This is second part of Matthew Pittman and Terry Linvall’s article comparing current comedian Stephen Colbert and 16th century writer Desiderius Erasmus. Part 1 can be founf here. – Editor
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Well-Intentioned
Erasmus was privileged to live in a time of radical social change that altered the course of history. The famous humanist, who stood between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, found fault with both and ended up hiding in Basel. He was prolific, re-translating the Bible and maintaining correspondence with many other scholars. However, “offered opportunities of practical responsibility, he consistently evaded them, and in the crisis of his time he appeared to many a timorous neuter. He was neither a courtier in the age of courts, nor a revolutionary in an age of revolution.”
Humanists had traditionally kept a firm grasp on the treasures of classic culture, often using them to further elevate their perceived intellectual superiority. Erasmus sought to change this dynamic by enlightening the common folk. “With his irresistible need of teaching and his sincere love for humanity and its general culture, Erasmus introduced the classic spirit, in so far as it could be reflected in the soul of a sixteenth-century Christian, among the people.” He desired to liberate the lower classes from what he perceived as intellectual oppression at the hands of both Reformers and the Church.
Erasmus’ admonitions, while sincere, retained an air of playfulness only possible from one situated as he: removed from either side of battle with good perspective on both. He once noted that “these paunchy monks are called fathers, and they take good care to deserve the name.” Now Luther, a paunchy monk, gave proof to a popular tradition. According to some prophecies, an ex-monk and ex-nun would give birth to Antichrist. Erasmus countered the slanderous rumor against Luther and his Katie, by observing that if that tradition were true, there must have been many thousands of antichrists born before this.
Nevertheless, Luther did not return the favor; he called Erasmus, who did not join the Reformation, a “mere Momus,” a reference to the Greek god of censure and mockery. “Whenever I pray,” wrote Luther with little grace, “I pray for a curse upon Erasmus.” If charity were to be a mark of the reformed man, evidence could not be found in Luther’s love (of lack thereof) for his enemy. The gravity of Luther’s comments regarding Erasmus stands in marked contrast to the Erasmus’ levity.
Erasmus did clarify his stance on laughter: “While I am in favor of jokes anywhere, provided they be seasoned with salt, I equally cannot stand those who, whenever they want to be amusing, twist words of Holy Writ for use in their absurdities.” He explained that his taking on the voice of Dame Folly was to “admonish, not to sting; to help, not to hurt; to promote morality not to hinder it.” He continues with a lesson from Plato, careful to couch his tone in a prudent and decent manner (breaking decorum for Erasmus would be like breaking wind in public): “Even such a grave philosopher as Plato approves of drinking rather freely at parties because he thinks that the merriment generated by wine can dispel certain vices which could not be corrected by sternness.”
The tone Erasmus maintains in In Praise of Folly, like his rhetoric itself, is a delicate balance of frustration and optimism. As Dutch historian Johan Huizinga notes, “It was an unrivaled feat of art… neither to lose the light comical touch, nor to lapse into undisguised profanation. It was only feasible by veritable dancing on the tight-rope of sophistry.”
In Praise of Folly’s balancing act left a legacy, one that was reinstated when Stephen Colbert the man created Stephen Colbert the character. The host of The Colbert Report is acutely aware, as was Erasmus, that entertainment for its own sake is empty. This faux Republican and devout Roman Catholic, wearing his straight mask quite lightly, defined satire as “parody with a point.”
Colbert, who sometimes agrees with his own impertinent character, plays the wise fool with rapid-fire wit. Late Night host Jay Leno views Colbert as one who “challenges” audiences through his comedy, but one who follows the golden rule of you’ve “gotta be funny first.” The top criterion for contemporary satire remains that the laugh comes first and foremost. In Colbert’s case, however, the initial laugh is but a Trojan horse through which he smuggles his real agenda.
Not only was Colbert raised by devout Catholic intellectuals, but he regularly attends mass, observes Lent, recites the Nicene Creed and the Bible, and teaches Sunday school. He actually taught seven year olds the catechism for their first communion. “I love my Church, and I’m a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That’s totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth.”
Colbert’s Roman Catholic roots show forth in supporting the oppressed and needy, dealing with issues of poverty, suffering, and doubt. When he spoke on Capitol Hill and championed migrant farm workers, he reminded the lawmakers of an old biblical adage: “And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, and these seem like the least of our brothers right now,” Colbert said, quoting Jesus. “Migrant workers suffer and have no rights. If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”
Erasmus offered a similar rebuke to the Christians in his day. Dame Folly says she does not need official recognition; she knows she is worshipped when “believers” embrace her in their minds and foolish deeds, particularly in excessive veneration of saints. “How many of them 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 pureness of life, humility and love of heavenly things, which is true worship and most acceptable to heaven!” Erasmus and Colbert both embrace playing the fool in order to nudge society toward a simpler Catholicism, one freed from the oppressive shackles of bureaucratic legalism.
While Erasmus and Colbert both loved the Church, neither was afraid to offer rebuke when it strayed. Folly discusses those members of the church who appear most holy, saying, “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…(some) are afraid to touch money as poison, and yet neither forbear wine nor dallying with women…” The Colbert Report, while also managing to mock religious intolerance, addresses the Catholic scandal of its day: in response to Papal criticism, Colbert says:
If you non-Catholic Christians are upset, well, just have your Pope issue a response. Oh that’s right, you don’t have a Pope. Because your faith is defective. Sorry, Catholicism is clearly superior. Don’t believe me? Name one Protestant denomination that could afford a $660 million sexual abuse settlement. I think the Lord has spoken on this one.
It is indeed a delicate balancing act to admonish an institution one loves in a way that is simultaneously comical and serious.
Poorly Informed
Erasmus and Colbert demonstrate their value of education and thoughtfulness by employing foolish personas that espouse ignorance. In Praise of Folly and The Colbert Report are equally replete with instances of this rhetoric. Folly declares ignorance to be bliss when she says:
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?
Those who are able to fancy themselves as they wish, without regard to reality, owe that ability to folly. Colbert has a segment on his show entitled the “No Fact Zone” in which he makes bold declarations about how he feels while explicitly ignoring facts.
The most high profile example of this might be when he gave the speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. While sitting a few feet away from Bush, Colbert said this about the President of the United States: “The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.” As a man blithely uninformed, Stephen Colbert (the character) was particularly primed to parody a president against whom many people leveled the same criticism.
Naturally, there is a distinction between the satire of Erasmus and Colbert that calls attention to the context in which each lived. In their use of foolish personas, each man creates in effect what could be labeled a reverse “Straw man” argument: instead of propping up a false opponent to knock down and ostensibly win the argument, they prop up a false proponent (Folly or Colbert the character) whom the audience themselves can knock down. While Erasmus was pushing back against a Church that was interfering with Christians’ ability to know God, Colbert pushes against fundamentalists who fear science or change. Erasmus gives Folly a real hatred for “fake” knowledge; Colbert gives his character a fake hatred for real knowledge.
For example, Erasmus, again mocking those who focus on convoluted theology at the expense of social justice, has Folly mock the disciples: “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?” While Erasmus rebukes superfluous knowledge, Colbert makes any knowledge seem superfluous: in his book, I Am America (And So Can You!), he writes, “I am no fan of books. And chances are, if you’re reading this, you and I share a healthy skepticism about the printed word. Well, I want you to know that this is the first book I’ve ever written, and I hope it’s the first book you’ve ever read. Don’t make a habit of it.”
Conclusion
The popularity of Stephen Colbert has breathed new life into a particular strand of Catholicism and exposed a new generation to the thoughtful humanism of Desiderius Erasmus. Satire is a rich and storied genre, one which Erasmus and Colbert wield in offering reproof, even and especially of the institution which they hold so dearly: the Church. In examining Erasmus’ influence on Colbert it is evident that, in addition to sharing similarities, each was skilled and creative in his own right.
References
Erasmus, D. (translated by John Wilson, 2008). The Praise of Folly. Rockville, MD: Arc Manor.
Huizinga, J. (1957). Erasmus and the age of Reformation. New York: Harper.
Jacobs, R. N., & Wild, N. M. (2013). A cultural sociology of The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 1, 69–95. DOI:10.1057/ajcs.2012.7
Trevor Roper, H. R. (1977). Men and Events: Historical Essays. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Reprinted in Erasmus, Desiderius. (1989). In Praise of Folly (ed. Robert Adams). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Matthew Pittman is a scholar and critic studying and strengthening the intersections of theology, media studies, and communication theory. His thoughtful takes on many of cultures most popular television programs can be found in our Television section as well as in regular featured articles.