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:
Renaissance Ideals
It is very difficult for the people of this day and age to conceive the true notion of a Renaissance person, and even more seemingly impossible to aspire to become one. As we study the Renaissance we are compelled to look at the lives of many Renaissance greats such as Leonardo and Michelangelo, who have for centuries, astounded us with their great works of art and science, and every other talent that could be possessed by man. These men were indeed Renaissance persons, they displayed talents beyond anyone's imagination, and they did so in more than one realm.
This idea, that in order to be a true Renaissance person one must succeed in all areas of art, science, music, etc., is very hard to swallow. Wouldn't it be easier to explain human nature as one that is inevitably flawed in some way or another? But examples of such perfect people have existed, and probably to some extent still do exist today. However, this ideal seems very hard to achieve by today's standards. Take for example the traits of the true Renaissance person as seen by two great thinkers of the time, Castiglione, and Machiavelli.
These two Renaissance thinkers see the ideal Renaissance person as someone who excels in artistic abilities such as painting and sculpting, musical abilities, literature, and many more forms of study. One must be able to play a musical instrument with the greatest of ease, paint with the touch of God, search through the stars and the universe like Galileo, and rule with the ease of Caesar. Catiglione's "Courtier" is ideally the well-rounded person who shall succeed in knowing as much as humanly possible. By contrast, Machiavelli's "Prince" is seen in much of the same terms but shall be far more ruthless, sacrificing what his subjects think of him as a person.
To further complicate matters, yet another Renaissance great is introduced to the debate, that of Alberti. Alberti's ideas seem to be somewhat softer than that of his proceeding scholars. Alberti introduces an adjective used to describe his Renaissance person, summed up in the word virtu. This adjective encompasses all the qualities a true renaissance person should have such as skill, talent, fortitude, ingenuity, as well as having the ability to control one's destiny. These attributes seem to make matters clearer in the search for the Renaissance person inside of us all.
I feel that we can associate more with what Alberti is saying about the true Renaissance person than what Castiglione or Machiavelli is saying. It seems very difficult for one to imagine themselves as a Renaissance person by any of the above definitions, but seemingly more so for the latter of the two. Indeed, very few of us will ever be granted the chance to "rule like Caesar", or actually aspire to become the "well-rounded person" that Castiglione so wishes us to become. But it does seem possible that we all can indeed become true Renaissance persons if we truly believe that we can. I fell that the underlying meaning of the Renaissance is somewhat hidden is the ideals of the three men mentioned above. This meaning being that the Renaissance was a time in which man aspired to become the best artist, musician, scientist, etc., that HE OR SHE can possible be. It was not about how well you actually did it, but rather that you tried to learn as much about everything as you possibly could throughout your lifetime. Men and Women's minds were no longer bounded to the ideals of religion, rather they were now for the first time free to learn and express what they wanted to, and they wanted to know everything. That is what it truly meant to become a Renaissance person. I'm sure that if we all tried our best, we could all fine some hidden qualities of virtu buried inside of ourselves waiting to be unlocked, awaiting the freeing of the true renaissance mind inside us all.