Brandon Belcher  

Bruni, Leonardo. “Comparison of Dante and Petrarca.” In The Three Crowns of Florence : Humanist Assessments of Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio, edited by David Thompson and Alan F. Nagel.. New York : Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972. 81-83.  

These two short passages by the humanist Leonardo Bruni were actually written not long after the life of Petrarca.  “Comparison of Dante and Petrarca,” a biographical criticism, begins by explaining that this text is more of a contest than the title lets on.  The article then goes back and forth touching on different attributes of each man’s life and awarding “points” to each.  Dante was more active in his government and fought in the army (81).  He wrote through all the hardships of his life even after he was exiled (81).  Dante was a superior mathematician and philosopher (83).  Petrarca on the other hand could not participate in his government because he had not lived in a free city (81).  He also did not serve in the army, but according to the author this was “virtuous” (81).  Petrarca did not face the same struggles as Dante and therefore had a plusher life which supposedly “corrupts the mind more than adversities” (82).  Bruni then finishes the text saying that even though Petrarca won the “poet’s crown” the contest does not matter anyway (83).  

The actual purpose of this article does not really help my topic nearly as much as being able to distinguish what the author thought were important characteristics to winning the “contest”.  From this, I can see that the ideal person is very well rounded and never inactive.  Because the author lived in a relatively close time period, we can see their great qualities and assume that the author is not only sharing his feelings but his fellow humanists’ as well.

Bruni, Leonardo. “Life of Dante.” In The Three Crowns of Florence : Humanist Assessments of Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio, edited by David Thompson and Alan F. Nagel. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972. 57-73.  

Leonardo Bruni claims that he can write an account of the life of Dante different from Boccaccio’s “with greater notice given to more valuable things” (58).  This piece starts off just like any biography would, with where Dante was born, his family life, and where they had lived.  Bruni says that Dante did not study in seclusion like many thought (60-61).  It was too important that he was a conversationalist and public figure.  Dante wrote that he thought his wife was detracting from his studies (61).  The author disagrees at this point by saying that relationships and family are an important part of any man’s life especially because all of the great philosophers from the past had wives and families (61).  Bruni then goes back to the facts of why Dante was banished and of his life in exile.  The remainder of the article is primarily concerned with an out of place piece on the power of poetry.  Dante explains that one can become closer to God through a “level beyond human sense” and it can only be expressed through poetry (68-70).  

Much of this article is purely objective and offers no real look into Dante’s thoughts on the purpose of his life.  Bruni however injects his own opinion on situations between the facts.  His comments on the importance of family, for example, show that Bruni had a differing view of “purpose”.  He also mentions the necessity of being a public authority and taking part in the government.  After reading both “Comparison of Dante and Petrarca” and “Life of Dante”, one can build a good image of what was held as the most important characteristics of a man in this time.  These criticisms are fairly straight forward but do not elaborate much on their actual works, which is what makes them so well known.  Bruni does not really defend his position in choosing Petrarca as the better person, considering most of his points are in favor of Dante. 

Cook, William, and Ronald Herzman. “Monasticism.” In The Medieval World View: An Introduction.  New York and Oxford: Oxford  University Press, 1983. 166-178.  

This article starts off with an in-depth look into the first monasteries in the Middle Ages.  It then goes on to explain the purposes and reasons why these cells were formed.  Most of the article is primarily concerned with explaining how devote and simple a monk’s life was expected to be.  Every part of their lives was outlined by the church, ranging from the coarseness of their clothes to when they were supposed to pray (175-176).  Towards the end of the text, the authors take the stance that the early monasteries were quite different than those that would come after the Middle Ages (177).  This was the most relevant section to my research topic.  

Much literature makes reference to the monastic life, but I have never actually learned the history of the monastery.  This information will be quite helpful to me because it provides a look into what the holiest people of the church believed was the best use of their time on earth.  Before I had read this text, I held the stereotypical view of monks in which they were great scholars only concerned with learning about God to better understand Him.  The authors say that this was not initially the case.           

"Were one to ask nonmedievalists to describe a medieval monk, they would probably picture a scholar-scribe seated at his workbench preserving the texts of classical antiquity.  That would be right in part; yet neither the desert fathers nor Benedict envisioned the monk primarily as a scholar" (177).  

The difference of views between early medieval monks and Post-Renaissance monks is amazing and will make a good point of the ever changing viewpoints of the purpose of life.  The author holds the view that monasteries have changed drastically over time, and backs it up with simple historical evidence of how monks lived in the past.

Foster, Kenelm. “The Philosophy.” In Petrarch: Poet and Humanist. George Square , Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press, 1984, 141-185.  

This section of the book describes Petrarch’s view towards the world based on the events of his life.  The author makes a note in the beginning that Petrarch led a very confusing life and seems to have contradicted himself as he aged (141).  His basic beliefs remained unchanged, but his approach towards philosophy changed constantly.  The author says that the structure of “The Philosophy” is based on a chronology of events ranging from the finding of Cicero ’s letters to the death of his “beloved” Laura (142).  This may be true to some extent, but as the section progresses, it is definitely more structured around Petrarch’s works.  As he grew older, he started to think less of the classic writers because they were too preoccupied with intellectual philosophy and less concerned with the human aspects of the world (151).  Petrarch, during this phase against the purely intellectual based philosophers, began to see Aristotle as quite inferior to his contemporary Plato (150-151).  He believed that Plato’s ideas were easily transferable to the Christian world, whereas Aristotle didn’t have as large a scope.  Petrarch wrote: “Plato’s ‘sight’ was as keen as any Christian’s would ever be; he had only less ‘light’ to see by” (150).  At the height of what is now seen as the humanist movement, Petrarch had a much harder push away from intellectualism and wanted burning human emotion rather than just words and rules (152).  Finally, the author sums up the span of Petrarch’s different views by explaining Petrarch’s definition of a true philosopher.  He saw himself as taking knowledge a step further than the rest and applying his philosophical and theological ideas to the human person and morality (184).  

“The Philosophy” shows great insight into the various steps Petrarch took in exploring himself and forming his basic beliefs which we read about today.  This has a wonderful correlation with my paper because of the topics and dynamic view held by a great thinker.  However, because it is only the view of one man, it might not be acceptable to apply his thoughts to the way the general public thought and changed.  Not only was he just an individual mind, he also held a very progressive view far ahead of his time.  This makes it increasingly difficult to use his points as an understanding of the masses.  This being yet another biographical criticism, the author expresses his views through his depiction of Petrarch and what he takes as the most important parts of Petrarch’s life.

Palmieri, Matteo. “Civic Life: Dedication.” In The Three Crowns of Florence : Humanist Assessments of Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. 84-89.           

Though this piece may seem at first glance like a simple primary document from an ancient source, it actually provides an interesting criticism of the most respected men of the times.  The author, an involved statesman and follower of Medici, begins by mentioning the common quandary of what makes the perfect person (84, 89).  After much explanation of the problem, Palmieri decides that this person must be part of an organized society, a republic (84).  He believes that many of his peers may have been close to perfection had they been more proficient in Latin (85).  The authors of his time made great candidates, but many of them lacked the righteousness (85).  The works of those who had lived virtuously were translated from Latin and therefore lost much of their intention and excellence (85).  The author is left with three men: Dante, Petrarca, and Boccaccio.  Even though Dante wrote in the vernacular, he was “found but little behind the greatest Latin poets” (86).  Boccaccio did not appeal as much to him because of his preoccupation with love stories, and lack of moral stories (86).  He says the only place perfection has been achieved has been in text.  No living person has ever approached the qualities written about (87).  He then finishes the article with a request to continue his works, changing them as required by the times (89).  

When this work began with “many times have I thought over how one might best live in this mortal flesh,” I believed that I had found the core of public thought on the subject (84).  Much to my disappointment, this text, just like many others, asks far more questions than it answers.  I was, however, given a few meaningful pasages on the importance of Latin to a person’s credentials.  Though it does not necessarily provide new information, it does reaffirm many points made by the previous articles.   Palmieri spends much of the article reflecting on his own ideas and struggles in searching for the model citizen.  In this way, it is more a criticism of society than of any individual.  He leaves any argument he starts in the beginning left open ended with hopes that someone will continue his legacy.

Rand, Edward. “The Church and Pagan Culture,” In Founders of the Middle Ages. New York , New York : Harvard University Press, 1928, 3-33.  

 The author begins this article with an introduction countering the common thought that Petrarch and Boccaccio were the sole founders of humanism and the only progressive thinkers of the time (3-4).  He says that they were just the beginning.  Later humanists saw their forbearers as fools and themselves as a new wave of entirely original thought (3-4).  The author however believes that every one of these intellectuals built upon each other from pagan up to modern philosophers (5-7).  He elaborates on this concept saying that Petrarch didn’t even read the ancient Greek classics, but had read ancient Latin critics’ notes on the originals (6-7).  He makes the analogy that historians in an “effort to get back to the primitive core of Christianity” had looked at ancient Christianity and tore layers off it like an onion until eventually there wasn’t anything left (9-10).  It had all been refuted.  He says that this kind of criticism only hurts the search for answers and that historians need to build hypotheses from the information instead of just demolishing the current theories (10-12).  Shutting out the past has never worked.  The church itself forbade the reading of pagan literature (11-14).  To many philosophers and theologians this was an attack on education itself (12).  According to Professor John Bury in his “Progress” “the idea of progress is in the main a modern affair” (13).  He also claims that “modern man spends more time thinking of a society that is advancing onward and ever upward than himself as a miserable sinner” (13).  The church found it increasingly difficult to live without modern conveniences and goods and therefore was part of progress (21).  This section ends with the Church giving in to some extent.  

“The Church and Pagan Culture” presents a good picture of the constant rise of new ideas within the Church and the dependency on the past as the base upon which these ideas are formed.  The article seems to be more dedicated to modern problems of looking at the past rather than the past itself.  This makes it a little less valuable for my purposes, however still useful in most respects.  It does show the relationship that the church had with progress and more notably its refusal.