Humanism

Since first being introduced to the classics as an undergraduate I have found an overwhelming fondness and appreciation for the Greek and Roman civilizations.  I regretfully say this, because I failed to read them at an earlier age. Nonetheless, I am always amazed with the knowledge and technological advancements antiquity possessed. 

My favorite playwright Euripides has often led me to question and want to understand the role of women in antiquity, not to mention his attitude toward women.  His tragic play, Medea, probably at best gives 21^st century readers a glimpse of what life must have been for women.  Aside from understanding the life of women, I find myself asking the “big questions”.  Did Euripides write Medea as a feminist supporter or a misogynist?    Did he feel sympathy for the lives women endured, or did he despise them for unknown reasons?  Why does Euripides lead us to feel sorrow for the protagonist and then transform our feelings of empathy for repudiation and condemnation when she becomes the antagonist?   In my mind, I see words and papers floating everywhere with a repetitive question; “Why?” In the end, I am fascinated and inundated with curiosity to learn more about antiquity. 

Reading Nicholas Mann’s The Origins of Humanism brought to my attention the period modern thinkers term as the “Dark Ages”.  So it seems this period wasn’t so dark after all.  Mann’s explanation on the origins of humanism describes men like Petrarch and Boccaccio incessantly searching for manuscripts and any evidence or clues that could be linked to the ancient civilizations.  Although, the medical and scientific fields did not advance for reasons of what we are familiar classic literature flourished and mostly thanks to the work of these two men.  Not only was Petrarch able to find new manuscripts, but he also managed to rectify incorrect interpretations as he did in Aeneas. 

Nicolas Mann states, “The more we learn about the period following the decline of Rome, the less dark and uncultured it appears; the more we inquire into what was reborn in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the more we become aware of vital continuities with the past.”  Mann’s statement reminds me that somehow we cannot get away from that cyclical pattern man so desperately tries to avoid, but in an optimistic sense society certainly tries to learn and improve from the past.   

Although I have much more to learn about the history of humanism, Nicolas Mann has presented an interesting account.  I know that, as many others, I am very grateful for the rediscovery of the Greek tragedies during the “Dark Ages”.      

        Hayden White criticizes in; “The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact” from Tropics of Discourse, that historiography has tried to take a more scientific approach when writing about history.  White does not overlook the importance of relating the accuracy of facts, but he argues the historian must piece together bits or large amounts of information, and in order to do this he or she must create a story.  From this point of view it would seem appropriate to believe the historian is writing a narrative, however, I disagree with White because narratives can be embellished, and facts can be easily omitted for lack of importance.                 Let’s take for example the French Revolution, although there have been many books written about the events leading to the outbreak, each interpretation has had to have a verifiable source, if not, it is not accurate history.  It is true interpretations may vary, but, as White stated, this argument relies on the point of view being written from,  in addition to tone, writing style, or language.  No one can deny the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille.  To question why this happened, the historian would ask: What did Louis XVI do to provoke the situation and how did exterior motives contribute to the fall of the monarchy?  From this point, a theory may be created.  But, how does someone get the facts in order to prove this theory, Leopold von Ranke suggested going to the archives.                 It is difficult to believe literary writers and historiographers could be considered as having similar patterns when writing.  Even though, White stresses in both types of work a story must be told.  In truth, writing history states the author has pieced all the evidence and then retells his or her findings, but only based on the evidence that has been found.  In addition, moral issues or biases can be present, however, reality suggests that in order to consider a historical work as a good piece of history, the author must show all positions without taking any sides.  In other words, if his or her main argument is suddenly brought down because of new findings then it is better to revise the work at hand or leave it entirely.  As far as literary works are viewed, this scenario would not alter or completely revise the work because when writing literature it is permissible to emboss the truth and/or place moral judgments.  It is true that we can learn from literature because it can take actual events as examples, but nonetheless the author can exaggerate, partially omit, or completely forget the truth thus creating a work of fiction rather than a historical one.  I would prefer to stick to the scientific and objective notion because history cannot be considered a narrative only on the basis that the author is recreating past events in order to reach the reader.  Historiography has to have facts and evidence in order to prove a theory.       Hayden White has made an interesting argument, but I would suggest reading the works of other authors/historians such as, John Lewis Gaddis, Richard J. Evans, David Hackett Fischer, and Mark T. Gilderhus for reasons why history should not be considered a narrative.  I am sure Mr. White has not intended to anger or offend any historians with his essay, but only to stir up a few emotions. 

Hello world!