One could perhaps say that the resolution of this difficulty is practiced rather than formulated. By necessity. I mean that the silence of madness is not said, cannot be said in the logos of this book, but is indirectly, metaphorically, made present by its pathos—taking this word in its best sense. A new and radical praise of folly whose intentions cannot be admitted because the praise [éloge] of silence always takes place within logos, 7 the language of objectification. “To speak well of madness” would be to annex it once more, especially when, as is the case here, “speaking well of” is also the wisdom and happiness of eloquent speech