Humanities & Classics 1002
|
|
Renaissance Forum
Humanities & Classics 1002 |
    |
|
In Reply to: PLEASE POST YOUR SECOND REQUIRED POSTING AS FOLLOWUPS TO THIS POST posted by Tom Bacig on January 13, 1999 at 21:59:54:
The ideal Renaissance person(Rp) is, in my estimation, impossible to conceive, except on paper. That is to say that I believe no one inreality could possess all the traits necessary. It is human nature to be flawed in some aspect of life. To strive towards certain aspects of a Rp would be okay.
Castiglione (1478-1529) and Machiavelli (1469-1527) see the ideal Rp as the cream of the aristocracy--A mans man, a ladies man, and even a man of all seasons. He must be literate, artistic, militeristic, and individualistic. So, he understands Plato and Aristotle, paints like Leonardo and Michelangelo, commands like Philip and Alexander and rules like Caeser and Romulus. The Courtier is the "well rounded person" who shall persevere by knowing as much as possible. The Prince is to be the same except much, much more ruthless and uncompromising. He feels that if his subjects love him that's great. And if they don't, well, that's okay too. The Prince is authoritarian in his overall rule.
In a somewhat contrast to the above, Alberti (1404-1474), who preceeded both Castiglione and Machivelli, has a less harsh view of his ideal Rp. His is taken from Pico's Oration, picking up on the free will illusion that Pico describes as inherent to man. Alberti furthers this by asserting that an individual needs to possess virtu (Italian for qualities such as "skill, talent, fortitude, ingenuity, and the ability to control [your] destiny"), ultimately this is describing the "selfconfid[ence]" a Rp needs in order to achieve "worldly success." He says that this is possible through education, which was picked up on later by Castiglione and Machiavelli in their respective works. Where I find flaw with Alberti is in his preoccupation with aquiring wealth as a measure of purpose. Also, there is a need to please God, things to do and to do, in becoming an ideal Rp.
I think Alberti and Castiglione both start with good intentions and ideas about what an ideal Rp should be; get an education, use your abilities to better yourself, become powerful, however, I also believe that these men were speaking from their elevated stations in life. They are writing guides for the aristocratic class of their time. Thus, their ideal Rp can only come from the upper echelons of society, which is one legacy of the Renaissance seen today: 1% of the population controling the other 99%, the rich have the opportunities to become a Rp, because of their wealth and station, at the expense of those below them. This is a legacy I could do without.
As for Machiavelli, his longevity surprises me, although I guess it shouldn't. Just by looking at the society we live in where a "Survival of the Fittest" and "Elite-est" mentality quashes the "unfit" and rewards the quasher. Perhaps for it's time The Prince and its message meant something, however, I can't help but wonder if he (Machiavelli) didn't write The Prince ina vain effeort to regain favor with the Medici court once thay had regained power.
As for women of the time things haven't changed much. Castiglione says they can learn the same as men but when it comes to using it..., well, like every good female, she should be seen rather than heard!
In the end the differences between these three are small. All see themselves as the elite, the ones with the opportunities to great, and therefore the ones to lead. He who is all Knowing, all Powerful, and all Rich will, rule the roost.