The ideal of humanitas
The history of the term
humanism
is complex but
enlightening
. It was first employed (as
humanismus
) by 19th-century German scholars to designate the Renaissance emphasis on Classical studies in
education
. These studies were pursued and
endorsed
by educators known, as early as the late 15th century, as
umanisti
?that is, professors or students of
Classical literature
. The word
umanisti
derives from the
studia humanitatis
, a course of Classical studies that, in the early 15th century, consisted of
grammar
,
poetry
,
rhetoric
,
history
, and
moral philosophy
. The
studia humanitatis
were held to be the equivalent of the Greek
paideia
. Their name was itself based on the Roman statesman
Marcus Tullius Cicero
’s concept of
humanitas
, an educational and political ideal that was the
intellectual
basis of the entire movement. Renaissance humanism in all its forms defined itself in its straining toward this ideal. No discussion of humanism, therefore, can have validity without an understanding of
humanitas
.
Humanitas
meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word
humanity
?understanding,
benevolence
, compassion, mercy?but also such more
assertive
characteristics as
fortitude
, judgment,
prudence
, eloquence, and even love of honour. Consequently, the possessor of
humanitas
could not be merely a sedentary and isolated philosopher or man of letters but was of necessity a participant in active life. Just as action without insight was held to be aimless and barbaric, insight without action was rejected as barren and imperfect.
Humanitas
called for a fine balance of action and contemplation, a balance born not of compromise but of complementarity.
The goal of such fulfilled and balanced virtue was political, in the broadest sense of the word. The
purview
of Renaissance humanism included not only the education of the young but also the guidance of adults (including rulers) via philosophical poetry and strategic
rhetoric
. It included not only realistic social
criticism
but also
utopian
hypotheses
, not only painstaking reassessments of history but also bold reshapings of the future. In short, humanism called for the
comprehensive
reform of
culture
, the transfiguration of what humanists termed the passive and ignorant society of the “dark” ages into a new order that would reflect and encourage the grandest human potentialities. Humanism had an evangelical dimension: it sought to project
humanitas
from the individual into the state at large.
The wellspring of
humanitas
was
Classical literature
. Greek and Roman thought, available in a flood of rediscovered or newly translated manuscripts, provided humanism with much of its basic structure and method. For Renaissance humanists, there was nothing dated or outworn about the writings of
Aristotle
,
Cicero
, or
Livy
. Compared with the typical productions of
medieval
Christianity
, these pagan works had a fresh, radical, almost avant-garde tonality. Indeed, recovering the classics was to humanism tantamount to recovering reality. Classical
philosophy
, rhetoric, and history were seen as models of proper method?efforts to come to terms, systematically and without preconceptions of any kind, with perceived experience. Moreover, Classical thought considered
ethics
qua ethics, politics qua politics: it lacked the
inhibiting
dualism
occasioned in
medieval
thought by the often-conflicting demands of
secularism
and Christian spirituality. Classical virtue, in examples of which the literature abounded, was not an abstract essence but a
quality
that could be tested in the forum or on the battlefield. Finally, Classical literature was rich in eloquence. In particular, humanists considered Cicero to be the pattern of refined and
copious
discourse, as well as the model of eloquence combined with wise statesmanship. In eloquence humanists found far more than an exclusively
aesthetic
quality. As an effective means of moving leaders or fellow citizens toward one political course or another, eloquence was akin to pure power. Humanists
cultivated
rhetoric, consequently, as the medium through which all other virtues could be communicated and fulfilled.
Humanism, then, may be accurately defined as that Renaissance movement that had as its central focus the ideal of
humanitas
. The narrower definition of the Italian term
umanisti
notwithstanding, all the Renaissance writers who cultivated
humanitas
, and all their direct “descendants,” may be correctly termed humanists.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.
Subscribe Now
Other uses
It is small wonder that a term as broadly allusive as
humanism
should be subject to a wide variety of applications. Of these (excepting the historical movement described above) there are three basic types:
humanism
as Classicism, humanism as referring to the modern concept of the
humanities
, and humanism as human-centredness.
Accepting the notion that Renaissance humanism was simply a return to the Classics, some historians and philologists have reasoned that Classical revivals occurring anywhere in history should be called humanistic.
St. Augustine
,
Alcuin
, and the scholars of 12th-century Chartres have thus been referred to as humanists. In this sense the term can also be used self-consciously, as in the
New Humanism
movement in
literary criticism
led by
Irving Babbitt
and
Paul Elmer More
in the early 20th century.
The word
humanities
, which like the word
umanisti
derived from the
Latin
studia humanitatis
, is often used to designate the nonscientific scholarly disciplines:
language
, literature, rhetoric, philosophy,
art history
, and so forth. Thus, it is customary to refer to scholars in these fields as humanists and to their activities as humanistic.
Humanism
and related terms are frequently applied to modern doctrines and techniques that are based on the centrality of human experience. In the 20th century the
pragmatic
humanism of
Ferdinand C.S. Schiller
, the Christian humanism of
Jacques Maritain
, and the movement known as
secular
humanism, though differing from each other significantly in content, all showed this anthropocentric emphasis.
Not only is such a large assortment of definitions confusing, but the definitions themselves are often
redundant
or impertinent. There is no
reason
to call all Classical revivals “humanistic” when the word
Classical
suffices
. To say that professors in the many
disciplines
known as the humanities are humanists is to
compound
vagueness with vagueness, for these disciplines have long since ceased to have or even aspire to a common rationale. The definition of humanism as
anthropocentricity
or human-centredness has a firmer claim to correctness. For obvious reasons, however, it is confusing to apply this word to Classical literature.