skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What makes a renaissance man? In our times, calling someone a renaissance man refers to his vast skills. My dad is a hobbyist. Every few months he'll pick up a new hobby or refine a previous one. Because of that diverse interest, he's helpful in a lot of situations and I call on him for help a lot, along with others of course. I've heard others refer to him as a renaissance man.
Leonardo da Vinci is by far considered to be the most popular example of a renaissance man, after all it's the only term that could encompass his vast skills. No other single moniker could show his true skill. Writer, painter, artist, inventor, they all leave out something that made his mark on history that much stronger.
Castiglione argued that a renaissance man must be able to entertain, telling a good story in particular. This trait tends to be forgotten in our pursuit of the modern renaissance man, but I don't think it's left out. After all, my dad has to be able to explain how to help. He has to be enjoyable to be around if people want his 'amateur' help. He does tell good stories.
It makes sense that Castiglione valued a good story. I think for similar reasons as the people around my dad, but also because entertainment was scarce. Histories were still, for the most part, shared orally. Its better to spend your time listening to someone entertaining than to have to listen to someone drone on and on about a history you know you should learn.
I agree. This world needs more renaissance men, ones who can hold our interest!
In the world of literature, it rarely matters how the material was performed or presented when it was first imagined. Of course, if it was performed multiple times over generations before being recorded, in writing most likely, then the message could have changed. Other than that fluctuation, literary scholars usually care about the writings and messages shared. As a performance scholar though, I understand the importance of presentation toward the meaning of the piece.
The way a performance takes place creates meanings of its own within the text. So in the world of the Rhapsodes, how important were the performances to their messages? The answer is that the importance resided in the motivation to perform the way they did. Since video tapes had not been invented yet, we only have written works to tell us of the Rhapsodes. That makes the performative aspects of their performances much more difficult to understand. I believe that the Rhapsodes did not perform long monologues, but most likely performed song-like chants.
These chants were easier to remember. Think back to how easily it is to remember a song you heard on the radio or a jingle on a TV commercial, those with rhythmic beats, even if the words themselves are spoken, are much easier to remember than purely spoken words. This memorable impact would also lead to involvement from the audience. The audience singing or chanting in unison would lead to common bonds and communitas. The joining in unison would lead to a cultural memory instead of individual memories creating a longer lasting impact.
This chanting leads me to believe that the Rhapsodes understood the importance of their performances. It is most likely why we are still taking about them so many centuries down the road.
