A mastery of irony is the mark of an incredible writer; throughout the Renaissance, such genius works of irony were not uncommon. Three authors in particular – Castiglione, Erasmus, and Dentière – stand out in their use of irony as a means of achieving their work’s purpose. Although their writings are similar in that the irony lies in the fact that their content is contradicted by their delivery, the difference lies in their purposes; Castiglione uses irony to earnestly explore ideals of nobility, Erasmus to satirize and mock the church, and Dentière to influence authority and express her opinion.
In the case of Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier, it is the contradictory nature of said ideal courtier’s attributes that is ironic. The discourse allows for various archetypes of courtier to be set forth, but the irony lies in the fact that in discussion, they negate the idea that an ideal exists in the first place. One such contradiction occurs when the group is discussing the worth of nobility; the Count expresses his opinion that nobility is a fantastic asset, as a good lineage is proof of good traits. This is refuted by Gaspare, however, who argues that “first and foremost is Fortune…raised up” (72). This quote is of particular interest, as it essentially negates the purpose of the entire conversation. In asserting that Fortune is the dictator of our fates, and that we have no control over our characteristics, the group’s nitpicking at admirable qualities is rendered unnecessary. Gaspare specifically highlights that Fortune may lift or lower certain people’s status, regardless of whether or not they deserve it – allowing the reader to question if the “perfect” courtier has any worth in the first place. A later interaction between the Count and Cesare adds to the ironic nature of the discussion, as the Count states that “‘I am not obliged’…‘to teach you how to acquire grace, or indeed anything else, but only to show you what a perfect courtier should be” (76-77). Essentially, although the Count has outlined his personal image of the perfect courtier, he cannot even teach said qualities to the others. If the attributes of the perfect courtier are only assigned by Fortune and an average person cannot be shaped into one, then what is the purpose of the book? This is where the irony lies, as in the group’s discussion, Castiglione expresses that it is simply an exploration of ideals; there is no single perfect courtier, but nonetheless the reader should consider different facets. As stated later by the Count, “Nothing is more naturally desired by men or more proper to them than knowledge, and it is the height of folly to say or believe that it is not a good thing” (88). That is to say, despite the fact that the group has conjectured on ideals for courtiers for some time now, nothing could be more beneficial to humans than knowledge – and this is what Castiglione provides for the reader through his use of irony. Conversely, Erasmus uses irony in a blunt and satirical way for a different purpose.
In Erasmus’ In Praise of Folly, irony is interwoven throughout in a similar manner, specifically the contrast between what Folly says she will do and what she actually does. The most notable example is the fact that throughout the essay, Folly continuously states that she is speaking casually, and with no heavy preparation. Quite bluntly, she asserts that the reader is “going to hear a speech which is extempore and quite unprepared, but all the more genuine for that” (112). The irony in this quote is that despite her assertion, Folly uses countless references to mythology, philosophy, and other writers. To provide an example for contrast, during Folly’s explanation of her lineage, she states that “first of all, with the help of the Muses, I’ll try to explain my ancestry to you” (113). In referencing the Muses (and other literature and mythology throughout), Folly shows that her words cannot be taken at face value. Another important thing to note is that this quote is in reference to Folly wanting to be recognized as having benefits rather than disadvantages. The satire of Folly wishing to be praised is the most visible example of Erasmus’ irony; in rendering Folly’s words as foolish and ironic, Erasmus is able to criticize the church’s superstitions and political ties. As stated in his letter to Thomas More prior to In Praise of Folly, Erasmus plainly declares that “The world will pass its own judgment on me… my praise of folly has not been altogether foolish” (109). Essentially, so long as his purpose of mocking the church has been fulfilled, then the praise of folly has not been in vain. This can also be applied to the Epistle to Marguerite de Navarre, as her irony assists in criticizing the clergy.
In regards to Dentière in her Epistle to Marguerite de Navarre, irony arises in her contradictory statements regarding her faith. Although she expresses that the opinion of God and his wishes are all that should be of concern to humans, she still persistently annihilates the clergy verbally. Early on in her appeal, Dentière expresses that “The Lord God desires…without wavering nor seeking anyone but him” (151). She takes care to assert that the only words that should be taken as law should be the word of God, and that his wishes and desires will be brought alone by Jesus Christ. The irony here becomes visible on the next page, in which she refers to members of the church as “[those who] walk about in long robes and sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravishing wolves” (151). With such a powerful visualization of villainy in a scathing review of the state of the church following the prior quote, the irony becomes clear. Although the irony may initially seem unintentional, the reader can tell that Dentière uses it as a tool to influence the reader and express her own opinion. One such example of Dentière acknowledging her use of irony occurs in “In Defense of Women”, when she points out the irony of the clergy’s exclusion of women; she asks, “Must we condemn Ruth…numbered among the genealogy of Jesus Christ” (150). She is more than aware of the irony in the Bible, and thus is able to use the same tool to her advantage in her writing to reveal the hypocrisy to the reader.
Although the purposes of Castiglione, Erasmus, and Dentière differ, their approach remains the same; in using irony hidden in plain sight, all authors are able to influence their audience. For Castiglione he hopes to influence the reader in considering variations of the ideal courtier, for Erasmus he hopes to imprint an idea of the church upon the reader, and for Dentière she hopes to sway authorities into supporting her position. What is important to conclude with is that all three authors are keenly aware of the irony they put into practice, thus making their work timeless.
