Using the Absurd: How Erasmus Challenges His Students

The Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus, more often called Erasmus of Rotterdam, is well known for his satirical Praise of Folly, his letters, and his theological work. Yet his work as a teacher has received less attention, even though his Colloquies was widely read in Europe during his life and after his death. Although translations were made quite early and are still readily available, my interest lies solely in the use of the Latin text, for this work is a collection of colloquial phrases and dialogues originally created as material for the students Erasmus tutored in Latin. Reconstructing Erasmus’s educational practices can offer a fascinating window on a crucial part of his humanist agenda by revealing how his pedagogical ideas could be used in teaching situations. Motivation was a key element in his didactics. Erasmus paid special attention to motivating pupils, knowing the pedagogical obstacles presented by an unmotivated student. This is where Erasmus’s concern with humor comes in. It is possible to learn Latin without any humor at all, but apparently Erasmus found it a useful tool, as demonstrated by his frequent use of it within his Colloquies. A humorous lesson is more attractive as a didactic tool than a non-humorous one, making it especially suitable for a younger audience. This is where I think absurd humor plays an extraordinary role: I propose it not only motivates by entertaining but also by being more challenging. It challenges especially talented pupils to successfully understand and invent themselves. Thus, Erasmus’s use of absurd humor adds an extra didactic-pedagogical dimension to a colloquy.

The uses of humor have been debated by Greek philosophers and Roman orators, albeit the first theoretical analyses of humor focus on the broader topic of laughter rather than the rhetorical use of humor. Plato dismissed laughter as inappropriate, whereas Aristotle thought it to be a part of relaxation for the mind and thus necessary to function. Still, one should only laugh at appropriate things and avoid being hurtful or destructive. Cicero sees humor as a rhetorical tool to be used not only in a private setting, as Aristotle argued, but also in a public setting, such as a court of law. Humor can be used as a professional tactic, but it still has to refrain from being inappropriate. Cicero is the first to mention absurd humor (subabsurda) as a category in his De oratore. He supplies different examples, like Cato’s absurd reply to a man carrying a box, who bumped into him and, after Cato already lay on the ground, told him, “watch out.” Cato replied: “What else except a box are you carrying?” After being bumped into, the warning is too late and thus not useful at all. Cato plays with this belated warning by suggesting that the man could be carrying something else by which he can be struck down again. He creates an absurd situation after the unhelpful warning by pretending the warning is still useful.

During the Renaissance, the interest in humor continued, not least by the discovery of Book VI of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, where the Roman orator and teacher discusses the topic of humor. This was lost until the humanist Poggio Bracciolini rediscovered it in a cloister in Sankt Gallen in 1416, which later led to a modern edition in 1470. However, the interest in humor already existed during the Renaissance before this significant discovery, as shown by Petrarca’s Rerum memorandarum libri, published after his death in 1374, containing two paragraphs about humor, both of which function as facetiae, a collection of funny and witty stories and jokes. The works of Pontano (De sermone, 1509) and Castiglione (Il Cortegiano, 1528) about the theory and analysis of humor show the continuing interest of humanists in the subject. Erasmus was definitely not alone in his interest in humor, but he was innovative in his use of it as a didactic-pedagogical tool to motivate.

The Colloquies show a wide diversity in tone, subject, complexity, and, above all, target audience. At first, the Colloquies started as notes for the students Erasmus tutored while he was studying in Paris. The colloquial phrases and short dialogues were an immense success when an unauthorized edition was published. Erasmus saw the popularity of his work and issued his own revised publication. Over the span of a few years, more editions followed, and Erasmus kept adding dialogues, foregoing the initial intention of creating a method to learn Latin by writing more sophisticated dialogues meant as philosophical work or satirical rebukes aimed at his nemeses. Not all the colloquies are meant for teaching pupils Latin, but the book itself was born out of the necessity for a method to learn Latin. Children starting to learn conversing in Latin are helped by the short phrases and simple colloquies, whereas the adolescent student is able to tackle more complex dialogues, for example, satire on religious orders. The sort of humor used also differs accordingly. In Domestic Coversation (Domestica confabulatio) in a brief exchange between friends the following humorous conversation is found:

Peter: Iodocus, are you at home? (Heus Iodoce, num es domi?)

Iodocus: I’m not. (Non sum.)

Peter: You impudent, do I not hear you talk? (Impudens, non ego audio te loquentem?)

Iodocus: No, you are impudent. A while ago I believed your slave that you were not at home, and now you don’t believe me? (Imo tu impudentior. Nuper ancillae tuae credidi te non esse domi, et tu non credis mihi ipsi?)

Later on in this dialogue ,someone called Hugo is also called a nugo, a chatterbox. This pun functions by way of paronomasia, words sounding alike, and is quite simple to make and understand, as can still be seen on many a playground today. More elaborate humor, for instance, jokes with a punchline like the example of Cato, is found in The Fabolous Feast (Convivium fabulosum), where friends tell each other funny stories.

So, what actually constitutes absurd humor? I define the absurd as a situation that is physically or semantically impossible, leading to an utterly unrealistic result. If such an absurd situation results in creating laughter, it is absurd humor: for example, Iodocus’s response from within his house when his friend Peter asks him, standing at his door, if he is at home. The reasoning is that Iodocus, a friend of Peter, has to be more trustworthy than Peter’s slave. The sheer performative aspect of this answer, following a sound logic that unfortunately does not apply to the situation, places this in the category of absurd humor. Peter is impudent because he does not believe his friend, and Iodocus is impudent because he is clearly lying. Two different situations are combined to form an absurd situation where two types of argument clash. The joke has two punchlines, the first being “I’m not,” and the second being Iodocus’s last retort. The first one can even be understood by the youngest pupils. The second one is slightly more complex because it uses a sound argument in a completely unsuitable situation. To retell the joke, one has to learn the complete story, making this joke serving double as an exercise in grammar: the use of a participle after audio, the present and perfect of the verb credere, the comparative, and the declension of domus. Erasmus uses this instance of absurd humor not only to entertain but to give examples of certain essential grammatical rules. These are easier to remember because they are in the form of a joke. The joke is easier to learn because of the punchline that gives structure to the story. The combination of humor, grammar, and structure facilitates an easier learning experience than the boring repetition of rules.

Erasmus knew full well he was using absurd humor as can be seen by the colloquy Non-Sequiturs (Ἀπροσδιόνυσα sive absurda), which has the absurd as a theme. Ἀπροσδιόνυσα is used to denote things that have nothing to do with each other. The title itself is a lesson in Greek vocabulary. The colloquy consists of a dialogue made out of two totally different conversations. Annius and Leucius seem to have an intelligent conversation, but one is talking about a marriage and the other about a shipwreck:

Annius: I hear you have been to the wedding of Pancratius and Albina.

Leucius: I have never sailed with more bad luck than that time.

Annius: What are you saying? Was there such a huge gathering of people?

The start of the conversation immediately shows the two men are talking, but not with each other. Two different conversations are taking place at the same time, albeit only from one viewpoint. Seeing it as a normal dialogue, as the other colloquies are, is a semantic impossibility. A less advanced student might have trouble with this dialogue, because the answers do not seem to correspond with the questions. The reader has to understand he is witnessing two halves of two different conversations at the same time and to make sense of them, he must follow both simultaneously and fill in the rest of the conversation. The setting itself is absurd because of this, just as the title suggests. The humor lies in the characters Annius and Leucius who are oblivious to one another, which provides the reader with a ridiculous spectacle. The challenge for students is to understand enough Latin to appreciate the absurdity.

How does Erasmus expect this use of absurd humor to have a motivational effect on his students? Clearly, he wants to entertain. Adding humor makes learning a more pleasant experience, especially in a time when teachers used corporal punishment. However, entertainment is not the only reason Erasmus uses absurd humor. The crazier an example, the easier it is to remember. An absurd joke is fun to retell and, for Erasmus, an opportunity to insert some useful grammar. If a student learns the joke by heart, he also has learned some grammatical rules via examples. Erasmus uses absurd humor to make learning Latin easier. In this way, the complexity of absurd humor also plays a role in motivating students to keep learning.

Erasmus also provides absurd humor that needs to be deciphered to be appreciated, as with the absurd situation between Annius and Leucius. The absurd setting of Non-Sequiturs, requires a more intellectual student to be understood and appreciated than the joke of Peter and Jodocus. The more complex uses of absurd humor do not speed up learning but slow it down. Readers will have to concentrate more to understand what they are reading, let alone to get the joke. Erasmus provides different levels of humor for a range of different learners, trying to reach both the beginning pupil and the advanced student. Sometimes a witty remark is directly understood; other times, one has to read and reread a joke to fully understand it.

Erasmus challenges his students with absurd humor by making them work for it. The incongruity of absurd humor demands a greater effort from language learners than a normal, realistic speech situation, forcing pupils to study the meaning of words and sentences more intensely. To understand and appreciate the absurd, attention is required, but also a playful sensitivity. This brings in another layer: absurd humor requires creativity. Not only to understand it, but even more so to invent it. One has to be able to switch perspectives, find unexpected ambiguity, and present it in an unforced manner. Erasmus shows how it is done and at the same time sets the bar for his students. They are not only expected to recognize and understand absurd humor, they are expected to eventually be capable of using it in real life. After all, Erasmus intended to teach his students to speak fluent Latin. This pedagogical-didactic strategy may in fact still be used today by those teaching languages. As a language teacher myself, I have found the more preposterous and absurd examples work the best. Absurd humor has a place in modern didactics, especially when working with younger pupils and adolescents, as Erasmus showed us in his Colloquies.