The Praise of Folly

Context and Composition

The Praise of Folly (Latin: Moriae encomium) is a satirical work by the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536), composed in 1509 while he was staying with his friend Thomas More in England. The title itself contains a characteristic pun: Moria in Greek means “folly,” but it also echoes the name “More,” suggesting a playful dedication as well as a broader intellectual joke about wisdom and foolishness.

Erasmus wrote the work in Latin, the international language of learned discourse, and it circulated rapidly once printed in 1511. It belongs to the tradition of Renaissance humanism, drawing on classical rhetorical forms, particularly the encomium (a formal speech of praise), and inverting them for comic and critical effect. The work is both playful and serious: it entertains by exaggeration and parody, yet it also advances a sharp critique of late medieval religious practices, scholastic theology, corrupt clergy, and various social pretensions.

While written before the Protestant Reformation, The Praise of Folly appeared in an intellectual climate increasingly concerned with reforming church and society. Its satirical edge later led some to see Erasmus as a precursor to reformers like Martin Luther, even though Erasmus himself remained committed to Catholic unity and moderate reform.

Structure and Themes

The text is framed as a mock oration delivered by the personified figure Folly (Stultitia). Speaking in the first person, Folly offers a speech in praise of herself that gradually becomes a wide-ranging commentary on human life, institutions, and religion.

A common way to divide the work is into three broad movements:

1. Celebration of everyday folly: Folly first defends her importance for human happiness. She argues that self-deception, vanity, and illusions are in fact necessary for social life, love, friendship, and political cohesion. Without some measure of foolishness, she claims, people would be too clear-sighted to endure the hardships and disappointments of life. Here Erasmus uses Folly to question ideals of purely rational self-mastery, suggesting that human beings are inherently mixed creatures who depend on imagination, desire, and play.

2. Satire of social and intellectual elites: The middle part of the work targets specific groups—scholars, theologians, monks, bishops, princes, and lawyers—all of whom rely on Folly more than they admit. Erasmus, through Folly’s voice, mocks pedantic scholastic theology concerned with useless subtleties, clergy who seek wealth and power rather than spiritual care, monks obsessed with external observances, and rulers guided by flattery rather than prudence. This section illustrates a central humanist complaint: that established institutions have drifted away from their original purposes and that formal learning has become disconnected from ethical and spiritual life.

3. Turn toward Christian “folly”: In the final sections, Folly’s tone shifts. She praises a higher, paradoxical form of folly associated with Christian faith. Drawing on the Apostle Paul’s idea of the “foolishness of the cross” (1 Corinthians 1), she contrasts worldly wisdom—concerned with honor, status, and calculation—with the apparent absurdity of Christ’s humility, the simplicity of the apostles, and the self-emptying love of genuine believers. This “holy folly” undercuts both secular pretensions and religious formalism, pointing instead to an inward piety marked by humility, charity, and trust in divine grace.

Across these movements, several key themes recur:

• Ambiguity of folly: The work distinguishes between destructive stupidity and a more benign, even necessary, folly; this ambiguity allows Erasmus to move from ridicule of vice to praise of gospel simplicity.
• Critique of externalism: Erasmus ridicules religious practices pursued as empty rituals—indulgences, superstitious devotions, and legalistic observances—when they obscure the centrality of inner conversion and love.
• Humanist ideal of learning: While mocking certain scholars, the text does not reject learning itself. Instead, it upholds a humanist model of learning that serves moral and spiritual ends, centered on Scripture and the Church Fathers rather than scholastic technicalities.
• Rhetorical irony: Nearly every claim of Folly can be read at multiple levels, requiring readers to interpret carefully rather than accept her words at face value. This pervasive irony is central to the work’s philosophical and theological complexity.

Interpretation and Legacy

From its first publication, The Praise of Folly enjoyed wide popularity, going through many editions and translations in the sixteenth century. It became one of Erasmus’s most famous works and a hallmark of Christian humanism, the attempt to renew Christian life and thought through a return to biblical and classical sources combined with moral reform.

Interpretations of the work vary. Some readers emphasize its role as social and ecclesiastical criticism, seeing it as an indirect call for reform that helped prepare the ground for later challenges to the Church’s authority. Others stress its conservative dimension: while it mocks abuses, it does not advocate schism or doctrinal revolution but rather a renewal of inner piety within the existing Church.

Philosophically, the text has been read as a reflection on the limits of reason. By having Folly praise herself, Erasmus questions purely rationalist ideals while preserving room for faith and grace. At the same time, its humanist commitment to eloquent, critical reasoning suggests that folly is not a simple rejection of intellect but a critique of its misuse.

Critics have raised concerns about the potential ambivalence of satire. Some argue that the work’s humorous tone can make it difficult to discern Erasmus’s precise doctrinal commitments, and that by speaking through Folly he avoids direct responsibility for his harshest barbs. Others see this indirectness as a deliberate strategy to encourage readers to engage in their own discernment and self-critique.

In later centuries, The Praise of Folly influenced traditions of religious and social satire, often mentioned alongside works like Thomas More’s Utopia and, later, Voltaire’s writings. It continues to be studied for its insight into the tensions of late medieval and early modern Christianity, its sophisticated use of rhetorical devices, and its exploration of how human beings navigate the interplay of reason, illusion, faith, and self-deception.

Within Erasmus’s corpus, The Praise of Folly stands as a concise, vivid representation of his broader project: to expose hypocrisy and corruption while affirming a vision of Christianity rooted in Scripture, humility, and charity, and mediated by the tools of classical learning and humane letters. Its enduring relevance lies in the way it invites readers not only to laugh at others’ follies but also to recognize their own.