SOURCE: Moxey, Keith P. F. “The Ship of Fools and the Idea of Folly in Sixteenth-Century Netherlandish Literature.” In The Early Illustrated Book: Essays in Honor of Lessing J. Rosenwald, edited by Sandra Hindman, pp. 86-102. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1982.

[In the following excerpt, Moxey examines The Ship of Fools in the context of moralizing, didactic Netherlandish literature, noting its distinctive voice and serious stance compared to other works of its genre.]

Among the books given to the Library of Congress by Lessing J. Rosenwald are two sixteenth-century Flemish translations of The Ship of Fools by Sebastian Brant. Following its publication in Basel in 1494, this work went on to become one of the most successful published works of the age. At least twelve German editions appeared before Brant's death in 1521.¹ Its translation into Latin by Jacob Locher in 1497 made the book accessible to an international audience, for it was this translation on which subsequent French, English, and Flemish translations were based. The Flemish translation of The Ship of Fools was first published in 1500 by a Flemish printer living in Paris called Guyot Marchand (originally Guide Coopman). John Sinnema has shown that although it is largely based on Locher's Latin translation, it also contains references to earlier French and German editions.² Editions of Marchand's translation appeared in Antwerp in 1504, 1548, and 1584. The books given to the Library by Mr. Rosenwald are examples of the editions of 1548 and 1584.³ The woodcuts in both books are copies of those that illustrated the German edition of 1494, together with additional cuts added to the Locher translation.

The intent of this paper is to sketch the literary context in which the Flemish translation of Brant's book first appeared, showing that Brant's work corresponded to a preexistent literary genre of moralizing or didactic poetry and defining the character of the Flemish productions so as to be able to demonstrate the ways in which they differ from Brant's work as well as the extent to which they were indebted to it.⁴ The extraordinary popularity of this moralizing literature poses fascinating questions for our understanding of Netherlandish culture of this period. Why were these poems so popular? What social function did they serve? Although an attempt to provide definitive answers to such questions is beyond the scope of this essay, such questions can at least be formulated and considered in this context.

The idea of folly as the organizing principle of a moralizing poem was already familiar in the Netherlands before the publication of The Ship of Fools. Jacob van Oestvoren's De Blauwe Schuit (The Blue Boat) which was written in Flanders or Brabant early in the fifteenth century depends on this idea.⁵ Oestvoren's poem was inspired by a medieval literary tradition known as the estates satires in which the social abuses committed by each class and profession are cataloged and criticized in what was meant to serve as a call for social cooperation and unity in the fulfillment of God's plan for mankind.⁶ Oestvoren's “Blue Boat” is the name of a mock “guild” of the type associated with the celebration of carnival. Membership in this guild is dependent upon the extent to which one's actions are subject to the vagaries of folly. Those termed worthy of inclusion, for example, are nobles who fail to live within their means, men who waste their money on women and drink, monks who lead a luxurious life and who embezzle the funds of their monasteries, nuns who are unchaste, women who marry old men and old men who marry young women, and, lastly, youths who spend their time in taverns, dancing and gambling when they should be at home. The criterion for membership in the “guild” is defined as follows:

Now someone might ask if he wished to come into the guild, whether he should fulfill all the requirements specified above. We would have to answer in the following terms: The candidate should look inside himself and observe the conduct of his life and social intercourse, his habits and all other aspects of the routine that he is accustomed to perform on a daily basis. If he finds more indications that incline him to wisdom—to wisdom, that is, rather than to folly—then he cannot become a member of our guild. But he who sees in himself more similarities with the type of conduct described above than could permit the pursuit of a virtuous life, and which rule his behavior as well as cause him financial loss, then this man must come aboard our ship and become a member of our guild.⁷

The treatment of folly in The Ship of Fools differs significantly from that of The Blue Boat. Not only is Brant's list of objectionable kinds of behavior far longer, but the tone of criticism is quite distinct. Gone is the lighthearted attitude of the composer of the parodic guild. Brant is not content simply to list the varieties of moral failure but instead subjects them to a detailed analysis and condemns them at length, bringing to bear the full force of his considerable biblical and humanistic learning. The list of those reprimanded is encyclopedic. Rather than restrict himself to the criticism of representatives of the various estates and occupations, Brant deals with moral issues affecting all members of society. The list is an inventory of morally questionable activities that range from the serious to the downright petty, from examples of the seven deadly sins to those who buy more books than they can read or who fail to obey their doctor's orders. The book thus transcends the tradition of the estates satires and becomes a moral critique of the human condition rather than of the social structure.⁸

Reflections of The Blue Boat and possibly of The Ship of Fools as well can be found in several of the poems included in the collection known as the Veelderhande Geneuchlijcke Dichten (Assorted Pleasant Poems).⁹ The first preserved edition of this collection is that published in Antwerp in 1600, but since some of the poems are known to have been in circulation considerably earlier, it is thought likely that there was an early sixteenth-century edition that has been lost.¹⁰ One of these poems, entitled Van den Langhen Waghen ende van zijn licht-gheladen Vracht van alderhande volcxken (Concerning the Long Wagon and Its Lightweight Freight Consisting of Various Types of People)¹¹ substitutes transport on a wagon for membership in a guild as a metaphor of folly. The poem resembles The Blue Boat in consisting of a list of morally questionable activities that in this case qualify one for passage on the “Long Wagon.” The passengers include prostitutes, priests, nuns, drunkards, quacks, beggars, and misers. By way of conclusion, the author invites anyone who considers himself qualified to come aboard and make himself comfortable. As the wagon sets off, the author remarks on the load's lack of weight. Despite the crowd of people, the load is so light that it threatens to blow away in the wind. The lightness of the load is clearly intended as a metaphor for the insignificance of those whose lives are marked by sinfulness or folly. Although the Flemish edition of The Ship of Fools neither mentions nor illustrates the idea of a wagon full of fools, it is possible that the anonymous author of Van den Langhen Waghen drew his inspiration from one of the German editions in which this idea is discussed in the prologue as well as illustrated on the title page.¹²

Another poem in the same collection, bearing the title Van de bonte Kapkens diemen nu eerst nieus ghepracktiseert ende ghevonden heeft (Concerning the Gay Caps That Men Have Recently Invented and Begun to Wear),¹³ makes the sale of foolscaps an allegory of foolishness. The poem takes the form of a soliloquy, or rather a sales pitch, delivered by a peddler to an audience that includes the reader. The peddler praises the foolscaps, remarking on their bright colors, their snug fit, their warmth, and the fact that they are fitted with ears that can be flapped about so as to ring the bells on the ends. Disappointed by the lack of response, he tells the audience that he will take his wares elsewhere and offer them to those he knows will appreciate them. He then lists various types of people whose behavior is sinful and therefore, it is implied, foolish. He mentions men who patronize prostitutes, those who waste money on banquets, those who regard themselves higher than their station, those who are offended by the good fortune of others, those who are avaricious, those who sing before their sweethearts' windows, and others.

The foolscaps, which are the central symbol of folly on which the work depends, are a frequently cited symbol in The Ship of Fools. The motif is most prominent in the German editions, where they are mentioned in the prologue as well as in the poet's apology that concludes the work. In the former, Brant asserts:

I cut a cap for every chap,
But none of them will care a rap.
And if I'd named and then apprised him,
He'd say I had not recognized him.(14)

In the apology, Brant admits that,

If men should scold me, saying:
“Please O doctor, cure your own disease,
For you are also foolish, odd—”
I know it, I confess to God,
Of Folly I was never free,
I've joined the fool's fraternity.
I pull the cap which I would fain doff,
Yet my fool's cap will not come off.(15)

Another indication that the author of the Gay Caps was familiar with The Ship of Fools is his inclusion of those who serenade beneath their sweethearts' windows among the examples of foolish behavior. This action corresponds precisely with the contents of Brant's chapter 62, “Of Serenading at Night.”¹⁶

The poem entitled Den Rechten Weg nae 't Gasthuys (The Right Way to the Poorhouse), belonging to the same collection, was first published in French at Lyons in 1502.¹⁷ Like The Blue Boat the poem is a list of types of foolish behavior but this time it is carefully chosen with an eye for the financial losses such behavior may occasion. Among the various social types criticized in this manner are merchants who buy dear and sell cheap, gamblers who lose their money and their time, entertainers who spend their earnings as easily as they were obtained, people who go to sleep early and who wake up late, businessmen who have lost their goods and who are no longer trusted by investors, and those who live beyond their means.

In contrast to the French original as well as its English translation, the Dutch version of The Right Way to the Poorhouse concludes with the testament of the poorhouse owner, which specifies the types of people who may not, under any circumstances, be allowed into his institution. This prohibition, which seems to echo the list of those not permitted membership in The Blue Boat, includes people who do all things according to measure, who handle their affairs in such a way as always to make a profit, or who lead a sober life, as well as young men who prefer the church to the tavern and artisans who prefer to work rather than waste their money on drink.

According to W. G. Moore, The Right Way to the Poorhouse was strongly influenced by The Ship of Fools. He supports his view by pointing out several correspondences between the subject matter of the two works,¹⁸ similarities which are so general, however, that they do not overcome this reader's impression that the two books are completely different in conception and purpose. It is possible that the author of The Poorhouse was aware of Brant's book, but the animating idea of The Ship is that folly is a moral deficiency, whereas that of The Poorhouse is that folly is economic irresponsibility. The essential messages of the works, therefore, are sufficiently distinct to suggest that any similarity between the two is the result of a common attitude toward certain moral failings.

The variety and the strength of imagination that characterizes the native tradition of moralizing poetry is demonstrated by the poem known as the Schip van Sint Reynuut (St. Empty's Ship), which accompanied a large woodcut illustrating the subject by Aertgen van Leyden published in Amsterdam about 1530.¹⁹ St. Empty was a popular saint in Netherlandish literature of the sixteenth century. A poem entitled 't Leven van Sinte Reynuut (The Life of St. Empty) was included in the collection known as the Assorted Pleasant Poems and Mathijs de Casteleyn included a Sermoen van Sente Reinhuut (St. Empty's Sermon) in his Konst van Rhetoriken (The Art of Poetry) of 1548. In contrast to the other two poems, St. Empty's Ship belongs to the tradition of moralizing poetry we have been discussing. That is, it consists of a list of different social classes and occupations whose foolish behavior is regarded as morally reprehensible. The poem depends upon a pilgrimage metaphor: all those considered guilty of offense are thought qualified for a pilgrimage to St. Empty. St. Empty owes his name to his function as the patron saint of drinkers. It refers not only to their unquenchable thirst but to the consequences of their habit for their wallets.

As in the Right Way to the Poorhouse, foolish behavior is defined as that which leads to poverty and indigence. Among those thought worthy pilgrims are men who waste money on women, merchants who lose money, soldiers whose adventuring comes to nought, and monks, nuns, friars, and clerks who waste their money. Finally, entertainers, drunkards, prostitutes, pimps, painters, printers, and others are included in the list even though the nature of their transgressions is occasionally unspecified.

The woodcut inevitably recalls the frontispiece of the German editions of The Ship of Fools with its horse-drawn as well as its seafaring fools, though there is no exact correspondence of visual motifs. While the print is thoroughly original and most inventive and amusing in its satire of the actions of those obsessed by drink, it may be possible to discern echoes of the frontispiece of The Ship of Fools in the boats full of artisans and clerics carrying the implements of their trade at the center of the composition. They also recall the woodcut to chapter 48, “A Journeyman's Ship,” in which representatives of the various trades are represented in boats.²⁰

The closest parallel to The Ship of Fools in Netherlandish literature of the early sixteenth century is undoubtedly the book entitled Vanden, x, esels (Concerning the Ten Donkeys), which was published in Antwerp about 1530 and again in 1558 and 1580.²¹ According to the work itself it is a Flemish translation of an English original. The translator is thought to have been the book's Flemish publisher, the printer Jan van Doesborch. In this case the poem does not depend on an allegory such as those which made foolishness a requirement for membership in a guild, a wagon ride, the possession of a foolscap, or entry to the poorhouse, but rather it depends upon a symbol—namely the equation of fools with donkeys. The use of the word donkey with the secondary meaning fool was well established both in the Netherlands and in Germany in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.²² Brant, for example, made extensive use of this meaning of the word in The Ship of Fools.²³ The author of The Ten Donkeys claims to have enlisted the aid of a woman in choosing the ten men whose actions are most foolish and who are therefore worthy of growing ass's ears. His selection bears out this fiction, for most of the behavior criticized concerns relations between the sexes. He comments negatively on men who neglect their wives but patronize prostitutes, men who allow themselves to be dominated by their wives, men who suffer from unrequited love, men who own brothels, men who live off their wives' prostitution, men who are unreasonably jealous, merchants who speculate with the goods of others and risk bankruptcy, misers whose lives are dominated by avarice and whose fortunes are wasted by others after their deaths, men who boast of their success with women and display the gifts they have been given by them, and, finally, pimps who seduce young girls and lead them into prostitution. With only two exceptions the list is dominated by a sexual theme. In each case the men are characterized as foolish because of their failure to observe the ethical norms for sexual behavior.

The organization of the book, in which each of the moral failures is discussed in a separate chapter, is closely related to that of The Ship of Fools. In addition, each chapter is introduced by a distich in a way that resembles the lines of verse that precede the woodcuts and the text in Brant's book. Finally, the title page is illustrated with a woodcut divided into ten scenes, each of which represents one of the errors criticized in the text. Rudimentary and crude though these scenes may appear in comparison to the woodcuts that illustrate The Ship of Fools, they nevertheless provide visual emblems for the sins discussed in the text in a way that is analogous to the relation of text and image in Brant's book.

A poem that may betray the influence of The Ship of Fools was included in a collection assembled by Jan van Stijevoort in 1524.²⁴ The poem bears the refrain Alle Sotten en draghen gheen bellen (“All fools do not wear bells”), a line that bears a striking resemblance to the verse that introduces chapter 77 of the Dutch translation of Brant's book, which reads, Hy is wel sot al draeght hy gheen bellen so wie hem laet vanden Esel quellen (“Whoever allows himself to be plagued by the donkey [i.e., by folly], is a fool even though he doesn't wear bells”).²⁵ Although Brant's chapter is mainly directed at men who are dominated by their wives or by their sensuality, the poem criticizes a variety of questionable traits including pride, anger, greed, and drunkenness.

Another poem in the same collection appears to have been inspired by The Blue Boat. The title is “Dees syn werdich in die gilde ghescreven” (“These Are Worthy of Being Admitted to the Guild”).²⁶ Its list of sins contains several echoes of those criticized in the earlier work. It includes those who fail to live within their means, widows who go drinking, wives who go out when their husbands are asleep, miserly parents, wasteful offspring, nuns who display their breasts, monks who forget their duties, maidens who are unchaste, clerics who chase women, dishonest merchants, drunkards, and many others.

The complex associations inherent in the concept of folly, an idea that was synonymous with madness and the license of carnival as well as with sinfulness, were brilliantly exploited by Erasmus in The Praise of Folly.²⁷ First published in Paris in 1511, the book went through thirty-six editions in cities throughout Europe before Erasmus's death in 1536.²⁸ Two editions based on the Latin original appeared in Antwerp in 1511 and 1512.

The first part of the book is an enormously witty ironic praise of folly spoken by none other than Dame Folly herself. By placing his praise of the idea of folly in the mouth of the personification of foolishness, Erasmus qualifies and compromises every statement he makes so as to rob it of its literal meaning. In the mouth of folly, foolishness becomes an indispensable positive force in human affairs. A force without which social intercourse would be impossible and without which the race could not reproduce, since it is the inspiration of human sexuality. Defining human nature as one part reason and five parts emotion and characterizing reason as divine and the emotions as foolish, Dame Folly asserts that human behavior must inevitably be under her control. Her position appears to be a philosophical recognition of the social release and institutional renewal brought about by the expression of the spirit of carnival as well as a sophisticated understanding of the contingent nature of human rationality. It is only on reflection that we realize that this attitude is expressed by none other than Dame Folly and that it must consequently be rejected as specious. Erasmus thus presents us with a fascinating paradox. By assembling the separate strands of the tradition of folly current in his time, the fool as the embodiment of the spirit of carnival on the one hand and as a symbol of sinfulness on the other, Erasmus created a figure whose statements could elicit both our approval and our disapproval.²⁹

The second part of the book is more easily related to the type of literature we have been discussing. In it Erasmus examines the failings of different social classes and professions as well as morally questionable actions of all kinds. His attitude is closely related to that of the tradition of estates satires and there are unmistakable echoes of The Ship of Fools. By far the largest share of this analysis of professional sins is taken up with the lapses of the clergy, whose misguided and unethical activities he describes at length and with considerable satire.

The Praise of Folly differs significantly from the rest of the literature we have been discussing. Its structure depends upon an ancient literary model, that of the mock encomium, and its text is liberally sprinkled with references to ancient literature. The book is something of an “in joke” in which Erasmus tests the learning of his readers by references to unusual and esoteric sources. More than The Ship of Fools which also reflected the humanist erudition of its author, The Praise of Folly appears to be addressed to a relatively small audience of cultivated men. Whereas The Ship of Fools was rapidly translated into the vernacular, this process took longer in the case of The Praise of Folly.³⁰ It was translated into French and German in 1520, into Italian in 1539, and into English in 1549, but it was not published in Dutch until 1560.³¹ It is of particular interest that the French translation, the one which might be assumed to have circulated most widely in the Netherlands, should have been subjected by its translator to a thoroughgoing moralization which served to remove its genial ambiguities and make it more like the tradition of estates satires to which The Ship of Fools belonged.³² Moreover, this edition was provided with woodcuts from The Ship of Fools. Although these must have been well-nigh unintelligible in the context of Erasmus's work, they would have contributed to its didactic appearance by suggesting its contents were equivalent to those of the earlier work.

A poem whose irony may well have been inspired by The Praise of Folly is De Eed van Meester Oom met vier ooren, Prince der dooren (The Oath of Master Uncle with Four Ears, the Prince of Fools).³³ It was written by Jan Colyns, the head of one of the Brussels dramatic societies as well as its official fool, in honor of a “Festival of Fools” held in Brussels in 1551 by the various dramatic societies of the cities and towns of Brabant.³⁴ A figure called the “Grijpier,” meaning “grabber” or “taker,” which is meant to be a pun on the word griffier or “clerk of court,” addresses the King of Fools, asking his protection for a number of dubious moral types. The list of people is similar to that of The Blue Boat or those of the various poems of The Assorted Pleasant Poems collection. Starting with the clergy, the grabber requests royal protection for those who drink too much, those who borrow more than they can pay, nuns who leave the cloister, and monks who break their vows. Secondly, he recommends nobles who assert their chivalry on rented horses, braggarts without means, soldiers who would rather plunder than fight, and those who claim bravery yet show their rumps to the enemy. Thirdly, he seeks royal patronage for madams and whores, maidens who chase men, and women who weave with more than one spindle (that is, entertain more than one lover). They must, he says, at all costs be prevented from entering the poorhouse. Fourthly, the King's assistance is requested for those who spend today what they earn tomorrow and those who enjoy life outside the home but who do nothing but argue and fight within it. The fifth verse is the most closely related to the estates satires for it consists of a list of the ways in which different trades and professions cheat the public. Finally, the grabber recommends that the King set a good example to his subjects by going to bed late and rising late, frequenting taverns, and by exiling those who talk to the necessity of doing good works—unless they mean those performed in the whorehouse. The King is advised to be amorous but not too faithful, for whoever lives with only one woman leads a life of trouble. In conclusion the King is asked to swear to take care of all the rogues mentioned, and they in turn are asked to swear an oath of allegiance to him.

The poem depends upon a paradox similar to that which inspired The Praise of Folly. The plea for the protection of immoral behavior is ironic, because both the person to whom it is addressed, the King of Fools, as well as the petitioner, who is identified as an avaricious cheat on account of his name Grabber, are morally questionable individuals. Just as the reader cannot take Dame Folly's praise of folly seriously, we cannot accept this poem at face value either. The traditional list of foolish actions is inverted. Moral failure does not qualify one for membership in a guild of fools, for a ride on the long wagon, for a colorful cap, or for a trip to the poorhouse. Moral deficiency is in this case a virtue that entitles one to the protection of the King of Fools. Negative values are presented positively and can only be recognized for what they really are if one understands the irony that underlies the work as a whole.

Another poem which has been associated with The Praise of Folly is the Leenhof der Gilden (The Feudal Property Court) of Jan van den Berghe, which was published in Antwerp in 1564.³⁵ The poem is a moral allegory which depends upon the description of an imaginary country or state carried out on the basis of its system of land ownership, a system that depends upon the operation of the feudal property court. The state's social classes, its estates, its cities, towns, and villages, and its inhabitants are all used as a means of criticizing moral transgressions. The poem consists of three parts. The first lists the abuses of the various inhabitants of the imaginary state, including the aristocracy, the clergy, the officials of the feudal property court, and the owners of feudal lands. Another describes and passes judgment upon the ways in which women abuse their husbands. A third warns against the abuses to which the feudal court is itself subject.

The allegory of The Feudal Property Court is carried out systematically and with considerable inventiveness. A striking change of mood between the first two and the third sections, however, robs the poem of its structural coherency. The first two are marked by a heavy-handed irony, but this element is missing from the account of some of the abuses to which feudal property transfers were susceptible.

Like The Oath of Master Uncle, The Feudal Property Court cannot be read literally. The satirical description of the kingdom and its inhabitants invites us to condemn their moral character. Similarly, the fact that women are rewarded for their vices is meant to strike the reader as paradoxical and unjust. Distant though the echoes of Erasmian wit may appear in these leaden ironies, it is possible that The Praise of Folly was the source of van den Berghe's inspiration. Confirmation of this interpretation is found in the author's introduction, where he stresses the lighthearted intention of the work, disclaiming responsibility for its contents by asserting that the poem was given to him in a tavern. This is an attitude that inevitably calls to mind Dame Folly's introduction to Erasmus's work.

Reviewing the moralizing poetry produced in the Netherlands in the first half of the sixteenth century in the light of the publication of Brant's Ship of Fools, several important questions deserve to be raised. First and foremost, what is the place of Brant's Ship of Fools in the context afforded by Netherlandish moralizing poetry? There is little doubt that Brant's book was the most thoroughgoing piece of moral instruction to use the concept of folly as its vehicle. Not only does Brant deal with a broader range of social types and moral situations but his advice is detailed and hard-hitting. Although the strength of Brant's criticism was tempered in the Flemish translation of the book as a consequence of its dependence on the Latin version of The Ship of Fools from which much original material was excluded, the work is still a very much more coherent moralization than the contemporary Flemish productions of the same kind. Flemish poems tend to be mere lists of offensive behavior rather than detailed commentaries on exemplary instances of such behavior. In contrast to The Ship of Fools, such poems as The Blue Boat, The Gay Caps, The Long Wagon, St. Empty's Ship, The Oath of Master Uncle, and The Feudal Property Court appear lighthearted and frivolous. The actions of the peddler in the Gay Caps prevent us from taking what he has to say very seriously. His attempt to hard sell his audience and his facetious descriptions of the appearance of the caps as well as of the benefits to be derived from wearing them all have a comic quality. Comedy also lies at the heart of the paradoxical Oath of Master Uncle. The irony of the poem delights and amuses us. The catalog of vices is hard to interpret as a serious indictment in view of the superficial and bantering tone of the work as a whole. Only the Right Way to the Poorhouse, The Ten Donkeys, and some portions of The Feudal Property Court deal with their subjects with an attitude anywhere near the sobriety that characterizes The Ship of Fools.

Brant's work, therefore, cannot be said to have decisively influenced the tradition of moralizing poetry in the Netherlands. Far from transforming the character of the native genre, The Ship of Fools added its own distinctive voice to what was an already well-established chorus. On the other hand, The Ship seems to have offered Netherlandish authors a repertoire of literary and visual ideas which they could incorporate in their own autonomous productions.

Erasmus's Praise of Folly, on the contrary, shares the lighthearted attitude toward moralizing that characterizes the Netherlandish poems. Yet its literary sophistication distinguishes it from the rest of this genre. There is no equivalent to the elegant and witty brilliance of its irony. The only echo of its central idea, the paradox of placing the praise of the morally unfit in the mouth of the immoral, is found in the Oath of Master Uncle.

Secondly, what is the function of the notion of folly as it is expressed in moralizing literature for Netherlandish culture as a whole? How do we account for the seemingly boundless popularity of these lists of social and moral transgressions—many of which resemble each other quite closely? One way of approaching these questions has been to examine the class composition of the authors and audience of these poems in order to determine whether class interests had anything to do with their content. Much of the information required to answer such a question is, however, unavailable to us. Many of the authors are anonymous so that we have no means of knowing their class background. Similarly, we have no insight into the class composition of their audience. In his recent work on The Blue Boat, Herman Pleij has argued that the social and moral criticism contained in moralizing poetry of this type represents the formation of a new middle class morality.³⁶ He regards such criticism as an attempt by a new social class to shape its own value structure. Pleij believes that the structure of the estates satires is transcended by the imposition of a single principle from which all other moral judgments are derived: this principle is the necessity for financial responsibility, a condition which is to be achieved by means of work. This is not the place to assess in detail Pleij's arguments concerning The Blue Boat and similar moralizing poems. Nonetheless, I think that two general points are worth making in this context. First, it is clear that certain poems are better suited to his argument than others. For example, although the importance of work as a canon of moral judgment is clear in such poems as The Blue Boat, The Right Way to the Poorhouse, and St. Empty's Ship, it is more difficult to accept the thesis that this is the moral ground on which the selection of items for the lists of morally reprehensible activities in such poems as The Gay Caps and The Feudal Property Court was based, and the work ethic seems to have singularly little to do with a book such as The Ten Donkeys. Second, the traditional character of these poems is at least as important as their innovative qualities. Not only do the poets spend their time castigating examples of the Seven Deadly Sins, but they do so within a structure inherited from the medieval estates satire. This tradition was continued not only in these works but in the dramatic productions of the period. Two anonymous Dutch plays, for example, dating from ca. 1559 and ca. 1564 respectively, deal with the moral shortcomings of the different classes and professions. This criticism, which was aimed at the powerful and wealthy as well as at artisans and common laborers, was a means of preaching the necessity for social order by emphasizing the essential unworthiness of all members of society.³⁷

In light of the continuity with both earlier and contemporaneous estates satires that characterizes the values of the moralizing poems, it might be argued that rather than expressing the attitudes of a new social class, the popular moralizing poetry of folly might represent the active participation in a traditional culture by social groups that had heretofore played little or no role in its formulation. Moral issues that had previously been the province of clerical writers of didactic tracts had come to be considered the legitimate concern of the lay artisan. Increased participation in the affirmation of moral values could be seen as a function of a spiritually troubled age that witnessed the Reformation, one in which the character of human redemption was in the process of redefinition and in which the means by which religious beliefs should be given social manifestation were a matter of urgent debate and deep concern.

The medieval definition of folly as madness and the identification of madness with sin, together with its association with carnival and the licensed expression of socially threatening behavior, made it a rich and complex concept for the expression of moral ideas. Far from being restricted to the identification of a particular category of sinfulness, the idea was susceptible to interpretation in unique and personal ways, ways that would not violate a preexistent system of thought. Furthermore, its inherent ambiguity permitted its use in the expression of moral judgments of widely differing strength. If one emphasized the equation of sin and folly as Brant had done, the concept permitted moral statements of scathing intensity. If the notion was interpreted in its carnival aspect, it permitted the development of satirical, ironic, and even comic attitudes toward certain aspects of moral behavior. It appears that Flemish authors by and large exploited the new ways in which moral failing could be characterized. The idea of a guild, a ride on a long wagon, the right to a colorful cap, entry to the poorhouse, or citizenship in a kingdom all represent imaginative new variations on a fascinating and apparently inexhaustible theme. Whereas all of these poems set out to make explicit the ethical mores of the day, they do so in ways that were meant to intrigue and entertain as well as to admonish.

The idea of folly in Netherlandish literature of the first half of the sixteenth century seems to have served a double function. On the one hand it made manifest in new form the values of a traditional society, but on the other it profoundly altered their nature. The performance of a morally questionable action was no longer to be viewed as the transgression of a moral law but as a sign that one was susceptible to the influence of an entirely human weakness. The strength of the indictment did not depend upon the application of a preestablished religious principle but varied according to the individual author's interpretation of the notion of folly. It is perhaps the freedom with which moral issues could be discussed as a consequence of the introduction of this indefinite and flexible concept of moral value that accounts for the popularity of the idea of folly in moralizing literature of this period.

Notes

1. See Sebastian Brant, Narrenschiff, ed. Friedrich Zarncke (Leipzig: G. Wigand, 1854), pp. lxxix ff.; Sebastian Brant, The Ship of Fools, trans. with intro. and commentary by Edwin H. Zeydel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), pp. 17 ff.

2. John Ralph Sinnema, “A Critical Study of the Dutch Translation of Sebastian Brant's Narrenschiff” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 1949) and “The German Source of the Middle Dutch ‘Der zotten ende der narren scip,’” in On Romanticism and the Art of Translation: Studies in Honor of Edwin Hermann Zeydel, ed. Gottfried F. Merkel (Princeton: Published for the University of Cincinnati, Princeton University Press, 1956), pp. 233-54.

3. Sebastian Brant, Der sotten schip, oft, dat Narrenschip (Antwerp: Marien Ancxt, 1548), Rosenwald Collection, no. 1169; Sebastian Brant, Navis stultorum oft Der sottenschip (Antwerp: Jan van Ghelen, 1584), Rosenwald Collection, no. 1206.

4. The impact of The Ship of Fools in countries other than Germany has only been discussed in relation to France and England. See Dorothy O'Connor, “Notes on the Influence of Brant's Narrenschiff outside of Germany,” Modern Language Review 20 (1925):64-70 and “Sébastien Brant en France au xvi^e siècle,” Revue de littérature comparée 8 (1928):309-17. Also, W. G. Moore, “The Evolution of a Sixteenth-Century Satire,” in A Miscellany of Studies in Romance Languages & Literatures Presented to Leon E. Kastner, ed. Mary Williams and James A. de Rothschild (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1932), pp. 351-60.

5. For the most recent edition of the manuscript as well as for a thorough discussion of this work, see Herman Pleij, Het gilde van de Blauwe Schuit Literatuur volksfeest en burgermoraal in de late middeleeuwen (Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1979).

6. See Ruth Mohl, The Three Estates in Medieval and Renaissance Literature (New York: F. Ungar Pub. Co., 1962) and Wolfgang Heinemann, “Zur Ständedidaxe in der deutschen Literatur des 13-15 Jahrhunderts,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 88 (1966):1-90; 89 (1967):290-403; 92 (1970):388-437.

7. Pleij, Het gilde van de Blauwe Schuit, p. 241. “Nu mocht een vraghen of hi wilde, / Die in dit ghilde comen woude, / Of hi al dese punten soude, / Moeten doen die sijn voerscreven. / Hierop will wi antwoert gheven: / Een mensche sal in hemselven gaen, / Ende sien sijn regiment aen, / Van sinen leven ende wandelinghen, / Van seden ende van alle dinghen, / Die hi daghelix plecht te hantieren. / Vint hi meer punten van manieren, / Dan hem meer ten wijsheit trecken, / Dan wijsheit die ter dwaesheit trecken, / So en is hi in onse ghilde niet. / Mer die in hemselven siet, / Meer punten dan hier staten voerscreven, / Dan wijselike mede te leven, / Die sinen staet meest regeren, / Ende sinen goede meest deeren, / Dese sullen in onse scute gaen, / Ende onse ghilde nemen aen.” My translation.

8. For a valuable discussion of Brant's use of the concept of folly, see Barbara Könneker, Wesen und Wandlung der Narrenidee im Zeitalter des Humanismus: Brant, Murner, Erasmus (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966).

9. Veelderhande geneuchlijcke dichten, tafelspelen ende refereynen (Leiden, 1899; reprint ed., Utrecht: HES, 1972).

10. Gerrit Kalff, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche letterkunde in de 16. eeuw, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1889), 1:101, n. 5.

11. Veelderhande, pp. 156-60.

12. Brant, Ship of Fools, pp. 55 and 57-58.

13. Veelderhande, pp. 15-20.

14. Brant, Ship of Fools, p. 59.

15. Ibid., p. 362.

16. Ibid., pp. 206-7.

17. Veelderhande, pp. 126-41. For the first edition, see Moore, “The Evolution,” p. 351.

18. Moore, “The Evolution,” pp. 351-53.

19. The poem and woodcut were published by C. P. Burger, Jr., “Nederlandsche Houtsneden 1500-1550: Het Schip van Sinte Reynuut,” Het Boek, 2d ser., 20 (1931): 209-21, especially 211-20. The woodcut has been attributed to various artists. The attribution to Aertgen van Leyden is the most recent and the most convincing. See J. Bruyn, “Twee St. Antonius-Panelen en andere Werken van Aertgen van Leyden,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 11 (1960):37-119, especially 103-6. (I am indebted to Christine Armstrong for this reference.)

20. Brant, Ship of Fools, pp. 55 and 172.

21. A. van Elslander, ed., Het Volksboek Vanden, x, esels (Antwerp: De Sikkel, 1946). For different opinions regarding the authorship and date of this work, see J. van Mierlo, “Kroniek van de Middelnederlandse Letteren,” Dietsche Warande en Belfort (1949):368-75, and the same author's Nieuwe Studien over Anna Bijns en Andere Opstellen (Ghent: Drukkerij Erasmus, 1953), pp. 43 ff.

22. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, 32 vols. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1854-1965) vol. 3, col. 1155 ff., “Esel”; Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1882-1949), 3: cols. 4328-29, “Ezel.”

23. Brant, Narrenschiff, pp. xlvii-xlviii.

24. Jan van Stijevoorts Refereinenbundel Anno MDXXIV, ed. F. Lyna and W. van Eeghem, 2 vols. (Antwerp, 1930), 2:clxv.

25. Brant, Der sotten schip, chap. 73. The refrain also finds a parallel in the Flemish fifteenth-century proverb, “Bells need not be hung on a fool”; see Proverbia Communia: A Fifteenth Century Collection of Dutch Proverbs, ed. Richard Jente (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1947), no. 475. According to G. Degroote this poem was influenced by Erasmus's Praise of Folly; see “Erasmiana,” in De Nieuwe Taalgids 41 (1948):145-55, and the same author's “Erasmus en de Rederijkers van de XVIe eeuw,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 29 (1951):389-420 and 1029-62. He offers no support for this suggestion. Like many of the other claims made for Erasmian influence in these articles, the only basis for a relationship appears to be that they deal with the common subject of folly. In light of the widespread character of this idea in the literature of the period, such grounds are clearly insufficient. For a critique of Degroote's suggestions regarding the Erasmian sources of this and other poems, see Dirk Coigneau, “Beschouwingen over de Refreinen in het Zotte uit de bundel van Jan van Styevoort,” Rederijkersstudien 6 (1972):1-60, especially 56-60.

26. Jan van Stijevoorts, Refereinenbundel, 1:cxviii.

27. Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, trans. Clarence H. Miller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979). For descriptions of the various dimensions of the concept of folly in this period, see Barbara Swain, Fools and Folly during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932) and Enid Welsford, The Fool: His Social and Literary History (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, [1936]). The equation of the concept of folly as madness with the idea of sin is discussed by Penelope B. R. Doob, Nebuchadnezzar's Children: Conventions of Madness in Middle English Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), chap. 1. The use of the idea of folly in carnival celebrations is described by Natalie Zemon Davis, “The Reasons of Misrule,” in her book Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975), pp. 97-123.

28. Erasmus, Praise of Folly, p. xiii.

29. A brilliant analysis of the complexities of ambiguity developed by Erasmus in this text is found in Walter Kaiser, Praisers of Folly: Erasmus, Rabelais, Shakespeare (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963).

30. The smaller readership that the delay in translation might imply should not be overstressed in view of the large sales volume of the Latin editions of the work; see Sandra Hindman and James Farquhar, Pen to Press: Illustrated Manuscripts and Printed Books in the First Century of Printing (College Park: Art Dept., University of Maryland, 1977), p. 190, n. 91.

31. Bibliotheca Belgica: Bibliographie générale des Pays-Bas, ed. M.-T. Langer, 6 vols. (Brussels: Cultur et Civilisation, 1964-70), vol. 2.

32. John G. Rechtien, “A 1520 French Translation of the Moria Encomium,” Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974):23-35.

33. R. H. Marijnissen, “De Eed van Meester Oom. Een Voorbeeld van Brabantse Jokkernij uit Bruegels Tijd,” in Pieter Bruegel und seine Welt, ed. Otto von Simson and Matthias Winner (Berlin: Mann, 1979), pp. 51-61.

34. For a description of this festival, see W. van Eeghem, “Rhetores Bruxelliensis,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 15 (1936):47-78.

35. Dichten en Spelen van Jan van den Berghe, ed. C. Kruyskamp (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1950). Its relation to The Praise of Folly has been emphasized by G. Degroote, “Jan Vandenberghe, Erasmiaanse Geest en zijn, ‘Leenhof der Gilden,’” in Album Professor Dr. Frank Baur, 2 vols. (Antwerp: Standaard-Boekhandel, 1948), 1:165-75.

36. See n. 5.

37. Benjamin Hendrik Erné, Twee zestiende eeuwse spelen van de hel (Groningen: Wolters, 1934).