Hi, Classmates!
This might honestly be my brain going haywire at 1:30 in the morning, but I'm working on my paper and came across some really interesting thoughts. In my paper, I will discuss the dysfunctional relationship between humanism and Protestantism in their respective approaches to learning. The Protestants did not agree with a return to classical texts (in general), and looked down on the humanist mindset that man is the measure of all things. Rather, Protestants looked to Scripture as the ultimate authority, and the pursuit of the classicism was pointless. Again, not all Protestants thought this way; bear that in mind. What struck me as interesting though was that humanist education valued the teaching of Latin as very important. My question then, was why would the Protestants take issue with that, when it could be learned by the laypeople and thus diminishing the importance of an almost omniscient Catholic priest? It seems to me that they would laud the effort to educate the people, since that is what men like William Tyndale were seeking to accomplish. Was that only because he was translating Scripture, not Cicero? These are the thoughts of someone who should probably be in bed, and should have been awhile ago. Nevertheless, I think it is an interesting question to ponder.
Happy Essay-ing!
Interesting point. I think that the classics were okay for the radical Protestants as long as they were the Bible.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my name did not show up. I wrote this one. --Kelly
ReplyDelete