IN my late travels from Italy into England, that I
might not
trifle away my time in the
rehearsal of old wives' fables, I
thought it more
pertinent to
employ my thoughts in reflecting upon some past studies, or calling to
remembrance several of those highly
learned, as well as smartly
ingenious, friends I had here left behind, among whom you (dear Sir) were represented as the chief; whose
memory, while
absent at this
distance, I
respect with no less a
complacency than I was
wont while present to
enjoy your more
intimate conversation, which last afforded me the greatest
satisfaction I could possibly hope for. Having therefore resolved to be a doing, and deeming that time
improper for any
serious concerns, I
thought good to
divert myself with drawing up a panegyrick upon Folly. How! what
maggot (say you) put this in your head? Why, the first
hint, Sir, was your own
surname of More, which comes as near the
literal sound of the word,* as you yourself are
distant from the signification of it, and that in all men's judgments is vastly wide.
In the next place, I
supposed that this kind of sporting
wit would be by you more especially accepted of, by you, Sir, that are
wont with this sort of
jocose raillery (such as, if I
mistake not, is neither
dull nor
impertinent) to be mightily pleased, and in your
ordinary converse to
approve yourself a Democritus junior: for truly, as you do from a
singular vein of
wit very much
dissent from the
common herd of mankind; so, by an
incredible affability and pliableness of
temper, you have the art of suiting your humour with all sorts of companies. I hope therefore you will not only readily
accept of this
rude essay as a
token from your friend, but take it under your more
immediate protection, as being
dedicated to you, and by that
tide adopted for yours, rather than to be fathered as my own. And it is a chance if there be wanting some
quarrelsome persons that will shew their teeth, and
pretend these fooleries are either too buffoon-like for a
grave divine, or too satyrical for a
meek christian, and so will
exclaim against me as if I were vamping up some old
farce, or acted
anew the Lucian again with a
peevish snarling at all things. But those who are offended at the lightness and
pedantry of this
subject, I would have them
consider that I do not set myself for the first
example of this kind, but that the same has been oft done by many
considerable authors. For
thus several ages since, Homer wrote of no more weighty a
subject than of a war between the frogs and mice, Virgil of a gnat and a pudding-cake, and Ovid of a nut Polycrates commended the
cruelty of Busiris; and Isocrates, that corrects him for this, did as much for the
injustice of Glaucus. Favorinus extolled Thersites, and wrote in
praise of a quartan ague. Synesius pleaded in
behalf of baldness; and Lucian defended a sipping fly. Seneca drollingly related the deifying of Claudius; Plutarch the
dialogue betwixt Gryllus and Ulysses; Lucian and Apuleius the story of an ass; and somebody else records the last will of a hog, of which St. Hierom makes
mention. So that if they please, let themselves think the worst of me, and
fancy to themselves that I was all this while a playing at push-pin, or riding
astride on a hobby-horse. For how
unjust is it, if when we
allow different recreations to each
particular course of life, we
afford no
diversion to studies; especially when trifles may be a
whet to more
serious thoughts, and
comical matters may be so treated of, as that a reader of
ordinary sense may possibly thence
reap more
advantage than from some more big and
stately argument: as while one in a long-winded
oration descants in
commendation of
rhetoric or
philosophy, another in a
fulsome harangue sets forth the
praise of his
nation, a third makes a
zealous invitation to a
holy war with the Turks, another confidently sets up for a fortune-teller, and a fifth states questions upon
mere impertinences. But as nothing is more childish than to
handle a
serious subject in a loose,
wanton style, so is there nothing more
pleasant than so to treat of trifles, as to make them seem nothing less than what their name imports. As to what relates to myself, I must be forced to
submit to the
judgment of others; yet, except I am too
partial to be judge in my own case, I am
apt to believe I have praised Folly in such a manner as not to have deserved the name of fool for my pains. To reply now to the
objection of satyricalness, wits have been always allowed this
privilege, that they
might be smart upon any transactions of life, if so be their
liberty did not
extend to railing; which makes me
wonder at the tender-eared humour of this age, which will
admit of no
address without the
prefatory repetition of all
formal titles; nay, you may find some so preposterously
devout, that they will sooner wink at the greatest
affront against our Saviour, than be
content that a prince, or a pope, should be nettled with the least joke or
gird, especially in what relates to their
ordinary customs. But he who so blames men's irregularities as to lash at no one
particular person by name, does he (I say) seem to
carp so properly as to teach and
instruct? And if so, how am I concerned to make any farther
excuse? Beside, he who in his strictures points indifferently at all, he seems not
angry at one man, but at all vices.