12-22-2004, 08:34 PM
<font face='Comic Sans MS'></font id='Comic Sans MS'><b></b>
Readers are invited to nominate the wisest fool of the past 50 years
IT IS not quite clear whether it was Henry IV of France orâmore likelyâhis chief minister, the Duc de Sully, who described James I (of England, VI of Scotland) as âthe wisest fool in Christendomâ. It is not even clear what prompted the coining of the epithet, though James (above) was certainly a mixture of opposites of every kind. In the words of Sir Walter Scott,
He was deeply learned, without possessing useful knowledge; sagacious in many individual cases, without having real wisdom...He was fond of his dignity, while he was perpetually degrading it by undue familiarity; capable of much public labour, yet often neglecting it for the meanest amusement; a wit, though a pedant; and a scholar, though fond of the conversation of the ignorant and uneducated...He was laborious in trifles, and a trifler where serious labour was required; devout in his sentiments, and yet too often profane in his language...
In short, he was a fool. Yet he was also wise.
That made him a much rarer bird than the foolish brainboxâthe egg-head who, as a child, takes every prize for scholastic achievement but cannot be trusted to tie his shoelaces, or cross a road, let alone take charge of anything. Such people are indubitably clever. They are the ones who, later on in life, may work out in their heads every kind of intellectual puzzle and show off every arcane piece of knowledge. They may shine at mental long division and be able to expatiate upon the workings of machines or the writings of scholars. But of judgmentâeveryday, practical judgment of men and human affairsâthey have none.
It is not difficult to think of such people in public life. Bertrand Russell was certainly one, a brilliant philosopher who could, and did, advocate the pre-emptive bombing of the Soviet Union in the 1940s to prevent it acquiring atomic weapons. Enoch Powell, a British politician, was another. He had been a formidable scholar of ancient Greek, yet advocated immigration policies that were downright foolish, as well as nasty.
In politics, at least, intellect alone is never enough. Machiavelli argued that the ability to recognise cleverness in others may be as important to a ruler as to be clever himself. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, was getting at something similar when he spoke, admiringly, of Franklin Roosevelt as a man with âa second-class intellect, but a first-class temperamentâ. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury was certainly not being complimentary, even to his duller-witted colleagues, when he described his fellow-Tory, Iain Macleod, as âtoo clever by halfâ. He meant too liberal, but even so the barb hit a nerve. And Quinapalus, that all-purpose authority invented by Feste in Shakespeare's âTwelfth Nightâ, was offering a variation on the theme when he averred, âBetter a witty fool than a foolish wit.â
Today we are after that rarer oxymoron the wisest fool. He or she must be fundamentally an idiot, but a shrewd or cunning one. Candidates need not inhabit Christendom, but they must be alive, or have been in the past 50 years. They may come from the world of politics, or academia or businessâor perhaps the church, the stage or journalism. Or somewhere else on the Titanic, one of them was seen heading for the bar when everyone else was taking to the boats.
Evolution suggests that the man or woman we seek, though unusual, is more common than you may suppose were it otherwise, the breed would have disappeared. Nominate your contender, explaining why he or she deserves the title.
Regards.
My Destiny is within My Hands!!!
Readers are invited to nominate the wisest fool of the past 50 years
IT IS not quite clear whether it was Henry IV of France orâmore likelyâhis chief minister, the Duc de Sully, who described James I (of England, VI of Scotland) as âthe wisest fool in Christendomâ. It is not even clear what prompted the coining of the epithet, though James (above) was certainly a mixture of opposites of every kind. In the words of Sir Walter Scott,
He was deeply learned, without possessing useful knowledge; sagacious in many individual cases, without having real wisdom...He was fond of his dignity, while he was perpetually degrading it by undue familiarity; capable of much public labour, yet often neglecting it for the meanest amusement; a wit, though a pedant; and a scholar, though fond of the conversation of the ignorant and uneducated...He was laborious in trifles, and a trifler where serious labour was required; devout in his sentiments, and yet too often profane in his language...
In short, he was a fool. Yet he was also wise.
That made him a much rarer bird than the foolish brainboxâthe egg-head who, as a child, takes every prize for scholastic achievement but cannot be trusted to tie his shoelaces, or cross a road, let alone take charge of anything. Such people are indubitably clever. They are the ones who, later on in life, may work out in their heads every kind of intellectual puzzle and show off every arcane piece of knowledge. They may shine at mental long division and be able to expatiate upon the workings of machines or the writings of scholars. But of judgmentâeveryday, practical judgment of men and human affairsâthey have none.
It is not difficult to think of such people in public life. Bertrand Russell was certainly one, a brilliant philosopher who could, and did, advocate the pre-emptive bombing of the Soviet Union in the 1940s to prevent it acquiring atomic weapons. Enoch Powell, a British politician, was another. He had been a formidable scholar of ancient Greek, yet advocated immigration policies that were downright foolish, as well as nasty.
In politics, at least, intellect alone is never enough. Machiavelli argued that the ability to recognise cleverness in others may be as important to a ruler as to be clever himself. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, was getting at something similar when he spoke, admiringly, of Franklin Roosevelt as a man with âa second-class intellect, but a first-class temperamentâ. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury was certainly not being complimentary, even to his duller-witted colleagues, when he described his fellow-Tory, Iain Macleod, as âtoo clever by halfâ. He meant too liberal, but even so the barb hit a nerve. And Quinapalus, that all-purpose authority invented by Feste in Shakespeare's âTwelfth Nightâ, was offering a variation on the theme when he averred, âBetter a witty fool than a foolish wit.â
Today we are after that rarer oxymoron the wisest fool. He or she must be fundamentally an idiot, but a shrewd or cunning one. Candidates need not inhabit Christendom, but they must be alive, or have been in the past 50 years. They may come from the world of politics, or academia or businessâor perhaps the church, the stage or journalism. Or somewhere else on the Titanic, one of them was seen heading for the bar when everyone else was taking to the boats.
Evolution suggests that the man or woman we seek, though unusual, is more common than you may suppose were it otherwise, the breed would have disappeared. Nominate your contender, explaining why he or she deserves the title.
Regards.
My Destiny is within My Hands!!!