Ingrid Rowland
tells a tale of Papal Curia as Roman civic economic revitalizer. A new Roma Caput Mundi, well, head of the
church anyway. Petrarchan Humanist motivation, and church money go a long way.
A rich (if not the richest) history to exploit, especially with regard to
sacred sites, both pagan and Christian. The cities ancient ruins spoke directly
to the humanists, with regard to the perfection of man, and the ancient,
historically rich culture of the Roman Empire, and the papacy drew upon the old
empire’s political structures. “Familiarity bred both contempt and veneration”,
the cities ruins feeding both the limekilns and new architecture. Huge investments
of church capitol facilitated physical and cultural construction, allowing
humanist values and practices to thrive, cemented by Pope Nicholas V, who
realized both in the Vatican library. Inevitable grandiose propaganda ensues, (in
all areas of the arts) associating the papacy and the Roman church with the
most ancient biblical traditions, and the most powerful and well-known Pontifex
Maximus of ancient Rome. A grand vision indeed that faced challenges from
without, and from the papacy of the 16th century itself, but
nevertheless continued to develop and thrive.
Loren Partridge
illuminates conflicting views of the papacy. On one hand an enlightened
theological leader, on the other a wealth-seeking impious tyrant. It seems the
Renaissance church did rely on its army and tax base, and as an institution
indulged in financial “… nepotism, alienation, simony, pluralism, (and)
absenteeism”, and sold forgiveness for a price etc. Not surprising the
appearance of Martin Luther, who saw the papacy as the Antichrist. The Popes,
also unsurprisingly viewed themselves as Christ on earth and any rationalization
follows that self-conception (power corrupts after all). The protestant
reformation viewed church practices as unnecessary, while the church drew upon
Rome, and its history to justify its mandate, and in effect the status of pope
as new emperor. Regardless of the evils of bureaucracy, the power and money of
the papacy rebuilt Rome proper during the 15th and 16th
centuries, becoming one of the largest cities (and a cultural powerhouse) in
Europe by 1600. The church did attempt to rectify some of its more glaring
inadequacies, enacted new ones, suffered attack from within and without, yet
steadily “renewed itself”. These troubles were “accommodated” by the belief of
the imminent second coming of Christ, and all of these “contradictions and
tensions” are reflected in the art of the Roman Renaissance.
Well written. Good sense of generalities; perhaps more inclusion of specifics would add interest to your various points, such as certainly specific points about a major figure like Julius ii.
ReplyDelete