A Day in the Life of Renaissance Education, or "They liked Quintilian during the Renaissance, too!"

The Renaissance saw many changes in education from Medieval times. Not only was technology advancing (what with the Gutenberg’s printing press and all), but scientific thinking was becoming more enlightened. And even though the Church had a commanding presence over education and politics, it does not seem to be as harsh as it had been during the Medievalist period (well, except for that slaughter of protestants…). Still, because of the rise of scientific thought, intellectuals were beginning to look back at the classical works, particularly of Cicero and Quintilian, and recognizing their worth in a progressive system of learning.

What did this mean for students, then? Well, I was going to offer a “schedule” of possible events, but Murphy beat me to it! Still. I’ll do my best to differentiate myself from what he has written.

If you were a youngster in these days, say younger than seven, you would be attending a “petty” or “elementarie” school (Murphy 149) – reading, writing, singing, and just plain having fun. Sounds nice. Did they have these in Greco-Roman days? Or was this a product of the Renaissance? Murphy notes that an important emphasis was placed upon reading and writing even at this young age, and I’m wondering if this is when children would learn to trace letters (as Quintilian notes) to best understand what they are supposed to look like.

For older children, ages seven to fifteen, their days of singing and playing were replaced by the challenge of imitating prior writers. Much of the exercises that they would do mirrored what earlier rhetoricians called the progymnasmata (remember that from our midterm?). Notice especially in the schedules that Murphy offers that students were being lectured on Aesop’s Fables (imitating “fables” was one of the progymnasmata exercises), repeating prior work, and writing out the catechism in English (150).

The latter of these exercises, I believe, marks the profound difference between Renaissance and Medieval rhetoric. While Medievalists, such as Augustine and Jerome, believed that classical works were “salacious” and were a distraction from studying the Scriptures, Renaissance theorists had a more progressive outlook, and combined the study of classical rhetoric and religious teachings. This is emphasized in Murphy’s chapter when he cites that both Cicero and the Bible would be studied on the same day, much in the same way – thus showing how Renaissance education was becoming (however slowly) more tolerant.



Q. What’s missing in Renaissance rhetoric that was there in Medieval rhetoric?

Q. Murphy recalls the belief that “Cicero is first among the ancients” (158) in regards to what deserves to be imitated. But, given the fact that many of Cicero’s thoughts are derived from his Greek predecessors, do you believe that this is a legitimate honor to be bestowed upon him?