The Allegory of Folly

While reading Kracauer this morning, a certain section on page 216 caught my attention: the description of Professor Rath as he cockcrows and becomes morally corrupt. I had a bit of a flashback to a research aper I wrote about a work in the Worcester Art Museum, and I thought it might be fun to share some of the main points.

Europe’s “Age of Enlightenment,” known more specifically in the Netherlands as the “Golden Age,” came during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; scientific literature and economic growth led to the creation of a large, prosperous middle class. The newly ‘luxurious’ lives of the bourgeoise during Europe’s Baroque period in the seventeenth century were often a source of uncertainty and even embarrassment to the populace. The solution? Artists created allegorical and still-life moralizing scenes. These paintings “engaged serious questions of moral judgment, temptation, self-definition, and individual responsibility, which confronted those who operated within a world of economic allure and exchange” (Honig, 170).

Paintings from this time centered on material culture, and hidden symbolism pointed to commonplace religious and traditional moral beliefs. One such example is the Flemish painter Quentin Metsys’ Allegory of Folly from c. 1465-1530. Both Dutch and Flemish art was “essentially Protestant in outlook” (Finlay, 52), and incorporated much hidden symbolism throughout, which appealed to the swelling middle class. Such moralizing scenes often used imagery of the Five Senses, the Seven Sins, and vanitas to convey messages to the public, such as the dangers inherent in worldly pleasures. This ties in with the reemerging theme in Kracauer about German’s falling into bouts of sexual excess during times of emotional withdrawl. One example? How the “foolish” Professor Rath was “driven by moral indignation and ill-concealed sex jealousy…into her den; but instead of putting an end to the juvenille excesses, he himself succumbs to the charms of Lola Lola…” (Kracauer, 216).

Folly, as a common theme throughout Europe but particularly in Antwerp, was a frequent topic in Baroque paintings. Metsys made use of the method of “instruction through ridicule” when convincing his audience of the merits of being righteous in his painting. Folly, as seen here, is shown as a combination between the two common yet contrasting representations of himself: a stupid or “mentally handicapped” character identified by the “stone of folly” lump on the forehead, who was generally seen in courts for entertainment purposes; and the witty and satirical comedian who dresseed as a fool to make fun of society’s own follies. The cockerel coming out of his head was used as a common symbol of ‘the fool’. Remind you of anyone? Professor Rath in The Blue Angel also played the fool, and with his “wonderful imitation of cockcrowing,” eventually led to his ultimate “humiliation” and characterization as a “madman.”

Rich with symbolism, Allegory of Folly alludes to the insults directed to and coming from fools, which may lead one to the conclusion that Metsys was hinting at society’s duplicitous nature. Folly’s traditional “fool’s costume” in itself is even ripe with meaning. The ears of an ass, belled cap, red belt, and staff, all enhance the comical nature of the fool, and invite the viewer to poke fun at the character’s expense. (Ahem!) Prof. Rath was also laughed at, during his cock-crowing performance, and it came at the expense of his sanity and his character.

Folly’s staff, also know as a marotte, contains a protruding miniature figure of none other than himself; the carved effigy of the fool mimics his model, detectable by the matching cap. The marotte’s figure is shown in the profane act of pulling down his pants, which reiterates the derogatory disposition of the fool, while simultaneously insulting society itself against its own follies. Again, back to Professor Rath: He originally looked down upon the rest of society, especially his students, for their immoral dispositions. And yet, he himself became immoral in the same light. A juxtaposition became present of his degraded position and his superior mindset.

Folly holds his forefinger to his lips, which seems almost to contradict the satirical nature of the cretin, given that silence during the time that Metsys painted this work was widely considered to be associated with wisdom and educated persons. However, not to stray too far from the theme of contradictory façades of both Folly and Flemish society, Metsys incorporated a phrase “Mondeken toe” (translated to mean “keep your mouth shut”) immediately adjacent to the raising finger. Rath, too, kept silent for quite a bit of The Blue Angel. Long stretches of time passed before he addressed his students, and even when he had something to say, he used few words. Possibly an allusion to his educated status.

The subject in Allegory of Folly is unsightly and misshapen. The over-exaggerated deformities – a hunched back, crooked nose, lumped forehead, and crinkly, decrepit skin – repels the audience, while at once intriguing them, and making them unable to look away. The allure of such a painting lends into the theme of the audience’s own vanity, also associated with the moral instruction of this composition. The association here to the professor? Remember how his appearance changed over the years, and how he eventually became the clown. The grotesque, wrinkly-foreheaded, large-nosed, scarred clown. I think that the same elements of his version of the fool that were present in Metsys’ painting are what drew his hometown audience in.

Examples of human folly in other such paintings include the succumbing to sin and the Bacchic indulgence in revelry and sexual appetite.

Sorry for the length – I really tried to cut it down to just the relevant points.