Layla QuinonesSSH104.7761Professor T. CooganJanuary 8, 2008

Homework 1- Primary Document Review Questions

Document 1 (page 7)

1. What do historians mean by the term “Renaissance humanism”?

When historians speak of Renaissance humanism, they are referring to the most

predominant characteristic movement of the time period that valued ancient Greek and Roman

literature, styles, ideologies and their insights into human nature. This movement not only valued

the Greco-Roman intellect, but also emphasized the hatred and separation from the medieval

theology. More specifically, the key principle of Renaissance humanism was to educate people,

politicians and future politicians based on classical Greco-Roman literature which emphasizes

communication skills, literacy, history, and the application knowledge to promote productive and

active lives. In doing so, the Greco-Roman values would be held in high regard by the

government thereby reducing corruption and increasing education of the secular outlook on life

and the universe. Lastly, it was the humanist vision at that time to achieve through education, a

level of eloquence and intellect that would lead them to virtuousness.

2. What made Petrarch aware that a renaissance, or rebirth, of classical learning was necessary in

his time?

Petrarch recognized that at the time before the Renaissance, Greek and Roman antiquity

was regarded as inessential and inferior to the medieval way of life. In addition, he also realized

that the politicians and their methods of governance were problematic and in need for change.

Furthermore, the learning of Greco-Roman ideologies about government, the individual, and way

his of life was a method to educate people who can thereafter rescue the nation from the

“inglorious age” (Petrarch) and open the doors to a new glorious era.

3. Why did Leonardo Bruni abandon his earlier course of studies to pursue the study of Greek

literature?

Leonardo Bruni was studying civil law during the Medieval times which had some

principal taken from Roman law. However, when Chrysoloras the Byzantine arrived in Florence

with the knowledge of Greek literature that no one else possessed, Bruni could not hold back and

miss his chance to learn something regarded as an “advantage to…knowledge, enhancement of

…fame, [and]increase in…pleasure” (6). As a result, he abandoned his course of studies in civil

law to study Greek literature in order to achieve his maximum potential in education, literacy,

history and eventually his life.

4. What subjects made up the basic course of studies advocated by Bruni?

The subjects that were most emphasized by Bruni in a basic course of studies include

Latin, history, the great orators of antiquity, and poetry. In essence, these subjects promote the

achievement of a full, ready, varied, and elegant education that would be available for action in

life.

Document 2 (page 9)

1. According to Pico della Mirandola, what quality did humans alone possess? What did its

possession allow them to do?

According to Pico della Mirandola, humans solely possess the power of free will which

allows us shape our lives in form and value. Furthermore, through free will we possess the skill

to question our existence and, to ponder the purpose and origin of the universe.

2. How does Pico’s view point to the emergence of the modern outlook?

Pico’s opinion on free will reflects the modern way of thinking because free will allows

for human beings to be aware of what they do, how they feel, and what they think. This,

therefore, justifies the modern outlook that human beings, not God, have the responsibility and

power to shape their own lives.

Document 3 (page 13)

1. In what ways was Niccolo Machiavelli’s advice to princes a break from the teachings of

medieval political and moral philosophers?

Niccolo Machiavelli’s advice to the princes broke away from the medieval ideas in very

extreme ways. Essentially, his advice was centered on the idea that rulers should not consider

moral or ethical values when ruling their nations. He felt that in order for a ruler to maintain and

preserve his state’s power, he must ignore good, evil, religion, morality and immorality.

Machiavelli’s viewpoint was extreme as compared to the Christian-centered approach which was

used to govern the states at the time. Instead of having a theological approach to keep peace and

prosperity, Machievelli asserts that a ruler must take into consideration human nature so as to

adjust his strategies according to the presented situation. In addition, instead of a ruler obtaining

his power from God, Machiavelli concludes that a ruler must strategically adjust his actions and

reactions accordingly, while disregarding morality, in order to preserve and strengthen his state.

2. How does Machiavelli’s image of human nature compare with that of Pico della Mirandola?

Machiavelli’s and Mirandola’s image of human nature are very similar. Machievelli

believes that it is in human nature to, at times, be either good or evil. Mirandola felt that it is

human nature to have free will and, therefore, have a choice to shape one’s life. Although

seemingly different, the opinions of these scholars are derived from the same concept that human

beings have the ability to choose and take responsiblility for their actions as well as reactions.

Therefore, according to both men, human beings have the potential to be good and evil.

3. Would Machiavelli’s political advice help or hurt a politician in a modern democratic society?

I strongly believe that Machiavelli’s political advice, which may hold true in certain

aspects, would hurt a politician in a modern democratic society. Although politicians should rule

strategically by adjusting their attitudes accordingly, Machiavelli’s assertion of “the end justifies

the means” (13) would work well in a democratic society. This is due to the fact that in a

democratic society, procedures and counterchecks are taken to ensure that a decision is for the

betterment of the majority which would prevent corruptive happenings within the government..

Although there are many opinions of right, wrong, moral and immoral, the result of any action,

good or evil, may not justify the means of doing it. Rather, the means should justify whether an

action is acceptable or not.

Document 4 (page 17)

1. Why did Martin Luther see the papacy as the crucial block to any meaningful reform of the

church?

Martin Luther viewed the papacy as a crucial block in reforming the church because it

made the pope the epitome of authority. Therefore, if the pope did something that was unjust,

there was no higher authority than he to rectify his decisions. Luther mentions three walls that

block the reform of the church which all end in the authority of the pope. In the case of the

Medieval papacy, the pope was corrupt; controlling and deceiving the people by fear of God in

order to succeed in their own greed and power.

2. How did Luther’s teaching undermine the power of the clergy and traditional forms of piety?

Luther’s teachings undermined the power of the clergy and traditional forms of piety due

to the his fundamental belief that faith, not work, would bring salvation to a Christian person. In

asserting this belief, Luther undermined the control of the clergy whereas they defined faith

according to the amount of indulgences that were given to them by the people who wished to

enter heaven in the afterlife. Finally, he also asserts that the traditional forms of piety, which is to

repent for sins by giving back to the church, are not a justification of faith according to the many

examples he gives from the bible. In conclusion, he ultimately states that the system that

Catholic Church operated on was for their benefit and by no means justified the faith of others by

taking indulgences for themselves in the name of God.