WWWBoard/LT
Renaissance Forum  
Humanities & Classics 1002  
  Re: Commentary 1: Medieval and Renaissance views of Humanity

[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

[ FOLLOWUPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

Posted by Jennifer Warrick on December 14, 1998 at 16:38:26:

In Reply to: PLEASE POST YOU FIRST REQUIRED POSTING AS A REPLY TO THIS posted by TOM BACIG on December 13, 1998 at 19:30:06:

The Medieval views of humanity contrasted greatly with the ideas that characterized the Renaissance. These contrasting views can be explored and uncovered by comparing Thomas a Kempis's "Imitation of Christ" and Pico della Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man." Both of these are works from the 1400's, 1440 and 1485 respectively. Parallels and examples of the views in these writings can also be found in the movie "The Name of the Rose."

Thomas a Kempis creates in his writing the image of the ideal man being humble and meek. His writing encorporates the view that man is to serve God, live a simple life, rid himself of earthly possessions and continuously lower himself. Kempis repeatedly speaks of turning oneself inward to Christ. He implies that you are never truely at home and you will always be searching, unless you are inwardly one with Christ. Furthermore, this view tells how you should never put your trust in "mortal and frail" man. The main idea of this field of thought is that man is to humble himself in all things and live his life for the ultimate goal of Christ dwelling within. Once Christ dwells within you he becomes everything you need. Therefore, mans relationships toward one another is to be honest, but rather unimportant in the meaning of life. The meaning of life is to create the ultimate relationship with God in which he may dwell inside of you. This view of humankind is portrayed in the movie, "The Name of the Rose," through the monks at the monastery. The general lifestyle and beliefs of the monks, excluding those shown to be "corrupt," follow the ideas of looking inward and rejecting all outside possessions and pleasures. The monks basically have no possessions besides the clothing on their backs. In addition, they are not allowed pleasures of the flesh, although some stray from this rule, nor are they allowed even the simple pleasure of laughter. The monks humble themselves with their simple unattractive clothing, simple lifestyle, void of entertainment and simple surroundings, void of any extravegeant commodities. They are quick to punish and point out others mistakes and are rather harsh at times in their treatment of eachother. There seems to be no real value of friendship and loyalty is often questioned. The monks daily routine includes much prayer and inward searching in order for each man to reach the ultimate goal of having God dwell within. A character who presents a strong example of this school of thought in the movie is Jorge, the blind monk. He is seen in the beginning laying in front of a statue in the church praying. His convictions about this school of thought rules his life and all of his actions. Jorge so strongly believes that laughter is evil and man should be utterly devoted to God, that he poisons a book which he views as a threat to these beliefs. These views smothered the creative and curious minds of people of this time. It took awa joy, laughter and love which I believe are the building blocks of happiness and fullfillment in life. People's motivation to succeed and explore was warped into a humbling and unpleasant quest to have God dwell within. In my opinion, having God dwell within involves opening you heart to laughter, love and joy. Only through these things will you find peace and experience the true meaning of life.

In contrast to the harsh and unyielding views of medieval life described in Imitation of Christ, Pico della Mirandola presents a more free and enjoyable description of humankind and the ultimate meaning of life. Man is presented in a favorable light. Mirandola describes man as the intimate of God, only a little lower than angels. Man is portrayed as the center of the world, the ruler of all other beings that God has put on the earth. Man is Gods final and most excellent creation, brought into the world to enjoy, appreciate, interpret and experience everything God put on the earth and created. In comparison to Thomas a Kempis's views in the "Imitation of Christ," Mirandola paints a strikingly different and much more complimentary image of man. Man is not seen as meek and humble, but rather strong and influential. His place in life is not to lower himself and live without laughter, enjoyment and love, but to explore and celebrate the gifts God has created and set before him. In Mirandola's writing, the ultimate meaning of life seems to be to live with and for God, but to do it through the beauty and splendor that he put on the earth. Gods other creations aren't meant to be ignored and brushed aside, but used and appreciated. I believe Christain Slater struggled in the movie to smother feelings that correlate with this view point and at times he slips and human nature takes over. For example, when he makes love to the peasant girl he is appreciating the beauty of God's creation and experiences pleasure and joy, as God intended while disrespecting the views of the monastery. Overall, this view puts forth the general idea, that it is through acknowledging his worth and importance in the world that man finds his spiritual guidance and support. I also tend to hold the view that by not letting ourselves feel, appreciate and experience all the good God has put on the earth, we are cheating ourselves of life itself in the most basic of ways.

The meaning of life and mans place and role in the grand scheme of this thing we call the world have been questions raised since time began. There are views on this issue spanning every corner of the spectrum. Yet it is within ourselves where we will find the answers. Everyone must explore and discover for themselves why God has put them on the earth.



Follow Ups:



POST FOLLOWUP

NAME:
E-MAIL:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:

LINK URL:
LINK TITLE:
IMAGE URL:


[ HOME] [ POST ] [ SEARCH ] [ HELP ]

[ FOLLOW UPS ] [ POST FOLLOWUP ]

 

v 1.1
is made possbile
by:
Original WWWBoard design and code by Matt Wright.  See the original at Matt's Script Acrhive. WWWBoard v2.0a © 1998 Matt Wright. WWWBoard/LT Upgrade by Lion Templin of Leonine Computational Resources
© 1998 Lion Templin.
Tom Bacig, University of Minnesota, Duluth. 
© 1998 Tom Bacig.