The Sophistry of Folly

In Erasmus' Praise of Folly, Folly uses several techniques of classical rhetoric, including those of the ancient sophists. By comparing Folly's rhetoric to those of the sophists we can analyze the effectiveness of her argument. Sophistic rhetoric is ideally suited to Folly's argument for two reasons:

1. Folly crafts an argument that seems to go against logic and reason; i. e., foolishness is acceptable and even superior to wisdom, reason and knowledge.

2. Because she is a woman, Folly's audience considers her argument weak before she says anything. Since women are not seen as being as proficient in methods of logic and reason as men in Folly's world, women's discourse is considered irrational and illogical even if her rhetoric otherwise resembles male discourse.

Folly's use of sophistic rhetoric is effective because its methods enable her to buttress an unpopular argument and help her persuade an otherwise unreceptive audience.

Folly makes her audience aware of what she intends to do early in her speech when she says, "I've a fancy to play the sophist before you" (10). Before going too far with the notion that Folly emphatically embraces sophism, we should note that Folly does not claim to be a sophist, but states that she merely wants to "play the sophist." There are some examples in the text where Folly seems to eschew sophistic methods. At one point, she groups them with heretics (93), and, elsewhere, when discussing lawyers, she says, "Let's group them with the sophists . . . .

To understand this apparent contradiction it is important to carefully analyze Folly's rhetoric. Folly says she has a "fancy to play the sophist." Because of the words "fancy" and "play," this statement seems to suggest that Folly is saying, "I am not a sophist, but I would like to pretend to be one for a while." Based upon what we know about Folly's sense of irony and her tendency to take not being serious very seriously, "fancy" and "play" could be included in her set of "god terms." In other words, for Folly to fancy something or play at something could mean that she embraces it wholeheartedly. Whether or not, however, Folly seriously considers herself a sophist is not as much an issue here as examining the ways she refers to sophistry and how she herself practices sophistic techniques.

In order to understand Folly's attitude toward the sophists, we must know how she defines "sophists." After saying that she would "play the sophist," Folly qualifies her statement:

I don't mean by that one of the tribe today who cram tiresome trivialities into the heads of schoolboys and teach them more than feminine obstinacy in disputation -- no, I shall follow the ancients who chose the name sophist in preference to the damaging title of wise men. (10)

In this statement, Folly makes at least four claims: (1) she does not consider "sophist" a pejorative term of itself, but acknowledges that it does have a negative connotation; (2) she recognizes that sophistry is often categorized as feminine, which, to her audience, would contribute to its negative connotation; (3) she knows the history of the sophists and that they chose to embrace a different rhetoric than that of the Platonistic hegemony; (4) she believes that, for her, it is better to be considered a "sophist" than a "wise man" perhaps partly because although she can never be a "wise man" because of her gender, she can, nevertheless, be a sophist.

In Plato, Derrida, and Writing, Jasper Neel gives several key principles of sophistic rhetoric:

• [Sophistry] offer[s] a rhetoric for the kairos (situation) by taking into account all the possibilities and limitations any given situation creates.

• Sophistry is a way to make choices in a world of probability.

• Sophistry teaches us how to speak so as to push understanding beyond its current limits.

• Sophistry teaches us to see how any argument can be pursued not only to an extreme but also to a paradoxical conclusion. (206, 7)

Folly's use of sophistic rhetoric displays many of the principles Neel cites, but often these characteristics are subtle. For example, Folly seems to have little sense of kairos since she seems to do things according to the time and appropriateness that is convenient for herself rather than for her followers. Instead, Folly creates a kairos in which otherwise inappropriate behavior becomes the norm. Also, her discussion of flattery suggests that she knows that sometimes flattery can be "noxious" if used inappropriately, i. e., if the "kairos" is wrong.

Folly recognizes that the world in which human beings operate is imperfect and at best can only be discussed in terms of probability. Through sophistry, Folly is able to give an account of situations that are otherwise unexplainable. Why, for example, would a woman, after suffering the excruciating miseries and dangers of childbearing, permit herself to become pregnant again and again (assuming, as Folly does, that she has a choice)? Why also would one man who knows that his wife is having an affair believe that she is virtuous while another man whose wife is faithful work himself into a jealous rage if she even looks in the direction of another man? Folly offers her listeners a way to make sense of their world by explaining that she is responsible for many of the foolish things that people do.

One explanation as to why Folly embraces sophistry is because she recognizes that she has been marginalized. She knows she is not as revered and celebrated as other gods, but she claims not to be overly distraught by this even if her feelings are a bit hurt. Folly recognizes that she is perceived as the "other," but asserts that her discourse is the prevalent one even if no one chooses to acknowledge it. By aligning herself with the sophists, Folly embraces the discourse of the "other." She acknowledges that what she is saying may be rejected by the Platonists, but by using sophistic techniques, Folly fortifies her counter-hegemonic discourse.

Let us consider for a moment the "feminine" qualities of sophistry. In Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured, Susan Jarratt argues that many qualities of sophistic rhetoric are inherently feminine and even feminist. Jarratt explains how sophistic rhetoric has been characterized as second rate in the same way that women have been:

The character projected onto the feminine as "other" shares with Plato's [portrayal of] sophists qualities of irrationality (or non-rationality), magical or hypnotic power, subjectivity, emotional sensitivity; all these are devalued in favor of their "masculine" or philosophic opposites--rationality, objectivity, detachment and so on. (65)

Not only does Folly display many of the "feminine" qualities Jarratt cites (magical and hypnotic powers, emotional sensitivity), but she also bestows many of them upon her followers-- both male and female. But neither Jarratt nor Erasmus are the first to consider sophistic discourse feminine. In the Socratic dialogues, the Platonists considered sophistry feminine and therefore found cause to mock it. In Plato's Gorgias, Socrates accuses the sophist Gorgias of practicing a kind of rhetoric that

. . . has many branches, and one of them is cookery; which appears indeed to be an art but, by my account of it, is not an art but a habitude or knack. I call rhetoric another branch of it, as also personal adornment and sophistry. (71)

Although men as well as women cook and adorn themselves, these are traditionally considered female activities, which, to Socrates, do not even afford themselves the idea of being feminine "arts." Folly would argue with Socrates' assertion that sophistry and even rhetoric in general is akin to mere personal adornment since she claims she herself has "no use for cosmetics" (13).

By engaging in sophistic "play," Folly enables herself to practice dissoi logoi, the device used by sophists to make sure that both sides of an argument are presented. The purpose of Folly's speech is to present the antithesis of the Platonistic ideals of the Renaissance. Folly argues that there is more to life than what is reasonable and logical. Folly argues that a person can lead a full, active and productive life while being a complete fool. Those who are not totally foolish, nevertheless, engage in folly once in a while. Without Folly, life would be dreadful, boring, or worse, perhaps not even exist since it is she who gives us the will to procreate and ability to tolerate each other rather than destroy each other. Reason, logic and knowledge, according to Folly, do not give us everything we need to live. By engaging in dissoi logoi, Folly subverts the Platonic, patriarchal system of rationality and reason and privileges a rhetoric in which irrationality and emotions are preferred. She seems to say that many of the behaviors and attitudes that we have considered "bad" are actually good and what we have been lead to believe as "good" behaviors and attitudes have been given to us by hypocrites and may actually be bad for ourselves and our communities.

Whether Gorgias and the ancient sophists would have agreed with Folly's ideas since they did not consider themselves to be fools is unlikely, but they probably would have consented to her notions of pleasing one's self (self love) and pleasing one's audience, as Folly prides herself in doing. By practicing sophistry, Folly embraces an often neglected and maligned rhetoric that is well-suited for her unconventional ideas.

Works Cited

Erasmus. Praise of Folly. London: Penguin, 1971.

Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Neel, Jasper. Plato, Derrida, and Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1988.