Interpretations of humanism in recent Spanish Renaissance studies.

The significant number of new editions of humanistic texts and the publication of articles and books relating to Renaissance humanism that have appeared in Spain during the last twenty years attest to a growing interest in this field. As a result of the unprecedented attention that humanism is now receiving, we are finally getting a more accurate picture of the impressive corpus of Latin writings, translations of classical works as well as of Italian humanist texts, letters, treatises, dialogues, and commentaries that were written during this period.(1) The spurious argument of whether there ever was a Spanish Renaissance (not to mention a Spanish humanism) - still obsessing the minds of many scholars only a few decades ago - has become in current studies a historical curiosity that is usually confined to a footnote, if even mentioned. In fact, studies on fifteenth- and sixteenth-century humanists or on topics related to humanism that would have seldom been undertaken a generation ago are now attracting a great deal of interest. This trend could not be more evident than in the varied investigations into different aspects of the cultural life of the fifteenth century, a century which until recently was clearly one of the least studied periods in Spanish history. There is no doubt that the catalyst for the reappraisal of this century is to be found in a few independent inquiries into the early development and diffusion of humanism; these studies were aimed at defining both the peculiar character of this movement as shaped by the national culture and its manifestation within the European context. Also contributing to this revival to a lesser extent was the concomitant effort of a number of historians who, at approximately the same time, began to extend their research into the study of political, social, and religious institutions as well as the economic organization of Castilian society. Though the cooperation of scholars from different disciplines has remained sporadic, the combined results of historians, philologists, and literary critics are uncovering the image of a society more culturally vibrant than previously thought. Not only are well-known authors and major historical figures undergoing a revaluation, but for the first time minor authors, female writers, poets, moralists, and lesser-known men of letters are being made the object of investigation. Still more important, the different approaches of recent studies are shedding new light on aspects of Spanish Renaissance culture as they focus on intellectual, literary, socio-political, and religious activity; literacy and the development of learning institutions; or the impact of print culture.

Foremost among contemporary students of Spanish humanism have been scholars of classical antiquity, the direct heirs, as it were, of Renaissance humanists. When Luis Gil Fernandez presented his paper, "El humanismo espanol del siglo XVI," during the Third National Congress of the Spanish Society of Classical Studies (1966), in many ways he was charting a new course in a field that up to that time had received at best passing attention. The novel approach with which humanism was considered in that paper became apparent the following year when it was published in the association's journal. The article in its final version had become an extensive monographic study in which the author departed from the traditional account of highlighting the merits of single humanists. Instead, Gil Fernandez focused his analysis on trying to understand the reasons behind what he believed to be the faltering evolution of the humanistic current during the Spanish Golden Age. He concluded that the fate of the movement in the sixteenth century was emblematic of the development of humanism throughout Spanish history.

The fact that humanism took hold with a very promising outlook at the end of the fifteenth century through the efforts of Nebrija and ended in disillusionment at the close of the sixteenth century with the death of Sanchez de las Brozas, persecuted by the Inquisition, moved Gil Fernandez to explore the underlying causes of the incomprehension and suspicion that surrounded most humanistic activity during this century. Rejecting on the one hand the usual patriotic compilation of long lists of humanists, aimed more at impressing the reader for the number rather than the excellence of their works, and on the other the cultural-psychological lamentations regarding the poverty of Spanish humanists condemned to mediocrity by a determining national trait, he sought to investigate not so much the merits and influence of their scholarly undertakings but the failure and frustration they continually encountered. To this end, Gil Fernandez examined all the records he could find relating to various aspects of the actual teaching of classical languages in order to determine the place of their study within the school curriculum of the time and their standing within the professional careers of Spanish society. Among other things, he examined the recurrent observations of foreign visitors and of Spaniards themselves about the tarditas and ruditas of university students in mastering their Latin, a general condition that the most responsible scholars of the time usually attributed to the ineptitude of teachers and professors. But behind the justified incompetence of many teachers, especially at the lower level of the educational system, documents also reveal the poor remuneration of Latin professors that seems to have been the norm even in the most renowned universities. Another factor that may have also contributed to this state of affairs was the enormous increase in student enrollment as documented in the exhaustive study on sixteenth-century universities by R. Kagan.(2) Since retaining or advancing one's status was the primary motivation for parents to send their offspring to institutions of higher learning, it is not surprising that the majority of students tried to go through the university with the least possible effort, to the point of moving from one university to another whenever stringent Latin requirements were imposed.

The essential lines of investigation set out in Gil Fernandez's pioneering study are later examined at length and in great detail in El panorama social del humanismo espanol, 1500-1800, a massive work that could have easily been published in at least three respectable volumes, and in a number of articles which he later collected and published under the title of Estudios de humanismo y tradicion clasica. As the title of the first book indicates, the work aims to give a historical account of humanism from the late Middle Ages to the end of the Enlightenment. But the humanism that Gil Fernandez has in mind and is most interested in exploring is not so much the early manifestation and development of this intellectual movement as we know it nor its impact on the culture of the time, but rather the actual cultivation of classical studies and, more specifically, the teaching of classical languages and literature in modern Spain. Because of this intended goal, his study represents a departure from the typical history of classical scholarship or classical tradition in western culture in vogue among European and American scholars during the first half of this century.(3) The novelty of his approach resides in his attempt to uncover those particular social and economic forces that affected the material life of the humanists in a variety of ways and directly or indirectly influenced the outcome of their revival of antiquity. Within the longue duree of the classical heritage of Spanish culture, he takes under consideration the period in which the studia humanitatis became central in the school curriculum. And since his objective is to explain the degree of success or failure of the privileged position that classical studies enjoyed over the span of three centuries (a unique opportunity in the history of Western civilization that would never be repeated), he extends his investigation to the end of the eighteenth century, when vernacular language and literature eventually displaced classical studies as the core disciplines of the new education.

Though Gil Fernandez does not deal with humanism as an intellectual current that would eventually permeate all aspects of Renaissance culture, he does share, in his own particular way, certain basic notions regarding the traditional role of the humanists and the nature of the movement. In spite of being limited to the actual teaching of the classics and the transmission of ancient erudition, his approach to humanism exceeds the scope of a narrow pedagogical interpretation. Without minimizing the significance of humanist education in the cultural life of the time, his expressed objective is to examine the social and economic reality of the professional humanists, thus providing a most valuable pragmatic dimension to the understanding of their intellectual undertakings. It should be stressed to Gil Fernandez's credit that the aspect of material conditions, though weighing heavily on a humanist's life, has been rarely taken into consideration by historians of humanism when assessing the accomplishments of these scholars and educators.

According to the data Gil Fernandez has gathered from a variety of sources, the social status of the professional humanists appears rather modest and the commensurate poor remuneration for their services, determined by an insensitive public opinion, did not improve over the course of three centuries. Gil Fernandez's findings, I suspect, are not isolated cases or particular to Spanish society; there is reason to believe that the same may hold true of humanists living in other parts of Europe.(4) What is surprising is the persistent and pervasive recurrence of this general pattern for it extended, in fact, from the grammar schools to the universities. The scholar of great renown, ultimately responsible for shaping national culture, and the humble Latin teacher alike operated under this system.

Gil Fernandez's strategy of assessing humanism from a social and economic standpoint allows him to illuminate other facets and institutions of Spanish society from early modern times to the eighteenth century. A corollary to his reconstruction of the humanists' world is the wealth of information he provides on literacy, schooling, patronage, private tutorship, methods of teaching, publishing patterns, social mobility, and career advancement. He also clarifies the marginal position into which humanists fell when submitted to repressive measures by the Inquisition or other socio-political censures.

Unconcerned with the causes that contributed to the early developments of humanism in Spain, Gil Fernandez dwells instead on the place of Latin in the school curriculum of the late Middle Ages and on the social and intellectual role of the Latin teacher, finding in this early period clear antecedents to later developments. Similarly indifferent to establishing an approximate date for the spread of humanism in the fifteenth century, he assumes, as the dates 1500 to 1800 in the title of his work indicate, that humanism in Spain began around the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. Such an assumption is consistent with his pedagogical interpretation of the movement, for it is at this time that a new Latin grammar, better suited to the needs of a humanistic education, is introduced in the schools and Greek is taught for the first time. But judging from his study, it is not just a more accurate use of ancient languages that marks the beginning of humanism. Classical philology facilitated the comprehensive study of ancient literary works, supplied the tools for the critical reconstruction of the surviving texts, and provided more satisfactory interpretations of ancient writings in light of a more accurate knowledge of their cultural context.

Although Gil Fernandez's sociological approach to humanism is understandably limited and does not fully explain the dynamics - much less the complexity - of the movement, his massive investigation into the material life of its exponents corroborates specific professional shortcomings that characterized Spanish humanists in general. The ample but selective evidence provided in his analysis offers both an explanation and justification of generations of humanists who were caught in a constant, heroic struggle to overcome all sorts of difficulties in their academic and daily lives. Low salaries that could barely cover the basic necessities of life were utterly inadequate to meet the unexpected contingencies that often threatened the well-being of their families.

According to Gil Fernandez, the plight that afflicted Renaissance humanists also had troubled their predecessors, the teachers of grammar during the late Middle Ages. In fact, despite the centrality of this discipline in the curriculum of the medieval school, the grammarian was socially and economically marginalized. Unlike the teachers of medicine and law, the most lucrative disciplines of the time, those who taught Latin received less than half the salary, a proportion that with the passing of time tended to be reduced to a third and even to one fourth. As late as the fifteenth century, there were cases in which married teachers who wished to live in housing provided by the school had to be separated from their spouses for most of the year. Occasionally teachers of Latin were even called upon to double as tax collectors. Academically despised, socially humiliated, and poorly compensated, the grammarians' situation was further aggravated by the inability to procure the most essential tools for teaching; hence the inefficiency of their pedagogical methods. Because an academic career in this field precluded social advancement, the nobility and rich townspeople did not encourage their sons to pursue this type of study. It is no wonder that a significant number of medieval literary works in Spain, as well as in other parts of Europe, were written by authors trained in jurisprudence.

Gil Fernandez offers a convincing new argument in his attempt to refute the traditional explanation that attributed the poor state of Latin teaching in Spain during the Middle Ages solely to the isolation ensuing from the aftermath of the Arab invasion. Complaints about the inability of students and even some professors to speak Latin in fifteenth-century universities can be explained in part by centuries of economic and social abuses that generations of grammarians had to endure. In addition to the persistent indigence affecting secular Latin teachers, the clergy suffered from a lack of economic incentives that would have been available to them had it not been for the 'external imperialism' which dominated the Spanish Church. Documents show that foreign appointees (mostly French) were frequently assigned to important ecclesiastical sees and other more remunerative posts, especially during the fourteenth century when the papal curia resided in Avignon. But given the supranational nature of the church organization and religious orders, it seems unclear to what extent such an 'imperialism' might have affected the academic preparation of the clergy.

The adverse conditions that Spanish humanists had to overcome in order to introduce new methods and materials in their teaching may explain the contrasting attitudes of early men of letters such as Alfonso de Cartagena toward the limited academic role of the grammarians and, later in the century, of Antonio de Nebrija's virulent attacks against university Latin professors and their outmoded medieval texts. In Nebrija's case, his acrimony in denouncing the general ignorance that allegedly prevailed among those professors toward the end of the fifteenth century takes on added meanings when seen from the social and economic point of view. The contemptuous display of his belligerent personality that characterized the quarrel with his colleagues is not only meant to redefine the fundamental place of Latin in the new organization of learning but also to vindicate the central role of the grammarian among the academic professions as well as justify a commensurate reward for his labor.

At about the same time, a similar revision involving the function of the grammaticus was also being undertaken by Poliziano, who, motivated by totally different reasons, had arrived at the same conclusion. It is curious to note the converging intent of these two humanists who were working independently and probably unaware of one another's scholarly activity. If Nebrija was led to expand the role of the grammarian as a direct result of his experience in writing a much needed new Latin grammar, Poliziano's motivation derived from his pioneering work in restoring the language of classical texts to their original condition - hence Poliziano's need to endow the grammaticus with a wide range of faculties pertaining to the philologist and the critic.(5)

These two activities, the search for a better method to teach the type of Latin used by the most authoritative authors of ancient Rome (essential for providing the foundation for a more accurate interpretation of their writings) and the critical study of their works (aimed at restoring the original text and thus their meaning within their own culture), dominated humanist learning in sixteenth-century Spain. But while the analytical and even the historical aspect of the language met with a fair degree of success in the uninterrupted line of speculation running from Nebrija to Sanchez de las Brozas, the pursuit of classical philology was often met with disapproval and never gained widespread acceptance.

The reasons for such a disparity in the treatment of these two approaches are discussed at length by Gil Fernandez. Regarding the advances made in pedagogical methodology and in linguistic theory, there is no doubt that the significant increase in the number of students attending the university provided an unprecedented opportunity for the direct application of grammatical innovations. On the other hand, certain activities of the classical philologist, specifically those related to the emendation of biblical or other religious texts, were looked upon with distrust and in many cases persecuted by an ever vigilant Inquisition. In fact, it is not uncommon to find among the more traditional sectors of the clergy that heresy was in some ways associated with the teaching of Latin.

Paradoxically, a more comprehensive understanding of Latin helped to promote among the learned the status of the vernacular, a competitive language against which Latin had always had to contend since the late Middle Ages. With more books being published in the vernacular, a significant rise in literacy, and a growing national literature, it was only a matter of time before Latin grammar, which had traditionally been written and taught solely in Latin, began to take the vernacular into account in order to facilitate, for pragmatic and methodological reasons, the learning process. The increasing intrusion of Castilian in manuals of Latin grammar is a phenomenon that would eventually effect other disciplines of the university. A case in point was the proposal of Sancho de Moncada in the early decades of the seventeenth century advocating the creation of a department of political sciences, in which theology would be banned and all secular matter would be taught in Castilian. This in turn would provide an appropriate education for the sons of the ruling class who were expected to be entrusted with governmental affairs and public administration.

To the logical expansion of the vernacular in all fields of intellectual and artistic life corresponded a shrinkage of classical studies as they were relegated more and more exclusively to the study of ancient thought and literature. This development was perceived by some humanists as another sign of Spaniards' apathy toward Latin and fed their extravagant explanations justifying their aversion to Latin. These ranged from Juan de Valdes who believed that only Italians could master and express themselves in Latin; to astrological and medical explanations; to the somatic nature of the world where the present, being old and tired, could not produce authors as in classical times; to sociological and political arguments that attributed the general inability to speak Latin to role models within the university as well as political spheres. The number of humanists criticizing the ignorance of teachers and students of classical studies remained constant throughout the centuries in question. One wonders at what point these incessant lamentations may have simply become a topos; there is reason to suspect that from as early as the fifteenth century the often decried backwardness in Latin language and literature might not have been as bad as these critics painted it.

Despite the complaints and academic shortcomings lamented by the humanists, the new culture they fostered and the teaching reforms they introduced at all levels of schooling attracted an unprecedented number of students to the study of the humanities. By the seventeenth century, the influx of young people to schools of intermediate and high level as well as to the universities had become considerable. The number of grammarians also grew as their services spread to towns and small cities across the country. Serious humanists like Pedro de Valencia went so far as to attribute the economic decline of the nation to this social phenomenon. Aware of the predominant role that agriculture played in the society of the time, he was not alone in believing that schools were draining the much-needed labor force from such a basic productive activity. They feared that the expansion of educational opportunity to sectors of society that had hitherto been excluded or had traditionally been given limited access would further diminish certain labor-intensive activities, be they agricultural or artisan, that were considered vital to the economic well-being of the state. Even though the principal objective of students from the lower ranks was social mobility, achieving their goal only added to an already large number of graduates without gainful occupation.

Despite these warnings, the lure of a career that would better one's social rank and economic condition, regardless of the uncertainty of the outcome, continued to drive a considerable number of students to educational institutions at all levels, including the university. According to R. Kagan's calculation, the percentage of students attending the universities in Spain (in terms of population) was among the highest in Europe.(6) The proliferation of universities to accommodate the rising demand - more than thirty at the end of the sixteenth century - supports the reliability of available statistical data examined by Kagan.

By the first quarter of the seventeenth century, concern for young educated people deserting productive occupations and fear of possible social unrest from their unemployed ranks brought about the first measures to suppress grammar schools in small and medium-sized towns.(7) These precautions, however, did not solve the problem that evidently persisted to the end of the eighteenth century. Jovellanos, in fact, who at that time proposed a new public educational system, recommended the study of the humanities to a few select students. After three hundred years, the educational program first introduced by early humanists was undergoing a radical change since it was no longer deemed adequate to serve the needs of a more advanced society. And while influential thinkers were setting new goals for the students of primary education - providing them with moral, political, and above all practical preparation - they also called for a restructuring of the disciplines that made up the core of the humanities in institutions of higher learning.(8) As a result of these proposals, the area of study comprising the original studia humanitatis was further expanded and revised in response to the growing awareness of a national literary culture. Besides Latin and Greek, the new curriculum was to include Castilian language and literature together with orthography, prosody, rhetoric, chronology, history, dialectics, ethics, and criticism.

Although it would be impossible to comment on the variety of issues and supporting documentary evidence that Gil Fernandez has assembled regarding the historical development of humanism and its representatives, I should mention his exhaustive examination of the image of the humanist. Indeed, two of the five parts constituting his book are dedicated to a discussion of such an image as viewed by the general public, learned men from other disciplines, and the humanists themselves, and how these different perceptions contrasted with the reality of the humanists' actual life. A major accomplishment of Gil Fernandez's study is having arrived at a new, more accurate representation of the humanist both in his modest private life and in his role as catalyst of learning and ideas.

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY CENTER, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

1 Among the many editions of fifteenth-century writings that have been published in recent years, the complete publication of the extant correspondence between Alfonso de Cartagena and Pier Candido Decernbrio by Pilar Saquero Suarez-Somonte and Tomas Gonzalez Rolan will be of interest to scholars of Renaissance studies. Their critical edition of letters relating to Decembrio's translation of Plato's Republic complements and slightly improves James Hankins's partial edition of the exchange (2:577ff).

2 See Kagan.

3 Gil Fernandez's work derives from the historiographical current that was chiefly interested in the classical heritage in western culture. It began with Sandys and continued through several decades of this century. See, among others, G. Highet (Spanish translation by A. Alatorre) and R.R. Bolgar. In spite of his affinity with this tradition, Gil Fernandez's analysis and findings were more in tune with the new interpretations of humanism being advanced at the time of his investigation by Baron, Kristeller, and Garin, of whose works he was apparently not aware.

4 This seems to be the case in Florence, Bologna, and Venice as well, where, according to Grendler, 23-29, grammarians' salaries were the lowest on university rolls. For the social and economic condition of Renaissance humanists, see De Caprio, 1981 and 1983; and Costa and La Brasca.

5 As Poliziano indicates in the Lamia, the grammarian's expertise is not just confined to teaching Latin but extends to commenting on and explaining many other disciplines, including philosophic and scientific matters: "Grammaticorum enim sunt haec partes, ut omne sciptorum genus, poetas, historicos, oratores, philosophos, medicos, iuriconsultos, excutiant atque enarrant. Nostra aetas, parum perita rerum veterum, nimis brevi gyro grammaticum sepsit: at apud antiquos olim tantum auctoritate hi ordo habuit ut censores essent et iudices scriptorum omnium soli grammatici, quos ob id etiam criticos vocabant" (Poliziano, 220). F. Rico's lengthy analysis of Nebrija as well as his later work on European humanism merit a treatment apart and will not be discussed in this essay for reasons of space.

6 Kagan, 200.

7 The same decree by philip IV also prohibited the teaching of Latin in particular institution and colleges that did not have a revenue of 300 ducats. Only city that were capitals of province or the seat of certain political powers were allowed to retain grammar school (Gil Fernandez, 1981, 350-51).

8 Quoting from Campomanes, Gil Fernandez, 1981, 173, indicates that the aim of primary school teaching is to foster "respect and veneration toward one's parents and older people; toward representatives and sacred practices of religion; toward the king, his laws and magistrates; love toward the state and basic principles of good moral and civility" [my translation].

Bibliography

Bolgar, R.R. The Classical Heritage and Its Beneficiaries: From the Carolingian Age to the End of the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1954. Reprint New York, 1964.

Campomanes, Pedro Rodriguez. Discurso critico-politico sobre d estado de la literatura de Espana y los medios de mejorar las Universidades y Estudios del Reyno. Ed. J.E. Garcia Melero. Madrid, 1947. Costa, Silvia Fabrizio and Frank La Brasca. "Le Professeur d'humanit's dans les universites de Bologne et de Florence a la fin du Xve siecle: images et conscience d'une fonction." In Culture et professions en Italie: fin Xve-debut XVIIe siecles, ed. Adelin Charles Fiorato, 11-42. Paris, 1989.

De Caprio, Vincenzo. "Intelletuali e mercato del lavoro nella Roma medicea." Studi Romani 29.1 (1981): 29-46.

-----. "Collocazione sociale dei letterati." In Letteratura italiana II: Produzione e consumo, ed. Alberto Asor Rosa, 299-361. Turin, 1983.

Grendler, Paul F. Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300-1600. Baltimore, 1989.

Hankins, James. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. 2 vols. Leiden, 1990.

Higher, Gilbert. The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman Influence on Western Literature. Oxford, 1949. Translated by Antonio Alatorre as La tradicion clasica. 2 vols. Buenos Aries, 1954.

Gil Fernandez, Luis. "El humanismo espanol del siglo XVI." Estudios Clasicos 51 (1967): 211-97.

-----. Panorama social del humanismo espanol (1500-1800) Madrid, 1981.

-----. Estudios de humanismo y tradicion clasica. Madrid, 1984.

Kagan, Richard. Students and Society in Early Modern Spain. Baltimore, 1974.

Poliziano, Angelo. Le Selve e la Strega. Ed. I. del Lungo. Florence, 1925.

Rico, Francisco. Nebrija frente a los barbaros. El canon de gramaticos nefastos en la polemica del humanismo. Salamanca, 1978.

-----. El sueno del humanismo. De Petrarca a Erasmo. Madrid, 1993.

Sandys, J.E. History of Classical Scholarship. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1903-08.

Saquero Suarez-Somonte, Pilar and Tomas Gonzalez Rolan. "Actitudes renacentistas en Castilla durante el siglo XV: la correspondencia entre Alfonso de Cartagena y Pier Candido Decembrio." Cuadernos de Filologia Clasica: Estudios latinos 1 (1991): 195-232.