In the selections we read by Martines, he sets up Humanism as a movement designed for the upper, ruling classes, rather than a social movement of the masses. Honestly, I don't know a lot about Humanism, or its history, but Martines' argument made perfect sense to me. Humanism was an intellectual movement, focusing on education in classical histories and literature, including classical practices of rhetoric and ethics. Martines discusses how a humanist education revolved around Latin and becoming versed in the ways of classical literature and poetry. The ideal humanist education would have lasted until about the age of seventeen, an unusually late age for someone of any class to finish an education and begin working at the time (192). I cannot actually say whether Martines' depiction of Humanism is correct or not. I'm sure, as of any social or intellectual movement, there are many sides and forms to Humanism throughout its development and it is difficult to pin down the movement into a single category. However, Martines does seem to give the core essence of Humanism as an understanding of classical knowledge and rhetoric (192-3), a reflection of ones own experience through a classical lens (195), and the use of these tools to pursue eloquence in every aspect of life (201). Judging from these basic elements, Humanism would have to be a movement of the ruling class. At most any time in history, the lower, middle, or working classes would rarely, if ever, have the time or leisure to pursue such an undertaking. As Martines state most families sons, even among the wealthier upper class, went to work by the age of thirteen (193). Thus, it would be only the fortunate few of the elite ruling class that would have the leisure avaliable to them to pursue such an intellectual movement as Humanism. So I must find myself in agreement with Martines, and say that, even at its most basic elements, Humanism is a philosophy designed to cater to an elite ruling class.
All of this is quite well and good, but I have found myself wondering, often throughout this reading, what does all this mean for us? I'm not quite sure. Of course Humanism was a necessary step in the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance and then on the path to the Enlightenment. Humanism was an easy guide out of the social collapses at the end of the Antiquity periods that led into the "dark" ages of the Medieval period. Humanism provided a new focus on education and intellectualism (even if it was targeting a small portion of the ruling elite), that was not quite as extreme as the secular intellectualism of the Enlightenment, while still placing a greater value on education that previously seen in the Medieval period. I feel as though Humanism could have a stronger resonance that just simply as a means catalyst to the Renaissance. I was particularly struck by the phrase "humanists looked to history for what it could tell them about their own experience. Theirs was a demand for relevance (195)." I may be stretching my High Renaissance relevance in the end of this post, but from this aforementioned quote I find myself wondering if we could use a little essence of Humanism in our own lives today? The idea of assessing the values of your own experience by looking to history and the past is, while not new, an idea I hold deeply to heart. "They made a constant point of associating the lessons of history with practical politics and government (195)." The entire passage on the humanist view of history seemed strikingly relevant. In a current world that could fall quickly into turmoil, it seems that a lesson from Humanism may not be a bad idea by reflecting on ourselves in the context of our history and seeing what we could learn.
