wife crying, wipes away her tears. But how much better is it to be blissfully deceived than to be consumed by jealousy, which not only torments him but causes chaos everywhere!
In fine, I am so necessary to the making of all society and manner of life both delightful and lasting, that neither would the people long endure their governors, nor the servant his master, nor the master his footman, nor the scholar his tutor, nor one friend another, nor the wife her husband, nor the usurer the borrower, nor a soldier his commander, nor one companion another, unless all of them had their interchangeable failings, one while flattering, other while prudently conniving, and generally sweetening one another with some small relish of folly.
In short, I’m so essential to creating a society and a way of life that’s both enjoyable and lasting that people wouldn’t tolerate their leaders for long, nor would a servant put up with his master, nor the master with his footman, nor a student with his tutor, nor one friend with another, nor a wife with her husband, nor a lender with the borrower, nor a soldier with his commander, nor one companion with another, unless each of them had their own flaws—sometimes flattering one another, sometimes turning a blind eye, and generally sweetening their interactions with a touch of foolishness.
And now you'd think I had said all, but you shall hear yet greater things. Will he, I pray, love anyone that hates himself? Or ever agree with another who is not at peace with himself? Or beget pleasure in another that is troublesome to himself? I think no one will say it that is not more foolish than Folly. And yet, if you should exclude me, there's no man but would be so far from enduring another that he would stink in his own nostrils, be nauseated with his own actions, and himself become odious to himself; forasmuch as Nature, in too many things rather a stepdame than a parent to us, has imprinted that evil in men, especially such as have least judgment, that everyone repents him of his own condition and admires that of others. Whence it comes to pass that all her gifts, elegancy, and graces corrupt and perish. For what benefit is beauty, the greatest blessing of heaven, if it be mixed with affectation? What youth, if corrupted with the severity of old age? Lastly, what is that in the whole business of a man's life he can do with any grace to himself or others—for it is not so much a thing of art, as the very life of every action, that it be done with a good mien—unless this my friend and companion, Self-love, be present with it? Nor does she without cause supply me the place of a sister, since her whole endeavors are to act my part everywhere. For what is more foolish than for a man to study nothing else than how to please himself? To make himself the object of his own admiration? And yet, what is there that is either delightful or taking, nay rather what not the contrary, that a man does against the hair? Take away this salt of life, and the orator may even sit still with his action, the musician with all his division will be able to please no man, the player be hissed off the stage, the poet and all his Muses ridiculous, the painter with his art contemptible, and the physician with all his slip-slops go a-begging. Lastly, you will be taken for an ugly fellow instead of youthful, and a beast instead of a wise man, a child instead of eloquent, and instead of a well-bred man, a clown. So necessary a thing it is that everyone flatter himself and commend himself to himself before he can be commended by others.
And now you might think I've said it all, but there's even more to come. Will someone who hates themselves truly love anyone? Or can a person who isn’t at peace with themselves really connect with someone else? Can someone find joy in another while feeling troubled within themselves? I doubt anyone would claim that unless they were more foolish than folly itself. Yet, if you were to exclude me, no one would tolerate another person to the point of feeling disgusted with themselves, sickened by their own behavior, and becoming repulsive to their own eyes; because Nature, in many respects more like a stepmother than a true mother, has ingrained this flaw in us, especially in those who are least wise, leading everyone to regret their own situation and admire others'. As a result, all her gifts, elegance, and graces decay and fade away. What good is beauty, the greatest blessing from above, if it’s overshadowed by pretentiousness? What youth can thrive when tainted by the harshness of old age? Ultimately, what can a person do in life that is graceful for themselves or others—because it’s not just about skill, but it’s essential for every action to be done with poise—unless my friend and partner, Self-love, is there? And there’s a reason she takes the place of a sister, as her whole purpose is to play my role everywhere. What could be more foolish than for someone to focus only on pleasing themselves? To make themselves their own idol? Yet, what is truly delightful or appealing, or rather what isn’t the opposite, about anything a person does against their nature? Remove this essential element of life, and the orator might as well be silent, the musician won’t please anyone with his craft, the actor will be booed off stage, the poet and all his muses will look silly, the artist will be ridiculed, and the doctor will be begging for work. In the end, you’ll be seen as ugly instead of youthful, a fool instead of wise, childish instead of eloquent, and a ruffian instead of refined. It’s crucial that everyone flatters and praises themselves before they can be appreciated by others.
Lastly, since it is the chief point of happiness "that a man is willing to be what he is," you have further abridged in this my Self-love, that no man is ashamed of his own face, no man of his own wit, no man of his own parentage, no man of his own house, no man of his manner of living, nor any man of his own country; so that a Highlander has no desire to change with an Italian, a Thracian with an Athenian, nor a Scythian for the Fortunate Islands. O the singular care of Nature, that in so great a variety of things has made all equal! Where she has been sometimes sparing of her gifts she has recompensed it with the more of self-love; though here, I must confess, I speak foolishly, it being the greatest of all other her gifts: to say nothing that no great action was ever attempted without my motion, or art brought to perfection without my help.
Lastly, since the main point of happiness is "that a person is willing to be who they are," you have further shortened in this my Self-love, that no one is ashamed of their own appearance, no one of their own intelligence, no one of their own background, no one of their own home, none of their own way of life, nor anyone of their own country; so that a Highlander doesn't want to switch places with an Italian, a Thracian with an Athenian, or a Scythian for the Fortunate Islands. Oh, the unique care of Nature, that in such a wide variety of things has made all equal! Where she has sometimes held back her gifts, she has compensated for it with more self-love; though here, I must admit, I speak foolishly, it being the greatest of all her gifts: not to mention that no great action was ever attempted without my encouragement, or art brought to perfection without my assistance.
Is not war the very root and matter of all famed enterprises? And yet what more foolish than to undertake it for I know what trifles, especially when both parties are sure to lose more than they get by the bargain? For of those that are slain, not a word of them; and for the rest, when both sides are close engaged "and the trumpets make an ugly noise," what use of those wise men, I pray, that are so exhausted with study that their thin, cold blood has scarce any spirits left? No, it must be those blunt, fat fellows, that by how much the more they exceed in courage, fall short in understanding. Unless perhaps one had rather choose Demosthenes for a soldier, who, following the example of Archilochius, threw away his arms and betook him to his heels e'er he had scarce seen his enemy; as ill a soldier, as happy an orator.
Isn't war the very foundation of all great enterprises? And yet, how foolish is it to engage in it over trivial matters, especially when both sides are bound to lose more than they gain from the deal? As for those who lose their lives, no one talks about them; and for the others, when both sides are locked in battle and "the trumpets make an ugly noise," what good are those wise men who are so drained from study that their thin, cold blood hardly has any energy left? No, it’s really the thick, heavy guys who, even though they might be braver, lack understanding. Unless, of course, you’d prefer Demosthenes as a soldier, who, like Archilochus, threw away his weapons and ran away before he even saw the enemy; a terrible soldier, but a great orator.
But counsel, you'll say, is not of least concern in matters of war. In a general I grant it; but this thing of warring is not part of philosophy, but managed by parasites, panders, thieves, cut-throats, plowmen, sots, spendthrifts, and such other dregs of mankind, not philosophers; who how unapt they are even for common converse, let Socrates, whom the oracle of Apollo, though not so wisely, judged "the wisest of all men living," be witness; who stepping up to speak somewhat, I know not what, in public was forced to come down again well laughed at for his pains. Though yet in this he was not altogether a fool, that he refused the appellation of wise, and returning it back to the oracle, delivered his opinion that a wise man should abstain from meddling with public business; unless perhaps he should have rather admonished us to beware of wisdom if we intended to be reckoned among the number of men, there being nothing but his wisdom that first accused and afterwards sentenced him to the drinking of his poisoned cup. For while, as you find him in Aristophanes, philosophizing about clouds and ideas, measuring how far a flea could leap, and admiring that so small a creature as a fly should make so great a buzz, he meddled not with anything that concerned common life. But his master being in danger of his head, his scholar Plato is at hand, to wit that famous patron, that being disturbed with the noise of the people, could not go through half his first sentence. What should I speak of Theophrastus, who being about to make an oration, became as dumb as if he had met a wolf in his way, which yet would have put courage in a man of war? Or Isocrates, that was so cowhearted that he dared never attempt it? Or Tully, that great founder of the Roman eloquence, that could never begin to speak without an odd kind of trembling, like a boy that had got the hiccough; which Fabius interprets as an argument of a wise orator and one that was sensible of what he was doing; and while he says it, does he not plainly confess that wisdom is a great obstacle to the true management of business? What would become of them, think you, were they to fight it out at blows that are so dead through fear when the contest is only with empty words?
But you might say that advice isn’t unimportant in matters of war. I agree it can be, but war itself isn’t a philosophical pursuit; it’s run by parasites, con men, thieves, killers, farmers, drunks, spendthrifts, and other low-lifes—not philosophers. Just look at Socrates, who the oracle of Apollo, though mistakenly, called "the wisest of all men." When he tried to speak publicly, he ended up being laughed at for his efforts. Still, he wasn’t entirely foolish; he rejected the title of wise and told the oracle that wise people should stay away from public affairs. Perhaps he should have instead warned us to avoid wisdom if we wanted to be considered among the ordinary people, as it was his wisdom that led him to be accused and ultimately sentenced to drink poison. While Aristophanes portrays him philosophizing about clouds and ideas, pondering how far a flea can jump and marveling at how a tiny fly can create such a big buzz, he stayed clear of everyday concerns. Meanwhile, when his master faced danger, his student Plato, the renowned supporter, was so disturbed by the crowd that he couldn’t even get through half of his first sentence. What about Theophrastus, who, when about to give a speech, froze up like he’d encountered a wolf, which would have terrified even a warrior? Or Isocrates, who was so timid he never attempted to speak in public? Or Cicero, the great founder of Roman eloquence, who always trembled awkwardly before speaking, like a boy with the hiccups? Fabius suggests this as a sign of a wise orator who understands what he’s doing; by saying that, isn’t he admitting that wisdom can be a major hindrance in effectively handling matters? What do you think would happen to them in a physical fight if they’re paralyzed by fear over just exchanging words?
And next to these is cried up, forsooth, that goodly sentence of Plato's, "Happy is that commonwealth where a philosopher is prince, or whose prince is addicted to philosophy." When yet if you consult historians, you'll find no princes more pestilent to the commonwealth than where the empire has fallen to some smatterer in philosophy or one given to letters. To the truth of which I think the Catoes give sufficient credit; of whom the one was ever disturbing the peace of the commonwealth with his hair-brained accusations; the other, while he too wisely vindicated its liberty, quite overthrew it. Add to this the Bruti, Casii, nay Cicero himself, that was no less pernicious to the commonwealth of Rome than was Demosthenes to that of Athens. Besides M. Antoninus (that I may give you one instance that there was once one good emperor; for with much ado I can make it out) was become burdensome and hated of his subjects upon no other score but that he was so great a philosopher. But admitting him good, he did the commonwealth more hurt in leaving behind him such a son as he did than ever he did it good by his own government. For these kind of men that are so given up to the study of wisdom are generally most unfortunate, but chiefly in their children; Nature, it seems, so providently ordering it, lest this mischief of wisdom should spread further among mankind. For which reason it is manifest why Cicero's son was so degenerate, and that wise Socrates' children, as one has well observed, were more like their mother than their father, that is to say, fools.
And next to these, people often quote Plato's saying, "Happy is the state where a philosopher is king, or whose king loves philosophy." However, if you look at historians, you’ll find that no rulers have been more harmful to the state than those who came to power through a shallow understanding of philosophy or a fascination with literature. The Cato brothers are a clear example; one constantly disrupted the peace of the state with his wild accusations, while the other, despite his well-meaning defense of liberty, ended up destroying it. Consider the Brutus clan, the Cassius family, and even Cicero himself, who was just as damaging to the Roman state as Demosthenes was to Athens. Even Marcus Antoninus (and I mention him as an example of one good emperor; I can barely prove that) became burdensome and hated by his people solely because he was such a committed philosopher. Even if we accept that he was good, he harmed the state more by leaving behind a son like his than he did good through his own reign. Generally, those who are devoted to the pursuit of wisdom tend to be extremely unlucky, especially when it comes to their children; Nature seems to have arranged this to prevent the spread of the pitfalls of wisdom among humanity. That’s why Cicero’s son turned out so poorly, and as it has been noted, Socrates' children resembled their mother more than their father, meaning they were fools.
However this were to be born with, if only as to public employments they were "like a sow upon a pair of organs," were they anything more apt to discharge even the common offices of life. Invite a wise man to a feast and he'll spoil the company, either with morose silence or troublesome disputes. Take him out to dance, and you'll swear "a cow would have done it better." Bring him to the theatre, and his very looks are enough to spoil all, till like Cato he take an occasion of withdrawing rather than put off his supercilious gravity. Let him fall into discourse, and he shall make more sudden stops than if he had a wolf before him. Let him buy, or sell, or in short go about any of those things without there is no living in this world, and you'll say this piece of wisdom were rather a stock than a man, of so little use is he to himself, country, or friends; and all because he is wholly ignorant of common things and lives a course of life quite different from the people; by which means it is impossible but that he contract a popular odium, to wit, by reason of the great diversity of their life and souls. For what is there at all done among men that is not full of folly, and that too from fools and to fools? Against which universal practice if any single one shall dare to set up his throat, my advice to him is, that following the example of Timon, he retire into some desert and there enjoy his wisdom to himself.
However this were to be accepted, if only in public roles they were "like a pig on a piano," were they any more capable of handling even the basic tasks of life. Invite a wise person to a party and they'll ruin the vibe, either with gloomy silence or annoying arguments. Take them out dancing, and you’d think "a cow would do it better." Bring them to the theater, and their expression alone could ruin everything, until, like Cato, they decide to step out rather than lose their haughty demeanor. Let them engage in conversation, and they’ll stop more abruptly than if a wolf were in front of them. Let them buy, sell, or do any of those vital tasks, and you’d say this person was more like a statue than a human, given how little they contribute to themselves, their country, or their friends; all because they are completely clueless about everyday matters and lead a life that’s completely different from everyone else. This inevitably earns them public scorn, due to the vast difference in their way of living and thinking. For what is done among people that isn’t filled with foolishness, done by fools and for fools? If anyone dares to challenge this widespread behavior, my advice is to follow Timon's example and head into the wilderness to keep their wisdom to themselves.
But, to return to my design, what power was it that drew those stony, oaken, and wild people into cities but flattery? For nothing else is signified by Amphion and Orpheus' harp. What was it that, when the common people of Rome were like to have destroyed all by their mutiny, reduced them to obedience? Was it a philosophical oration? Least. But a ridiculous and childish fable of the belly and the rest of the members. And as good success had Themistocles in his of the fox and hedgehog. What wise man's oration could ever have done so much with the people as Sertorius' invention of his white hind? Or his ridiculous emblem of pulling off a horse's tail hair by hair? Or as Lycurgus his example of his two whelps? To say nothing of Minos and Numa, both which ruled their foolish multitudes with fabulous inventions; with which kind of toys that great and powerful beast, the people, are led anyway. Again what city ever received Plato's or Aristotle's laws, or Socrates' precepts? But, on the contrary, what made the Decii devote themselves to the infernal gods, or Q. Curtius to leap into the gulf, but an empty vainglory, a most bewitching siren? And yet 'tis strange it should be so condemned by those wise philosophers. For what is more foolish, say they, than for a suppliant suitor to flatter the people, to buy their favor with gifts, to court the applauses of so many fools, to please himself with their acclamations, to be carried on the people's shoulders as in triumph, and have a brazen statue in the marketplace? Add to this the adoption of names and surnames, those divine honors given to a man of no reputation, and the deification of the most wicked tyrants with public ceremonies; most foolish things, and such as one Democritus is too little to laugh at. Who denies it? And yet from this root sprang all the great acts of the heroes which the pens of so many eloquent men have extolled to the skies. In a word, this folly is that that laid the foundation of cities; and by it, empire, authority, religion, policy, and public actions are preserved; neither is there anything in human life that is not a kind of pastime of folly.
But to get back to my point, what force brought those tough, stubborn, and wild people into cities if not flattery? That’s what Amphion and Orpheus’ harp represent. What calmed the crowd in Rome when they were about to destroy everything with their riots? Was it a philosophical speech? Definitely not. It was just a silly and childish tale about the belly and other body parts. Just like Themistocles had success with his story of the fox and the hedgehog. What wise person's speech ever made as much impact on the people as Sertorius' clever trick with his white hind? Or his absurd idea of pulling out a horse’s tail hair by hair? Or Lycurgus's example of his two whelps? Not to mention Minos and Numa, both of whom ruled their foolish masses with fanciful stories; with these kinds of distractions, that great and powerful creature, the people, are easily led. Again, what city ever accepted the laws of Plato or Aristotle, or Socrates' teachings? But, on the other hand, what made the Decii dedicate themselves to the underworld gods, or Q. Curtius jump into the abyss, if not empty pride, a truly mesmerizing siren song? And yet it’s strange that wise philosophers condemn this. They ask, what’s more foolish than a needy suitor flattering the people, buying their favor with gifts, seeking the cheers of so many fools, basking in their applause, being carried on the people's shoulders like in a parade, and having a bronze statue in the public square? Add to this the adoption of names and titles, those divine honors given to a nobody, and the elevation of the worst tyrants with public ceremonies; such foolishness that even Democritus would find hard to laugh at. Who would deny it? Yet from this very root sprung all the great deeds of heroes that many eloquent writers have celebrated to the heavens. In short, this folly is what laid the groundwork for cities; and through it, empires, authority, religion, governance, and public actions are maintained; there’s nothing in human life that isn’t somewhat a pastime of folly.
But to speak of arts, what set men's wits on work to invent and transmit to posterity so many famous, as they conceive, pieces of learning but the thirst of glory? With so much loss of sleep, such pains and travail, have the most foolish of men thought to purchase themselves a kind of I know not what fame, than which nothing can be more vain. And yet notwithstanding, you owe this advantage to folly, and which is the most delectable of all other, that you reap the benefit of other men's madness.
But when we talk about the arts, what drives people to create and pass down so many well-known pieces of knowledge, as they see it, if not the desire for glory? With all the sleepless nights, the effort, and the struggle, even the most foolish people have tried to earn a kind of fame that is ultimately meaningless. Yet, despite this, you owe this advantage to their foolishness, and what's even better is that you get to benefit from other people's craziness.
And now, having vindicated to myself the praise of fortitude and industry, what think you if I do the same by that of prudence? But some will say, you may as well join fire and water. It may be so. But yet I doubt not but to succeed even in this also, if, as you have done hitherto, you will but favor me with your attention. And first, if prudence depends upon experience, to whom is the honor of that name more proper? To the wise man, who partly out of modesty and partly distrust of himself, attempts nothing; or the fool, whom neither modesty which he never had, nor danger which he never considers, can discourage from anything? The wise man has recourse to the books of the ancients, and from thence picks nothing but subtleties of words. The fool, in undertaking and venturing on the business of the world, gathers, if I mistake not, the true prudence, such as Homer though blind may be said to have seen when he said, "The burnt child dreads the fire." For there are two main obstacles to the knowledge of things, modesty that casts a mist before the understanding, and fear that, having fancied a danger, dissuades us from the attempt. But from these folly sufficiently frees us, and few there are that rightly understand of what great advantage it is to blush at nothing and attempt everything.
And now, having proven to myself the value of courage and hard work, what do you think if I try to do the same for prudence? But some might say, you might as well try to mix fire and water. That might be true. Still, I’m confident that I can succeed in this too, if you continue to give me your attention as you have so far. First of all, if prudence relies on experience, who deserves that title more? The wise person, who, partly out of modesty and partly from self-doubt, tries nothing? Or the fool, who is discouraged by neither modesty—which he doesn’t possess—nor fear of danger, which he never considers? The wise person turns to ancient texts and picks apart the subtleties of language. The fool, in taking risks and engaging with the world, gathers the real wisdom that Homer, despite being blind, meant when he said, “The burnt child dreads the fire.” Because there are two main barriers to understanding: modesty, which creates confusion, and fear, which convinces us that danger exists and discourages us from trying. But folly frees us from these constraints, and few recognize the great advantage of not being ashamed of anything and being willing to try everything.
But if you had rather take prudence for that that consists in the judgment of things, hear me, I beseech you, how far they are from it that yet crack of the name. For first 'tis evident that all human things, like Alcibiades' Sileni or rural gods, carry a double face, but not the least alike; so that what at first sight seems to be death, if you view it narrowly may prove to be life; and so the contrary. What appears beautiful may chance to be deformed; what wealthy, a very beggar; what infamous, praiseworthy; what learned, a dunce; what lusty, feeble; what jocund, sad; what noble, base; what lucky, unfortunate; what friendly, an enemy; and what healthful, noisome. In short, view the inside of these Sileni, and you'll find them quite other than what they appear; which, if perhaps it shall not seem so philosophically spoken, I'll make it plain to you "after my blunt way." Who would not conceive a prince a great lord and abundant in everything? But yet being so ill-furnished with the gifts of the mind, and ever thinking he shall never have enough, he's the poorest of all men. And then for his mind so given up to vice, 'tis a shame how it enslaves him. I might in like manner philosophize of the rest; but let this one, for example's sake, be enough.
But if you prefer to think of prudence as judging things, please hear me out on how far off they are from just that, despite what the name suggests. First, it's clear that all human things, like Alcibiades’ Sileni or rural gods, have two sides that are not at all alike. For instance, what initially looks like death, when looked at closely, might actually be life; and the opposite can also be true. What seems beautiful might actually be ugly; what appears wealthy could be a total beggar; what is seen as infamous might be praiseworthy; what seems learned could actually be foolish; what looks strong might be weak; what appears cheerful could be sad; what seems noble might be base; what appears lucky could be unfortunate; what seems friendly could be an enemy; and what appears healthy might actually be harmful. In short, look deeper into these Sileni, and you'll find they are quite different from how they seem. If that doesn’t sound philosophical enough, let me explain in my straightforward way. Who wouldn’t think of a prince as a grand lord with everything? But if he is lacking in mental gifts and always feels like he needs more, he is the poorest of all men. And the way his mind is consumed by vice is truly shameful, as it holds him captive. I could analyze the rest in the same way, but let this one example suffice.
Yet why this? will someone say. Have patience, and I'll show you what I drive at. If anyone seeing a player acting his part on a stage should go about to strip him of his disguise and show him to the people in his true native form, would he not, think you, not only spoil the whole design of the play, but deserve himself to be pelted off with stones as a phantastical fool and one out of his wits? But nothing is more common with them than such changes; the same person one while impersonating a woman, and another while a man; now a youngster, and by and by a grim seignior; now a king, and presently a peasant; now a god, and in a trice again an ordinary fellow. But to discover this were to spoil all, it being the only thing that entertains the eyes of the spectators. And what is all this life but a kind of comedy, wherein men walk up and down in one another's disguises and act their respective parts, till the property-man brings them back to the attiring house. And yet he often orders a different dress, and makes him that came but just now off in the robes of a king put on the rags of a beggar. Thus are all things represented by counterfeit, and yet without this there was no living.
Yet why is this? someone might ask. Just wait, and I'll explain what I mean. If someone were to see an actor performing on stage and decided to remove their disguise to reveal their true self, wouldn’t that ruin the entire purpose of the play? And wouldn't that person deserve to be thrown out as a foolish meddler? It's quite common for actors to change roles; one moment they might play a woman, then a man; they can be a young person, and then a tough old man; now a king, and shortly after a peasant; now a god, and in a flash just an ordinary guy. But revealing this would ruin everything, as it's the only thing that captures the audience's attention. And isn’t life itself a sort of comedy, where people try on each other's roles and perform their parts, until the stage manager brings them back to change clothes? Yet he often calls for a different outfit and makes someone who just played a king wear the rags of a beggar. Thus, everything is portrayed through deception, and yet without this, life wouldn't be possible.
And here if any wise man, as it were dropped from heaven, should start up and cry, this great thing whom the world looks upon for a god and I know not what is not so much as a man, for that like a beast he is led by his passions, but the worst of slaves, inasmuch as he gives himself up willingly to so many and such detestable masters. Again if he should bid a man that were bewailing the death of his father to laugh, for that he now began to live by having got an estate, without which life is but a kind of death; or call another that were boasting of his family ill begotten or base, because he is so far removed from virtue that is the only fountain of nobility; and so of the rest: what else would he get by it but be thought himself mad and frantic? For as nothing is more foolish than preposterous wisdom, so nothing is more unadvised than a forward unseasonable prudence. And such is his that does not comply with the present time "and order himself as the market goes," but forgetting that law of feasts, "either drink or begone," undertakes to disprove a common received opinion. Whereas on the contrary 'tis the part of a truly prudent man not to be wise beyond his condition, but either to take no notice of what the world does, or run with it for company. But this is foolish, you'll say; nor shall I deny it, provided always you be so civil on the other side as to confess that this is to act a part in that world.
And here, if any wise person were to suddenly appear as if dropped from the sky and shout that this great thing, which the world sees as a god or something similar, is not even a man because he is led by his desires like a beast, but is rather the worst of slaves, since he willingly submits to so many disgusting masters. Moreover, if he were to tell someone mourning the death of their father to laugh because they’ve just come into an inheritance, suggesting that without it, life is almost like death; or if he called out to another boasting about their poorly bred or low-status family, because they are so far from virtue, which is the only source of true nobility; and so on for the others—what would happen? He would likely be considered crazy. For nothing is more foolish than irrational wisdom, and nothing is more reckless than premature prudence. Such is the case for anyone who doesn’t adapt to the present moment and “goes with the flow,” but instead ignores the rule of social events—“either partake or leave”—and tries to disprove widely accepted beliefs. In contrast, a truly wise person knows not to be wiser than their situation, but either ignores what the world is doing or goes along with it. You might say that this is foolish, and I won’t argue with you, as long as you’re polite enough to acknowledge that this is simply playing a role in that world.
But, O you gods, "shall I speak or hold my tongue?" But why should I be silent in a thing that is more true than truth itself? However it might not be amiss perhaps in so great an affair to call forth the Muses from Helicon, since the poets so often invoke them upon every foolish occasion. Be present then awhile, and assist me, you daughters of Jupiter, while I make it out that there is no way to that so much famed wisdom, nor access to that fortress as they call it of happiness, but under the banner of Folly. And first 'tis agreed of all hands that our passions belong to Folly; inasmuch as we judge a wise man from a fool by this, that the one is ordered by them, the other by reason; and therefore the Stoics remove from a wise man all disturbances of mind as so many diseases. But these passions do not only the office of a tutor to such as are making towards the port of wisdom, but are in every exercise of virtue as it were spurs and incentives, nay and encouragers to well doing: which though that great Stoic Seneca most strongly denies, and takes from a wise man all affections whatever, yet in doing that he leaves him not so much as a man but rather a new kind of god that was never yet nor ever like to be. Nay, to speak plainer, he sets up a stony semblance of a man, void of all sense and common feeling of humanity. And much good to them with this wise man of theirs; let them enjoy him to themselves, love him without competitors, and live with him in Plato's commonwealth, the country of ideas, or Tantalus' orchards. For who would not shun and startle at such a man, as at some unnatural accident or spirit? A man dead to all sense of nature and common affections, and no more moved with love or pity than if he were a flint or rock; whose censure nothing escapes; that commits no errors himself, but has a lynx's eyes upon others; measures everything by an exact line, and forgives nothing; pleases himself with himself only; the only rich, the only wise, the only free man, and only king; in brief, the only man that is everything, but in his own single judgment only; that cares not for the friendship of any man, being himself a friend to no man; makes no doubt to make the gods stoop to him, and condemns and laughs at the whole actions of our life? And yet such a beast is this their perfect wise man. But tell me pray, if the thing were to be carried by most voices, what city would choose him for its governor, or what army desire him for their general? What woman would have such a husband, what goodfellow such a guest, or what servant would either wish or endure such a master? Nay, who had not rather have one of the middle sort of fools, who, being a fool himself, may the better know how to command or obey fools; and who though he please his like, 'tis yet the greater number; one that is kind to his wife, merry among his friends, a boon companion, and easy to be lived with; and lastly one that thinks nothing of humanity should be a stranger to him? But I am weary of this wise man, and therefore I'll proceed to some other advantages.
But, oh gods, "should I speak or stay silent?" But why should I hold my tongue about something that's truer than truth itself? Still, it might not hurt to call on the Muses from Helicon for such an important topic, since poets often summon them for the most trivial matters. So please, come and help me, you daughters of Jupiter, as I demonstrate that there's no path to that famous wisdom, nor access to the so-called fortress of happiness, except under the banner of Folly. It's agreed by everyone that our passions belong to Folly; we judge a wise person from a fool by the fact that one is guided by passions, while the other is led by reason. The Stoics, therefore, try to remove all disturbances of mind from a wise person, treating them like diseases. Yet, these passions not only guide those heading toward the shores of wisdom but also act as spurs and motivators in every act of virtue, even if the great Stoic Seneca strongly denies this and removes all emotions from a wise person. In doing so, he reduces them to not even being human but rather a new sort of god that has never existed and likely never will. To be more straightforward, he creates a stony imitation of a person, devoid of all sense and common humanity. And good luck to those who champion this wise man; let them cherish him alone, love him without rivals, and dwell with him in Plato's ideal world, the realm of ideas, or Tantalus' orchards. Who wouldn’t shy away from such a person, as if startled by some unnatural occurrence or spirit? A man completely detached from natural feelings and common affections, utterly unmoved by love or compassion as if he were a rock; whose judgment allows nothing to slip by; who commits no mistakes, yet has the sharp eyes of a lynx watching others; who measures everything with precision and forgives nothing; who is only satisfied with himself; the sole rich, wise, free person, and king; in short, the only one who thinks he is everything, but only by his own narrow standards; who has no interest in anyone's friendship, being a friend to no one; who doesn’t hesitate to make the gods bow to him, while ridiculing all human actions? And yet, this is their ideal wise man. But tell me, if it were a popularity contest, which city would choose him as its leader, or which army would want him as their general? What woman would want him as her husband, what buddy would want him as a guest, or what servant would want to endure such a master? No, who wouldn’t prefer a regular kind of fool, someone who, being a fool himself, understands how to lead or follow other fools; someone who, even if he pleases his kind, appeals to the greater number; a person who is good to his wife, fun among friends, a pleasant companion, and easy to live with; and finally, someone for whom nothing about humanity would ever feel foreign? But I’m tired of this wise man, so let’s move on to some other points.
Go to then. Suppose a man in some lofty high tower, and that he could look round him, as the poets say Jupiter was now and then wont. To how many misfortunes would he find the life of man subject? How miserable, to say no worse, our birth, how difficult our education; to how many wrongs our childhood exposed, to what pains our youth; how unsupportable our old age, and grievous our unavoidable death? As also what troops of diseases beset us, how many casualties hang over our heads, how many troubles invade us, and how little there is that is not steeped in gall? To say nothing of those evils one man brings upon another, as poverty, imprisonment, infamy, dishonesty, racks, snares, treachery, reproaches, actions, deceits—but I'm got into as endless a work as numbering the sands—for what offenses mankind have deserved these things, or what angry god compelled them to be born into such miseries is not my present business. Yet he that shall diligently examine it with himself, would he not, think you, approve the example of the Milesian virgins and kill himself? But who are they that for no other reason but that they were weary of life have hastened their own fate? Were they not the next neighbors to wisdom? among whom, to say nothing of Diogenes, Xenocrates, Cato, Cassius, Brutus, that wise man Chiron, being offered immortality, chose rather to die than be troubled with the same thing always.
Go ahead then. Imagine a man in some tall tower, able to look around him, just like poets say Jupiter used to do from time to time. How many misfortunes would he see that human life is subject to? How miserable, to say the least, our birth is; how tough our upbringing is; how many injustices our childhood faces, and what pains our youth endures; how unbearable our old age is, and how terrible our unavoidable death? Not to mention the waves of diseases that plague us, how many random events loom over us, how many troubles we face, and how little there is that isn’t filled with bitterness? To avoid discussing the harms one person inflicts on another, like poverty, imprisonment, disgrace, dishonesty, torture, traps, betrayal, insults, actions, and deceits—I've wandered into an endless task like counting the sands—what offenses has humanity committed to deserve such things, or what angry god forced them to be born into such misery is not my concern right now. Yet, anyone who examines this closely with themselves, wouldn't you agree they might consider following the example of the Milesian virgins and take their own lives? But who are those that, for no other reason than being tired of life, have rushed to meet their own fate? Were they not the closest to wisdom? Among them, not to mention Diogenes, Xenocrates, Cato, Cassius, Brutus, that wise man Chiron, who, when offered immortality, chose to die rather than deal with the same burdens forever.
And now I think you see what would become of the world if all men should be wise; to wit it were necessary we got another kind of clay and some better potter. But I, partly through ignorance, partly unadvisedness, and sometimes through forgetfulness of evil, do now and then so sprinkle pleasure with the hopes of good and sweeten men up in their greatest misfortunes that they are not willing to leave this life, even then when according to the account of the destinies this life has left them; and by how much the less reason they have to live, by so much the more they desire it; so far are they from being sensible of the least wearisomeness of life. Of my gift it is, that you have so many old Nestors everywhere that have scarce left them so much as the shape of a man; stutterers, dotards, toothless, gray-haired, bald; or rather, to use the words of Aristophanes, "Nasty, crumpled, miserable, shriveled, bald, toothless, and wanting their baubles," yet so delighted with life and to be thought young that one dyes his gray hairs; another covers his baldness with a periwig; another gets a set of new teeth; another falls desperately in love with a young wench and keeps more flickering about her than a young man would have been ashamed of. For to see such an old crooked piece with one foot in the grave to marry a plump young wench, and that too without a portion, is so common that men almost expect to be commended for it. But the best sport of all is to see our old women, even dead with age, and such skeletons one would think they had stolen out of their graves, and ever mumbling in their mouths, "Life is sweet;" and as old as they are, still caterwauling, daily plastering their face, scarce ever from the glass, gossiping, dancing, and writing love letters. These things are laughed at as foolish, as indeed they are; yet they please themselves, live merrily, swim in pleasure, and in a word are happy, by my courtesy. But I would have them to whom these things seem ridiculous to consider with themselves whether it be not better to live so pleasant a life in such kind of follies, than, as the proverb goes, "to take a halter and hang themselves." Besides though these things may be subject to censure, it concerns not my fools in the least, inasmuch as they take no notice of it; or if they do, they easily neglect it. If a stone fall upon a man's head, that's evil indeed; but dishonesty, infamy, villainy, ill reports carry no more hurt in them than a man is sensible of; and if a man have no sense of them, they are no longer evils. What are you the worse if the people hiss at you, so you applaud yourself? And that a man be able to do so, he must owe it to folly.
And now I think you can see what would happen if everyone were wise; it would mean we need a different kind of clay and a better potter. But I, partly out of ignorance, partly out of carelessness, and sometimes through forgetting the bad, occasionally mix pleasure with the hopes for good and uplift people in their toughest times so much that they don't want to leave this life, even when fate has basically already taken it from them; and the less reason they have to live, the more they crave life; they hardly ever feel tired of it at all. Thanks to me, there are so many old Nestors around who barely resemble what once was a human; stutterers, forgetful, toothless, gray-haired, bald; or rather, to quote Aristophanes, "Nasty, crumpled, miserable, shriveled, bald, toothless, and missing their trinkets," yet so happy to be alive and to appear youthful that one person dyes his gray hair; another covers his baldness with a wig; another invests in a new set of teeth; and another falls head over heels for a young woman, acting more infatuated than any young man would be ashamed to. It's quite common and almost expected for an old, twisted man with one foot in the grave to marry a plump young lady, even without a dowry. But the most amusing part is seeing our old women, practically dead from age and looking like they crawled out of their graves, still mumbling, "Life is sweet;" and despite their age, they continue to fuss over their appearance, gossip, dance, and write love letters. These behaviors are often mocked for being ridiculous, and rightly so; yet they enjoy themselves, live happily, indulge in pleasure, and in short, are content, thanks to me. But I would urge those who find such things absurd to think about whether it might be better to live a joyful life filled with such follies than, as the saying goes, "to take a noose and hang themselves." Furthermore, although these things may be subject to criticism, it doesn't bother my fools at all, since they pay no attention to it; or if they do, they easily brush it off. If a stone falls on a person's head, that's genuinely harmful; but dishonesty, disgrace, villainy, and bad rumors hurt no more than a person feels them; and if someone isn't aware of them, they're no longer harmful. What difference does it make if people boo you, as long as you applaud yourself? And for a person to do this, they must owe it to their folly.
But methinks I hear the philosophers opposing it and saying 'tis a miserable thing for a man to be foolish, to err, mistake, and know nothing truly. Nay rather, this is to be a man. And why they should call it miserable, I see no reason; forasmuch as we are so born, so bred, so instructed, nay such is the common condition of us all. And nothing can be called miserable that suits with its kind, unless perhaps you'll think a man such because he can neither fly with birds, nor walk on all four with beasts, and is not armed with horns as a bull. For by the same reason he would call the warlike horse unfortunate, because he understood not grammar, nor ate cheese-cakes; and the bull miserable, because he'd make so ill a wrestler. And therefore, as a horse that has no skill in grammar is not miserable, no more is man in this respect, for that they agree with his nature. But again, the virtuosi may say that there was particularly added to man the knowledge of sciences, by whose help he might recompense himself in understanding for what nature cut him short in other things. As if this had the least face of truth, that Nature that was so solicitously watchful in the production of gnats, herbs, and flowers should have so slept when she made man, that he should have need to be helped by sciences, which that old devil Theuth, the evil genius of mankind, first invented for his destruction, and are so little conducive to happiness that they rather obstruct it; to which purpose they are properly said to be first found out, as that wise king in Plato argues touching the invention of letters.
But I think I hear the philosophers arguing against this, saying it's a terrible thing for a person to be foolish, to make mistakes, and to truly know nothing. But really, this is just part of being human. I don't see why they should call it terrible, since we are all born this way, raised this way, and taught this way; it’s the common condition for all of us. Nothing can really be called miserable if it fits its nature, unless you think of a person as unfortunate because they can't fly like birds or walk on all fours like animals and lack horns like a bull. By that same logic, we could say that a strong horse is unfortunate because it doesn't know grammar or eat cheese cakes, and that the bull is miserable because it wouldn't make a good wrestler. So, just as a horse that doesn't know grammar isn't miserable, neither is a human in this regard, since it aligns with their nature. However, some might argue that humans were specifically given knowledge of the sciences to make up for what nature didn’t provide in other areas. As if it made any sense that nature, which was so careful in creating gnats, plants, and flowers, would be so careless when making humans that they would need sciences to help them, invented by that old trickster Theuth, the evil genius of humanity, which do little for happiness and more to hinder it; a point made by the wise king in Plato when discussing the invention of letters.
Sciences therefore crept into the world with other the pests of mankind, from the same head from whence all other mischiefs spring; we'll suppose it devils, for so the name imports when you call them demons, that is to say, knowing. For that simple people of the golden age, being wholly ignorant of everything called learning, lived only by the guidance and dictates of nature; for what use of grammar, where every man spoke the same language and had no further design than to understand one another? What use of logic, where there was no bickering about the double-meaning words? What need of rhetoric, where there were no lawsuits? Or to what purpose laws, where there were no ill manners? from which without doubt good laws first came. Besides, they were more religious than with an impious curiosity to dive into the secrets of nature, the dimension of stars, the motions, effects, and hidden causes of things; as believing it a crime for any man to attempt to be wise beyond his condition. And as to the inquiry of what was beyond heaven, that madness never came into their heads. But the purity of the golden age declining by degrees, first, as I said before, arts were invented by the evil genii; and yet but few, and those too received by fewer. After that the Chaldean superstition and Greek newfangledness, that had little to do, added I know not how many more; mere torments of wit, and that so great that even grammar alone is work enough for any man for his whole life.
Sciences therefore entered the world alongside other human troubles, from the same source where all other problems arise; let's think of it as devils, since the name implies that when you call them demons, it means knowing. The simple people of the golden age, completely unaware of anything called learning, lived solely by the guidance of nature; what was the point of grammar when everyone spoke the same language and only wanted to understand each other? What was the use of logic when there was no arguing over ambiguous words? What need was there for rhetoric when there were no legal disputes? And why have laws when there were no bad behaviors, from which good laws originally emerged? Besides, they were more religious than curious about diving into nature's mysteries, the positions of stars, and the movements, effects, and hidden causes of things; they believed it was wrong for anyone to try to be wiser than their station. And as for pondering what lay beyond the heavens, that thought never crossed their minds. But as the purity of the golden age slowly faded, first, as I mentioned, arts were created by evil spirits; and there were only a few of those, and they were accepted by even fewer people. After that, the Chaldean superstitions and the new ideas from Greece, which had little relevance, added I don't know how many more; mere tortures for the mind, so much so that even grammar alone could take a lifetime to master.
Though yet among these sciences those only are in esteem that come nearest to common sense, that is to say, folly. Divines are half starved, naturalists out of heart, astrologers laughed at, and logicians slighted; only the physician is worth all the rest. And among them too, the more unlearned, impudent, or unadvised he is, the more he is esteemed, even among princes. For physic, especially as it is now professed by most men, is nothing but a branch of flattery, no less than rhetoric. Next them, the second place is given to our law-drivers, if not the first, whose profession, though I say it myself, most men laugh at as the ass of philosophy; yet there's scarce any business, either so great or so small, but is managed by these asses. These purchase their great lordships, while in the meantime the divine, having run through the whole body of divinity, sits gnawing a radish and is in continual warfare with lice and fleas. As therefore those arts are best that have the nearest affinity with folly, so are they most happy of all others that have least commerce with sciences and follow the guidance of Nature, who is in no wise imperfect, unless perhaps we endeavor to leap over those bounds she has appointed to us. Nature hates all false coloring and is ever best where she is least adulterated with art.
Though among these sciences, only those that are closest to common sense are valued, which is to say, foolishness. Religious scholars are barely getting by, naturalists are discouraged, astrologers are mocked, and logicians are ignored; only the doctor holds more value than all the rest. And even among them, the more untrained, arrogant, or reckless they are, the more they’re respected, even by royalty. Because medicine, especially as it’s practiced by most today, is really just a form of flattery, just like rhetoric. Following them, our lawyers are given second place, if not the first, whose profession, I can say myself, most people mock as the donkey of philosophy; yet there’s hardly any task, big or small, that isn’t handled by these donkeys. They secure their high positions, while the religious scholar, after studying the whole of divinity, sits gnawing on a radish and is constantly battling lice and fleas. Therefore, the arts that are closest to foolishness are the best, and those that have the least connection with sciences and follow the guidance of Nature are the happiest of all. Nature is never imperfect, unless we try to jump over the boundaries she’s set for us. Nature dislikes all false pretenses and is always at her best when she’s least tampered with by human skill.
Go to then, don't you find among the several kinds of living creatures that they thrive best that understand no more than what Nature taught them? What is more prosperous or wonderful than the bee? And though they have not the same judgment of sense as other bodies have, yet wherein has architecture gone beyond their building of houses? What philosopher ever founded the like republic? Whereas the horse, that comes so near man in understanding and is therefore so familiar with him, is also partaker of his misery. For while he thinks it a shame to lose the race, it often happens that he cracks his wind; and in the battle, while he contends for victory, he's cut down himself, and, together with his rider "lies biting the earth;" not to mention those strong bits, sharp spurs, close stables, arms, blows, rider, and briefly, all that slavery he willingly submits to, while, imitating those men of valor, he so eagerly strives to be revenged of the enemy. Than which how much more were the life of flies or birds to be wished for, who living by the instinct of nature, look no further than the present, if yet man would but let them alone in it. And if at anytime they chance to be taken, and being shut up in cages endeavor to imitate our speaking, 'tis strange how they degenerate from their native gaiety. So much better in every respect are the works of nature than the adulteries of art.
Go ahead, don’t you think that among all the different types of living creatures, those that thrive best are the ones that understand only what nature teaches them? What’s more amazing or successful than the bee? And even though they don’t have the same sense of judgment as other beings, what structure has surpassed their building of homes? What philosopher has ever established a community like theirs? On the other hand, the horse, which is so close to humans in understanding and therefore so familiar with them, also shares in their misery. While he feels ashamed to lose a race, he often ends up straining himself; in battle, as he fights for victory, he may be cut down himself, and along with his rider "lies biting the earth;" not to mention the strong bits, sharp spurs, cramped stables, weapons, blows, riders, and in short, all that slavery he willingly endures, while trying to emulate those brave men, he so eagerly seeks revenge on the enemy. How much better would it be to live like flies or birds, who, guided solely by their instincts, only focus on the present, if only humans would let them be. And if at any time they happen to be captured and try to mimic our speech while trapped in cages, it’s strange how they lose their natural cheerfulness. The works of nature are far superior in every way to the imitations of art.
In like manner I can never sufficiently praise that Pythagoras in a dunghill cock, who being but one had been yet everything, a philosopher, a man, a woman, a king, a private man, a fish, a horse, a frog, and, I believe too, a sponge; and at last concluded that no creature was more miserable than man, for that all other creatures are content with those bounds that nature set them, only man endeavors to exceed them. And again, among men he gives the precedency not to the learned or the great, but the fool. Nor had that Gryllus less wit than Ulysses with his many counsels, who chose rather to lie grunting in a hog sty than be exposed with the other to so many hazards. Nor does Homer, that father of trifles, dissent from me; who not only called all men "wretched and full of calamity," but often his great pattern of wisdom, Ulysses, "miserable;" Paris, Ajax, and Achilles nowhere. And why, I pray but that, like a cunning fellow and one that was his craft's master, he did nothing without the advice of Pallas? In a word he was too wise, and by that means ran wide of nature. As therefore among men they are least happy that study wisdom, as being in this twice fools, that when they are born men, they should yet so far forget their condition as to affect the life of gods; and after the example of the giants, with their philosophical gimcracks make a war upon nature: so they on the other side seem as little miserable as is possible who come nearest to beasts and never attempt anything beyond man. Go to then, let's try how demonstrable this is; not by enthymemes or the imperfect syllogisms of the Stoics, but by plain, downright, and ordinary examples.
In the same way, I can never praise that Pythagoras enough in a dung-covered rooster, who, though only one being, was everything: a philosopher, a man, a woman, a king, a commoner, a fish, a horse, a frog, and, I believe, even a sponge. He ultimately concluded that no creature is more miserable than a human, as all other creatures are content within the limits set by nature, while only humans strive to exceed them. Additionally, among humanity, he gives precedence not to the educated or the powerful, but to the fool. Nor did that Gryllus possess any less wit than Ulysses and his many strategies, who preferred to lie snorting in a pigsty rather than face so many dangers alongside others. Nor does Homer, the master of trivialities, disagree with me; he not only referred to all men as "wretched and full of calamity," but often labeled his great symbol of wisdom, Ulysses, as "miserable," while Paris, Ajax, and Achilles go unmentioned. And why, I ask, if not because, like a clever fellow and a master of his craft, he did nothing without Pallas's guidance? In short, he was too wise, and in doing so, strayed far from nature. Thus, among humans, those who seek wisdom are the least happy, as they are doubly foolish; when they are born as humans, they forget their nature and aim to live like gods, imitating the giants by using philosophical nonsense to wage war against nature. On the other hand, those who come closest to animals and never seek anything beyond being human seem as little miserable as possible. So, let’s see how demonstrable this is, not through enthymemes or the flawed syllogisms of the Stoics, but through straightforward, everyday examples.
And now, by the immortal gods! I think nothing more happy than that generation of men we commonly call fools, idiots, lack-wits, and dolts; splendid titles too, as I conceive them. I'll tell you a thing, which at first perhaps may seem foolish and absurd, yet nothing more true. And first they are not afraid of death—no small evil, by Jupiter! They are not tormented with the conscience of evil acts, not terrified with the fables of ghosts, nor frightened with spirits and goblins. They are not distracted with the fear of evils to come nor the hopes of future good. In short, they are not disturbed with those thousand of cares to which this life is subject. They are neither modest, nor fearful, nor ambitious, nor envious, nor love they any man. And lastly, if they should come nearer even to the very ignorance of brutes, they could not sin, for so hold the divines. And now tell me, you wise fool, with how many troublesome cares your mind is continually perplexed; heap together all the discommodities of your life, and then you'll be sensible from how many evils I have delivered my fools. Add to this that they are not only merry, play, sing, and laugh themselves, but make mirth wherever they come, a special privilege it seems the gods have given them to refresh the pensiveness of life. Whence it is that whereas the world is so differently affected one towards another, that all men indifferently admit them as their companions, desire, feed, cherish, embrace them, take their parts upon all occasions, and permit them without offense to do or say what they like. And so little does everything desire to hurt them, that even the very beasts, by a kind of natural instinct of their innocence no doubt, pass by their injuries. For of them it may be truly said that they are consecrate to the gods, and therefore and not without cause do men have them in such esteem. Whence is it else that they are in so great request with princes that they can neither eat nor drink, go anywhere, or be an hour without them? Nay, and in some degree they prefer these fools before their crabbish wise men, whom yet they keep about them for state's sake. Nor do I conceive the reason so difficult, or that it should seem strange why they are preferred before the others, for that these wise men speak to princes about nothing but grave, serious matters, and trusting to their own parts and learning do not fear sometimes "to grate their tender ears with smart truths;" but fools fit them with that they most delight in, as jests, laughter, abuses of other men, wanton pastimes, and the like.
And now, by the immortal gods! I can't think of anything happier than that group of people we commonly call fools, idiots, simpletons, and dolts; fantastic labels, in my opinion. Let me share something that might seem silly and ridiculous at first, but is absolutely true. For starters, they're not afraid of death—no small issue, by Jupiter! They aren’t tortured by the guilt of bad actions, frightened by ghost stories, or scared of spirits and monsters. They don't let the fear of future troubles or the hopes for good things to come distract them. In short, they’re unaffected by the countless worries of this life. They aren’t modest, fearful, ambitious, or envious, and they don’t love anyone. Lastly, if they were to approach the complete ignorance of animals, they wouldn't be able to sin, according to the theologians. Now tell me, you wise fool, how many bothersome worries does your mind deal with? Gather all the troubles of your life, and then you'll understand how many miseries I’ve freed my fools from. Plus, they aren’t just cheerful on their own; they play, sing, and laugh, bringing joy wherever they go—an obvious gift the gods have given them to lighten the heaviness of life. This is why, although people feel so differently about one another, everyone happily welcomes them as companions, enjoys their company, nurtures, embraces them, supports them in all situations, and lets them say or do whatever they please without offense. In fact, everything is so non-threatening to them that even animals, through some natural instinct of their innocence, avoid harming them. Truly, it can be said that they are dedicated to the gods, and that's why people hold them in such high regard. Where else could it be that they are so sought after by princes that they can’t eat, drink, go anywhere, or even spend an hour without them? They even prefer these fools over their grouchy wise men, who they still keep around for the sake of politics. I don't think it's hard to understand why they are favored over the others; these wise men only talk to princes about serious matters and, confident in their own skills and knowledge, sometimes "dare to offend their delicate ears with harsh truths." But fools give them what they enjoy most—jokes, laughter, mockery of others, playful antics, and so on.
Again, take notice of this no contemptible blessing which Nature has given fools, that they are the only plain, honest men and such as speak truth. And what is more commendable than truth? For though that proverb of Alcibiades in Plato attributes truth to drunkards and children, yet the praise of it is particularly mine, even from the testimony of Euripides, among whose other things there is extant that his honorable saying concerning us, "A fool speaks foolish things." For whatever a fool has in his heart, he both shows it in his looks and expresses it in his discourse; while the wise men's are those two tongues which the same Euripides mentions, whereof the one speaks truth, the other what they judge most seasonable for the occasion. These are they "that turn black into white," blow hot and cold with the same breath, and carry a far different meaning in their breast from what they feign with their tongue. Yet in the midst of all their prosperity, princes in this respect seem to me most unfortunate, because, having no one to tell them truth, they are forced to receive flatterers for friends.
Once again, notice this invaluable gift that Nature has given to fools: they are the only truly straightforward and honest people who speak the truth. And what could be more admirable than truth? Even though Alcibiades in Plato's sayings claims that drunkards and children are associated with truth, I alone deserve credit for praising it, as confirmed by Euripides, who famously said, "A fool speaks foolish things." Whatever a fool feels inside, he shows in his expression and communicates in his speech. On the other hand, wise people have two tongues, as Euripides mentions—one that speaks the truth and another that says what they believe is most appropriate for the situation. These are the ones who "turn black into white," who can be hot or cold with the same breath, and who hide a very different meaning in their hearts from what they pretend to voice. Yet, despite all their wealth, I find princes particularly unfortunate in this regard because, with no one to tell them the truth, they end up having flatterers as their friends.
But, someone may say, the ears of princes are strangers to truth, and for this reason they avoid those wise men, because they fear lest someone more frank than the rest should dare to speak to them things rather true than pleasant; for so the matter is, that they don't much care for truth. And yet this is found by experience among my fools, that not only truths but even open reproaches are heard with pleasure; so that the same thing which, if it came from a wise man's mouth might prove a capital crime, spoken by a fool is received with delight. For truth carries with it a certain peculiar power of pleasing, if no accident fall in to give occasion of offense; which faculty the gods have given only to fools. And for the same reasons is it that women are so earnestly delighted with this kind of men, as being more propense by nature to pleasure and toys. And whatsoever they may happen to do with them, although sometimes it be of the most serious, yet they turn it to jest and laughter, as that sex was ever quick-witted, especially to color their own faults.
But, some might argue that princes don't really listen to the truth, which is why they steer clear of wise people. They worry that someone too honest might dare to tell them things that are more true than flattering, because they don't really care for the truth. Yet, I've learned from my fools that not only do they enjoy hearing the truth, but they also appreciate direct criticisms; the same words that a wise person might say and get punished for are welcomed with joy when they come from a fool. Truth has a unique charm, as long as there aren't any misunderstandings that could cause offense, and this gift seems to be given only to fools by the gods. For the same reasons, women are often drawn to these kinds of men, as they tend to have a natural inclination toward fun and games. No matter what they do with them, even if it's something serious, they manage to turn it into jokes and laughter, as that gender has always been quick-witted, especially when it comes to covering up their own mistakes.
But to return to the happiness of fools, who when they have passed over this life with a great deal of pleasantness and without so much as the least fear or sense of death, they go straight forth into the Elysian field, to recreate their pious and careless souls with such sports as they used here. Let's proceed then, and compare the condition of any of your wise men with that of this fool. Fancy to me now some example of wisdom you'd set up against him; one that had spent his childhood and youth in learning the sciences and lost the sweetest part of his life in watchings, cares, studies, and for the remaining part of it never so much as tasted the least of pleasure; ever sparing, poor, sad, sour, unjust, and rigorous to himself, and troublesome and hateful to others; broken with paleness, leanness, crassness, sore eyes, and an old age and death contracted before their time (though yet, what matter is it, when he die that never lived?); and such is the picture of this great wise man.
But let’s get back to the happiness of fools, who, after living this life filled with joy and without any fear of death, go straight to the Elysian fields, where they enjoy themselves just like they did here. Now, let’s compare the life of one of your wise men to that of this fool. Imagine an example of wisdom you’d set against him; someone who spent their childhood and youth learning sciences, wasted the best years of their life worrying, studying, and barely enjoying any pleasure. Always frugal, impoverished, gloomy, bitter, harsh on themselves, and irritating and disliked by others; worn down by paleness, thinness, ailments, and aging long before their time (but really, does it matter when someone who never truly lived dies?); and that’s the portrait of this great wise man.
And here again do those frogs of the Stoics croak at me and say that nothing is more miserable than madness. But folly is the next degree, if not the very thing. For what else is madness than for a man to be out of his wits? But to let them see how they are clean out of the way, with the Muses' good favor we'll take this syllogism in pieces. Subtly argued, I must confess, but as Socrates in Plato teaches us how by splitting one Venus and one Cupid to make two of either, in like manner should those logicians have done and distinguished madness from madness, if at least they would be thought to be well in their wits themselves. For all madness is not miserable, or Horace had never called his poetical fury a beloved madness; nor Plato placed the raptures of poets, prophets, and lovers among the chiefest blessings of this life; nor that sibyl in Virgil called Aeneas' travels mad labors. But there are two sorts of madness, the one that which the revengeful Furies send privily from hell, as often as they let loose their snakes and put into men's breasts either the desire of war, or an insatiate thirst after gold, or some dishonest love, or parricide, or incest, or sacrilege, or the like plagues, or when they terrify some guilty soul with the conscience of his crimes; the other, but nothing like this, that which comes from me and is of all other things the most desirable; which happens as often as some pleasing dotage not only clears the mind of its troublesome cares but renders it more jocund. And this was that which, as a special blessing of the gods, Cicero, writing to his friend Atticus, wished to himself, that he might be the less sensible of those miseries that then hung over the commonwealth.
And once again, those Stoic frogs are croaking at me, saying that nothing is worse than madness. But folly is just a step away, if not the same thing. After all, what is madness if not being out of your mind? To show them how completely misguided they are, with the Muses' support, let’s break down this argument. It’s cleverly argued, I must admit, but just like Socrates teaches in Plato by splitting one Venus and one Cupid into two of each, those logicians should have differentiated madness from madness if they want to seem sane themselves. Not all madness is miserable, or Horace would never have called his poetic fury a beloved madness; nor would Plato have considered the rapture of poets, prophets, and lovers as some of life’s greatest blessings; nor would that Sibyl in Virgil refer to Aeneas' journeys as mad labors. There are two types of madness: one that the vengeful Furies secretly send from hell, unleashing their snakes into people's hearts, stirring desires for war, insatiable greed for gold, or some sordid love, parricide, incest, sacrilege, or similar afflictions, or when they frighten a guilty soul with the weight of its sins; the other, however, is completely different and is the most desirable of all, occurring when an enjoyable infatuation not only relieves the mind of its burdens but makes it more cheerful. This is what Cicero wished for himself in a letter to his friend Atticus as a special blessing from the gods, hoping to be less aware of the miseries hanging over the republic at that time.
Nor was that Grecian in Horace much wide of it, who was so far made that he would sit by himself whole days in the theatre laughing and clapping his hands, as if he had seen some tragedy acting, whereas in truth there was nothing presented; yet in other things a man well enough, pleasant among his friends, kind to his wife, and so good a master to his servants that if they had broken the seal of his bottle, he would not have run mad for it. But at last, when by the care of his friends and physic he was freed from his distemper and become his own man again, he thus expostulates with them, "Now, by Pollux, my friends, you have rather killed than preserved me in thus forcing me from my pleasure." By which you see he liked it so well that he lost it against his will. And trust me, I think they were the madder of the two, and had the greater need of hellebore, that should offer to look upon so pleasant a madness as an evil to be removed by physic; though yet I have not determined whether every distemper of the sense or understanding be to be called madness.
Nor was that Greek guy in Horace very different; he would spend whole days by himself in the theater, laughing and clapping, as if he were watching some tragic play, even though nothing was actually happening. Still, in other areas, he was a decent guy—fun to be around with his friends, kind to his wife, and a good boss to his servants. If they accidentally broke the seal on his bottle, he wouldn’t freak out over it. But eventually, with the help of his friends and some medicine, he got rid of his troubles and returned to being himself. He then said to them, “Now, by Pollux, my friends, you have killed me rather than saved me by forcing me away from my pleasure.” This shows he enjoyed it so much that he lost it against his will. Honestly, I believe his friends were the crazier ones and needed a stronger remedy, considering they thought such a joyful madness was something to be cured with medicine. Still, I haven’t decided if every disturbance of the senses or mind should be labeled as madness.
For neither he that having weak eyes should take a mule for an ass, nor he that should admire an insipid poem as excellent would be presently thought mad; but he that not only errs in his senses but is deceived also in his judgment, and that too more than ordinary and upon all occasions—he, I must confess, would be thought to come very near to it. As if anyone hearing an ass bray should take it for excellent music, or a beggar conceive himself a king. And yet this kind of madness, if, as it commonly happens, it turn to pleasure, it brings a great delight not only to them that are possessed with it but to those also that behold it, though perhaps they may not be altogether so mad as the other, for the species of this madness is much larger than the people take it to be. For one mad man laughs at another, and beget themselves a mutual pleasure. Nor does it seldom happen that he that is the more mad, laughs at him that is less mad. And in this every man is the more happy in how many respects the more he is mad; and if I were judge in the case, he should be ranged in that class of folly that is peculiarly mine, which in truth is so large and universal that I scarce know anyone in all mankind that is wise at all hours, or has not some tang or other of madness.
For neither should someone with weak eyesight mistake a mule for a donkey, nor should someone who admires a dull poem as if it were excellent be thought of as crazy; but the person who not only makes errors in perception but is also misled in judgment, and does so frequently and in all situations—he, I have to admit, would come quite close to being seen as mad. It's like if someone hears a donkey bray and thinks it's beautiful music or if a beggar believes he is a king. Yet, this kind of madness, if it often turns into pleasure, brings great joy not only to those who experience it but also to those who witness it, even if they may not be as mad as the others, because this type of madness is much more extensive than people usually realize. One mad person laughs at another and creates a shared enjoyment. It often happens that the one who is more mad laughs at the one who is less mad. In this way, everyone is happier the more mad they are; and if I were to judge, I would place him in my unique category of folly, which, in truth, is so broad and universal that I can hardly find anyone in all of humanity who is wise all the time or who doesn’t have some hint of madness.
And to this class do they appertain that slight everything in comparison of hunting and protest they take an unimaginable pleasure to hear the yell of the horns and the yelps of the hounds, and I believe could pick somewhat extraordinary out of their very excrement. And then what pleasure they take to see a buck or the like unlaced? Let ordinary fellows cut up an ox or a wether, 'twere a crime to have this done by anything less than a gentleman! who with his hat off, on his bare knees, and a couteau for that purpose (for every sword or knife is not allowable), with a curious superstition and certain postures, lays open the several parts in their respective order; while they that hem him in admire it with silence, as some new religious ceremony, though perhaps they have seen it a hundred times before. And if any of them chance to get the least piece of it, he presently thinks himself no small gentleman. In all which they drive at nothing more than to become beasts themselves, while yet they imagine they live the life of princes.
And to this group belong those who downplay everything compared to hunting and protest; they take an unimaginable joy in hearing the sound of the horns and the barking of the hounds, and I believe they could find something remarkable even in their own waste. And how much pleasure they get from watching a buck or something similar being butchered! Let ordinary folks cut up a cow or a sheep; it would be a crime to let anyone less than a gentleman do it! A gentleman will kneel bareheaded, with a specific knife for the job (not just any sword or knife will do), following certain rituals and postures as he dismembers the animal in the correct order, while those around him watch in silence, treating it like some new religious ceremony, even if they’ve seen it a hundred times before. And if any of them happens to grab a piece, he immediately thinks of himself as quite the gentleman. In all this, they aim for nothing more than to become beasts themselves, while still believing they live like royalty.
And next these may be reckoned those that have such an itch of building; one while changing rounds into squares, and presently again squares into rounds, never knowing either measure or end, till at last, reduced to the utmost poverty, there remains not to them so much as a place where they may lay their head, or wherewith to fill their bellies. And why all this? but that they may pass over a few years in feeding their foolish fancies.
And next, we can consider those who have this obsession with building; one moment they're turning circles into squares, and then back to circles again, never really understanding how much they need or when to stop, until finally, they end up completely broke, with nowhere to sleep or even food to eat. And why do they do all this? Just to waste a few years indulging their silly whims.
And, in my opinion, next these may be reckoned such as with their new inventions and occult arts undertake to change the forms of things and hunt all about after a certain fifth essence; men so bewitched with this present hope that it never repents them of their pains or expense, but are ever contriving how they may cheat themselves, till, having spent all, there is not enough left them to provide another furnace. And yet they have not done dreaming these their pleasant dreams but encourage others, as much as in them lies, to the same happiness. And at last, when they are quite lost in all their expectations, they cheer up themselves with this sentence, "In great things the very attempt is enough," and then complain of the shortness of man's life that is not sufficient for so great an understanding.
And, in my opinion, we can also consider those who, with their new inventions and hidden knowledge, try to change the nature of things and seek out a certain fifth element; people so captivated by this current hope that they never regret their efforts or expenses, but are always coming up with ways to deceive themselves, until they’ve spent everything and have nothing left to set up another furnace. Yet they don’t stop dreaming their pleasant dreams and even encourage others, as much as they can, to pursue the same happiness. Finally, when they are completely lost in their expectations, they reassure themselves with the saying, "In great things, just trying is enough," and then complain about the shortness of human life, which isn’t enough for such deep understanding.
And then for gamesters, I am a little doubtful whether they are to be admitted into our college; and yet 'tis a foolish and ridiculous sight to see some addicted so to it that they can no sooner hear the rattling of the dice but their heart leaps and dances again. And then when time after time they are so far drawn on with the hopes of winning that they have made shipwreck of all, and having split their ship on that rock of dice, no less terrible than the bishop and his clerks, scarce got alive to shore, they choose rather to cheat any man of their just debts than not pay the money they lost, lest otherwise, forsooth, they be thought no men of their words. Again what is it, I pray, to see old fellows and half blind to play with spectacles? Nay, and when a justly deserved gout has knotted their knuckles, to hire a caster, or one that may put the dice in the box for them? A pleasant thing, I must confess, did it not for the most part end in quarrels, and therefore belongs rather to the Furies than me.
And for gamblers, I’m a bit unsure if they should be let into our college. It's really a silly and ridiculous sight to see some so obsessed that they can hardly hear the dice rattle without their hearts racing. Then, time and again, they're so caught up in the hope of winning that they end up losing everything, wrecking their lives on that dice-rock just as terrifying as the bishop and his clerks, barely making it back to shore. They’d rather cheat someone out of what they owe than admit they lost money, all to avoid being seen as people who don’t keep their word. And what’s with old guys, half-blind, playing with glasses on? And when gout has twisted their knuckles, they hire someone to roll the dice for them? It’s a funny sight, I must admit, if it didn’t usually lead to fights, which fits better with the Furies than with me.
But there is no doubt but that that kind of men are wholly ours who love to hear or tell feigned miracles and strange lies and are never weary of any tale, though never so long, so it be of ghosts, spirits, goblins, devils, or the like; which the further they are from truth, the more readily they are believed and the more do they tickle their itching ears. And these serve not only to pass away time but bring profit, especially to mass priests and pardoners. And next to these are they that have gotten a foolish but pleasant persuasion that if they can but see a wooden or painted Polypheme Christopher, they shall not die that day; or do but salute a carved Barbara, in the usual set form, that he shall return safe from battle; or make his application to Erasmus on certain days with some small wax candles and proper prayers, that he shall quickly be rich. Nay, they have gotten a Hercules, another Hippolytus, and a St. George, whose horse most religiously set out with trappings and bosses there wants little but they worship; however, they endeavor to make him their friend by some present or other, and to swear by his master's brazen helmet is an oath for a prince. Or what should I say of them that hug themselves with their counterfeit pardons; that have measured purgatory by an hourglass, and can without the least mistake demonstrate its ages, years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds, as it were in a mathematical table? Or what of those who, having confidence in certain magical charms and short prayers invented by some pious imposter, either for his soul's health or profit's sake, promise to themselves everything: wealth, honor, pleasure, plenty, good health, long life, lively old age, and the next place to Christ in the other world, which yet they desire may not happen too soon, that is to say before the pleasures of this life have left them?
But there's no doubt that there are plenty of people who love to hear or tell made-up miracles and strange lies, never tiring of any story, no matter how long it is, as long as it involves ghosts, spirits, goblins, devils, or similar things. The farther these tales are from the truth, the more easily they are believed, and they make their eager listeners happy. These stories serve not only to kill time but also to profit, especially for priests who say masses and sellers of indulgences. Next to them are the ones who have foolishly but cheerfully convinced themselves that if they can just see a wooden or painted figure of Polypheme Christopher, they won’t die that day; or if they just greet a carved Barbara in the usual way, they'll return safely from battle; or if they pray to Erasmus on certain days with some small candles and proper prayers, they’ll soon become wealthy. They’ve also found a Hercules, another Hippolytus, and a St. George, whose horse is outfitted with fancy decorations, and it wouldn't take much for them to worship him; however, they try to win him over with some kind of offering, and swearing by his master's brass helmet is an oath worthy of a prince. And what about those who feel proud of their fake pardons, who have measured purgatory with an hourglass, and can confidently demonstrate its lengths in ages, years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds, almost like a math chart? Or what of those who, trusting in certain magical charms and short prayers made up by some pious fraud for his own benefit, promise themselves everything: wealth, honor, pleasure, abundance, good health, a long life, and a close spot next to Christ in the afterlife, even though they hope that won’t happen too soon, that is, before they've had their fill of the pleasures of this life?
And now suppose some merchant, soldier, or judge, out of so many rapines, parts with some small piece of money. He straight conceives all that sink of his whole life quite cleansed; so many perjuries, so many lusts, so many debaucheries, so many contentions, so many murders, so many deceits, so many breaches of trusts, so many treacheries bought off, as it were by compact; and so bought off that they may begin upon a new score. But what is more foolish than those, or rather more happy, who daily reciting those seven verses of the Psalms promise to themselves more than the top of felicity? Which magical verses some devil or other, a merry one without doubt but more a blab of his tongue than crafty, is believed to have discovered to St. Bernard, but not without a trick. And these are so foolish that I am half ashamed of them myself, and yet they are approved, and that not only by the common people but even the professors of religion. And what, are not they also almost the same where several countries avouch to themselves their peculiar saint, and as everyone of them has his particular gift, so also his particular form of worship? As, one is good for the toothache; another for groaning women; a third, for stolen goods; a fourth, for making a voyage prosperous; and a fifth, to cure sheep of the rot; and so of the rest, for it would be too tedious to run over all. And some there are that are good for more things than one; but chiefly, the Virgin Mother, to whom the common people do in a manner attribute more than to the Son.
And now imagine a merchant, soldier, or judge, who, after all their wrongdoings, gives away a small amount of money. They quickly think that this little act wipes clean their entire life of guilt: so many lies, so many lustful acts, so much debauchery, so many fights, so many murders, so much deceit, so many broken trusts, and so many betrayals, as if they were cleared by a deal, allowing them to start fresh. But what could be more foolish, or perhaps happier, than those who daily recite those seven verses from the Psalms, believing they have guaranteed themselves the utmost happiness? These magical verses, which some devil—certainly a playful one but more of a gossip than clever—are thought to have revealed to St. Bernard, but not without some trickery involved. And these people are so naïve that I feel somewhat embarrassed for them, yet they find approval not only from the masses but also from even the religious scholars. And what about those countless countries that each claim their own patron saint? Just as each saint has their special gifts, they also have their own specific worship practices. For instance, one saint is said to help with toothaches; another assists laboring women; a third deals with stolen goods; a fourth ensures safe travels; and a fifth cures sheep from diseases; and so on, as it would be too much to list them all. Some saints can help with multiple issues, but primarily, the Virgin Mother, to whom the common people tend to attribute even more than to the Son.
Yet what do they beg of these saints but what belongs to folly? To examine it a little. Among all those offerings which are so frequently hung up in churches, nay up to the very roof of some of them, did you ever see the least acknowledgment from anyone that had left his folly, or grown a hair's breadth the wiser? One escapes a shipwreck, and he gets safe to shore. Another, run through in a duel, recovers. Another, while the rest were fighting, ran out of the field, no less luckily than valiantly. Another, condemned to be hanged, by the favor of some saint or other, a friend to thieves, got off himself by impeaching his fellows. Another escaped by breaking prison. Another recovered from his fever in spite of his physician. Another's poison turning to a looseness proved his remedy rather than death; and that to his wife's no small sorrow, in that she lost both her labor and her charge. Another's cart broke, and he saved his horses. Another preserved from the fall of a house. All these hang up their tablets, but no one gives thanks for his recovery from folly; so sweet a thing it is not to be wise, that on the contrary men rather pray against anything than folly.
But what do these saints really want from us if not something foolish? Let’s take a closer look. Among all those offerings that are so often displayed in churches, some reaching all the way to the ceiling, have you ever seen anyone acknowledge that they’ve given up their foolishness or become even a little wiser? One person survives a shipwreck and makes it safely to shore. Another, who was injured in a duel, manages to recover. Someone else, while the others were fighting, bravely ran away from the battlefield, escaping without harm. Another person, sentenced to be hanged, got off thanks to a saint who seems to favor thieves, and he avoided execution by betraying his accomplices. Someone else broke out of prison. Another one recovered from a fever despite his doctor’s advice. A person who was poisoned found that it turned into diarrhea, which ended up being his cure rather than death, much to his wife's distress since she lost both her efforts and her expense. Another’s cart broke down, but he saved his horses. Someone else was spared from a collapsing house. All of these people hang up their plaques, but no one gives thanks for escaping foolishness; it seems people would rather pray against anything than wisdom.
But why do I launch out into this ocean of superstitions? Had I a hundred tongues, as many mouths, and a voice never so strong, yet were I not able to run over the several sorts of fools or all the names of folly, so thick do they swarm everywhere. And yet your priests make no scruple to receive and cherish them as proper instruments of profit; whereas if some scurvy wise fellow should step up and speak things as they are, as, to live well is the way to die well; the best way to get quit of sin is to add to the money you give the hatred of sin, tears, watchings, prayers, fastings, and amendment of life; such or such a saint will favor you, if you imitate his life—these, I say, and the like—should this wise man chat to the people, from what happiness into how great troubles would he draw them?
But why am I diving into this sea of superstitions? Even if I had a hundred tongues, as many mouths, and a voice that could project forever, I still wouldn't be able to list all the different types of fools or all the names of foolishness; they are everywhere in such abundance. And yet your priests don't hesitate to accept and nurture them as valuable tools for profit; while if some clever person were to step up and say things as they truly are, like, living well is the best way to die well; the easiest way to get rid of sin is to increase the money you give along with your disdain for sin, tears, sleeplessness, prayers, fasting, and changes in your life; that such and such a saint will help you if you follow his example—these kinds of statements, if this wise person were to share them with the public, from what bliss would he lead them into such great troubles?
Of this college also are they who in their lifetime appoint with what solemnity they'll be buried, and particularly set down how many torches, how many mourners, how many singers, how many almsmen they will have at it; as if any sense of it could come to them, or that it were a shame to them that their corpse were not honorably interred; so curious are they herein, as if, like the aediles of old, these were to present some shows or banquet to the people.
Of this college are those who, while alive, decide with great seriousness how they want to be buried, specifying the number of torches, mourners, singers, and almsmen they want at their funeral; as if any of this would matter to them afterward, or that it would be embarrassing if their body weren't buried with honor. They are so concerned about this, as if they were ancient officials planning some kind of entertainment or feast for the public.
And though I am in haste, yet I cannot yet pass by them who, though they differ nothing from the meanest cobbler, yet 'tis scarcely credible how they flatter themselves with the empty title of nobility. One derives his pedigree from Aeneas, another from Brutus, a third from the star by the tail of Ursa Major. They show you on every side the statues and pictures of their ancestors; run over their great-grandfathers and the great-great-grandfathers of both lines, and the ancient matches of their families, when themselves yet are but once removed from a statue, if not worse than those trifles they boast of. And yet by means of this pleasant self-love they live a happy life. Nor are they less fools who admire these beasts as if they were gods.
And even though I’m in a hurry, I can’t ignore those who, despite being no different from the average cobbler, incredibly flatter themselves with the empty title of nobility. One claims to be descended from Aeneas, another from Brutus, and a third from the star in the tail of Ursa Major. They show off statues and pictures of their ancestors everywhere; they rattle off their great-grandfathers and the great-great-grandfathers of both sides, boasting about the ancient unions of their families, while they themselves are hardly more than a step away from a statue, if not worse than the trivial things they brag about. And yet, because of this amusing self-love, they lead happy lives. The fools who admire these pretentious people as if they were gods are just as ignorant.
But what do I speak of any one or the other particular kind of men, as if this self-love had not the same effect everywhere and rendered most men superabundantly happy? As when a fellow, more deformed than a baboon, shall believe himself handsomer than Homer's Nereus. Another, as soon as he can draw two or three lines with a compass, presently thinks himself a Euclid. A third, that understands music no more than my horse, and for his voice as hoarse as a dunghill cock, shall yet conceive himself another Hermogenes. But of all madness that's the most pleasant when a man, seeing another any way excellent in what he pretends to himself, makes his boasts of it as confidently as if it were his own. And such was that rich fellow in Seneca, who whenever he told a story had his servants at his elbow to prompt him the names; and to that height had they flattered him that he did not question but he might venture a rubber at cuffs, a man otherwise so weak he could scarce stand, only presuming on this, that he had a company of sturdy servants about him.
But what do I mean by talking about any specific type of man, as if this self-love didn't have the same effect everywhere and make most men excessively happy? Like when a guy, uglier than a baboon, believes he's better looking than Homer's Nereus. Or another who, after he can draw a couple of lines with a compass, suddenly thinks he's a Euclid. A third guy, who knows nothing about music and has a voice as rough as a rooster’s, will still see himself as another Hermogenes. But the craziest thing is when a man, seeing someone else who is truly excellent at what he pretends to be, boasts about it as confidently as if it were his own talent. And such was that wealthy guy in Seneca, who always had his servants nearby to remind him of names whenever he told a story; he had been flattered to the point where he believed he could take on someone in a fight, despite being so weak he could hardly stand, just because he had a bunch of strong servants around him.
Or to what purpose is it I should mind you of our professors of arts? Forasmuch as this self-love is so natural to them all that they had rather part with their father's land than their foolish opinions; but chiefly players, fiddlers, orators, and poets, of which the more ignorant each of them is, the more insolently he pleases himself, that is to say vaunts and spreads out his plumes. And like lips find like lettuce; nay, the more foolish anything is, the more 'tis admired, the greater number being ever tickled at the worst things, because, as I said before, most men are so subject to folly. And therefore if the more foolish a man is, the more he pleases himself and is admired by others, to what purpose should he beat his brains about true knowledge, which first will cost him dear, and next render him the more troublesome and less confident, and lastly, please only a few?
Or why should I remind you of our arts professors? Because their self-love is so natural that they would rather give up their family's land than their misguided opinions. This is especially true for actors, musicians, speakers, and poets; the less knowledge they have, the more arrogantly they boost their own ego, bragging and showing off. Like attracts like; in fact, the more nonsensical something is, the more it's admired, as most people are easily entertained by the worst things. Therefore, if the more foolish someone is, the more they enjoy themselves and are admired by others, why should they struggle with true knowledge, which will cost them a lot, make them more annoying and less confident, and ultimately please only a few?
And now I consider it, Nature has planted, not only in particular men but even in every nation, and scarce any city is there without it, a kind of common self-love. And hence is it that the English, besides other things, particularly challenge to themselves beauty, music, and feasting. The Scots are proud of their nobility, alliance to the crown, and logical subtleties. The French think themselves the only well-bred men. The Parisians, excluding all others, arrogate to themselves the only knowledge of divinity. The Italians affirm they are the only masters of good letters and eloquence, and flatter themselves on this account, that of all others they only are not barbarous. In which kind of happiness those of Rome claim the first place, still dreaming to themselves of somewhat, I know not what, of old Rome. The Venetians fancy themselves happy in the opinion of their nobility. The Greeks, as if they were the only authors of sciences, swell themselves with the titles of the ancient heroes. The Turk, and all that sink of the truly barbarous, challenge to themselves the only glory of religion and laugh at Christians as superstitious. And much more pleasantly the Jews expect to this day the coming of the Messiah, and so obstinately contend for their Law of Moses. The Spaniards give place to none in the reputation of soldiery. The Germans pride themselves in their tallness of stature and skill in magic.
And now that I think about it, Nature has instilled in not just certain individuals but in every nation, with hardly a city lacking it, a sense of self-love. This is why the English pride themselves, among other things, on their beauty, music, and feasting. The Scots take pride in their nobility, ties to the crown, and logical reasoning. The French see themselves as the only refined people. The Parisians, excluding everyone else, claim to have the sole understanding of spirituality. The Italians insist they are the only masters of literature and eloquence, and they flatter themselves with the belief that unlike others, they are not uncivilized. In this sense of happiness, those from Rome believe they hold the top spot, still dreaming about something, I’m not sure what, from ancient Rome. The Venetians pride themselves on their nobility. The Greeks, as if they were the only creators of knowledge, puff themselves up with the titles of ancient heroes. The Turks and all those truly uncultured consider themselves the sole bearers of true religion and mock Christians as superstitious. More cheerfully, the Jews still anticipate the arrival of the Messiah and stubbornly defend their Law of Moses. The Spaniards see themselves as unmatched in military prowess. The Germans take pride in their height and skills in magic.
And, not to instance in every particular, you see, I conceive, how much satisfaction this Self-love, who has a sister also not unlike herself called Flattery, begets everywhere; for self-love is no more than the soothing of a man's self, which, done to another, is flattery. And though perhaps at this day it may be thought infamous, yet it is so only with them that are more taken with words than things. They think truth is inconsistent with flattery, but that it is much otherwise we may learn from the examples of true beasts. What more fawning than a dog? And yet what more trusty? What has more of those little tricks than a squirrel? And yet what more loving to man? Unless, perhaps you'll say, men had better converse with fierce lions, merciless tigers, and furious leopards. For that flattery is the most pernicious of all things, by means of which some treacherous persons and mockers have run the credulous into such mischief. But this of mine proceeds from a certain gentleness and uprightness of mind and comes nearer to virtue than its opposite, austerity, or a morose and troublesome peevishness, as Horace calls it. This supports the dejected, relieves the distressed, encourages the fainting, awakens the stupid, refreshes the sick, supplies the untractable, joins loves together, and keeps them so joined. It entices children to take their learning, makes old men frolic, and, under the color of praise, does without offense both tell princes their faults and show them the way to amend them. In short, it makes every man the more jocund and acceptable to himself, which is the chiefest point of felicity. Again, what is more friendly than when two horses scrub one another? And to say nothing of it, that it's a main part of physic, and the only thing in poetry; 'tis the delight and relish of all human society.
And, without going into every detail, you can see how much satisfaction this self-love, which has a sister called Flattery who is quite similar, brings everywhere; because self-love is just the act of comforting oneself, and when it’s done to someone else, it becomes flattery. And even though today it might be seen as shameful, that judgment only comes from those who care more about words than actions. They believe that truth can't coexist with flattery, but we can learn from real-life examples that it’s quite the opposite. What is more eager to please than a dog? Yet, what is more loyal? What has more tricks than a squirrel? And yet, what is more affectionate toward humans? Unless you think people would rather be around fierce lions, merciless tigers, and angry leopards. Because flattery is among the most harmful things, some deceitful individuals and mockers have led the gullible into serious troubles. But my perspective stems from a certain gentleness and honesty of mind, and it aligns more closely with virtue than its opposite, which is harshness or a grumpy, irritable attitude, as Horace describes it. This supports the downcast, helps the troubled, encourages the weary, wakes the forgetful, refreshes the sick, helps the difficult, brings love together, and keeps it united. It encourages children to learn, makes old men feel youthful, and, under the guise of praise, it can without offense point out a ruler's faults and guide them on how to correct them. In short, it makes everyone feel more cheerful and agreeable with themselves, which is the most important aspect of happiness. Again, what’s friendlier than when two horses groom each other? And not to mention that it’s a significant part of medicine, and the only thing in poetry; it’s the joy and flavor of all human interactions.
But 'tis a sad thing, they say, to be mistaken. Nay rather, he is most miserable that is not so. For they are quite beside the mark that place the happiness of men in things themselves, since it only depends upon opinion. For so great is the obscurity and variety of human affairs that nothing can be clearly known, as it is truly said by our academics, the least insolent of all the philosophers; or if it could, it would but obstruct the pleasure of life. Lastly, the mind of man is so framed that it is rather taken with the false colors than truth; of which if anyone has a mind to make the experiment, let him go to church and hear sermons, in which if there be anything serious delivered, the audience is either asleep, yawning, or weary of it; but if the preacher—pardon my mistake, I would have said declaimer—as too often it happens, fall but into an old wives' story, they're presently awake, prick up their ears and gape after it. In like manner, if there be any poetical saint, or one of whom there goes more stories than ordinary, as for example, a George, a Christopher, or a Barbara, you shall see him more religiously worshiped than Peter, Paul, or even Christ himself. But these things are not for this place.
But it's a sad thing, they say, to be mistaken. No, actually, the most miserable person is the one who isn't. Those who believe that happiness comes from things themselves are completely wrong, since it really depends on our opinions. The confusion and variety in human experiences are so great that nothing can be clearly understood, as our academics, the least arrogant of all philosophers, rightly say; and even if it could be known, it would only spoil the enjoyment of life. Finally, the human mind is structured in such a way that it prefers false appearances over truth; anyone who wants to test this can go to church and listen to sermons, where if anything serious is said, the audience is either asleep, yawning, or tired of it. But if the preacher—sorry, I mean the speaker—happens to tell a silly story, as often happens, the audience is suddenly awake, attentive, and eager. Similarly, if there’s a miracle-working saint, or someone with more stories about them than usual, like George, Christopher, or Barbara, you’ll see them worshipped more fervently than Peter, Paul, or even Christ himself. But these points aren’t relevant here.
And now at how cheap a rate is this happiness purchased! Forasmuch as to the thing itself a man's whole endeavor is required, be it never so inconsiderable; but the opinion of it is easily taken up, which yet conduces as much or more to happiness. For suppose a man were eating rotten stockfish, the very smell of which would choke another, and yet believed it a dish for the gods, what difference is there as to his happiness? Whereas on the contrary, if another's stomach should turn at a sturgeon, wherein, I pray, is he happier than the other? If a man have a crooked, ill-favored wife, who yet in his eye may stand in competition with Venus, is it not the same as if she were truly beautiful? Or if seeing an ugly, ill-pointed piece, he should admire the work as believing it some great master's hand, were he not much happier, think you, than they that buy such things at vast rates, and yet perhaps reap less pleasure from them than the other? I know one of my name that gave his new married wife some counterfeit jewels, and as he was a pleasant droll, persuaded her that they were not only right but of an inestimable price; and what difference, I pray, to her, that was as well pleased and contented with glass and kept it as warily as if it had been a treasure? In the meantime the husband saved his money and had this advantage of her folly, that he obliged her as much as if he had bought them at a great rate. Or what difference, think you, between those in Plato's imaginary cave that stand gaping at the shadows and figures of things, so they please themselves and have no need to wish, and that wise man, who, being got loose from them, sees things truly as they are? Whereas that cobbler in Lucian if he might always have continued his golden dreams, he would never have desired any other happiness. So then there is no difference; or, if there be, the fools have the advantage: first, in that their happiness costs them least, that is to say, only some small persuasion; next, that they enjoy it in common. And the possession of no good can be delightful without a companion. For who does not know what a dearth there is of wise men, if yet any one be to be found? And though the Greeks for these so many ages have accounted upon seven only, yet so help me Hercules, do but examine them narrowly, and I'll be hanged if you find one half-witted fellow, nay or so much as one-quarter of a wise man, among them all.
And now, look at how cheaply this happiness is bought! A person's entire effort is needed for the thing itself, no matter how insignificant it might be. But the opinion of it is easily adopted, which contributes just as much, if not more, to happiness. For instance, if a person were eating rotten stockfish, the smell of which would make someone else gag, but he believed it was a dish fit for the gods, what difference does that make to his happiness? On the other hand, if someone else is disgusted by a sturgeon, how is he any happier than the first? If a man has a crooked, unattractive wife, yet in his eyes she rivals Venus, isn't that the same as if she were truly beautiful? Or if he sees an ugly, poorly crafted piece but admires it, believing it to be the work of a great master, isn't he much happier than those who buy such items at high prices, but perhaps gain less pleasure from them? I know someone with my name who gave his newly married wife some fake jewels, and being a charming jokester, convinced her they were not only real but priceless. What difference did it make to her, since she was just as pleased and treasured the glass as if it were a treasure? In the meantime, the husband saved his money and had the added benefit of making her as happy as if he had spent a fortune. Or what difference is there between those in Plato's imagined cave, staring at shadows and figures, who are content and have no desire for anything more, and the wise person who escapes and sees things as they truly are? As for that cobbler in Lucian, if he could remain in his golden dreams forever, he wouldn't want any other happiness. So, there’s really no difference; or if there is, the fools have the upper hand: first, their happiness costs them the least, just a little persuasion; second, they get to enjoy it together. After all, who doesn’t know how scarce wise people are, if any can be found? And although the Greeks have counted only seven wise men for ages, I swear by Hercules, if you look closely, you’ll be lucky to find even half a silly person, let alone a quarter of a wise man, among them all.
For whereas among the many praises of Bacchus they reckon this the chief, that he washes away cares, and that too in an instant, do but sleep off his weak spirits, and they come on again, as we say, on horseback. But how much larger and more present is the benefit you receive by me, since, as it were with a perpetual drunkenness I fill your minds with mirth, fancies, and jollities, and that too without any trouble? Nor is there any man living whom I let be without it; whereas the gifts of the gods are scrambled, some to one and some to another. The sprightly delicious wine that drives away cares and leaves such a flavor behind it grows not everywhere. Beauty, the gift of Venus, happens to few; and to fewer gives Mercury eloquence. Hercules makes not everyone rich. Homer's Jupiter bestows not empire on all men. Mars oftentimes favors neither side. Many return sad from Apollo's oracle. Phoebus sometimes shoots a plague among us. Neptune drowns more than he saves: to say nothing of those mischievous gods, Plutoes, Ates, punishments, favors, and the like, not gods but executioners. I am that only Folly that so readily and indifferently bestows my benefits on all. Nor do I look to be entreated, or am I subject to take pet, and require an expiatory sacrifice if some ceremony be omitted. Nor do I beat heaven and earth together if, when the rest of the gods are invited, I am passed by or not admitted to the stream of their sacrifices. For the rest of the gods are so curious in this point that such an omission may chance to spoil a man's business; and therefore one has as good even let them alone as worship them: just like some men, who are so hard to please, and withall so ready to do mischief, that 'tis better be a stranger than have any familiarity with them.
For while many praise Bacchus, claiming the main benefit is that he easily washes away worries, those feelings often return, as we say, with a vengeance. But the benefits I offer you are much greater and more immediate, since I fill your minds with joy, creativity, and happiness in a constant way, and without any effort. No one escapes me; unlike the gods who randomly grant their gifts to some and not others. The delightful wine that chases away troubles and leaves a great taste doesn’t grow everywhere. The beauty granted by Venus is rare, and few receive eloquence from Mercury. Hercules doesn’t make everyone wealthy, and Homer's Jupiter doesn’t give power to all. Mars often doesn’t favor either side. Many come back disappointed from Apollo's oracle, and Phoebus sometimes brings plagues. Neptune saves fewer people than he drowns; let alone the troublesome gods like Pluto and Ate, who are more about punishment than blessing. I am the only kind of Folly that generously and impartially gives my gifts to everyone. I don’t expect to be begged, nor do I get upset if I’m overlooked or not included in their ceremonies. I don’t cause a scene if the other gods are honored and I’m left out of their sacrifices. The other gods are so picky that such an oversight could ruin a person’s life; it’s often better to leave them alone than to worship them. They can be like some people who are so hard to please and quick to cause trouble that it’s better to keep your distance than to become familiar with them.
But no man, you'll say, ever sacrificed to Folly or built me a temple. And troth, as I said before, I cannot but wonder at the ingratitude; yet because I am easily to be entreated, I take this also in good part, though truly I can scarce request it. For why should I require incense, wafers, a goat, or sow when all men pay me that worship everywhere which is so much approved even by our very divines? Unless perhaps I should envy Diana that her sacrifices are mingled with human blood. Then do I conceive myself most religiously worshiped when everywhere, as 'tis generally done, men embrace me in their minds, express me in their manners, and represent me in their lives, which worship of the saints is not so ordinary among Christians. How many are there that burn candles to the Virgin Mother, and that too at noonday when there's no need of them! But how few are there that study to imitate her in pureness of life, humility and love of heavenly things, which is the true worship and most acceptable to heaven! Besides why should I desire a temple when the whole world is my temple, and I'm deceived or 'tis a goodly one? Nor can I want priests but in a land where there are no men. Nor am I yet so foolish as to require statues or painted images, which do often obstruct my worship, since among the stupid and gross multitude those figures are worshiped for the saints themselves. And so it would fare with me, as it does with them that are turned out of doors by their substitutes. No, I have statues enough, and as many as there are men, everyone bearing my lively resemblance in his face, how unwilling so ever he be to the contrary. And therefore there is no reason why I should envy the rest of the gods if in particular places they have their particular worship, and that too on set days—as Phoebus at Rhodes; at Cyprus, Venus; at Argos, Juno; at Athens, Minerva; in Olympus, Jupiter; at Tarentum, Neptune; and near the Hellespont, Priapus—as long as the world in general performs me every day much better sacrifices.
But no one, you might say, has ever sacrificed to Folly or built me a temple. And honestly, as I mentioned before, I can’t help but be amazed by the ingratitude; yet because I’m easily persuaded, I take this all in good spirits, though I can hardly ask for it. Why should I need incense, wafers, a goat, or a pig when everyone pays me that kind of respect everywhere, which even our very religious people approve of? Unless perhaps I should be jealous of Diana for her sacrifices that involve human blood. I believe I’m most genuinely worshiped when, as is commonly done, people embrace me in their minds, express me in their behavior, and represent me in their lives, which is not something that saints receive as commonly among Christians. How many people burn candles for the Virgin Mother, even at noon when there’s really no need for them! But how few actually strive to mimic her purity of life, humility, and love for heavenly things, which is true worship and most pleasing to heaven! Plus, why should I want a temple when the entire world is my temple, and I’m either misled or it’s a beautiful one? I also can’t lack priests except in a land where there are no men. Nor am I so foolish as to demand statues or painted images, which often get in the way of my worship, since the simple-minded and ignorant masses often worship those figures instead of the saints themselves. It would be the same for me, as it is for those who are pushed out by their substitutes. No, I have enough statues, as many as there are people, each one bearing my likeness, no matter how unwilling they may be to admit it. Therefore, there’s no reason for me to envy the other gods if in specific places they receive their particular worship on designated days—like Phoebus at Rhodes, Venus at Cyprus, Juno at Argos, Minerva at Athens, Jupiter on Olympus, Neptune at Tarentum, and Priapus near the Hellespont—as long as the world as a whole performs for me much better sacrifices every single day.
Wherein notwithstanding if I shall seem to anyone to have spoken more boldly than truly, let us, if you please, look a little into the lives of men, and it will easily appear not only how much they owe to me, but how much they esteem me even from the highest to the lowest. And yet we will not run over the lives of everyone, for that would be too long, but only some few of the great ones, from whence we shall easily conjecture the rest. For to what purpose is it to say anything of the common people, who without dispute are wholly mine? For they abound everywhere with so many several sorts of folly, and are every day so busy in inventing new, that a thousand Democriti are too few for so general a laughter though there were another Democritus to laugh at them too. 'Tis almost incredible what sport and pastime they daily make the gods; for though they set aside their sober forenoon hours to dispatch business and receive prayers, yet when they begin to be well whittled with nectar and cannot think of anything that's serious, they get them up into some part of heaven that has better prospect than other and thence look down upon the actions of men. Nor is there anything that pleases them better. Good, good! what an excellent sight it is! How many several hurly-burlies of fools! for I myself sometimes sit among those poetical gods.
Wherever, despite this, if I seem to anyone to have spoken more boldly than truthfully, let’s take a moment to examine the lives of people, and it will clearly show not just how much they owe me, but also how much they respect me from the highest to the lowest. However, we won't go through everyone's lives, as that would take too long, but only a few of the notable figures, from which we can easily guess the rest. After all, what’s the point in discussing the common people, who undoubtedly belong entirely to me? They are filled everywhere with so many kinds of foolishness and are busy every day creating new ones that a thousand Democrituses wouldn't be enough for such widespread laughter, even if there were another Democritus to laugh at them too. It’s almost unbelievable how much fun and amusement they provide the gods; for while they set aside their serious morning hours to attend to business and receive prayers, when they start to enjoy their nectar and forget about anything serious, they rise up to a part of heaven with a better view and look down at human activities. And there’s nothing they enjoy more. Oh, what an amazing sight it is! How many different chaotic scenes of fools! Sometimes I even find myself sitting among those poetic gods.
Here's one desperately in love with a young wench, and the more she slights him the more outrageously he loves her. Another marries a woman's money, not herself. Another's jealousy keeps more eyes on her than Argos. Another becomes a mourner, and how foolishly he carries it! nay, hires others to bear him company to make it more ridiculous. Another weeps over his mother-in-law's grave. Another spends all he can rap and run on his belly, to be the more hungry after it. Another thinks there is no happiness but in sleep and idleness. Another turmoils himself about other men's business and neglects his own. Another thinks himself rich in taking up moneys and changing securities, as we say borrowing of Peter to pay Paul, and in a short time becomes bankrupt. Another starves himself to enrich his heir. Another for a small and uncertain gain exposes his life to the casualties of seas and winds, which yet no money can restore. Another had rather get riches by war than live peaceably at home. And some there are that think them easiest attained by courting old childless men with presents; and others again by making rich old women believe they love them; both which afford the gods most excellent pastime, to see them cheated by those persons they thought to have over-caught. But the most foolish and basest of all others are our merchants, to wit such as venture on everything be it never so dishonest, and manage it no better; who though they lie by no allowance, swear and forswear, steal, cozen, and cheat, yet shuffle themselves into the first rank, and all because they have gold rings on their fingers. Nor are they without their flattering friars that admire them and give them openly the title of honorable, in hopes, no doubt, to get some small snip of it themselves.
Here's someone hopelessly in love with a young woman, and the more she ignores him, the more passionately he loves her. Another marries for a woman's money, not for her. Another's jealousy keeps more watch on her than Argos. Another becomes a mourner, and he carries it so foolishly! He even hires others to keep him company to make it more ridiculous. Another cries over his mother-in-law's grave. Another spends everything he can grab on food, only to be hungrier afterward. Another believes there's no happiness except in sleep and laziness. Another stresses over other people's business while neglecting his own. Another thinks he's wealthy just by borrowing money and swapping securities, like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and soon ends up bankrupt. Another starves himself to leave riches for his heir. Another risks his life at sea for a little uncertain profit, which no amount of money can replace. Another would rather gain wealth through war than live peacefully at home. Some think the easiest way to wealth is by courting old, childless men with gifts; others try to convince rich old women that they love them. Both provide the gods with great amusement, watching them get deceived by those they thought they could outsmart. But the most foolish and lowest of all are our merchants, specifically those who take risks on anything, no matter how dishonest, and manage it poorly; they lie without permission, swear false oaths, steal, deceive, and cheat, yet thrust themselves into high society simply because they wear gold rings on their fingers. They aren't without their flattering friars who praise them and openly call them honorable, likely hoping to snag a little for themselves.
There are also a kind of Pythagoreans with whom all things are so common that if they get anything under their cloaks, they make no more scruple of carrying it away than if it were their own by inheritance. There are others too that are only rich in conceit, and while they fancy to themselves pleasant dreams, conceive that enough to make them happy. Some desire to be accounted wealthy abroad and are yet ready to starve at home. One makes what haste he can to set all going, and another rakes it together by right or wrong. This man is ever laboring for public honors, and another lies sleeping in a chimney corner. A great many undertake endless suits and outvie one another who shall most enrich the dilatory judge or corrupt advocate. One is all for innovations and another for some great he-knows-not-what. Another leaves his wife and children at home and goes to Jerusalem, Rome, or in pilgrimage to St. James's where he has no business. In short, if a man like Menippus of old could look down from the moon and behold those innumerable rufflings of mankind, he would think he saw a swarm of flies and gnats quarreling among themselves, fighting, laying traps for one another, snatching, playing, wantoning, growing up, falling, and dying. Nor is it to be believed what stir, what broils, this little creature raises, and yet in how short a time it comes to nothing itself; while sometimes war, other times pestilence, sweeps off many thousands of them together.
There are also a group of Pythagoreans who share everything to the point that if they find something under their cloaks, they take it without a second thought, as if it were their rightful property. Then there are others who are rich in pride but live in a fantasy world, believing that these dreams alone are enough to make them happy. Some want to be seen as wealthy outside but are on the brink of starving at home. One person hustles to get everything up and running, while another just scrapes by through questionable means. One is always striving for public recognition while another dozes away in a corner. Many get caught up in endless lawsuits, each trying to fill the pockets of a slow judge or a shady lawyer. Some are all about new ideas, while others chase after some grand yet undefined goal. Another might abandon his family to go on a trip to Jerusalem, Rome, or to visit St. James, even though it has nothing to do with him. In short, if someone like Menippus from back in the day could look down from the moon and see the countless struggles of humanity, he would think he was watching a swarm of flies and gnats fighting amongst themselves, scheming against one another, grabbing things, playing around, growing, falling, and dying. It’s hard to believe the chaos this tiny creature creates, yet everything leads to nothing in a remarkably short time; sometimes war, sometimes disease, wipes out thousands of them all at once.
But let me be most foolish myself, and one whom Democritus may not only laugh at but flout, if I go one foot further in the discovery of the follies and madnesses of the common people. I'll betake me to them that carry the reputation of wise men and hunt after that golden bough, as says the proverb. Among whom the grammarians hold the first place, a generation of men than whom nothing would be more miserable, nothing more perplexed, nothing more hated of the gods, did not I allay the troubles of that pitiful profession with a certain kind of pleasant madness. For they are not only subject to those five curses with which Home begins his Iliads, as says the Greek epigram, but six hundred; as being ever hunger-starved and slovens in their schools—schools, did I say? Nay, rather cloisters, bridewells, or slaughterhouses—grown old among a company of boys, deaf with their noise, and pined away with stench and nastiness. And yet by my courtesy it is that they think themselves the most excellent of all men, so greatly do they please themselves in frighting a company of fearful boys with a thundering voice and big looks, tormenting them with ferules, rods, and whips; and, laying about them without fear or wit, imitate the ass in the lion's skin. In the meantime all that nastiness seems absolute spruceness, that stench a perfume, and that miserable slavery a kingdom, and such too as they would not change their tyranny for Phalaris' or Dionysius' empire. Nor are they less happy in that new opinion they have taken up of being learned; for whereas most of them beat into boys' heads nothing but foolish toys, yet, you good gods! what Palemon, what Donatus, do they not scorn in comparison of themselves? And so, I know not by what tricks, they bring it about that to their boys' foolish mothers and dolt-headed fathers they pass for such as they fancy themselves. Add to this that other pleasure of theirs, that if any of them happen to find out who was Anchises' mother, or pick out of some worm-eaten manuscript a word not commonly known—as suppose it bubsequa for a cowherd, bovinator for a wrangler, manticulator for a cutpurse—or dig up the ruins of some ancient monument with the letters half eaten out; O Jupiter! what towerings! what triumphs! what commendations! as if they had conquered Africa or taken in Babylon.
But let me be the biggest fool myself, and someone Democritus would not only laugh at but mock, if I go any further in uncovering the foolishness and craziness of ordinary people. I’ll turn to those who claim to be wise and chase after that golden bough, as the saying goes. Among them, the grammarians take the top spot, a group of people who are more miserable, more confused, and more hated by the gods than any other, if I didn’t lighten the burdens of that sad profession with a touch of pleasant craziness. They not only suffer from the five curses that Homer begins his Iliads with, as the Greek epigram states, but from six hundred; constantly starving and disheveled in their classes—classes, did I say? More like cloisters, jails, or slaughterhouses—growing old surrounded by boys, deafened by their noise, and fading away from the filth and stink. Yet out of my kindness, they think they are the best of all men, so content to scare a group of terrified boys with their booming voices and intimidating looks, tormenting them with rulers, rods, and whips; without fear or reason, they mimic the donkey in a lion's skin. Meanwhile, all that filth feels like perfection, that stench like perfume, and that miserable servitude like a kingdom, one they wouldn’t trade for the tyrannies of Phalaris or Dionysius. They are equally pleased with their new idea of being learned; because while most of them cram nothing but silly nonsense into the boys' heads, just think, what Palemon or Donatus do they not look down on in comparison to themselves? And so, I don’t know how, but they somehow manage to appear to the boys' silly mothers and dull-headed fathers just like they imagine themselves. Add to this their other joy, that if any of them happen to discover who Anchises' mother was, or pull out from some decaying manuscript a word that's not commonly known—like bubsequa for a cowherd, bovinator for a wrangler, manticulator for a cutpurse—or dig up the remains of some ancient monument with letters faded away; oh Jupiter! what boasting! what victories! what praise! as if they had conquered Africa or captured Babylon.
But what of this when they give up and down their foolish insipid verses, and there wants not others that admire them as much? They believe presently that Virgil's soul is transmigrated into them! But nothing like this, when with mutual compliments they praise, admire, and claw one another. Whereas if another do but slip a word and one more quick-sighted than the rest discover it by accident, O Hercules! what uproars, what bickerings, what taunts, what invectives! If I lie, let me have the ill will of all the grammarians. I knew in my time one of many arts, a Grecian, a Latinist, a mathematician, a philosopher, a physician, a man master of them all, and sixty years of age, who, laying by all the rest, perplexed and tormented himself for above twenty years in the study of grammar, fully reckoning himself a prince if he might but live so long till he could certainly determine how the eight parts of speech were to be distinguished, which none of the Greeks or Latins had yet fully cleared: as if it were a matter to be decided by the sword if a man made an adverb of a conjunction. And for this cause is it that we have as many grammars as grammarians; nay more, forasmuch as my friend Aldus has given us above five, not passing by any kind of grammar, how barbarously or tediously soever compiled, which he has not turned over and examined; envying every man's attempts in this kind, how to be pitied than happy, as persons that are ever tormenting themselves; adding, changing, putting in, blotting out, revising, reprinting, showing it to friends, and nine years in correcting, yet never fully satisfied; at so great a rate do they purchase this vain reward, to wit, praise, and that too of a very few, with so many watchings, so much sweat, so much vexation and loss of sleep, the most precious of all things. Add to this the waste of health, spoil of complexion, weakness of eyes or rather blindness, poverty, envy, abstinence from pleasure, over-hasty old age, untimely death, and the like; so highly does this wise man value the approbation of one or two blear-eyed fellows. But how much happier is this my writer's dotage who never studies for anything but puts in writing whatever he pleases or what comes first in his head, though it be but his dreams; and all this with small waste of paper, as well knowing that the vainer those trifles are, the higher esteem they will have with the greater number, that is to say all the fools and unlearned. And what matter is it to slight those few learned if yet they ever read them? Or of what authority will the censure of so few wise men be against so great a cloud of gainsayers?
But what about when they give up and recite their dull, pointless verses, and there are others who admire them just as much? They quickly believe that Virgil's spirit has been reborn in them! But nothing is like that when they shower each other with compliments, praise, and scratch each other’s backs. However, if someone slips up with a word and someone more observant catches it by chance, oh my! What chaos, what arguments, what insults, what fierce criticisms! If I’m lying, let all grammarians hold a grudge against me. In my time, I knew a man skilled in many fields: a Greek, a Latin expert, a mathematician, a philosopher, a physician, a master of them all, and sixty years old, who set aside everything else and puzzled over grammar for more than twenty years, thinking of himself as a prince if he could just live long enough to figure out how to distinguish the eight parts of speech, a task that none of the Greeks or Latins had fully resolved: as if it were a matter to be settled with a sword if someone turned a conjunction into an adverb. And that’s why we have as many grammars as there are grammarians; in fact, even more, since my friend Aldus has given us over five, not skipping any type of grammar, no matter how poorly or tedious they are compiled, which he has not read and examined; begrudging every attempt by others in this area, how much more pitiable than happy, as people who are always tormenting themselves; adding, changing, inserting, deleting, revising, reprinting, showing it to friends, and spending nine years on corrections, yet never fully satisfied; at such a high cost, they chase this empty reward, namely, praise, and of a very few, with so many sleepless nights, so much effort, so much stress, and loss of sleep, the most precious thing of all. Add to this the toll on their health, ruin of their complexion, weak eyes or even blindness, poverty, jealousy, giving up pleasure, premature old age, untimely death, and more; how highly this wise man values the approval of one or two half-blind folks. But how much happier is this writer’s madness who never studies for anything but just writes whatever he wants or whatever comes to mind, even if it’s just his dreams; and all this with little waste of paper, knowing full well that the more trivial these things are, the more they will be valued by the greater number, meaning all the fools and uneducated. And what does it matter to disregard those few learned people if they never read them? Or what weight will the judgment of so few wise men carry against such a vast crowd of dissenters?
But they are the wiser that put out other men's works for their own, and transfer that glory which others with great pains have obtained to themselves; relying on this, that they conceive, though it should so happen that their theft be never so plainly detected, that yet they should enjoy the pleasure of it for the present. And 'tis worth one's while to consider how they please themselves when they are applauded by the common people, pointed at in a crowd, "This is that excellent person;" lie on booksellers' stalls; and in the top of every page have three hard words read, but chiefly exotic and next degree to conjuring; which, by the immortal gods! what are they but mere words? And again, if you consider the world, by how few understood, and praised by fewer! for even among the unlearned there are different palates. Or what is it that their own very names are often counterfeit or borrowed from some books of the ancients? When one styles himself Telemachus, another Sthenelus, a third Laertes, a fourth Polycrates, a fifth Thrasymachus. So that there is no difference whether they title their books with the "Tale of a Tub," or, according to the philosophers, by alpha, beta.
But they're smarter when they pass off other people's work as their own, taking the credit that others have earned with a lot of effort. They hold on to the idea that even if their theft is obvious, they can still enjoy the thrill of it right now. It’s interesting to think about how they feel when they're praised by the public, pointed out in a crowd as "This is that amazing person," found on booksellers’ displays, and have three fancy words at the top of every page, mostly difficult and nearly magical; which, honestly, are just words! And if you look at the world, they’re understood by so few and praised by even fewer! Even among the uneducated, tastes differ. Or what about how their own names are often fake or borrowed from some ancient texts? One calls himself Telemachus, another Sthenelus, a third Laertes, a fourth Polycrates, a fifth Thrasymachus. So there’s really no difference whether they name their books "The Tale of a Tub" or label them with letters like alpha and beta, as philosophers do.
But the most pleasant of all is to see them praise one another with reciprocal epistles, verses, and encomiums; fools their fellow fools, and dunces their brother dunces. This, in the other's opinion, is an absolute Alcaeus; and the other, in his, a very Callimachus. He looks upon Tully as nothing to the other, and the other again pronounces him more learned than Plato. And sometimes too they pick out their antagonist and think to raise themselves a fame by writing one against the other; while the giddy multitude are so long divided to whether of the two they shall determine the victory, till each goes off conqueror, and, as if he had done some great action, fancies himself a triumph. And now wise men laugh at these things as foolish, as indeed they are. Who denies it? Yet in the meantime, such is my kindness to them, they live a merry life and would not change their imaginary triumphs, no, not with the Scipioes. While yet those learned men, though they laugh their fill and reap the benefit of the other's folly, cannot without ingratitude deny but that even they too are not a little beholding to me themselves.
But the best part is watching them compliment each other with back-and-forth letters, poems, and praises; fools praising their fellow fools and dullards supporting their fellow dullards. To one, the other is a total genius, while the other believes he is even more talented. One thinks Tully is nothing compared to the other, and the other claims he’s more knowledgeable than Plato. Sometimes they even choose an opponent, thinking they can boost their own reputation by writing against each other; meanwhile, the confused crowd debates which of the two should be declared the winner, until both walk away feeling victorious, thinking they’ve achieved something significant. And wise people laugh at these absurdities, as they surely are. Who can argue with that? Still, out of kindness to them, they enjoy their happy lives and wouldn’t trade their imaginary victories, not even for the Scipios. Yet those learned individuals, despite laughing at and benefiting from the folly of others, can’t help but acknowledge that they owe me a great deal too.
And among them our advocates challenge the first place, nor is there any sort of people that please themselves like them: for while they daily roll Sisyphus his stone, and quote you a thousand cases, as it were, in a breath no matter how little to the purpose, and heap glosses upon glosses, and opinions on the neck of opinions, they bring it at last to this pass, that that study of all other seems the most difficult. Add to these our logicians and sophists, a generation of men more prattling than an echo and the worst of them able to outchat a hundred of the best picked gossips. And yet their condition would be much better were they only full of words and not so given to scolding that they most obstinately hack and hew one another about a matter of nothing and make such a sputter about terms and words till they have quite lost the sense. And yet they are so happy in the good opinion of themselves that as soon as they are furnished with two or three syllogisms, they dare boldly enter the lists against any man upon any point, as not doubting but to run him down with noise, though the opponent were another Stentor.
And among them, our advocates compete for the top spot, and no group entertains themselves quite like they do. They constantly roll Sisyphus's stone, citing countless examples, no matter how irrelevant, and piling glosses on glosses and opinions on top of opinions until they create the illusion that this study is the most challenging of all. Add to this our logicians and sophists, a group that chatters more than an echo, with even the worst among them able to out-talk a hundred of the most skilled gossips. Yet their situation would be much better if they were just full of words and not so inclined to argue, as they stubbornly fight over trivial matters and fuss over terms and words until they've completely lost their meaning. Still, they are so pleased with themselves that as soon as they have two or three syllogisms, they boldly enter any debate against anyone, confident they can overpower even the loudest opponent.
And next these come our philosophers, so much reverenced for their furred gowns and starched beards that they look upon themselves as the only wise men and all others as shadows. And yet how pleasantly do they dote while they frame in their heads innumerable worlds; measure out the sun, the moon, the stars, nay and heaven itself, as it were, with a pair of compasses; lay down the causes of lightning, winds, eclipses, and other the like inexplicable matters; and all this too without the least doubting, as if they were Nature's secretaries, or dropped down among us from the council of the gods; while in the meantime Nature laughs at them and all their blind conjectures. For that they know nothing, even this is a sufficient argument, that they don't agree among themselves and so are incomprehensible touching every particular. These, though they have not the least degree of knowledge, profess yet that they have mastered all; nay, though they neither know themselves, nor perceive a ditch or block that lies in their way, for that perhaps most of them are half blind, or their wits a wool-gathering, yet give out that they have discovered ideas, universalities, separated forms, first matters, quiddities, haecceities, formalities, and the like stuff; things so thin and bodiless that I believe even Lynceus himself was not able to perceive them. But then chiefly do they disdain the unhallowed crowd as often as with their triangles, quadrangles, circles, and the like mathematical devices, more confounded than a labyrinth, and letters disposed one against the other, as it were in battle array, they cast a mist before the eyes of the ignorant. Nor is there wanting of this kind some that pretend to foretell things by the stars and make promises of miracles beyond all things of soothsaying, and are so fortunate as to meet with people that believe them.
And next come our philosophers, so highly regarded for their fancy robes and stiff beards that they see themselves as the only wise ones, looking down on everyone else as mere shadows. Yet how amusing is their fascination as they conjure up countless worlds in their minds; measuring the sun, the moon, the stars, and even heaven itself with a pair of compasses; explaining the causes of lightning, winds, eclipses, and other puzzling phenomena—all this with utter confidence, as if they were Nature's secretaries, or had dropped down among us from the gods; meanwhile, Nature laughs at them and their clueless guesses. The fact they know nothing is enough proof—they don’t even agree among themselves and are completely incomprehensible about every detail. These people, despite having little knowledge, claim they've mastered everything; indeed, many of them are either half-blind or distracted, yet they assert they have discovered ideas, universals, distinct forms, the first principles, essences, particulars, and other abstract concepts—things so insubstantial that I doubt even Lynceus could see them. They especially look down on the uneducated masses whenever they use their triangles, quadrilaterals, circles, and other bewildering mathematical concepts, which are more confusing than a labyrinth, stringing letters together in a way that seems like a battle; they create a fog for the ignorant. There are also those who claim they can predict the future using the stars, promising miracles beyond the realm of divination, and they're lucky enough to find people who believe them.
But perhaps I had better pass over our divines in silence and not stir this pool or touch this fair but unsavory plant, as a kind of men that are supercilious beyond comparison, and to that too, implacable; lest setting them about my ears, they attack me by troops and force me to a recantation sermon, which if I refuse, they straight pronounce me a heretic. For this is the thunderbolt with which they fright those whom they are resolved not to favor. And truly, though there are few others that less willingly acknowledge the kindnesses I have done them, yet even these too stand fast bound to me upon no ordinary accounts; while being happy in their own opinion, and as if they dwelt in the third heaven, they look with haughtiness on all others as poor creeping things and could almost find in their hearts to pity them; while hedged in with so many magisterial definitions, conclusions, corollaries, propositions explicit and implicit, they abound with so many starting-holes that Vulcan's net cannot hold them so fast, but they'll slip through with their distinctions, with which they so easily cut all knots asunder that a hatchet could not have done it better, so plentiful are they in their new-found words and prodigious terms. Besides, while they explicate the most hidden mysteries according to their own fancy—as how the world was first made; how original sin is derived to posterity; in what manner, how much room, and how long time Christ lay in the Virgin's womb; how accidents subsist in the Eucharist without their subject.
But maybe I should just skip over our theologians entirely and not stir this pond or touch this beautiful but unpleasant plant, as they're a kind of people who are unbearably arrogant and unyielding; otherwise, if I provoke them, they'll swarm around me, forcing me to recant, and if I refuse, they'll quickly label me a heretic. This is the weapon they use to scare those they don't intend to support. And truly, while there are few who admit the favors I’ve done for them, even these are still bound to me for unusual reasons; while they are content in their own views, as if they reside in some elevated realm, they look down on others as insignificant creatures and can almost bring themselves to feel pity for them; surrounded by so many authoritative definitions, conclusions, corollaries, and propositions, both clear and implied, they have so many escape routes that not even Vulcan's net can hold them tightly, and they'll slip through with their distinctions, easily cutting knots apart in a way that a hatchet couldn't do better, so abundant are they in their newly invented words and impressive terminology. Moreover, while they explain the most hidden mysteries according to their own whims—like how the world was first created; how original sin is passed down to future generations; how, how much space, and how long Christ was in the Virgin's womb; how accidents exist in the Eucharist without their subject.
But these are common and threadbare; these are worthy of our great and illuminated divines, as the world calls them! At these, if ever they fall athwart them, they prick up—as whether there was any instant of time in the generation of the Second Person; whether there be more than one filiation in Christ; whether it be a possible proposition that God the Father hates the Son; or whether it was possible that Christ could have taken upon Him the likeness of a woman, or of the devil, or of an ass, or of a stone, or of a gourd; and then how that gourd should have preached, wrought miracles, or been hung on the cross; and what Peter had consecrated if he had administered the Sacrament at what time the body of Christ hung upon the cross; or whether at the same time he might be said to be man; whether after the Resurrection there will be any eating and drinking, since we are so much afraid of hunger and thirst in this world. There are infinite of these subtle trifles, and others more subtle than these, of notions, relations, instants, formalities, quiddities, haecceities, which no one can perceive without a Lynceus whose eyes could look through a stone wall and discover those things through the thickest darkness that never were.
But these are common and worn out; they’re what our great and enlightened thinkers, as the world calls them, deserve! When they come across these topics, they perk up—like whether there was a specific moment in the creation of the Second Person; whether there’s more than one way to understand Christ’s lineage; whether it's possible for God the Father to hate the Son; or whether it was even a possibility for Christ to take on the form of a woman, a devil, a donkey, a stone, or a gourd; and then how that gourd would have preached, performed miracles, or been hung on the cross; and what Peter would have consecrated if he had administered the Sacrament while Christ’s body was on the cross; or whether at that moment he could be considered a man; whether after the Resurrection there will be any eating and drinking, since we fear hunger and thirst so much in this world. There are countless of these complex trivialities, and others even more intricate, involving notions, relationships, moments, formalities, quiddities, haecceities, which no one can grasp without a Lynceus who could see through a stone wall and uncover those things even in the thickest darkness that never existed.
Add to this those their other determinations, and those too so contrary to common opinion that those oracles of the Stoics, which they call paradoxes, seem in comparison of these but blockish and idle—as 'tis a lesser crime to kill a thousand men than to set a stitch on a poor man's shoe on the Sabbath day; and that a man should rather choose that the whole world with all food and raiment, as they say, should perish, than tell a lie, though never so inconsiderable. And these most subtle subtleties are rendered yet more subtle by the several methods of so many Schoolmen, that one might sooner wind himself out of a labyrinth than the entanglements of the realists, nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists. Nor have I named all the several sects, but only some of the chief; in all which there is so much doctrine and so much difficulty that I may well conceive the apostles, had they been to deal with these new kind of divines, had needed to have prayed in aid of some other spirit.
Add to this their other decisions, which are so contrary to popular belief that the Stoic sayings called paradoxes seem foolish and pointless in comparison—like claiming it’s a lesser crime to kill a thousand people than to fix a poor person’s shoe on the Sabbath; or that someone should prefer the entire world, with all its food and clothing, to perish rather than tell a lie, no matter how insignificant. These complicated ideas are made even more intricate by the various methods of numerous scholars, so that one might find it easier to escape a maze than untangle the complexities of the realists, nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, and Scotists. I haven’t named all the different sects, just some of the main ones; in all these, there’s so much doctrine and so much complexity that I can imagine the apostles, if they had to deal with this new kind of theologians, would have needed to pray for the help of some other spirit.
Paul knew what faith was, and yet when he said, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen," he did not define it doctor-like. And as he understood charity well himself, so he did as illogically divide and define it to others in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter the thirteenth. And devoutly, no doubt, did the apostles consecrate the Eucharist; yet, had they been asked the question touching the "terminus a quo" and the "terminus ad quem" of transubstantiation; of the manner how the same body can be in several places at one and the same time; of the difference the body of Christ has in heaven from that of the cross, or this in the Sacrament; in what point of time transubstantiation is, whereas prayer, by means of which it is, as being a discrete quantity, is transient; they would not, I conceive, have answered with the same subtlety as the Scotists dispute and define it. They knew the mother of Jesus, but which of them has so philosophically demonstrated how she was preserved from original sin as have done our divines? Peter received the keys, and from Him too that would not have trusted them with a person unworthy; yet whether he had understanding or no, I know not, for certainly he never attained to that subtlety to determine how he could have the key of knowledge that had no knowledge himself. They baptized far and near, and yet taught nowhere what was the formal, material, efficient, and final cause of baptism, nor made the least mention of delible and indelible characters. They worshiped, 'tis true, but in spirit, following herein no other than that of the Gospel, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship, must worship him in spirit and truth;" yet it does not appear it was at that time revealed to them that an image sketched on the wall with a coal was to be worshiped with the same worship as Christ Himself, if at least the two forefingers be stretched out, the hair long and uncut, and have three rays about the crown of the head. For who can conceive these things, unless he has spent at least six and thirty years in the philosophical and supercelestial whims of Aristotle and the Schoolmen?
Paul understood what faith was, and when he said, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen," he didn’t explain it like a doctor would. Just as he understood charity well himself, he also defined and divided it illogically for others in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter thirteen. The apostles certainly consecrated the Eucharist with devotion; however, if they had been asked about the starting point and endpoint of transubstantiation, how the same body can be in multiple places at once, the difference between Christ's body in heaven and that on the cross, or this in the Sacrament, and at what moment transubstantiation occurs—while prayer, which makes it happen, is transient—they wouldn’t have answered with the same subtlety as the Scotists. They knew Jesus' mother, but which of them demonstrated how she was preserved from original sin as our theologians have? Peter received the keys, and he wouldn’t have given them to someone unworthy; yet whether he understood it or not, I don’t know, since he never reached the subtlety to decide how he could hold the key of knowledge without knowing anything himself. They baptized everywhere, yet taught nowhere about the formal, material, efficient, and final causes of baptism, nor mentioned delible and indelible characters. They worshiped, it’s true, but in spirit, following the Gospel, "God is a Spirit, and those who worship must worship Him in spirit and truth;" yet it doesn't seem it was revealed to them at that time that an image drawn on a wall with charcoal was to be worshiped the same way as Christ Himself—provided the two forefingers are stretched out, the hair is long and uncut, and there are three rays around the crown of the head. Who can understand these things unless they have spent at least thirty-six years on the philosophical and otherworldly ideas of Aristotle and the Schoolmen?
In like manner, the apostles press to us grace; but which of them distinguishes between free grace and grace that makes a man acceptable? They exhort us to good works, and yet determine not what is the work working, and what a resting in the work done. They incite us to charity, and yet make no difference between charity infused and charity wrought in us by our own endeavors. Nor do they declare whether it be an accident or a substance, a thing created or uncreated. They detest and abominate sin, but let me not live if they could define according to art what that is which we call sin, unless perhaps they were inspired by the spirit of the Scotists. Nor can I be brought to believe that Paul, by whose learning you may judge the rest, would have so often condemned questions, disputes, genealogies, and, as himself calls them, "strifes of words," if he had thoroughly understood those subtleties, especially when all the debates and controversies of those times were rude and blockish in comparison of the more than Chrysippean subtleties of our masters. Although yet the gentlemen are so modest that if they meet with anything written by the apostles not so smooth and even as might be expected from a master, they do not presently condemn it but handsomely bend it to their own purpose, so great respect and honor do they give, partly to antiquity and partly to the name of apostle. And truly 'twas a kind of injustice to require so great things of them that never heard the least word from their masters concerning it. And so if the like happen in Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, they think it enough to say they are not obliged by it.
In the same way, the apostles stress grace to us; but which of them distinguishes between free grace and grace that makes someone acceptable? They encourage us to do good works, yet they don’t clarify what it means to work versus simply resting on what’s already been done. They push us towards charity, but they don’t differentiate between charity that’s given to us and charity that we create through our own efforts. They also don't say if it's an accident or a substance, something that’s created or uncreated. They strongly detest sin, but I doubt they'd be able to clearly define what we call sin, unless maybe they were inspired by those who follow Scotist ideas. I also can’t believe that Paul, whose teachings you can use to judge the others, would have so often condemned questions, disputes, genealogies, and what he calls "strifes of words," if he had thoroughly understood these arguments, especially when all the debates and controversies of that time were crude and dull compared to the deep complexities of our current scholars. Yet, these gentlemen are so respectful that if they come across something written by the apostles that isn’t as polished as one might expect from a master, they don’t immediately reject it; they cleverly twist it to fit their own agenda, showing great respect for both history and the title of apostle. And honestly, it’s unfair to expect so much from them, as they never heard even a word from their masters on the subject. Likewise, if similar issues arise in Chrysostom, Basil, or Jerome, they consider it sufficient to say they aren't bound by it.
The apostles also confuted the heathen philosophers and Jews, a people than whom none more obstinate, but rather by their good lives and miracles than syllogisms: and yet there was scarce one among them that was capable of understanding the least "quodlibet" of the Scotists. But now, where is that heathen or heretic that must not presently stoop to such wire-drawn subtleties, unless he be so thick-skulled that he can't apprehend them, or so impudent as to hiss them down, or, being furnished with the same tricks, be able to make his party good with them? As if a man should set a conjurer on work against a conjurer, or fight with one hallowed sword against another, which would prove no other than a work to no purpose. For my own part I conceive the Christians would do much better if instead of those dull troops and companies of soldiers with which they have managed their war with such doubtful success, they would send the bawling Scotists, the most obstinate Occamists, and invincible Albertists to war against the Turks and Saracens; and they would see, I guess, a most pleasant combat and such a victory as was never before. For who is so faint whom their devices will not enliven? who so stupid whom such spurs can't quicken? or who so quick-sighted before whose eyes they can't cast a mist?
The apostles also challenged the pagan philosophers and Jews, a people more stubborn than any other, but they did it more through their good lives and miracles than through arguments. Yet, there was hardly anyone among them who could grasp even the simplest "quodlibet" of the Scotists. But now, where is that pagan or heretic who doesn't have to bow to such convoluted reasoning, unless he is so thick-headed that he can't understand it, or so brazen that he dismisses it outright, or, if he knows the same tricks, can hold his own against them? It's like having one magician compete against another or fighting with one blessed sword against another, which would serve no purpose. In my view, Christians would do much better if instead of those dull troops and companies of soldiers they have been using in their uncertain battles, they sent the loud Scotists, the most stubborn Occamists, and unbeatable Albertists to fight against the Turks and Saracens; and I think they would witness a most entertaining clash and a victory like never before. For who is so weak that their tactics won’t invigorate? Who is so dull that such prods can’t motivate? Or who is so sharp-sighted that they can’t be blinded by their tricks?
But you'll say, I jest. Nor are you without cause, since even among divines themselves there are some that have learned better and are ready to turn their stomachs at those foolish subtleties of the others. There are some that detest them as a kind of sacrilege and count it the height of impiety to speak so irreverently of such hidden things, rather to be adored than explicated; to dispute of them with such profane and heathenish niceties; to define them so arrogantly and pollute the majesty of divinity with such pithless and sordid terms and opinions. Meantime the others please, nay hug themselves in their happiness, and are so taken up with these pleasant trifles that they have not so much leisure as to cast the least eye on the Gospel or St. Paul's epistles. And while they play the fool at this rate in their schools, they make account the universal church would otherwise perish, unless, as the poets fancied of Atlas that he supported heaven with his shoulders, they underpropped the other with their syllogistical buttresses. And how great a happiness is this, think you? while, as if Holy Writ were a nose of wax, they fashion and refashion it according to their pleasure; while they require that their own conclusions, subscribed by two or three Schoolmen, be accounted greater than Solon's laws and preferred before the papal decretals; while, as censors of the world, they force everyone to a recantation that differs but a hair's breadth from the least of their explicit or implicit determinations. And those too they pronounce like oracles. This proposition is scandalous; this irreverent; this has a smack of heresy; this no very good sound: so that neither baptism, nor the Gospel, nor Paul, nor Peter, nor St. Jerome, nor St. Augustine, no nor most Aristotelian Thomas himself can make a man a Christian, without these bachelors too be pleased to give him his grace. And the like in their subtlety in judging; for who would think he were no Christian that should say these two speeches "matula putes" and "matula putet," or "ollae fervere" and "ollam fervere" were not both good Latin, unless their wisdoms had taught us the contrary? who had delivered the church from such mists of error, which yet no one ever met with, had they not come out with some university seal for it? And are they not most happy while they do these things?
But you might say I'm joking. You wouldn't be without reason, since even among the theologians themselves, there are those who have learned better and are ready to be disgusted by the foolish subtleties of others. Some detest these as a form of sacrilege and think it’s extremely disrespectful to speak irreverently of such sacred matters, which should be revered rather than analyzed; to argue about them with such profane and nonsensical details; to define them so arrogantly and tarnish the majesty of divinity with such meaningless and base terms and opinions. Meanwhile, the others delight in, even revel in, their happiness, and become so absorbed in these trivialities that they don’t even take a moment to glance at the Gospel or St. Paul's letters. While they continue to act foolishly in their schools, they seem to believe that the universal church would fall apart unless, like the poets imagined Atlas held up the heavens on his shoulders, they support it with their logical constructs. And what a blessing do you think that is? While they treat Holy Scripture as a malleable object, reshaping it to suit their whims; while they insist that their own conclusions, endorsed by a couple of schoolmen, are worth more than Solon’s laws and are prioritized over papal decrees; while they act as the world’s censors, compelling everyone to retract any viewpoint that slightly deviates from even the slightest of their explicit or implicit conclusions. And they declare these conclusions like they’re prophetic. This claim is scandalous; this is irreverent; this sounds heretical; this isn't a good sign at all: so that neither baptism, nor the Gospel, nor Paul, nor Peter, nor St. Jerome, nor St. Augustine, nor even the most Aristotelian Thomas can make someone a Christian unless these bachelors also grant him their approval. And it's the same with their judgmental precision; who would think that someone isn't a Christian just because they said these two phrases "matula putes" and "matula putet," or "ollae fervere" and "ollam fervere" were not both correct Latin, unless their great wisdom had taught us otherwise? Who would have freed the church from such clouds of error, which no one ever encountered, had it not been validated by some university seal? And are they not incredibly fortunate while they engage in all these activities?
Then for what concerns hell, how exactly they describe everything, as if they had been conversant in that commonwealth most part of their time! Again, how do they frame in their fancy new orbs, adding to those we have already an eighth! a goodly one, no doubt, and spacious enough, lest perhaps their happy souls might lack room to walk in, entertain their friends, and now and then play at football. And with these and a thousand the like fopperies their heads are so full stuffed and stretched that I believe Jupiter's brain was not near so big when, being in labor with Pallas, he was beholding to the midwifery of Vulcan's axe. And therefore you must not wonder if in their public disputes they are so bound about the head, lest otherwise perhaps their brains might leap out. Nay, I have sometimes laughed myself to see them so tower in their own opinion when they speak most barbarously; and when they humh and hawh so pitifully that none but one of their own tribe can understand them, they call it heights which the vulgar can't reach; for they say 'tis beneath the dignity of divine mysteries to be cramped and tied up to the narrow rules of grammarians: from whence we may conjecture the great prerogative of divines, if they only have the privilege of speaking corruptly, in which yet every cobbler thinks himself concerned for his share. Lastly, they look upon themselves as somewhat more than men as often as they are devoutly saluted by the name of "Our Masters," in which they fancy there lies as much as in the Jews' "Jehovah;" and therefore they reckon it a crime if "Magister Noster" be written other than in capital letters; and if anyone should preposterously say "Noster Magister," he has at once overturned the whole body of divinity.
Then when it comes to hell, they describe everything as if they've spent most of their time in that place! Again, how do they come up with new ideas for additional worlds, adding an eighth one to those we already have? A nice one, for sure, and big enough so that their happy souls won't feel cramped when they walk around, entertain friends, and occasionally play football. With these and countless other ridiculous ideas, their heads are so stuffed that I doubt Jupiter ever had a brain as large when he was in labor with Pallas and needed Vulcan's help. So you shouldn't be surprised if during their public discussions they have to wrap their heads up tightly, or else their brains might just spill out. Honestly, I sometimes laugh when I see them so puffed up with their own importance while speaking in the most awkward ways; and when they mumble so pathetically that only someone from their own group can understand them, they call it insights that the ordinary people can't grasp. They argue that it's beneath the dignity of divine mysteries to be confined to the tight rules of grammar, leading us to assume that it's a huge privilege for theologians if they get to speak poorly, a privilege that even every shoemaker thinks he has a stake in. Lastly, they see themselves as slightly more than human whenever they are formally addressed as "Our Masters," believing there's as much power in that title as in the Jews' "Jehovah." Because of this, they consider it a crime if "Magister Noster" is written in anything other than capital letters; and if someone mistakenly says "Noster Magister," they've effectively destroyed the entire system of theology.
And next these come those that commonly call themselves the religious and monks, most false in both titles, when both a great part of them are farthest from religion, and no men swarm thicker in all places than themselves. Nor can I think of anything that could be more miserable did not I support them so many several ways. For whereas all men detest them to that height, that they take it for ill luck to meet one of them by chance, yet such is their happiness that they flatter themselves. For first, they reckon it one of the main points of piety if they are so illiterate that they can't so much as read. And then when they run over their offices, which they carry about them, rather by tale than understanding, they believe the gods more than ordinarily pleased with their braying. And some there are among them that put off their trumperies at vast rates, yet rove up and down for the bread they eat; nay, there is scarce an inn, wagon, or ship into which they intrude not, to the no small damage of the commonwealth of beggars. And yet, like pleasant fellows, with all this vileness, ignorance, rudeness, and impudence, they represent to us, for so they call it, the lives of the apostles. Yet what is more pleasant than that they do all things by rule and, as it were, a kind of mathematics, the least swerving from which were a crime beyond forgiveness—as how many knots their shoes must be tied with, of what color everything is, what distinction of habits, of what stuff made, how many straws broad their girdles and of what fashion, how many bushels wide their cowl, how many fingers long their hair, and how many hours sleep; which exact equality, how disproportionate it is, among such variety of bodies and tempers, who is there that does not perceive it? And yet by reason of these fooleries they not only set slight by others, but each different order, men otherwise professing apostolical charity, despise one another, and for the different wearing of a habit, or that 'tis of darker color, they put all things in combustion. And among these there are some so rigidly religious that their upper garment is haircloth, their inner of the finest linen; and, on the contrary, others wear linen without and hair next their skins. Others, again, are as afraid to touch money as poison, and yet neither forbear wine nor dallying with women. In a word, 'tis their only care that none of them come near one another in their manner of living, nor do they endeavor how they may be like Christ, but how they may differ among themselves.
And then there are those who usually call themselves religious and monks, but they are completely false in both claims, as many of them are the furthest thing from being religious, and no group is more prevalent everywhere than they are. I can’t imagine anything more miserable if I didn’t support them in various ways. Even though everyone despises them to the point where people feel it's bad luck to encounter one by chance, they are so delusional that they think they’re lucky. For starters, they believe it's a key aspect of piety if they’re so uneducated that they can’t even read. Then, when they go through their prayers, which they carry with them without truly understanding, they think the gods are extra pleased with their noise. Some of them sell their trinkets for high prices, yet they still roam around looking for food; hardly a tavern, wagon, or ship escapes their intrusion, which greatly harms the community of beggars. Yet, like cheerful jokers, despite all this filth, ignorance, rudeness, and audacity, they present to us what they call the lives of the apostles. What’s more amusing is that they do everything by strict rules and, in a way, a sort of math, with even the smallest deviation being an unforgivable sin—like how many knots their shoelaces must have, the color of everything, the different styles of their clothing, the width of their belts, the size of their hoods, the length of their hair, and how many hours they should sleep; who doesn’t see how absurd this uniformity is among such a variety of bodies and personalities? Yet because of these ridiculous customs, they not only look down on others, but different orders, who claim to practice apostolic charity, also scorn one another, and for differences in clothing or shade, they create chaos. Among them, some are so strictly religious that they wear hairshirts on the outside and fine linen underneath, while others wear linen on the outside and hair next to their skin. Some are so afraid to touch money as if it were poison, yet they don’t hesitate to indulge in wine or flirt with women. In short, their only concern is to ensure none of them live similarly, and they don’t strive to be like Christ but rather to distinguish themselves from each other.
And another great happiness they conceive in their names, while they call themselves Cordiliers, and among these too, some are Colletes, some Minors, some Minims, some Crossed; and again, these are Benedictines, those Bernardines; these Carmelites, those Augustines; these Williamites, and those Jacobines; as if it were not worth the while to be called Christians. And of these, a great part build so much on their ceremonies and petty traditions of men that they think one heaven is too poor a reward for so great merit, little dreaming that the time will come when Christ, not regarding any of these trifles, will call them to account for His precept of charity. One shall show you a large trough full of all kinds of fish; another tumble you out so many bushels of prayers; another reckon you so many myriads of fasts, and fetch them up again in one dinner by eating till he cracks again; another produces more bundles of ceremonies than seven of the stoutest ships would be able to carry; another brags he has not touched a penny these three score years without two pair of gloves at least upon his hands; another wears a cowl so lined with grease that the poorest tarpaulin would not stoop to take it up; another will tell you he has lived these fifty-five years like a sponge, continually fastened to the same place; another is grown hoarse with his daily chanting; another has contracted a lethargy by his solitary living; and another the palsy in his tongue for want of speaking. But Christ, interrupting them in their vanities, which otherwise were endless, will ask them, "Whence this new kind of Jews? I acknowledge one commandment, which is truly mine, of which alone I hear nothing. I promised, 'tis true, my Father's heritage, and that without parables, not to cowls, odd prayers, and fastings, but to the duties of faith and charity. Nor can I acknowledge them that least acknowledge their faults. They that would seem holier than myself, let them if they like possess to themselves those three hundred sixty-five heavens of Basilides the heretic's invention, or command them whose foolish traditions they have preferred before my precepts to erect them a new one." When they shall hear these things and see common ordinary persons preferred before them, with what countenance, think you, will they behold one another? In the meantime they are happy in their hopes, and for this also they are beholding to me.
And another great happiness they find in their names, while they call themselves Cordiliers, and among these are Colletes, Minors, Minims, and Crossed; then there are the Benedictines, the Bernardines; the Carmelites, the Augustines; the Williamites, and the Jacobines; as if it wasn't enough to just be called Christians. Many of these people focus so much on their ceremonies and minor traditions of men that they think one heaven isn't a big enough reward for their so-called great merit, not realizing that the time will come when Christ, ignoring these trivial matters, will hold them accountable for His commandment of love. One will show you a large trough full of all kinds of fish; another will dump out so many bushels of prayers; another will count countless fasts, then undo it all by overindulging at one meal; another brings more bundles of ceremonies than seven of the strongest ships could carry; another boasts that he hasn't touched a penny in sixty years without at least two pairs of gloves on his hands; another wears a cowl so stained with grease that even the poorest tarpaulin wouldn't touch it; another will tell you he has lived like a sponge for fifty-five years, always stuck in the same place; another has become hoarse from constant singing; another has developed a lethargy from living in solitude; and another has a speech impediment from not speaking at all. But Christ, interrupting their endless vanities, will ask them, "Who are these new kinds of Jews? I recognize one commandment that is truly mine, but I hear nothing about it. I promised my Father’s inheritance, and straightforwardly—not to cowls, odd prayers, or fasts, but to the obligations of faith and charity. I can't acknowledge those who don’t admit their faults. Those who want to appear holier than I am can, if they wish, take for themselves the three hundred sixty-five heavens invented by Basilides the heretic, or have those foolish traditions they prefer over my teachings build a new one for them." When they hear these words and see ordinary people favored over them, how do you think they will look at each other? In the meantime, they are happy in their hopes, and for this too, they owe it to me.
And yet these kind of people, though they are as it were of another commonwealth, no man dares despise, especially those begging friars, because they are privy to all men's secrets by means of confessions, as they call them. Which yet were no less than treason to discover, unless, being got drunk, they have a mind to be pleasant, and then all comes out, that is to say by hints and conjectures but suppressing the names. But if anyone should anger these wasps, they'll sufficiently revenge themselves in their public sermons and so point out their enemy by circumlocutions that there's no one but understands whom 'tis they mean, unless he understand nothing at all; nor will they give over their barking till you throw the dogs a bone. And now tell me, what juggler or mountebank you had rather behold than hear them rhetorically play the fool in their preachments, and yet most sweetly imitating what rhetoricians have written touching the art of good speaking? Good God! what several postures they have! How they shift their voice, sing out their words, skip up and down, and are ever and anon making such new faces that they confound all things with noise! And yet this knack of theirs is no less a mystery that runs in succession from one brother to another; which though it be not lawful for me to know, however I'll venture at it by conjectures. And first they invoke whatever they have scraped from the poets; and in the next place, if they are to discourse of charity, they take their rise from the river Nilus; or to set out the mystery of the cross, from bell and the dragon; or to dispute of fasting, from the twelve signs of the zodiac; or, being to preach of faith, ground their matter on the square of a circle.
And yet these kinds of people, even though they seem to belong to a different world, no one dares to look down on, especially those begging friars. They hold everyone’s secrets through confessions, as they call them, which would be just as bad as treason to reveal, unless they get drunk and feel like being amusing, and then everything comes out—by hints and guesses, but without saying any names. But if someone angers these wasps, they’ll get their revenge in their public sermons, cleverly hinting at their target so that everyone knows who they’re talking about, unless someone is totally clueless. They won’t stop their barking until you throw them a bone. So tell me, what juggler or trickster would you rather see than listen to them theatrically playing the fool in their sermons, while sweetly imitating everything that good speakers have written about the art of eloquence? Good heavens! What different poses they strike! How they change their voices, shout their words, jump around, and constantly make such new faces that they drown everything in noise! And yet this talent of theirs is a mystery that passes down from one brother to another; although it's not my place to know, I’ll take a guess at it. First, they call on whatever they’ve picked up from the poets; then, if they’re talking about charity, they start with the Nile River; if discussing the mystery of the cross, they refer to Bell and the Dragon; if they’re preaching about fasting, they draw from the twelve signs of the zodiac; or if they’re preaching about faith, they base their points on the square of a circle.
I have heard myself one, and he no small fool—I was mistaken, I would have said scholar—that being in a famous assembly explaining the mystery of the Trinity, that he might both let them see his learning was not ordinary and withal satisfy some theological ears, he took a new way, to wit from the letters, syllables, and the word itself; then from the coherence of the nominative case and the verb, and the adjective and substantive: and while most of the audience wondered, and some of them muttered that of Horace, "What does all this trumpery drive at?" at last he brought the matter to this head, that he would demonstrate that the mystery of the Trinity was so clearly expressed in the very rudiments of grammar that the best mathematician could not chalk it out more plainly. And in this discourse did this most superlative theologian beat his brains for eight whole months that at this hour he's as blind as a beetle, to wit, all the sight of his eyes being run into the sharpness of his wit. But for all that he thinks nothing of his blindness, rather taking the same for too cheap a price of such a glory as he won thereby.
I once heard a guy, and he wasn't just any fool—I should have called him a scholar—give a talk at a famous gathering about the mystery of the Trinity. He wanted to show off his uncommon knowledge and impress some theology enthusiasts, so he took a different approach, starting from the letters, syllables, and the word itself. Then he moved on to the relationship between the subject and the verb, as well as the adjective and the noun. While most of the audience was amazed, and some grumbled, quoting Horace, "What does all this nonsense lead to?" he eventually made his point, claiming that the mystery of the Trinity was so clearly expressed in the fundamentals of grammar that even the best mathematician couldn't explain it more clearly. This renowned theologian spent a whole eight months working on this argument, and now he’s as clueless as a beetle, with all his insight focused on the sharpness of his reasoning. Yet, despite his blindness, he thinks nothing of it and considers it a small price to pay for the glory he gained.
And besides him I met with another, some eighty years of age, and such a divine that you'd have sworn Scotus himself was revived in him. He, being upon the point of unfolding the mystery of the name Jesus, did with wonderful subtlety demonstrate that there lay hidden in those letters whatever could be said of him; for that it was only declined with three cases, he said, it was a manifest token of the Divine Trinity; and then, that the first ended in S, the second in M, the third in U, there was in it an ineffable mystery, to wit, those three letters declaring to us that he was the beginning, middle, and end (summum, medium, et ultimum) of all. Nay, the mystery was yet more abstruse; for he so mathematically split the word Jesus into two equal parts that he left the middle letter by itself, and then told us that that letter in Hebrew was schin or sin, and that sin in the Scotch tongue, as he remembered, signified as much as sin; from whence he gathered that it was Jesus that took away the sins of the world. At which new exposition the audience were so wonderfully intent and struck with admiration, especially the theologians, that there wanted little but that Niobe-like they had been turned to stones; whereas the like had almost happened to me, as befell the Priapus in Horace. And not without cause, for when were the Grecian Demosthenes or Roman Cicero ever guilty of the like? They thought that introduction faulty that was wide of the matter, as if it were not the way of carters and swineherds that have no more wit than God sent them. But these learned men think their preamble, for so they call it, then chiefly rhetorical when it has least coherence with the rest of the argument, that the admiring audience may in the meanwhile whisper to themselves, "What will he be at now?" In the third place, they bring in instead of narration some texts of Scripture, but handle them cursorily, and as it were by the bye, when yet it is the only thing they should have insisted on. And fourthly, as it were changing a part in the play, they bolt out with some question in divinity, and many times relating neither to earth nor heaven, and this they look upon as a piece of art. Here they erect their theological crests and beat into the people's ears those magnificent titles of illustrious doctors, subtle doctors, most subtle doctors, seraphic doctors, cherubin doctors, holy doctors, unquestionable doctors, and the like; and then throw abroad among the ignorant people syllogisms, majors, minors, conclusions, corollaries, suppositions, and those so weak and foolish that they are below pedantry. There remains yet the fifth act in which one would think they should show their mastery. And here they bring in some foolish insipid fable out of Speculum Historiale or Gesta Romanorum and expound it allegorically, tropologically, and anagogically. And after this manner do they and their chimera, and such as Horace despaired of compassing when he wrote "Humano capiti," etc.
And beside him, I met another man, around eighty years old, who was so wise you’d think Scotus himself was brought back to life. He was about to reveal the mystery behind the name Jesus and cleverly showed that everything you could say about Him was hidden in those letters. He pointed out that it declined in three cases, which he claimed was a clear indication of the Divine Trinity. Then, he mentioned that the first case ended with an S, the second with an M, and the third with a U, which hinted at an indescribable mystery—that those three letters indicated He was the beginning, middle, and end (summum, medium, et ultimum) of everything. Moreover, the mystery was even more complex; he divided the word Jesus into two equal halves, leaving the middle letter alone, which he told us was schin or sin in Hebrew, and that sin in Scottish meant the same. From this, he concluded that it was Jesus who took away the sins of the world. The audience was completely focused and amazed, especially the theologians, to the point where it felt as if they might turn to stone like Niobe; I myself nearly experienced a similar fate, like what happened to Priapus in Horace’s writings. And rightfully so, for when did the Greek Demosthenes or Roman Cicero ever commit such things? They found any introduction that strayed from the subject unacceptable, as if they were like those carters and swineherds with no more sense than God gave them. But these scholars consider their preamble rhetorical, especially when it has the least connection to the main point, allowing the amazed audience to think, “What’s he going to say next?” Thirdly, they instead insert some biblical texts, but they touch on them lightly, almost casually, when it should be the main focus. Fourthly, as if swapping parts in a play, they abruptly launch into some theological question, often irrelevant to both earth and heaven, considering this clever. Here, they raise their theological hats and bombard the audiences with grand titles like illustrious doctors, subtle doctors, the most subtle doctors, seraphic doctors, cherubic doctors, holy doctors, unquestionable doctors, and more; then they toss around weak and foolish syllogisms, majors, minors, conclusions, corollaries, and suppositions that are even beneath pedantry. Finally, in what should be the fifth act where they demonstrate their expertise, they introduce some pointless, bland fable from Speculum Historiale or Gesta Romanorum and explain it allegorically, tropologically, and anagogically. This is how they operate along with their chimera, reminiscent of what Horace expressed despair over when he wrote "Humano capiti," etc.
But they have heard from somebody, I know not whom, that the beginning of a speech should be sober and grave and least given to noise. And therefore they begin theirs at that rate they can scarce hear themselves, as if it were not matter whether anyone understood them. They have learned somewhere that to move the affections a louder voice is requisite. Whereupon they that otherwise would speak like a mouse in a cheese start out of a sudden into a downright fury, even there too, where there's the least need of it. A man would swear they were past the power of hellebore, so little do they consider where 'tis they run out. Again, because they have heard that as a speech comes up to something, a man should press it more earnestly, they, however they begin, use a strange contention of voice in every part, though the matter itself be never so flat, and end in that manner as if they'd run themselves out of breath. Lastly, they have learned that among rhetoricians there is some mention of laughter, and therefore they study to prick in a jest here and there; but, O Venus! so void of wit and so little to the purpose that it may be truly called an ass's playing on the harp. And sometimes also they use somewhat of a sting, but so nevertheless that they rather tickle than wound; nor do they ever more truly flatter than when they would seem to use the greatest freedom of speech. Lastly, such is their whole action that a man would swear they had learned it from our common tumblers, though yet they come short of them in every respect. However, they are both so like that no man will dispute but that either these learned their rhetoric from them, or they theirs from these. And yet they light on some that, when they hear them, conceive they hear very Demosthenes and Ciceroes: of which sort chiefly are our merchants and women, whose ears only they endeavor to please, because as to the first, if they stroke them handsomely, some part or other of their ill-gotten goods is wont to fall to their share. And the women, though for many other things they favor this order, this is not the least, that they commit to their breasts whatever discontents they have against their husbands. And now, I conceive me, you see how much this kind of people are beholding to me, that with their petty ceremonies, ridiculous trifles, and noise exercise a kind of tyranny among mankind, believing themselves very Pauls and Anthonies.
But they've heard from someone, I don't know who, that the start of a speech should be serious and solemn and not too loud. So, they begin theirs in a way that they can barely hear themselves, as if it doesn't matter whether anyone understands them. They've picked up somewhere that to stir emotions, a louder voice is needed. This leads those who would normally speak softly to suddenly erupt in a full-on rage, even in situations where it's least required. You’d think they were beyond any kind of remedy, given how little they consider where they're going off. Again, since they've heard that as a speech progresses, a person should emphasize it more earnestly, no matter how they start, they use a strange variation in tone throughout, even if the content is totally dull, ending up as if they're completely out of breath. Lastly, they've learned that rhetoricians sometimes mention laughter, so they awkwardly try to throw in a joke here and there; but, oh dear! They're so devoid of wit and so off-point that it can truly be called like a donkey trying to play the harp. Sometimes they also try to be a bit biting, but it's more of a tickle than a real jab; they flatter more genuinely when they pretend to be completely open and honest. In the end, their whole performance makes you think they learned it from our everyday street performers, yet they still fall short in every way. Nonetheless, they are so similar that no one would dispute that either they learned their rhetoric from these performers or vice versa. Still, some people hear them and think they're listening to a true Demosthenes or Cicero: this is especially true of our merchants and women, whose ears they only aim to please, because for the merchants, if they flatter them nicely, some of their ill-gotten gains usually end up in their pockets. And the women, while they have many other reasons to favor this style, one of the biggest is that they can share with them whatever frustrations they have against their husbands. And now, I believe you see how much this kind of person owes me, as with their petty ceremonies, ridiculous antics, and noise, they exert a kind of tyranny over humanity, believing themselves to be great figures like Paul and Anthony.
But I willingly give over these stage-players that are such ingrateful dissemblers of the courtesies I have done them and such impudent pretenders to religion which they haven't. And now I have a mind to give some small touches of princes and courts, of whom I am had in reverence, aboveboard and, as it becomes gentlemen, frankly. And truly, if they had the least proportion of sound judgment, what life were more unpleasant than theirs, or so much to be avoided? For whoever did but truly weigh with himself how great a burden lies upon his shoulders that would truly discharge the duty of a prince, he would not think it worth his while to make his way to a crown by perjury and parricide. He would consider that he that takes a scepter in his hand should manage the public, not his private, interest; study nothing but the common good; and not in the least go contrary to those laws whereof himself is both the author and exactor: that he is to take an account of the good or evil administration of all his magistrates and subordinate officers; that, though he is but one, all men's eyes are upon him, and in his power it is, either like a good planet to give life and safety to mankind by his harmless influence, or like a fatal comet to send mischief and destruction; that the vices of other men are not alike felt, nor so generally communicated; and that a prince stands in that place that his least deviation from the rule of honesty and honor reaches farther than himself and opens a gap to many men's ruin. Besides, that the fortune of princes has many things attending it that are but too apt to train them out of the way, as pleasure, liberty, flattery, excess; for which cause he should the more diligently endeavor and set a watch over himself, lest perhaps he be led aside and fail in his duty. Lastly, to say nothing of treasons, ill will, and such other mischiefs he's in jeopardy of, that that True King is over his head, who in a short time will call him to account for every the least trespass, and that so much the more severely by how much more mighty was the empire committed to his charge. These and the like if a prince should duly weigh, and weigh it he would if he were wise, he would neither be able to sleep nor take any hearty repast.
But I willingly give up these actors who are such ungrateful deceivers of the kindness I’ve shown them and such shameless pretenders to a faith they don’t actually have. Now, I want to share some candid insights about princes and courts, which I respect, straightforwardly and as befits gentlemen. Honestly, if they had even a bit of sound judgment, what life could be more unpleasant than theirs, or so much to be avoided? For whoever truly considers how heavy a burden is placed on anyone who genuinely fulfills the role of a prince would not think it worthwhile to reach a crown through lies and murder. They would recognize that someone holding a scepter should prioritize the public good over their private interests; focus solely on the common welfare; and not act against the laws they themselves created and enforce. They are accountable for the actions of all their magistrates and lower officials; even though they are one person, everyone's eyes are on them. They have the power to either benefit humanity positively, like a benevolent planet, or cause harm and destruction, like a disastrous comet. The faults of others do not have the same widespread impact, and a prince is in a position where even a slight deviation from honesty and honor can lead to the downfall of many. Plus, the fortunes of princes come with many temptations that easily lead them astray, like pleasure, freedom, flattery, and excess. For this reason, they should strive even harder to watch over themselves, lest they be misled and fail in their responsibilities. Lastly, not to mention betrayals, dislike, and other dangers they face, there is that True King above them, who will soon hold them accountable for even the smallest misstep, and the punishment will be all the harsher the greater the empire they were entrusted with. If a prince were to truly reflect on these things, and he would if he were wise, he would find it impossible to sleep or enjoy any meal wholeheartedly.
But now by my courtesy they leave all this care to the gods and are only taken up with themselves, not admitting anyone to their ear but such as know how to speak pleasant things and not trouble them with business. They believe they have discharged all the duty of a prince if they hunt every day, keep a stable of fine horses, sell dignities and commanderies, and invent new ways of draining the citizens' purses and bringing it into their own exchequer; but under such dainty new-found names that though the thing be most unjust in itself, it carries yet some face of equity; adding to this some little sweet'nings that whatever happens, they may be secure of the common people. And now suppose someone, such as they sometimes are, a man ignorant of laws, little less than an enemy to the public good, and minding nothing but his own, given up to pleasure, a hater of learning, liberty, and justice, studying nothing less than the public safety, but measuring everything by his own will and profit; and then put on him a golden chain that declares the accord of all virtues linked one to another; a crown set with diamonds, that should put him in mind how he ought to excel all others in heroic virtues; besides a scepter, the emblem of justice and an untainted heart; and lastly, a purple robe, a badge of that charity he owes the commonwealth. All which if a prince should compare them with his own life, he would, I believe, be clearly ashamed of his bravery, and be afraid lest some or other gibing expounder turn all this tragical furniture into a ridiculous laughingstock.
But now, because of my politeness, they leave all this worry to the gods and only focus on themselves, only listening to those who know how to say nice things and not burden them with responsibilities. They think they’ve fulfilled their duties as a prince if they hunt every day, maintain a stable of fine horses, sell titles and offices, and come up with new ways to empty the citizens' wallets and fill their own treasury; but under such clever new names that even though the actions are deeply unfair, they still seem somewhat just; adding a few little perks so that no matter what happens, they can remain safe from the common people. Now, imagine someone like them, a person who knows nothing of the laws, almost an enemy to the public good, only caring about himself, indulged in pleasure, disdainful of knowledge, freedom, and justice, thinking about nothing but his own interests, and measuring everything by his own desires and gain; and then putting on him a golden chain that represents the connection of all virtues; a crown adorned with diamonds, reminding him that he should surpass everyone else in noble qualities; plus a scepter, a symbol of justice and a pure heart; and finally, a purple robe, a mark of the kindness he owes to the community. If a prince were to compare these things to his own life, I believe he would be truly embarrassed by his supposed grandeur and fear that some mocker would turn all this solemn regalia into a source of laughter.
And as to the court lords, what should I mention them? than most of whom though there be nothing more indebted, more servile, more witless, more contemptible, yet they would seem as they were the most excellent of all others. And yet in this only thing no men more modest, in that they are contented to wear about them gold, jewels, purple, and those other marks of virtue and wisdom; but for the study of the things themselves, they remit it to others, thinking it happiness enough for them that they can call the king master, have learned the cringe à la mode, know when and where to use those titles of Your Grace, My Lord, Your Magnificence; in a word that they are past all shame and can flatter pleasantly. For these are the arts that speak a man truly noble and an exact courtier. But if you look into their manner of life you'll find them mere sots, as debauched as Penelope's wooers; you know the other part of the verse, which the echo will better tell you than I can. They sleep till noon and have their mercenary Levite come to their bedside, where he chops over his matins before they are half up. Then to breakfast, which is scarce done but dinner stays for them. From thence they go to dice, tables, cards, or entertain themselves with jesters, fools, gambols, and horse tricks. In the meantime they have one or two beverages, and then supper, and after that a banquet, and 'twere well, by Jupiter, there were no more than one. And in this manner do their hours, days, months, years, age slide away without the least irksomeness. Nay, I have sometimes gone away many inches fatter, to see them speak big words; while each of the ladies believes herself so much nearer to the gods by how much the longer train she trails after her; while one nobleman edges out another, that he may get the nearer to Jupiter himself; and everyone of them pleases himself the more by how much more massive is the chain he swags on his shoulders, as if he meant to show his strength as well as his wealth.
And what can I say about the lords of the court? Most of them are more indebted, more servile, more clueless, and more contemptible than anyone else, yet they act like they’re the best of the bunch. And yet, in this one thing, they’re incredibly modest, as they’re happy to wear gold, jewels, purple, and other symbols of virtue and wisdom; but when it comes to actually studying these things, they leave that to others, thinking it’s enough happiness for them to call the king their master, have learned the trendy way to bow, and know when and where to use titles like Your Grace, My Lord, and Your Magnificence. In short, they are completely shameless and can flatter with ease. Because these are the skills that truly define a nobleman and an ideal courtier. But if you examine their lifestyle, you’ll find them to be mere drunkards, as debauched as Penelope's suitors; you know the rest of that line, which the echoes can explain better than I can. They sleep until noon and have their hired priest come to their bedside, where he reads his morning prayers before they’re even halfway awake. Then it’s time for breakfast, which is hardly finished before dinner is ready for them. After that, they go on to gambling, playing dice, cards, or entertaining themselves with jesters, fools, tricks, and horseplay. During this time, they have one or two drinks, then supper, and afterward, a banquet—if only there were just one. This is how their hours, days, months, and years pass by without a hint of boredom. In fact, I’ve sometimes left feeling fatter just from watching them talk big; each lady believes she’s closer to the gods for every extra foot of train she drags behind her; while one nobleman pushes out another to get closer to Jupiter himself; and each one of them takes more pride in the larger the chain they wear on their shoulders, as if they’re trying to display their strength as much as their wealth.
Nor are princes by themselves in their manner of life, since popes, cardinals, and bishops have so diligently followed their steps that they've almost got the start of them. For if any of them would consider what their Albe should put them in mind of, to wit a blameless life; what is meant by their forked miters, whose each point is held in by the same knot, we'll suppose it a perfect knowledge of the Old and New Testaments; what those gloves on their hands, but a sincere administration of the Sacraments, and free from all touch of worldly business; what their crosier, but a careful looking after the flock committed to their charge; what the cross born before them, but victory over all earthly affections—these, I say, and many of the like kind should anyone truly consider, would he not live a sad and troublesome life? Whereas now they do well enough while they feed themselves only, and for the care of their flock either put it over to Christ or lay it all on their suffragans, as they call them, or some poor vicars. Nor do they so much as remember their name, or what the word bishop signifies, to wit, labor, care, and trouble. But in racking to gather money they truly act the part of bishops, and herein acquit themselves to be no blind seers.
Princes aren't alone in their lifestyle, as popes, cardinals, and bishops have closely followed their lead to the point that they've nearly caught up. If any of them would reflect on what their robes should remind them of—a blameless life; what their pointed miters signify, which are all tied together by the same knot, represents complete knowledge of the Old and New Testaments; what the gloves on their hands mean, which should symbolize a sincere administration of the Sacraments, free from worldly concerns; what their crosier represents, serving as a reminder to care for the flock entrusted to them; and what the cross they bear stands for, symbolizing victory over all earthly desires—if anyone were to truly consider these meanings, would they not lead a serious and challenging life? Yet, they seem to manage quite well while focusing solely on their own interests, passing the responsibility for their flock over to Christ or delegating it to their suffragans, as they call them, or some poor vicars. They don’t even remember their title or what the word bishop actually means—labor, care, and trouble. But in their relentless pursuit of money, they certainly play the part of bishops and prove themselves to be anything but blind seers.
In like manner cardinals, if they thought themselves the successors of the apostles, they would likewise imagine that the same things the other did are required of them, and that they are not lords but dispensers of spiritual things of which they must shortly give an exact account. But if they also would a little philosophize on their habit and think with themselves what's the meaning of their linen rochet, is it not a remarkable and singular integrity of life? What that inner purple; is it not an earnest and fervent love of God? Or what that outward, whose loose plaits and long train fall round his Reverence's mule and are large enough to cover a camel; is it not charity that spreads itself so wide to the succor of all men? that is, to instruct, exhort, comfort, reprehend, admonish, compose wars, resist wicked princes, and willingly expend not only their wealth but their very lives for the flock of Christ: though yet what need at all of wealth to them that supply the room of the poor apostles? These things, I say, did they but duly consider, they would not be so ambitious of that dignity; or, if they were, they would willingly leave it and live a laborious, careful life, such as was that of the ancient apostles.
In the same way, cardinals, if they see themselves as successors to the apostles, they would likely believe that the same responsibilities the others had are expected of them too, and that they aren't lords but caretakers of spiritual matters for which they will soon have to give a detailed account. But if they took some time to reflect on their robes and consider what their linen rochet means, isn't it a remarkable symbol of a committed life? And what about that inner purple—doesn't it signify a deep and passionate love for God? Or what about that outer robe, with its flowing pleats and long train that drapes over their mule and is large enough to cover a camel; doesn't it represent charity that extends widely to help all people? This means they are there to teach, encourage, comfort, correct, advise, resolve conflicts, stand up against corrupt leaders, and willingly spend not only their wealth but even their lives for the flock of Christ. And yet, why do they need wealth at all when they take the place of the humble apostles? If they truly reflected on these things, they wouldn't be so eager for that title; or if they were, they would willingly abandon it and lead a hard-working, dedicated life like the ancient apostles.
And for popes, that supply the place of Christ, if they should endeavor to imitate His life, to wit His poverty, labor, doctrine, cross, and contempt of life, or should they consider what the name pope, that is father, or holiness, imports, who would live more disconsolate than themselves? or who would purchase that chair with all his substance? or defend it, so purchased, with swords, poisons, and all force imaginable? so great a profit would the access of wisdom deprive him of—wisdom did I say? nay, the least corn of that salt which Christ speaks of: so much wealth, so much honor, so much riches, so many victories, so many offices, so many dispensations, so much tribute, so many pardons; such horses, such mules, such guards, and so much pleasure would it lose them. You see how much I have comprehended in a little: instead of which it would bring in watchings, fastings, tears, prayers, sermons, good endeavors, sighs, and a thousand the like troublesome exercises. Nor is this least considerable: so many scribes, so many copying clerks, so many notaries, so many advocates, so many promoters, so many secretaries, so many muleteers, so many grooms, so many bankers: in short, that vast multitude of men that overcharge the Roman See—I mistook, I meant honor—might beg their bread.
And for popes, who take the place of Christ, if they try to live like Him—embracing His poverty, work, teachings, suffering, and disregard for worldly life—or if they think about what the title pope, meaning father or holiness, truly signifies, who would be more miserable than they? Who would sacrifice everything to gain that position? Or defend it with swords, poisons, and every means possible? These would be the great sacrifices wisdom would demand from them—wisdom, did I say? No, just the least bit of the salt that Christ talked about: so much wealth, so much honor, so many riches, so many victories, so many positions, so many exemptions, so much tax revenue, so many pardons; such horses, such mules, such guards, and so much enjoyment would be lost to them. You see how much I've captured in just a few words: instead, it would bring sleepless nights, fasting, tears, prayers, sermons, good efforts, sighs, and a thousand other burdensome tasks. And let's not forget: so many clerks, copyists, notaries, lawyers, promoters, secretaries, mule drivers, grooms, and bankers—the countless number of people that burden the Roman See—I meant honor—might end up begging for their bread.
A most inhuman and economical thing, and more to be execrated, that those great princes of the Church and true lights of the world should be reduced to a staff and a wallet. Whereas now, if there be anything that requires their pains, they leave that to Peter and Paul that have leisure enough; but if there be anything of honor or pleasure, they take that to themselves. By which means it is, yet by my courtesy, that scarce any kind of men live more voluptuously or with less trouble; as believing that Christ will be well enough pleased if in their mystical and almost mimical pontificality, ceremonies, titles of holiness and the like, and blessing and cursing, they play the parts of bishops. To work miracles is old and antiquated, and not in fashion now; to instruct the people, troublesome; to interpret the Scripture, pedantic; to pray, a sign one has little else to do; to shed tears, silly and womanish; to be poor, base; to be vanquished, dishonorable and little becoming him that scarce admits even kings to kiss his slipper; and lastly, to die, uncouth; and to be stretched on a cross, infamous.
A really inhumane and cynical thing, and even more deserving of condemnation, is that those powerful leaders of the Church and true beacons of the world should be reduced to a staff and a bag. Nowadays, if there's anything that needs their attention, they leave it to Peter and Paul, who have plenty of time on their hands; but if there’s something that’s honorable or enjoyable, they keep that for themselves. This way, it’s courtesy on my part to say that hardly anyone lives more lavishly or with less effort; they believe that Christ will be happy if, in their ritualistic and almost mocking pontificality—ceremonies, titles of holiness, and the like—along with their blessings and curses, they play the roles of bishops. Performing miracles is old-fashioned and not in vogue anymore; teaching the people is a hassle; interpreting Scripture is seen as too scholarly; praying is a sign someone has little else going on; shedding tears is silly and feminine; being poor is degraded; being defeated is dishonorable and unbecoming for someone who hardly allows even kings to kiss his slipper; and finally, dying is awkward; being stretched out on a cross is shameful.
Theirs are only those weapons and sweet blessings which Paul mentions, and of these truly they are bountiful enough: as interdictions, hangings, heavy burdens, reproofs, anathemas, executions in effigy, and that terrible thunderbolt of excommunication, with the very sight of which they sink men's souls beneath the bottom of hell: which yet these most holy fathers in Christ and His vicars hurl with more fierceness against none than against such as, by the instigation of the devil, attempt to lessen or rob them of Peter's patrimony. When, though those words in the Gospel, "We have left all, and followed Thee," were his, yet they call his patrimony lands, cities, tribute, imposts, riches; for which, being enflamed with the love of Christ, they contend with fire and sword, and not without loss of much Christian blood, and believe they have then most apostolically defended the Church, the spouse of Christ, when the enemy, as they call them, are valiantly routed. As if the Church had any deadlier enemies than wicked prelates, who not only suffer Christ to run out of request for want of preaching him, but hinder his spreading by their multitudes of laws merely contrived for their own profit, corrupt him by their forced expositions, and murder him by the evil example of their pestilent life.
They only have the weapons and sweet blessings that Paul talks about, and they really are generous enough: things like bans, executions, heavy burdens, reprimands, curses, mock executions, and that terrible thunderbolt of excommunication, which can drag people's souls right down to the depths of hell. Yet, these most holy fathers in Christ and His representatives unleash this fury more against those who, spurred by the devil, try to diminish or take away Peter's inheritance. Although the words from the Gospel, "We have left all, and followed You," were his, they refer to his inheritance as lands, cities, taxes, taxes, and wealth; for which, driven by their love for Christ, they fight with fire and sword, often at the cost of much Christian blood, believing they have defended the Church, the bride of Christ, most apostolically when they valiantly defeat what they call the enemy. As if the Church had any more dangerous enemies than corrupt leaders, who not only let Christ fade away due to their lack of preaching him, but also obstruct his outreach with their countless laws made solely for their own gain, distort his teachings with their twisted interpretations, and destroy him with the terrible example of their immoral lives.
Nay, further, whereas the Church of Christ was founded in blood, confirmed by blood, and augmented by blood, now, as if Christ, who after his wonted manner defends his people, were lost, they govern all by the sword. And whereas war is so savage a thing that it rather befits beasts than men, so outrageous that the very poets feigned it came from the Furies, so pestilent that it corrupts all men's manners, so unjust that it is best executed by the worst of men, so wicked that it has no agreement with Christ; and yet, omitting all the other, they make this their only business. Here you'll see decrepit old fellows acting the parts of young men, neither troubled at their costs, nor wearied with their labors, nor discouraged at anything, so they may have the liberty of turning laws, religion, peace, and all things else quite topsy-turvy. Nor are they destitute of their learned flatterers that call that palpable madness zeal, piety, and valor, having found out a new way by which a man may kill his brother without the least breach of that charity which, by the command of Christ, one Christian owes another. And here, in troth, I'm a little at a stand whether the ecclesiastical German electors gave them this example, or rather took it from them; who, laying aside their habit, benedictions, and all the like ceremonies, so act the part of commanders that they think it a mean thing, and least beseeming a bishop, to show the least courage to Godward unless it be in a battle.
No, furthermore, while the Church of Christ was established through blood, strengthened by blood, and expanded by blood, now, as if Christ, who typically protects His people, were absent, they rule everything with the sword. And since war is such a brutal thing that it is more fitting for beasts than for humans, so outrageous that even poets imagined it was birthed from the Furies, so harmful that it corrupts everyone’s character, so unjust that it’s best carried out by the worst among men, so evil that it has no alignment with Christ; and yet, setting aside all other matters, they make this their sole focus. Here you’ll see decrepit old men playing the roles of young warriors, unconcerned about their expenses, unaffected by their efforts, and undaunted by anything, as long as they can twist laws, religion, peace, and everything else upside down. They are not without their educated sycophants who call this obvious madness zeal, piety, and bravery, having discovered a new way for a man to kill his brother without the slightest violation of the love that, by Christ's command, one Christian owes another. And here, honestly, I'm a bit stuck on whether the ecclesiastical German electors set this example, or if they took it from these others; who, putting aside their robes, blessings, and all similar rituals, act as commanders in such a way that they deem it beneath them, and least fitting for a bishop, to show even the slightest courage towards God unless it’s in the heat of battle.
And as to the common herd of priests, they account it a crime to degenerate from the sanctity of their prelates. Heidah! How soldier-like they bustle about the jus divinum of titles, and how quick-sighted they are to pick the least thing out of the writings of the ancients wherewith they may fright the common people and convince them, if possible, that more than a tenth is due! Yet in the meantime it least comes in their heads how many things are everywhere extant concerning that duty which they owe the people. Nor does their shorn crown in the least admonish them that a priest should be free from all worldly desires and think of nothing but heavenly things. Whereas on the contrary, these jolly fellows say they have sufficiently discharged their offices if they but anyhow mumble over a few odd prayers, which, so help me, Hercules! I wonder if any god either hear or understand, since they do neither themselves, especially when they thunder them out in that manner they are wont. But this they have in common with those of the heathens, that they are vigilant enough to the harvest of their profit, nor is there any of them that is not better read in those laws than the Scripture. Whereas if there be anything burdensome, they prudently lay that on other men's shoulders and shift it from one to the other, as men toss a ball from hand to hand, following herein the example of lay princes who commit the government of their kingdoms to their grand ministers, and they again to others, and leave all study of piety to the common people. In like manner the common people put it over to those they call ecclesiastics, as if themselves were no part of the Church, or that their vow in baptism had lost its obligation. Again, the priests that call themselves secular, as if they were initiated to the world, not to Christ, lay the burden on the regulars; the regulars on the monks; the monks that have more liberty on those that have less; and all of them on the mendicants; the mendicants on the Carthusians, among whom, if anywhere, this piety lies buried, but yet so close that scarce anyone can perceive it. In like manner the popes, the most diligent of all others in gathering in the harvest of money, refer all their apostolical work to the bishops, the bishops to the parsons, the parsons to the vicars, the vicars to their brother mendicants, and they again throw back the care of the flock on those that take the wool.
And as for the average priests, they consider it a sin to stray from the holiness of their superiors. Look at them! How soldier-like they rush around with the so-called divine right of titles, and how quick they are to find even the smallest quotes from ancient texts to scare the common people into believing that they owe more than a tenth! Yet, they hardly ever think about the many things that exist regarding their duty to the people. Their shaved heads don't seem to remind them that a priest should be free from worldly desires and focus only on spiritual matters. On the contrary, these cheerful guys think they’ve done enough if they just mumble a few random prayers, which, honestly, makes me wonder if any god hears or understands them, since they definitely don’t, especially when they shout them out as they typically do. But they share one trait with the pagans: they're quite aware of how to maximize their profit, and none of them knows scripture better than their own laws. When it comes to anything burdensome, they wisely pass it on to others, just like tossing a ball from one hand to another, following the example of secular rulers who hand over the governance of their kingdoms to their major advisors, who then delegate it all again, leaving the pursuit of piety to the common people. Similarly, the common people offload it onto those they call ecclesiastics, as if they themselves aren’t part of the Church, or as if their baptismal vow no longer applies. Again, the priests who label themselves secular, as if they were initiated into worldly affairs rather than Christ's, shift the burden onto the regular priests; the regulars pass it on to the monks; the monks with more freedom push it onto those with less; and all of them hand it over to the mendicants; the mendicants pass it to the Carthusians, who, if anywhere, possibly hold what little piety remains, but it’s so hidden that hardly anyone can see it. Similarly, the popes, the most diligent in collecting money, delegate all their apostolic work to the bishops, the bishops to the parsons, the parsons to the vicars, the vicars to their fellow mendicants, and they in turn throw the care of the flock back on those who shear the sheep.
But it is not my business to sift too narrowly the lives of prelates and priests for fear I seem to have intended rather a satire than an oration, and be thought to tax good princes while I praise the bad. And therefore, what I slightly taught before has been to no other end but that it might appear that there's no man can live pleasantly unless he be initiated to my rites and have me propitious to him. For how can it be otherwise when Fortune, the great directress of all human affairs, and myself are so all one that she was always an enemy to those wise men, and on the contrary so favorable to fools and careless fellows that all things hit luckily to them?
But it's not my place to closely examine the lives of bishops and priests for fear it might look like I'm aiming for satire instead of a speech, and that I might seem to criticize good leaders while praising the bad ones. So, what I mentioned earlier was only to show that no one can truly enjoy life unless they're initiated into my ways and have me on their side. How could it be any different when Fortune, the great guide of all human affairs, and I are so closely linked that she has always been an enemy to wise people, while being so kind to fools and careless types that everything seems to work out for them?
You have heard of that Timotheus, the most fortunate general of the Athenians, of whom came that proverb, "His net caught fish, though he were asleep;" and that "The owl flies;" whereas these others hit properly, wise men "born in the fourth month;" and again, "He rides Sejanus's his horse;" and "gold of Toulouse," signifying thereby the extremity of ill fortune. But I forbear the further threading of proverbs, lest I seem to have pilfered my friend Erasmus' adages. Fortune loves those that have least wit and most confidence and such as like that saying of Caesar, "The die is thrown." But wisdom makes men bashful, which is the reason that those wise men have so little to do, unless it be with poverty, hunger, and chimney corners; that they live such neglected, unknown, and hated lives: whereas fools abound in money, have the chief commands in the commonwealth, and in a word, flourish every way. For if it be happiness to please princes and to be conversant among those golden and diamond gods, what is more unprofitable than wisdom, or what is it these kind of men have, may more justly be censured? If wealth is to be got, how little good at it is that merchant like to do, if following the precepts of wisdom, he should boggle at perjury; or being taken in a lie, blush; or in the least regard the sad scruples of those wise men touching rapine and usury. Again, if a man sue for honors or church preferments, an ass or wild ox shall sooner get them than a wise man. If a man's in love with a young wench, none of the least humors in this comedy, they are wholly addicted to fools and are afraid of a wise man and fly him as they would a scorpion. Lastly, whoever intend to live merry and frolic, shut their doors against wise men and admit anything sooner. In brief, go whither you will, among prelates, princes, judges, magistrates, friends, enemies, from highest to lowest, and you'll find all things done by money; which, as a wise man condemns it, so it takes a special care not to come near him. What shall I say? There is no measure or end of my praises, and yet 'tis fit my oration have an end. And therefore I'll even break off; and yet, before I do it, 'twill not be amiss if I briefly show you that there has not been wanting even great authors that have made me famous, both by their writings and actions, lest perhaps otherwise I may seem to have foolishly pleased myself only, or that the lawyers charge me that I have proved nothing. After their example, therefore, will I allege my proofs, that is to say, nothing to the point.
You’ve heard of Timotheus, the luckiest general of the Athenians, who inspired the saying, "His net caught fish even while he was asleep," and that "The owl flies;" while those other sayings hit the mark, wise people are said to be "born in the fourth month;" and again, "He rides Sejanus’s horse;" and "gold of Toulouse," implying extreme misfortune. But I won’t go on listing proverbs, so I don’t seem like I’m stealing my friend Erasmus’ adages. Fortune favors those with the least sense and the most confidence, like Caesar’s saying, "The die is cast." But wisdom makes people shy, which explains why wise individuals often have little to do, except perhaps deal with poverty, hunger, and the corners of chimneys; they lead such neglected, unknown, and despised lives: while fools are wealthy, hold the top positions in society, and thrive in every way. If it’s a blessing to please rulers and to associate with those golden and diamond gods, what could be more pointless than wisdom, or what could be more justly criticized about these kinds of people? If wealth is obtainable, what good does it do for a merchant who, following the rules of wisdom, hesitates at lying; or blushes if caught in a falsehood; or even considers the troubling moral dilemmas that wise people have about theft and usury? Again, if someone seeks honors or church positions, a donkey or a wild ox will get them faster than a wise person. If a man is in love with a young woman, one of the more amusing characters in this comedy, she is completely drawn to fools and is scared of wise men, avoiding them as if they were scorpions. Lastly, anyone looking to have fun and enjoy themselves will shut their doors on wise men and welcome anything else sooner. In short, wherever you go—among religious leaders, rulers, judges, officials, friends, or enemies, from the highest to lowest—you’ll see that everything is done for money; which, as wise people criticize, also tries very hard to stay away from them. What can I say? There’s no limit to my praises, yet it’s proper for my speech to end. So I’ll stop here; and before I do, it wouldn’t hurt to point out that there have been great authors who made me famous, through both their writings and deeds, in case I seem to be foolishly enjoying myself alone, or if lawyers accuse me of proving nothing. Following their lead, therefore, I’ll present my evidence, which is to say, nothing relevant.
And first, every man allows this proverb, "That where a man wants matter, he may best frame some." And to this purpose is that verse which we teach children, "'Tis the greatest wisdom to know when and where to counterfeit the fool." And now judge yourselves what an excellent thing this folly is, whose very counterfeit and semblance only has got such praise from the learned. But more candidly does that fat plump "Epicurean bacon-hog," Horace, for so he calls himself, bid us "mingle our purposes with folly;" and whereas he adds the word bravem, short, perhaps to help out the verse, he might as well have let it alone; and again, "'Tis a pleasant thing to play the fool in the right season;" and in another place, he had rather "be accounted a dotterel and sot than to be wise and made mouths at." And Telemachus in Homer, whom the poet praises so much, is now and then called nepios, fool: and by the same name, as if there were some good fortune in it, are the tragedians wont to call boys and striplings. And what does that sacred book of Iliads contain but a kind of counter-scuffle between foolish kings and foolish people? Besides, how absolute is that praise that Cicero gives of it! "All things are full of fools." For who does not know that every good, the more diffusive it is, by so much the better it is?
And first, everyone agrees with the saying, "Where there's a need, a person can be resourceful." This is similar to the saying we teach kids: "It's wise to know when and where to play the fool." Now, consider how remarkable this foolishness is, which has received such acclaim from scholars, even in its imitation. Horace, the plump "Epicurean," encourages us to "mix our goals with a bit of folly." Although he adds the word bravem, perhaps to fit the verse, he could have left it out; furthermore, he says, "It’s enjoyable to play the fool at the right time," and in another instance, he prefers to "be seen as silly rather than wise and ridiculed." Telemachus in Homer, whom the poet highly praises, is occasionally referred to as nepios, fool; and the tragedians often use this term to describe boys and youths, suggesting there's some luck in it. And what does the sacred text of the Iliads depict but a struggle between foolish kings and foolish people? Plus, Cicero's praise is absolute: "Everything is full of fools." After all, who doesn't know that the more widespread a good thing is, the better it becomes?
But perhaps their authority may be of small credit among Christians. We'll therefore, if you please, support our praises with some testimonies of Holy Writ also, in the first place, nevertheless, having forespoke our theologians that they'll give us leave to do it without offense. And in the next, forasmuch as we attempt a matter of some difficulty and it may be perhaps a little too saucy to call back again the Muses from Helicon to so great a journey, especially in a matter they are wholly strangers to, it will be more suitable, perhaps, while I play the divine and make my way through such prickly quiddities, that I entreat the soul of Scotus, a thing more bristly than either porcupine or hedgehog, to leave his scorebone awhile and come into my breast, and then let him go whither he pleases, or to the dogs, I could wish also that I might change my countenance, or that I had on the square cap and the cassock, for fear some or other should impeach me of theft as if I had privily rifled our masters' desks in that I have got so much divinity. But it ought not to seem so strange if after so long and intimate an acquaintance and converse with them I have picked up somewhat; when as that fig-tree-god Priapus hearing his owner read certain Greek words took so much notice of them that he got them by heart, and that cock in Lucian by having lived long among men became at last a master of their language.
But maybe their authority isn’t given much weight among Christians. So, if you agree, let’s back our praises with some quotes from the Bible first. However, I’ve already spoken to our theologians and gotten their permission to do this without causing any offense. Also, since we’re tackling a somewhat tricky topic, it might be a bit presumptuous to summon the Muses from Helicon for such a great task, especially on a subject they are completely unfamiliar with. It could be more fitting, while I handle these thorny issues, to ask the spirit of Scotus, who is pricklier than both a porcupine and a hedgehog, to pause his scholarly work and enter my mind for a while, and then he can go wherever he wishes, even off to the dogs. I also wish I could change my appearance or wear the square cap and the cassock, just in case someone accuses me of stealing knowledge as if I had secretly rummaged through our teachers’ desks to acquire so much theology. But it shouldn’t seem so surprising that after such a long and close relationship with them, I’ve picked up a few things; after all, that fig-tree god Priapus, upon hearing his owner read certain Greek words, paid such attention that he memorized them, and that rooster in Lucian, having spent so much time among humans, eventually became fluent in their language.
But to the point under a fortunate direction. Ecclesiastes says in his first chapter, "The number of fools is infinite;" and when he calls it infinite, does he not seem to comprehend all men, unless it be some few whom yet 'tis a question whether any man ever saw? But more ingeniously does Jeremiah in his tenth chapter confess it, saying, "Every man is made a fool through his own wisdom;" attributing wisdom to God alone and leaving folly to all men else, and again, "Let not man glory in his wisdom." And why, good Jeremiah, would you not have a man glory in his wisdom? Because, he'll say, he has none at all. But to return to Ecclesiastes, who, when he cries out, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!" what other thoughts had he, do you believe, than that, as I said before, the life of man is nothing else but an interlude of folly? In which he has added one voice more to that justly received praise of Cicero's which I quoted before, viz., "All things are full of fools." Again, that wise preacher that said, "A fool changes as the moon, but a wise man is permanent as the sun," what else did he hint at in it but that all mankind are fools and the name of wise only proper to God? For by the moon interpreters understand human nature, and by the sun, God, the only fountain of light; with which agrees that which Christ himself in the Gospel denies, that anyone is to be called good but one, and that is God. And then if he is a fool that is not wise, and every good man according to the Stoics is a wise man, it is no wonder if all mankind be concluded under folly. Again Solomon, Chapter 15, "Foolishness," says he, "is joy to the fool," thereby plainly confessing that without folly there is no pleasure in life. To which is pertinent that other, "He that increases knowledge, increases grief; and in much understanding there is much indignation." And does he not plainly confess as much, Chapter 7, "The heart of the wise is where sadness is, but the heart of fools follows mirth"? by which you see, he thought it not enough to have learned wisdom without he had added the knowledge of me also. And if you will not believe me, take his own words, Chapter 1, "I gave my heart to know wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly." Where, by the way, 'tis worth your remark that he intended me somewhat extraordinary that he named me last. A preacher wrote it, and this you know is the order among churchmen, that he that is first in dignity comes last in place, as mindful, no doubt, whatever they do in other things, herein at least to observe the evangelical precept.
But to the point under a fortunate direction. Ecclesiastes says in his first chapter, "The number of fools is infinite;" and when he calls it infinite, doesn’t he seem to include all people, except for perhaps a few that may never have existed? But more cleverly does Jeremiah in his tenth chapter admit it, saying, "Every man is made a fool through his own wisdom;" attributing wisdom to God alone and leaving folly to everyone else, and again, "Let not man glory in his wisdom." And why, good Jeremiah, should you not want a man to boast about his wisdom? Because he’ll claim he has none at all. But back to Ecclesiastes, who, when he exclaims, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!" what other thoughts do you think he had, than that, as I mentioned before, the life of man is nothing but an interlude of folly? In doing so, he adds one more voice to Cicero’s well-known praise I quoted earlier, namely, "All things are full of fools." Again, that wise preacher who said, "A fool changes like the moon, but a wise man is steady like the sun," what else was he implying except that all humanity are fools and the term wise is only fitting for God? For by the moon, interpreters understand human nature, and by the sun, God, the only source of light; which aligns with what Christ himself denies in the Gospel, stating that no one is to be called good except for one, and that is God. And so, if he is a fool who is not wise, and every good person according to the Stoics is a wise person, it’s no surprise that all of humanity is categorized under folly. Furthermore, Solomon, in Chapter 15, states, "Foolishness is joy to the fool," thus clearly acknowledging that without folly there is no joy in life. This ties into the idea, "He that increases knowledge, increases grief; and with much understanding comes much frustration." And does he not clearly admit as much in Chapter 7, "The heart of the wise is where sadness is, but the heart of fools seeks joy"? By this, you can see he thought it wasn’t enough to have learned wisdom without also including knowledge of folly. And if you won’t believe me, take his own words, Chapter 1, "I gave my heart to know wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly." By the way, it's worth noting that he intended something special by naming folly last. A preacher wrote it, and you know this is the order among church leaders, that the one with the highest status comes last in placement, as a reminder, no doubt, that in whatever else they do, they at least observe the evangelical principle here.
Besides, that folly is more excellent than wisdom the son of Sirach, whoever he was, clearly witnesses, Chapter 44, whose words, so help me, Hercules! I shall not once utter before you meet my induction with a suitable answer, according to the manner of those in Plato that dispute with Socrates. What things are more proper to be laid up with care, such as are rare and precious, or such as are common and of no account? Why do you give me no answer? Well, though you should dissemble, the Greek proverb will answer for you, "Foul water is thrown out of doors;" which, if any man shall be so ungracious as to condemn, let him know 'tis Aristotle's, the god of our masters. Is there any of you so very a fool as to leave jewels and gold in the street? In truth, I think not; in the most secret part of your house; nor is that enough; if there be any drawer in your iron chests more private than other, there you lay them; but dirt you throw out of doors. And therefore, if you so carefully lay up such things as you value and throw away what's vile and of no worth, is it not plain that wisdom, which he forbids a man to hide, is of less account than folly, which he commands him to cover? Take his own words, "Better is the man that hideth his folly than he that hideth his wisdom." Or what is that, when he attributes an upright mind without craft or malice to a fool, when a wise man the while thinks no man like himself? For so I understand that in his tenth chapter, "A fool walking by the way, being a fool himself, supposes all men to be fools like him." And is it not a sign of great integrity to esteem every man as good as himself, and when there is no one that leans not too much to other way, to be so frank yet as to divide his praises with another? Nor was this great king ashamed of the name when he says of himself that he is more foolish than any man. Nor did Paul, that great doctor of the Gentiles, writing to the Corinthians, unwillingly acknowledge it; "I speak," says he, "like a fool. I am more." As if it could be any dishonor to excel in folly.
Besides, that foolishness is better than wisdom, as the son of Sirach, whoever he was, clearly states in Chapter 44. I won’t repeat his words until you give me a fitting answer, just like those who debate Socrates in Plato's works. What should we keep safe: things that are rare and valuable, or those that are common and worthless? Why aren’t you answering me? Well, even if you pretend not to know, the Greek saying will speak for you: "Dirty water is thrown out." And if anyone is rude enough to disagree, let them remember it’s Aristotle's, who is highly regarded by our teachers. Is there anyone here so foolish as to leave jewelry and gold lying in the street? Honestly, I don’t think so; you keep those things in the most secret area of your house, and it’s not even enough to just hide them away. If there’s a drawer in your strongboxes that’s more secure than the others, that’s where you put them. But you throw dirt out the door. So, if you carefully store away things you value and discard what’s worthless, isn’t it clear that wisdom, which you’re told to hide, is less important than foolishness, which you’re told to cover up? Take his own words: "Better is the man who hides his folly than the one who hides his wisdom." What does it mean when he describes a fool as having a pure heart without deceit or malice while a wise person thinks no one is like him? I understand from his tenth chapter that "a fool walking along the road, being a fool himself, assumes all men are fools like him." Isn’t it a sign of great integrity to consider everyone as good as oneself? And when there’s no one who doesn’t stray too far from the truth, to still be generous enough to share compliments? This great king wasn’t ashamed of calling himself more foolish than anyone else. Nor was Paul, that great teacher of the Gentiles, hesitant to admit it when writing to the Corinthians: "I speak," he says, "like a fool. I am more." As if it were a disgrace to be exceptional in foolishness.
But here I meet with a great noise of some that endeavor to peck out the crows' eyes; that is, to blind the doctors of our times and smoke out their eyes with new annotations; among whom my friend Erasmus, whom for honor's sake I often mention, deserves if not the first place yet certainly the second. O most foolish instance, they cry, and well becoming Folly herself! The apostle's meaning was wide enough from what you dream; for he spoke it not in this sense, that he would have them believe him a greater fool than the rest, but when he had said, "They are ministers of Christ, the same am I," and by way of boasting herein had equaled himself with to others, he added this by way of correction or checking himself, "I am more," as meaning that he was not only equal to the rest of the apostles in the work of the Gospel, but somewhat superior. And therefore, while he would have this received as a truth, lest nevertheless it might not relish their ears as being spoken with too much arrogance, he foreshortened his argument with the vizard of folly, "I speak like a fool," because he knew it was the prerogative of fools to speak what they like, and that too without offense. Whatever he thought when he wrote this, I leave it to them to discuss; for my own part, I follow those fat, fleshy, and vulgarly approved doctors, with whom, by Jupiter! a great part of the learned had rather err than follow them that understand the tongues, though they are never so much in the right. Not any of them make greater account of those smatterers at Greek than if they were daws. Especially when a no small professor, whose name I wittingly conceal lest those choughs should chatter at me that Greek proverb I have so often mentioned, "an ass at a harp," discoursing magisterially and theologically on this text, "I speak as a fool, I am more," drew a new thesis; and, which without the height of logic he could never have done, made this new subdivision—for I'll give you his own words, not only in form but matter also—"I speak like a fool," that is, if you look upon me as a fool for comparing myself with those false apostles, I shall seem yet a greater fool by esteeming myself before them; though the same person a little after, as forgetting himself, runs off to another matter.
But here I encounter a lot of noise from those trying to undermine the doctors of our time with new interpretations; among them, my friend Erasmus, whom I often mention out of respect, deserves, if not the top spot, then certainly the next one. "What a foolish example!" they cry, fitting for Folly herself! The apostle's meaning is very different from what you think; he didn’t intend to suggest he was a bigger fool than anyone else. When he said, “They are ministers of Christ; I am the same,” he was boasting by comparing himself to others, and then he corrected himself by adding, “I am more,” implying he was not just equal to the other apostles in spreading the Gospel but slightly superior. So, while he wanted this accepted as truth, he also realized it might come off as too arrogant, so he prefaced his argument with the phrase, “I speak like a fool,” knowing that fools can say what they want without causing offense. Whatever he meant when he wrote this, I’ll leave it for them to debate; personally, I prefer those hefty, plump, and generally accepted doctors, with whom, by Jupiter! a lot of scholars would rather make a mistake than follow those who understand the languages, even when they’re completely right. None of them think any more of those dabblers in Greek than if they were jackdaws. Particularly when a prominent professor, whose name I’ll keep to myself to avoid the noise from those who love to quote the Greek proverb I’ve mentioned countless times, “an ass at a harp,” while lecturing authoritatively and theologically on this text, “I speak as a fool, I am more,” came up with a new thesis. And, without the sophistication of logic, he created this new subdivision—because I’ll share his exact words, both in form and substance—“I speak like a fool,” meaning if you see me as foolish for comparing myself to those false apostles, I’ll appear even more foolish by considering myself superior to them; although just after, he seems to forget himself and shifts to another topic.
But why do I thus staggeringly defend myself with one single instance? As if it were not the common privilege of divines to stretch heaven, that is Holy Writ, like a cheverel; and when there are many things in St. Paul that thwart themselves, which yet in their proper place do well enough if there be any credit to be given to St. Jerome that was master of five tongues. Such was that of his at Athens when having casually espied the inscription of that altar, he wrested it into an argument to prove the Christian faith, and leaving out all the other words because they made against him, took notice only of the two last, viz., "To the unknown God;" and those too not without some alteration, for the whole inscription was thus: "To the Gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; To the unknown and strange Gods." And according to his example do the sons of the prophets, who, forcing out here and there four or five expressions and if need be corrupting the sense, wrest it to their own purpose; though what goes before and follows after make nothing to the matter in hand, nay, be quite against it. Which yet they do with so happy an impudence that oftentimes the civilians envy them that faculty.
But why do I defend myself so strongly with just one example? As if it weren't the usual privilege of religious scholars to bend the meaning of scripture like a piece of leather; and when there are many contradictions in St. Paul that resolve themselves, as long as we trust St. Jerome, who was fluent in five languages. Take, for instance, his experience in Athens when he happened to notice the inscription on an altar. He twisted it into an argument for the Christian faith, ignoring all the other words because they opposed him, only focusing on the last two: "To the unknown God," and even those he altered a bit, since the full inscription read: "To the Gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; To the unknown and strange Gods." Following his example are the prophets' sons, who grab a few phrases from here and there and, if necessary, distort their meaning to serve their own goals; even though the context before and after completely contradicts their point. Yet they do this with such boldness that often the legal scholars envy their skill.
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.
For what is it in a way they might not hope for success in, when this great doctor (I almost slipped out his name, but I fear the Greek proverb again) has interpreted a saying of Luke so agreeably to Christ's mindset, just as fire and water are to each other. When the final point of danger was approaching, a time when followers usually pay special attention to their protectors to assess their strength and prepare for the confrontation, Christ, aiming to eliminate any trust and confidence his disciples had in such defenses, asks them if they lacked anything when he sent them out without provisions for a journey, having neither shoes to protect their feet from stones and thorns nor a bag to stave off hunger. When they said they lacked nothing, he added, "But now, let the one who has a bag take it, and likewise a scrip; and whoever has none should sell their coat and buy a sword." Now, when the essence of all Christ taught emphasized meekness, suffering, and disregard for life, who doesn't clearly understand what he means here? To make his ministers more defenseless, neglecting not only shoes and bags but even throwing away their very coats, so that, being somewhat naked, they could more easily and with fewer hindrances take on the work of the Gospel, only arming themselves with a sword—not one that thieves and murderers carry, but the sword of the spirit that pierces deep within, cutting off all earthly attachments in one blow, so they focus solely on their duty to God. But look, I beg you, at where this renowned theologian twists it. He interprets the sword as a means of defense against persecution, and the bag as sufficient provision for survival. As if Christ had changed his mind, regretting that he sent his disciples out without a royal entourage, or as if he forgot he had said, "Blessed are you when people speak ill of you, despise you, and persecute you, etc.," and forbade them to resist evil; since it's the meek in spirit, not the proud, who are blessed. Or, lest remembering— I say— that he compared them to sparrows and lilies, reminding them to worry little about the things of this life, he was now so far from having them set out without a sword that he commanded them to acquire one, even if it meant selling their coat, preferring they go naked rather than without a weapon. And to this, as he interprets the word "sword" to include anything related to defending against harm, he takes the word "scrip" to mean whatever is necessary for sustaining life. Thus, this deep interpreter of divine meaning portrays the apostles going to preach the doctrine of a crucified Christ, fully equipped with weapons, armor, and all kinds of gear; loading them down with bags and baggage, lest it might not be proper for them to leave their lodging without being empty and fasting. He also fails to notice that he commanded the sword to be purchased, later condemning it and demanding it be sheathed; and it was never reported that the apostles used swords or shields against the Gentiles, though it’s likely they would have if Christ had intended what 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 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.
There’s another person, whose name I’ll skip out of respect, a man of some prominence, who took the phrase from the tents that Habakkuk mentions, “The tents of the land of Midian shall tremble,” and interpreted it to mean it was a prophecy about the skin of Saint Bartholomew, who was flayed alive. And why, you might ask, was that? Because those tents were covered with skins? I was recently at a theological debate, which I often attend, where someone asked what authority in the Bible commands that heretics should be punished by fire instead of being convinced through argument. An irritable old man, who had the air of someone with at least a doctorate, responded in a huff that Saint Paul declared it, quoting, “Reject a heretic after one or two warnings.” And after he repeatedly shouted the same thing, with many people wondering what was bothering him, he finally clarified his point by breaking it into two words: “A heretic must be put to death.” Some laughed, but others found his interpretation convincingly theological. When a few brave souls challenged him, he ended the debate abruptly, citing the authority of such an undeniable source. “Please understand me,” he said, “it is written, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ But every heretic bewilders the people; therefore, etc.” The crowd admired his cleverness and accepted his conclusion on the matter. Yet, none of them considered that this law applied only to fortune-tellers, enchanters, and magicians, whom the Hebrews refer to as "Mecaschephim," witches or sorcerers: otherwise, one might argue it could extend to fornication and drunkenness just as easily.
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 origin 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 I foolishly keep going on about these things, even though there are so many that neither Chrysippus' nor Didymus' works are big enough to cover them all. I just ask you to consider that if such great scholars have this freedom, you can more reasonably excuse me, a novice and soft-spoken theologian, if I don't quote everything as precisely as I should. So, I finally return to Paul. "You willingly," he says, "put up with my foolishness," and again, "Accept me as a fool," and further, "I’m not speaking this on behalf of the Lord, but as if I were foolish," and in another place, "We are fools for Christ's sake." You’ve heard from such a significant author the high praise for folly; and what other purpose could it serve, except that he undoubtedly saw it as both necessary and beneficial. "If anyone among you," he says, "seems to be wise, let him become a fool so he can be wise." And in Luke, Jesus called the two disciples he walked with on the road "fools." I can’t understand why it’s so shocking when Saint Paul even attributes a form of folly to God himself. "The foolishness of God," he says, "is wiser than men." Though I have to admit that the origin in that context argues against this foolishness being compared to the unreliable judgments of men; such as, "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."
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."
But why am I being so careful for no reason by going on to prove my point with so many examples? When in those mystical Psalms, Christ speaks to the Father and says openly, "You know my foolishness." It's not without a reason that fools are so well-accepted by God. Perhaps it’s because, just like princes are suspicious of those who are too clever and end up hating them—as Caesar did Brutus and Cassius, fearing not at all drunken Antony; like Nero with Seneca, and Dionysius with Plato—they instead find joy in those who are simpler and less polished. In the same way, Christ always rejects and condemns those wise men who trust in their own intelligence. Paul makes this clear when he said, "God has chosen the foolish things of this world," fully knowing it would have been impossible to reform it through wisdom. He also makes this evident when he cries out through his prophet, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and cast away the understanding of the prudent."
And again, when Christ gives Him thanks that He had concealed the mystery of salvation from the wise, but revealed it to babes and sucklings, that is to say, fools. For the Greek word for babes is fools, which he opposes to the word wise men. To this appertains that throughout the Gospel you find him ever accusing the Scribes and Pharisees and doctors of the law, but diligently defending the ignorant multitude (for what other is that "Woe to ye Scribes and Pharisees" than woe to you, you wise men?), but seems chiefly delighted in little children, women, and fishers. Besides, among brute beasts he is best pleased with those that have least in them of the foxes' subtlety. And therefore he chose rather to ride upon an ass when, if he had pleased, he might have bestrode the lion without danger. And the Holy Ghost came down in the shape of a dove, not of an eagle or kite. Add to this that in Scripture there is frequent mention of harts, hinds, and lambs; and such as are destined to eternal life are called sheep, than which creature there is not anything more foolish, if we may believe that proverb of Aristotle "sheepish manners," which he tells us is taken from the foolishness of that creature and is used to be applied to dull-headed people and lack-wits. And yet Christ professes to be the shepherd of this flock and is himself delighted with the name of a lamb; according to Saint John, "Behold the Lamb of God!" Of which also there is much mention in the Revelation. And what does all this drive at, but that all mankind are fools—nay, even the very best?
And again, when Christ thanks God for hiding the mystery of salvation from the wise but revealing it to little ones, which means fools. The Greek word for little ones actually also means fools, which he contrasts with wise men. Throughout the Gospel, he constantly criticizes the Scribes, Pharisees, and experts in the law, while he vigorously defends the uneducated masses (what else does "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees" mean but woe to you, wise men?). He seems especially pleased with little children, women, and fishermen. Moreover, among animals, he prefers those that are least crafty, like foxes. That's why he chose to ride on a donkey when he could have easily ridden a lion without fear. The Holy Spirit came down as a dove, not as an eagle or a hawk. Additionally, the Scriptures frequently mention deer, does, and lambs; those meant for eternal life are called sheep, which are considered the most foolish creatures, according to Aristotle's saying "sheepish manners," indicating the foolishness of that animal and often applied to dull-witted people. Yet Christ claims to be the shepherd of this flock and delights in being called a lamb; according to Saint John, "Behold the Lamb of God!" This concept appears often in the Revelation. So what does all this mean, except that all of humanity is foolish—even the very best among us?
And Christ himself, that he might the better relieve this folly, being the wisdom of the Father, yet in some manner became a fool when taking upon him the nature of man, he was found in shape as a man; as in like manner he was made sin that he might heal sinners. Nor did he work this cure any other way than by the foolishness of the cross and a company of fat apostles, not much better, to whom also he carefully recommended folly but gave them a caution against wisdom and drew them together by the example of little children, lilies, mustard-seed, and sparrows, things senseless and inconsiderable, living only by the dictates of nature and without either craft or care. Besides, when he forbade them to be troubled about what they should say before governors and straightly charged them not to inquire after times and seasons, to wit, that they might not trust to their own wisdom but wholly depend on him. And to the same purpose is it that that great Architect of the World, God, gave man an injunction against his eating of the Tree of Knowledge, as if knowledge were the bane of happiness; according to which also, St. Paul disallows it as puffing up and destructive; whence also St. Bernard seems in my opinion to follow when he interprets that mountain whereon Lucifer had fixed his habitation to be the mountain of knowledge.
And Christ himself, to better address this folly, being the wisdom of the Father, in a way became foolish when he took on human nature and was found in the form of a man; similarly, he became sin in order to heal sinners. He didn't bring about this healing in any other way than through the foolishness of the cross and a bunch of apostles who weren't much better, to whom he carefully showed the value of folly while warning them against wisdom. He gathered them together using the examples of little children, lilies, mustard seeds, and sparrows—things that are senseless and insignificant, living only by nature's commands without any cunning or worry. Furthermore, when he told them not to stress about what to say in front of governors and strictly ordered them not to ask about times and seasons, it was so they wouldn’t rely on their own wisdom but fully depend on him. In the same way, the great Architect of the World, God, instructed man not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, as if knowledge were the enemy of happiness; in line with this, St. Paul condemns it for causing arrogance and destruction; I believe St. Bernard is also following this idea when he interprets the mountain where Lucifer set his residence as the mountain of knowledge.
Nor perhaps ought I to omit this other argument, that Folly is so gracious above that her errors are only pardoned, those of wise men never. Whence it is that they that ask forgiveness, though they offend never so wittingly, cloak it yet with the excuse of folly. So Aaron, in Numbers, if I mistake not the book, when he sues unto Moses concerning his sister's leprosy, "I beseech thee, my Lord, not to lay this sin upon us, which we have foolishly committed." So Saul makes his excuse of David, "For behold," says he, "I did it foolishly." And again, David himself thus sweetens God, "And therefore I beseech thee, O Lord, to take away the trespass of thy servant, for I have done foolishly," as if he knew there was no pardon to be obtained unless he had colored his offense with folly and ignorance. And stronger is that of Christ upon the cross when he prayed for his enemies, "Father, forgive them," nor does he cover their crime with any other excuse than that of unwittingness—because, says he, "they know not what they do." In like manner Paul, writing to Timothy, "But therefore I obtained mercy, for that I did it ignorantly through unbelief." And what is the meaning of "I did it ignorantly" but that I did it out of folly, not malice? And what of "Therefore I received mercy" but that I had not obtained it had I not been made more allowable through the covert of folly? For us also makes that mystical Psalmist, though I remembered it not in its right place, "Remember not the sins of my youth nor my ignorances." You see what two things he pretends, to wit, youth, whose companion I ever am, and ignorances, and that in the plural number, a number of multitude, whereby we are to understand that there was no small company of them.
Nor should I leave out this other point: Folly is so graceful that her mistakes are easily forgiven, while those of wise people are not. That’s why those who seek forgiveness, even if they knowingly offend, still wrap it in the excuse of folly. For example, Aaron in Numbers, if I’m not mistaken about the book, when he appeals to Moses about his sister’s leprosy, says, “I beg you, my Lord, not to hold this sin against us, which we have foolishly committed.” Likewise, Saul excuses himself regarding David, saying, “For behold,” he says, “I acted foolishly.” And David himself sweetens his plea to God, saying, “Therefore, I beg you, O Lord, to forgive the trespass of your servant, for I have acted foolishly,” as if he knew there was no forgiveness available unless he colored his offense with folly and ignorance. Even more striking is Christ on the cross when he prayed for his enemies, saying, “Father, forgive them,” and he doesn’t attribute their wrongdoing to any excuse but that they were unaware—because, he says, “they do not know what they do.” Similarly, Paul, writing to Timothy, states, “But for this reason I received mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” And what does “I did it ignorantly” mean if not that I acted out of folly, not malice? And what of “Therefore I received mercy” if not that I wouldn't have obtained it had I not been made more acceptable through the guise of folly? The mystical Psalmist makes the same point, though I don’t recall it exactly, “Do not remember the sins of my youth or my ignorance.” You see he mentions two things: youth, which I always embody, and ignorance, in the plural, suggesting a multitude, indicating that there were quite a few of them.
But not to run too far in that which is infinite. To speak briefly, all Christian religion seems to have a kind of alliance with folly and in no respect to have any accord with wisdom. Of which if you expect proofs, consider first that boys, old men, women, and fools are more delighted with religious and sacred things than others, and to that purpose are ever next the altars; and this they do by mere impulse of nature. And in the next place, you see that those first founders of it were plain, simple persons and most bitter enemies of learning. Lastly there are no sort of fools seem more out of the way than are these whom the zeal of Christian religion has once swallowed up; so that they waste their estates, neglect injuries, suffer themselves to be cheated, put no difference between friends and enemies, abhor pleasure, are crammed with poverty, watchings, tears, labors, reproaches, loathe life, and wish death above all things; in short, they seem senseless to common understanding, as if their minds lived elsewhere and not in their own bodies; which, what else is it than to be mad? For which reason you must not think it so strange if the apostles seemed to be drunk with new wine, and if Paul appeared to Festus to be mad.
But not to stray too far into the infinite. To put it simply, all Christian religion seems to have some kind of connection with foolishness and hardly any link to wisdom. If you want evidence, first look at how boys, old men, women, and fools are often more captivated by religious and sacred things than others, frequently found near the altars, driven by pure instinct. Next, notice that the original founders were straightforward, simple people who were often very antagonistic toward education. Lastly, there seem to be no fools as misguided as those who become consumed by the fervor of Christian religion; they waste their resources, ignore offenses, let themselves be deceived, can't distinguish between friends and foes, despise pleasure, are burdened with poverty, sleeplessness, tears, toil, and scorn, detest life, and wish for death above all else. In short, they seem completely lost to common sense, as if their minds are elsewhere and not in their own bodies; what else could this be but madness? For this reason, don't find it surprising if the apostles appeared drunk on new wine and if Paul seemed crazy to Festus.
But now, having once gotten on the lion's skin, go to, and I'll show you that this happiness of Christians, which they pursue with so much toil, is nothing else but a kind of madness and folly; far be it that my words should give any offense, rather consider my matter. And first, the Christians and Platonists do as good as agree in this, that the soul is plunged and fettered in the prison of the body, by the grossness of which it is so tied up and hindered that it cannot take a view of or enjoy things as they truly are; and for that cause their master defines philosophy to be a contemplation of death, because it takes off the mind from visible and corporeal objects, than which death does no more. And therefore, as long as the soul uses the organs of the body in that right manner it ought, so long it is said to be in good state and condition; but when, having broken its fetters, it endeavors to get loose and assays, as it were, a flight out of that prison that holds it in, they call it madness; and if this happen through any distemper or indisposition of the organs, then, by the common consent of every man, 'tis downright madness. And yet we see such kind of men foretell things to come, understand tongues and letters they never learned before, and seem, as it were, big with a kind of divinity. Nor is it to be doubted but that it proceeds from hence, that the mind, being somewhat at liberty from the infection of the body, begins to put forth itself in its native vigor. And I conceive 'tis from the same cause that the like often happens to sick men a little before their death, that they discourse in strain above mortality as if they were inspired. Again, if this happens upon the score of religion, though perhaps it may not be the same kind of madness, yet 'tis so near it that a great many men would judge it no better, especially when a few inconsiderable people shall differ from the rest of the world in the whole course of their life. And therefore it fares with them as, according to the fiction of Plato, happens to those that being cooped up in a cave stand gaping with admiration at the shadows of things; and that fugitive who, having broke from them and returning to them again, told them he had seen things truly as they were, and that they were the most mistaken in believing there was nothing but pitiful shadows. For as this wise man pitied and bewailed their palpable madness that were possessed with so gross an error, so they in return laughed at him as a doting fool and cast him out of their company. In like manner the common sort of men chiefly admire those things that are most corporeal and almost believe there is nothing beyond them. Whereas on the contrary, these devout persons, by how much the nearer anything concerns the body, by so much more they neglect it and are wholly hurried away with the contemplation of things invisible. For the one give the first place to riches, the next to their corporeal pleasures, leaving the last place to their soul, which yet most of them do scarce believe, because they can't see it with their eyes. On the contrary, the others first rely wholly on God, the most unchangeable of all things; and next him, yet on this that comes nearest him, they bestow the second on their soul; and lastly, for their body, they neglect that care and condemn and fly money as superfluity that may be well spared; or if they are forced to meddle with any of these things, they do it carelessly and much against their wills, having as if they had it not, and possessing as if they possessed it not.
But now that you've donned the lion's skin, let me show you that the happiness Christians strive for with so much effort is really just a kind of madness and folly. I hope my words don’t offend; rather, please consider my argument. First, Christians and Platonists largely agree that the soul is trapped and bound in the prison of the body, which is so crude that it prevents the soul from seeing or enjoying things as they truly are. That's why their teacher defines philosophy as a contemplation of death, since it frees the mind from visible and physical objects, much like death does. Therefore, as long as the soul uses the body's faculties correctly, it's considered to be in a good state; but when it breaks free from its chains and tries to escape the prison that holds it, people call it madness. If this occurs due to any disorder or dysfunction in the body's organs, then, by common agreement, it’s outright madness. Yet we see such people predict the future, understand languages and writings they’ve never learned, and seem to possess a kind of divine insight. It’s undeniable that this happens because the mind, somewhat liberated from the body's limitations, starts to express its true potential. I believe it’s the same reason sick people often speak in ways that transcend earthly concerns just before they die, as if they are inspired. Again, if this occurs for religious reasons, although it may not be the same kind of madness, many would judge it similarly, especially when a few minor individuals differ from the rest of the world in their entire way of life. Thus, they resemble the characters in Plato's story, who, caught in a cave, are awestruck by the shadows of reality; and the escapee who, after experiencing reality, returns to tell them they’ve been mistaken about the shadows. Just as this wise man felt pity for those devastated by such a gross error, they mocked him as a foolish dreamer and drove him away. Similarly, common people mostly admire material things and almost believe there’s nothing beyond them. In contrast, these devout individuals, the closer something is to the body, the more they disregard it, engrossed in contemplating invisible things. The former prioritize riches, then bodily pleasures, leaving the last spot for their soul, which most hardly believe exists because they cannot see it. In contrast, the latter rely entirely on God, the most stable being, next on their soul, and lastly care little for their body, treating money as something excessive that can easily be discarded. If they must deal with material matters, they do so reluctantly, as if they don't truly possess it.
There are also in each several things several degrees wherein they disagree among themselves. And first as to the senses, though all of them have more or less affinity with the body, yet of these some are more gross and blockish, as tasting, hearing, seeing, smelling, touching; some more removed from the body, as memory, intellect, and the will. And therefore to which of these the mind applies itself, in that lies its force. But holy men, because the whole bent of their minds is taken up with those things that are most repugnant to these grosser senses, they seem brutish and stupid in the common use of them. Whereas on the contrary, the ordinary sort of people are best at these, and can do least at the other; from whence it is, as we have heard, that some of these holy men have by mistake drunk oil for wine. Again, in the affections of the mind, some have a greater commerce with the body than others, as lust, desire of meat and sleep, anger, pride, envy; with which holy men are at irreconcilable enmity, and contrary, the common people think there's no living without them. And lastly there are certain middle kind of affections, and as it were natural to every man, as the love of one's country, children, parents, friends, and to which the common people attribute no small matter; whereas the other strive to pluck them out of their mind: unless insomuch as they arrive to that highest part of the soul, that they love their parents not as parents—for what did they get but the body? though yet we owe it to God, not them—but as good men or women and in whom shines the image of that highest wisdom which alone they call the chiefest good, and out of which, they say, there is nothing to be beloved or desired.
There are various aspects in which people disagree among themselves. First, regarding the senses, even though they all have some connection to the body, some are more basic and crude, like taste, hearing, sight, smell, and touch; while others are more detached from the body, such as memory, intellect, and will. Therefore, the mind's focus determines its strength. However, holy individuals, who are entirely focused on things that conflict with these basic senses, may appear dull and foolish in their everyday use. Conversely, ordinary people excel at these senses and struggle with the others; hence, we’ve heard that some holy individuals have mistakenly drunk oil thinking it was wine. Moreover, in terms of the mind's emotions, some are more connected to the body than others, such as lust, hunger, sleep, anger, pride, and envy; holy people are fundamentally opposed to these, while average individuals believe they can’t live without them. Lastly, there are certain emotions that are somewhat natural to everyone, like love for one's country, children, parents, and friends, which ordinary people value significantly; while holy individuals strive to dismiss these feelings. Unless they reach the highest aspect of the soul, they may love their parents not just as parents—since what did they provide except for the body? We owe that to God, not to them—but as good people, reflecting the image of that highest wisdom, which they consider the ultimate good, the only thing worth loving or desiring.
And by the same rule do they measure all things else, so that they make less account of whatever is visible, unless it be altogether contemptible, than of those things which they cannot see. But they say that in Sacraments and other religious duties there is both body and spirit. As in fasting they count it not enough for a man to abstain from eating, which the common people take for an absolute fast, unless there be also a lessening of his depraved affections: as that he be less angry, less proud, than he was wont, that the spirit, being less clogged with its bodily weight, may be the more intent upon heavenly things. In like manner, in the Eucharist, though, say they, it is not to be esteemed the less that 'tis administered with ceremonies, yet of itself 'tis of little effect, if not hurtful, unless that which is spiritual be added to it, to wit, that which is represented under those visible signs. Now the death of Christ is represented by it, which all men, vanquishing, abolishing, and, as it were, burying their carnal affections, ought to express in their lives and conversations that they may grow up to a newness of life and be one with him and the same one among another. This a holy man does, and in this is his only meditation. Whereas on the contrary, the common people think there's no more in that sacrifice than to be present at the altar and crowd next it, to have a noise of words and look upon the ceremonies. Nor in this alone, which we only proposed by way of example, but in all his life, and without hypocrisy, does a holy man fly those things that have any alliance with the body and is wholly ravished with things eternal, invisible, and spiritual. For which cause there's so great contrarity of opinion between them, and that too in everything, that each party thinks the other out of their wits; though that character, in my judgment, better agrees with those holy men than the common people: which yet will be more clear if, as I promised, I briefly show you that that great reward they so much fancy is nothing else but a kind of madness.
And they judge everything else by the same standard, so they care less about what’s visible, unless it’s completely worthless, than about things they can’t see. However, they say that in Sacraments and other religious practices, there’s both body and spirit. For example, in fasting, they believe it’s not enough for someone to just stop eating, which most people think is a complete fast; there should also be a reduction in harmful desires—like being less angry and less proud—so that the spirit, being less weighed down by the body, can focus more on spiritual matters. Similarly, in the Eucharist, they claim it shouldn’t be considered less important just because it’s performed with rituals, but it doesn’t have much value, and can even be harmful, unless the spiritual aspect is included—that which is symbolized by those visible signs. The death of Christ is represented here, and everyone, by overcoming, rejecting, and practically burying their earthly desires, should live in a way that expresses this to grow into a new life and be united with Him and one another. This is what a holy person does, and it’s their sole focus. On the other hand, the average person thinks that the sacrifice consists of just being present at the altar, standing close by, making noise, and watching the rituals. Nor is this limited to the example we’ve given; in all aspects of his life, and without pretense, a holy person avoids anything connected to the body and is completely absorbed in eternal, invisible, and spiritual matters. For this reason, there’s a huge disagreement between them on everything, with each side believing the other is out of their mind; although I think that description fits those holy men better than the common people: this will become clearer when I briefly explain that the great reward they crave is actually just a form of madness.
And therefore suppose that Plato dreamed of somewhat like it when he called the madness of lovers the most happy condition of all others. For he that's violently in love lives not in his own body but in the thing he loves; and by how much the farther he runs from himself into another, by so much the greater is his pleasure. And then, when the mind strives to rove from its body and does not rightly use its own organs, without doubt you may say 'tis downright madness and not be mistaken, or otherwise what's the meaning of those common sayings, "He does not dwell at home," "Come to yourself," "He's his own man again"? Besides, the more perfect and true his love is, the more pleasant is his madness. And therefore, what is that life hereafter, after which these holy minds so pantingly breathe, like to be? To wit, the spirit shall swallow up the body, as conqueror and more durable; and this it shall do with the greater ease because heretofore, in its lifetime, it had cleansed and thinned it into such another nothing as itself. And then the spirit again shall be wonderfully swallowed up by the highest mind, as being more powerful than infinite parts; so that the whole man is to be out of himself nor to be otherwise happy in any respect, but that being stripped of himself, he shall participate of somewhat ineffable from that chiefest good that draws all things into itself. And this happiness though 'tis only then perfected when souls being joined to their former bodies shall be made immortal, yet forasmuch as the life of holy men is nothing but a continued meditation and, as it were, shadow of that life, it so happens that at length they have some taste or relish of it; which, though it be but as the smallest drop in comparison of that fountain of eternal happiness, yet it far surpasses all worldly delight, though all the pleasures of all mankind were all joined together. So much better are things spiritual than things corporeal, and things invisible than things visible; which doubtless is that which the prophet promises: "The eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to consider what God has provided for them that love Him." And this is that Mary's better part which is not taken away by change of life, but perfected.
And so, let's say that Plato imagined something like this when he described the madness of lovers as the happiest state of all. A person who is deeply in love doesn't really live in their own body but is absorbed in the person they love; and the further they escape from themselves into another, the greater their joy. When the mind tries to leave the body and doesn't use its own senses properly, you could definitely call it madness without being wrong. What else would phrases like "He doesn't behave like himself," "Get a grip on yourself," and "He's back to being himself" mean? Moreover, the more genuine and true one's love is, the more enjoyable that madness becomes. So what is that life after this one, which these holy souls yearn for, like? The spirit will consume the body, as a conqueror that lasts longer; and it will do this more easily because, during its lifetime, it has purified and stripped the body down to something similar to itself. Then the spirit will be wonderfully absorbed by the highest mind, as it's more powerful than infinite parts, meaning that the whole person will be outside of themselves and not find happiness in any way other than being stripped of their self, allowing them to share in something beyond words from the ultimate good that draws everything into itself. This happiness will only be perfected when souls reunite with their former bodies and become immortal. Nonetheless, since the life of holy people is nothing but a constant meditation and, in a way, a shadow of that life, they eventually get some taste of it; and although it might be just a tiny drop compared to that fountain of eternal happiness, it far exceeds all worldly pleasures, even if you combined all human joys together. Spiritual things are so much better than physical things, and invisible things are far superior to visible ones; this is, without a doubt, what the prophet promises: "The eye has not seen, nor the ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to imagine what God has prepared for those who love Him." This is the better part that Mary chose, which will not be taken away by the change of life but will be perfected.
And therefore they that are sensible of it, and few there are to whom this happens, suffer a kind of somewhat little differing from madness; for they utter many things that do not hang together, and that too not after the manner of men but make a kind of sound which they neither heed themselves, nor is it understood by others, and change the whole figure of their countenance, one while jocund, another while dejected, now weeping, then laughing, and again sighing. And when they come to themselves, tell you they know not where they have been, whether in the body or out of the body, or sleeping; nor do they remember what they have heard, seen, spoken, or done, and only know this, as it were in a mist or dream, that they were the most happy while they were so out of their wits. And therefore they are sorry they are come to themselves again and desire nothing more than this kind of madness, to be perpetually mad. And this is a small taste of that future happiness.
And so, those who experience this, and there are few of them, go through something that feels a bit like madness. They say many things that don’t really connect, and not in a normal way; they produce sounds that they don’t pay attention to and that others don’t understand. Their expressions change entirely; one moment they’re cheerful, the next they’re downcast, sometimes crying, then laughing, and again sighing. When they regain awareness, they tell you they don’t know where they’ve been—whether in their body or outside it, or if they were just sleeping. They can’t remember what they’ve heard, seen, said, or done, and they only have a vague sense, like in a mist or a dream, that they were the happiest during their state of confusion. Because of this, they regret coming back to reality and wish nothing more than to stay in that kind of madness, to be forever delirious. This is just a small glimpse of that future happiness.
But I forget myself and run beyond my bounds. Though yet, if I shall seem to have spoken anything more boldly or impertinently than I ought, be pleased to consider that not only Folly but a woman said it; remembering in the meantime that Greek proverb, "Sometimes a fool may speak a word in season," unless perhaps you expect an epilogue, but give me leave to tell you you are mistaken if you think I remember anything of what I have said, having foolishly bolted out such a hodgepodge of words. 'Tis an old proverb, "I hate one that remembers what's done over the cup." This is a new one of my own making: I hate a man that remembers what he hears. Wherefore farewell, clap your hands, live and drink lustily, my most excellent disciples of Folly.
But I lose track of myself and go too far. Still, if I come off as having spoken too boldly or disrespectfully, please remember that not just a fool but also a woman said it. Keep in mind the Greek saying, "Sometimes a fool can say something at just the right time," unless you expect a conclusion. Let me tell you that you're mistaken if you think I remember anything I’ve said, having foolishly blurted out such a mix of words. There’s an old saying: "I hate someone who remembers what’s said over drinks." Here’s a new one I’ve made up: I hate someone who remembers what he hears. So, farewell, applaud, live it up, and enjoy your drinks, my most outstanding followers of foolishness.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!