One of my favorite Yiddish plays begins with a quote from a
Jewish mystic, "From highest height to deepest depth below, why
has the soul fallen? The fall itself contains the
resurrection."
What's this mean? Well, it's typical mystic stuff, profound sounding, but not altogether clear. Just like some lectures you've heard, no doubt. But the general suggestion here is that, out of the most horrible circumstances, out of the worst of misfortunes, something truly glorious might arise. This, it seems to me is, is the case with what we call the Renaissance. A series of horrible disasters had hit Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries, and in some ways it must have felt like the world was falling apart. Europe had been shaken economically, politically, socially, and spiritually--and this forced people to reexamine their lives, reexamine their ways of doing things, reexamine their basic assumptions about life to see if they could come up with something better. And in many ways, they did: something so much better, that historians the period really does merit the name Renaissance, "rebirth." European society is "born-again" during this period, and when it's over the Medieval world is left behind and the modern age has begun.
The Renaissance, by the way, is in some ways more of a world-view
than a specific time period. The Renaissance spirit emerges
around 1300 in Italy, and gradually spreads to the rest of
Europe. Rough dates for the Renaissance era are
1350-1600. Note that much of this is the same period that,
in other contexts, we call the late Middle Ages (1300-1500).
There is also a considerable overlap with the Reformation
(1517-1648). Note how well we historians arrange things just
to confuse our students!
There are lots of important examples of Renaissance achievement,
and many of you are familiar with at least some of them
already. For instance, you have all studied Shakespeare--a
particular good example of the Renaissance when it finally gets to
England. Here are some additional examples.
RENAISSANCE LITERATURE
European society in the High Middle Ages had already produced
some very fine literary works. Renaissance literature even
more impressive.
One of the first great Renaissance writers is Giovanni Boccaccio
(1313-1375). [You can find
lots of information on Boccaccio here.]
Boccaccio wrote of a famous collection of stories called the
Decameron. The Decameron was written as the Black Death hits
Italy: Boccaccio own native city of Florence was particularly hard
hit, losing perhaps 75% of its population as a result of the
plague. The Decameron tells story of 10 young people who,
having fled plague-infested area, tell each other stories to pass
the time. In class, I give several examples of Boccaccio
stories.
1. The Doctor's Daughter (Gilleta and Count Beltrano, i.e., Bertram).
[You can find the story here, I hope!]
2. Federigo's Falcon.
[You can find the story here, I hope!]
3. Abraham and John (no Martin in this version....)
[You can find the
story here,
I hope!]
The stories are entertaining certainly--but something more than
that as well. First of all, note the basic messages of these
stories. Character is more important than birth.
Character is more important than money. The last--maybe
harder to draw a specific moral, but note the friendship between
Jew and Christian: important in view of the increasing tension
between the two groups as a result of the Black Death.
Perhaps there's a suggestion here too that character is more
important than ethnicity.
In addition to the individual stories, there's a larger theme in the Decameron. Most of the stories have to do with the relationships between men and women. There are stories of true love and stories of faithlessness, stories where love overcomes all obstacles, and stories where true lovers are forever separated, stories of model marriages, and stories of marriages like Bill Clinton's. And when you've finished the book, you understand much better the nature of the relationship between men and women. Is there anything more important to understand? Well, maybe: but not very much.
What's important also is that, when your read the Decameron, you see that *you* have all sorts of choices as to the kind of romantic relationship you're going to have: and this is a typical Renaissance view: (humanism: discover of man and his potential--we can be what we chose to be: see this over and over again). What makes Boccaccio so effective is showing us our variety of choices is that he presents to us people that are so much like ourselves. (Not Roland's or Lancelot's, but the kind of people one finds in everyday life--and particularly, the kind of women one finds in everyday life. Boccaccio pays more attention to women than almost any previous writer.)
Another important Renaissance writer is Giovanni Pico Della
Mirandola (1463-1494). Pico wrote work called "Oration on
the Dignity of Man," a work which represents quite well the
Renaissance spirit. The Oration is a particular great
example of Renaissance humanism, "the discovery of man and his
potential."
[See Pico's Oration
of
the
Dignity
of Man]
Pico views mankind as the highest of all God's creation: nothing more wonderful than man, he says (echo of Sophocles' Antigone). What is it that gives man his greatness? His ability to chose what he will be (notice, again, this typical Renaissance attitude, an attitude that clearly leads in to the modern world view). We can be:
Like plants (simply passive, taking whatever comes our
ways)
Like animals (run by our senses)
Like angels (run by our minds)
But there's something higher: we can also get in tune with something within us, the divine voice--be led by God's spirit. And if we do, we achieve unity with God: something not even the angels can do.
Pico, then, typical of the Renaissance in his optimistic view of man's potential. Also typical in the wide range of his interests. We talk of Renaissance man as man whose interested in all sorts of things. Certainly true of Pico: Zoroaster, Osirus, Timaeus, Moslem philosopher, Homer, Heraclitus: he'd do really well on the ID portion of a World Civ I test. (Wonder how he'd handle an ID term on himself...) Medieval thinkers also had a wide range of interests: but Renaissance even wider (classical texts, Greek and Latin--and eager to go beyond classical texts, looking to Egypt, Moslem world, and, eventually, to a whole new world: Renaissance spirit, thirst for knowledge that sets stage for Columbus, great age of exploration and discovery). Miranda's line in Tempest: ("Oh, Brave New World that has such creatures in it...") expresses well the excitement of Renaissance figures at all the discoveries there were to be made.
And speaking of new worlds, we now come to a man who discovered a Brave New World right withing his own mind: Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).
As you gathered from your reading (well, I don't assign this anymore, so maybe you haven't read it), Machiavelli begins to write during a very troubled time in Italian history. Italians constantly at war among themselves: leaders of different city states hire mercenary armies to try and expand control, but none of them able to dominate others. Internal strife led to foreign conquest: French invading Italy, pillaging, sacking towns, etc. Machiavelli: can we do something better? Can we govern ourselves better? Indeed we can...well, maybe not. I said "govern ourselves," and of course that implies something like Republican govt. Machiavelli seems to prefer a Republic, but he doesn't seem to think that's a realistic possibility. The best option: a strong ruler, a Prince, who really knows what he's doing.
This is what leads to the book you were to read for today (well, my students used to have to read it!), the Prince. The Prince is Machiavelli's advice to Lorenzo the Magnificent, one of the Medici rulers of Florence. Much of the advice seems like nothing more than good common sense. For instance, Machiavelli gives some excellent reasons for not relying on mercenary armies. But there is something else going on here, a radical break with traditional values, and you see that break in the sections I asked you to concentrate on for today.
The traditional view, well elaborated in Middle Ages, clear distinctions between right and wrong. A man should display certain virtues. He should be generous, unselfish, trustworthy, truthful, chaste, religious, and compassionate. He should avoid greed, selfishness, dishonesty, lust, and cruelty. The traditional view was that, if the virtues mentioned above were important characteristics in the average man, they were even more important in rulers.
Machiavelli says: wait a minute. In a ruler, you might very well want the opposite qualities of those considered virtues. Greed might be a good thing. Cruelty might be a good thing. It might even be part of what Machiavelli calls virtue. Notice old Roman word here: but it means something different in Machiavelli. For Machiavelli, virtue=power, the ability to win and to secure one's position in power.
This is a radical change in all sorts of ways.
For instance, Machiavelli asks a famous question: should a ruler prefer being loved or being feared? It's best to be both, but if you can only have one or the other, choose to be feared.Now you don't want to be hated: someone will put a knife in your back. But it's easy enough not to be hated. Don't touch men's wives, and don't touch their property, and you'll be all right.
And since you'd sort of like to be loved as well as feared, it's perfectly alright to convey the impression that you have qualities you don't really possess. It might be useful to appear religious, even if you're not. It might be useful to appear chaste, even if you're not. It might be useful to appear to be honest, even if you're not. In other words, it's perfectly OK for a ruler to be a complete hypocrite: as long as hypocrisy keeps them in power.
Humanism, man and his potential, has become something dangerous here. Not only can we be whatever we want, but we determine for ourselves what our values are: what we regard as virtues and vices. We're not bound by any higher law: we can do whatever works. Machiavelli is called the father of modern politics, and that's exactly right: This is the spirit that leads to the French Revolution, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...and of course, on a smaller scale to figures like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
But the Renaissance spirit did not always, or even usually, lead
in such a direction. In fact, quite often it led to a deeper
reverence for a higher law, and other important Renaissance
figures insisted that our society ought to be transformed, not on
the basis of our own ideas, but on the basis of that higher
law. This is true in particularly true for some of the great
Renaissance religious leaders
RENAISSANCE RELIGIOUS LEADERS [Oh,
yes--I talked about these men fore in connection with the Late
Middle Ages. Oh, well. They belong here too.]
One important religious leader of this period is John Wyclif
(1320-1384)
Wyclif was a very popular theology professor at Oxford University. Part of his popularity stemmed from his ability to refute "nominalism," a skeptical sort of philosophy that dominated much 14th century theology. The nominalists believed in a sharp distinction between faith and reason, thinking that men like Anselm and Aquinas were on the wrong track: reason was of no use at all in confirming the truths of Christian faith. Wyclif tried to show that reason and faith did in fact go hand in hand. He wrote a "Summa" sort of like that of Aquinas, but a work which pays special attention to refuting the nominalists.
Wyclif's influence went well beyond the academic world. He translated the Bible from Jerome's Vulgate into English, and, for the first time, English-speaking Christians had the Bible in their own language.
Wyclif's study of the Bible led him to question some of the
beliefs of his contemporaries. He questioned the idea of
transubstantiation, and also the idea of papal supremacy. He
also challenged the privileges of the nobles: the Bible, he
argued, taught equality, not special privileges based on birth.
Naturally enough, there were many powerful people unhappy with
Wyclif, and he had to defend himself against charges of
heresy. But Wyclif defended himself successfully: after all,
he knew the Bible much better than those who accused him!
Not so lucky, a man deeply influence by Wyclif, John Huss.
As a professor at the University of Prague (in the
present-day Czech Republic, what at the time was called Bohemia),
Huss was looking for ways to refute nominalism. In his
search, he came across Wyclif's Summa. He was impressed--and
began to read Wyclif's other works as well. Huss' teachings
spread quickly throughout Bohemia, much to the concern of some of
the Catholic hierarchy.
Catholic officials at the time were trying to do everything they could to restore unity to the church. A great council at Constance in 1415 at last put an end to the Great Papal Schism. But the officials at Constance wanted to do more. Hus' teachings were a potential problem as well, they thought, and so Hus was summoned to appear. They promised him a safe-conduct, and so (reluctantly) Hus made his way to Constance. Hus presented his ideas, and the assembled church officials were outraged. Heresy! And the logical thing to do to heretics is to burn them. But what of the promise of safe conduct? Well, promises to heretics don't count, and Hus was burned at the stake. The church officials weren't done, though. The real trouble-maker, they said, was Wycliffe. He's the real heretic. And the logical thing to do to heretics is to burn them. The problem was, Wycliffe had already been dead for thirty years. That didn't stop them. They sent to England, had Wycliffe's remains dug up, and then burned them.
This, of course, was not going to stop the calls for
reform. Later in the 15th century, a man named Savonarola
(1452-1498) was a particularly strong voice for change.
Savonarola was a brilliant young student of philosophy. His
studies eventually led him to the Summa Theologica of Thomas
Aquinas, and, like so many people before and since, Savanola fell
in love with Aquinas' philosophy and determined to live his life
by it. Aquinas had been a Domican, and Savonarola likewise
joined that order. This left him free to travel and preach,
and that's what he did, eventually basing himself in Florence, the
home of so many of the great Renaissance figures. Savonarola
began preaching a series of sermons on the Book of
Revelation. He was a powerful preacher. Pico della
Mirandola said his voice alone was enough to make you
tremble. But while people were listening to Savonarola, they
weren't changing their lives. Nevertheless, Savonarola was
stirring up trouble by denouncing the way in which the wealthy
merchants of Florence (including the powerful Medici family) were
exploiting the poor and less privileged. Wealthy and
powerful people don't like hearing themselves denounced, and
Lorenzo de Medici tried to silence Savonarola--first through
bribery, then by threats.
Savonarola responded by stepping up his criticisms--and also
predicting God's judgment, not just on Lorenzo, but on the current
pope and the current king of France. All three, said
Savonarola, would die within the year. And, sure enough,
that's what happened.
Savonarola was now regarded as something of a prophet. His
prediction of an impending scourge from the north sent by God to
punish the Florentines for their sins seemed about to be fulfilled
as well. The new French king invaded Italy, destroying
Milan, and heading toward Florence. The Florentines in a
panic turned to Savonarola who basically told them to get busy
repenting while he dealt with the French king. The French
did turn aside, and now Savonarola was so popular with the
Florentines that they were willing to put his teachings into
practice.
Enthusiastic young people went throughout Florence gathering up
luxury items and anything that might be offensive to God.
These were gathered up and throne into bonfires (the original
bonfire of the vanities). Savonarola also restored
republican government to Florence, ending the rule of the merchant
princes. The new government eliminated cruel tortures and
passed laws protecting the poor and weak from exploitation.
Success? For a time. But Savonarola had predicted he would preach for eight years and then die a martyrs death. He called this one two. Throughout his preaching, Savonarola had condemned corruption in the church as lying at the root of all other societal ills. He preached especially strongly against Alexander VI, the current pope. Alexander, one of the Borgia popes, was one of the most unworthy men ever to sit on the throne of St. Peter. He had at least five illegitimate children and a whole series of mistresses. He favored his illegitimate son Cesare Borgia. The whole Borgia family was as corrupt and immoral as one can imagine.
[You really want to know how bad? See
this account of the Banquet
of the Chestnuts. Also, it might amuse you to watch this Horrible
Histories Borgia Family Song. Roderigo Borgia in this song
took the name Alexander when he became Pope...Alexander VI!]
Naturally, Savonarola thundered against such a corrupt
pope. The pope responded with excommunication, and then by
conniving with the displaced merchant princes of Florence to do
away with Savonarola. The fickle Florentine mob turned on
their one-time favorite, seizing Savonarola, torturing him,
hanging him upside down, and then finally burning his body and
scattering the ashes in the river.
A tragic thing that the papacy, once a major force for reform,
had gotten to the point where it is silencing the voice to
reformers like Savonarola.
[More on WYCLIFF, HUS, and Savonarola]
Strangely, Alexander VI is often treated more generously in the
history books than he deserves, probably because he was a great
patron of the arts. And he certainly did provide funds for
some of the greatest Renaissance artists including figures like
Raphael.
This brings us to another great area of Renaissance achievement,
contributions to the visual arts. Renaissance art is
impressive for its rediscovery of the art of perspective, it's
three-dimensional sculpture, and it's innovations in artistic
technique. But, for this class, I want you to focus on the
themes each artist presents. See the links, and my brief
summaries of what talk about in class in read:
[I stress in class the fact that, in
paintings like his Adoration of the Magi, Botticelli, Botticelli
gives the magi the features of his contemporaries (probably his
Medici patrons). This makes the scene come alive: we're
still adoring the holy child. In his Birth of Venus,
Botticelli transforms Venus, usually a symbol of erotic love, to
a symbol of agape, divine love. We are inspired to love
beauty and love nature so that we love the God who created the
beauty of the world. Does it work? I think so...but
Botticelli may have been uncertain. He returned to more
traditionally religious painting with his annunciation.
The theme is still divine love, but it's expressed differently.]
[I stress in class the inspiration I find
in Raphael's depiction of St. George. I also talk about
his many Madonnas, and that Mary, rather then the exalted queen
of heaven, is depicted as a woman more like the women we meet in
real life. I think it's a reminder that one of the most
important things anyone could do was to bear and raise
children. Mary changed the world (and knew she was
changing the world). I also stress in class his "School of
Athens," noting the way it combines a love of the past with an
optimism about the future. The figures in the painting are
figures from the ancient world, but they have the features of
Raphael's contemporaries Aristotle and Plato have the
features of Michelangelo and Da Vinci!]
[I stress in class his David and his use of
this image to support the Florentine Republic. I also talk
about the psychology of his Sistine chapel work, particularly
his depiction of the flood and of the day of judgement. I
also talk briefly about his work on St. Peter's.]
[I never seem to get to Da Vinci in any
detail. See the material at the link.]