AGRICOLA Father of Humanism

By an interesring literary convention, the intellectual paternity of German humanism has come to
be ascribed to Rudolf Agricola, a chaste bachelor who would have been most amazed to behold
his numerous and disparate cultural progeny. Of course, in history a movement as broad and
complex as Renaissance humanism rarely, if ever, is absolutely dependent on one man even in a
single stage of development and diffusion. But in this case there is a special justification for this
pleasant aphorism, since the humanists themselves believed in Agricola's unique position as a
kind of cul-tural hero, a symbol of their own hopes and aspirations. "It was Rudolf Agricola," wrote
Erasmus, "who first brought with him from Italy some gleam of a better literature." He meant for
Germany what Budé was to France. Indeed, ventured the cautious prince of the humanists,
"Agricola could have been the first in Italy, had he not preferred Germany." 2 Melanchthon agreed
that he was the first who undertook "to improve the style of speech in Germany" and the other
humanists joined in the chorus of ac-claim.3 Even the proud Italians, men like Ermolao Barbaro,
Pietro Bembo, and Guicciardini paid him special tribute. He was at the time of his death the
foremost humanist north of the Alps, a man whose thought world meras exploration. Agricola's
power lay in his personality, not in his pen, for he wrote little and aside from a poem or two he
published nothing duríng bis lifetime. He belonged tu the generation which exhausted its cncrgies
ín acquisition and transmission rather than in the crea-tion of new knowledge. But he had a first-
rato temperament and that was the key to hís ínfluence in the limited company of humanists
which emphasized individual versatility and capacity for friendship. He was an artist at living and
a genial dilettante who could conduct himself with ease in the Italian court society of the day. An
able, though not outstanding, athlete, artist, musician, con-versationalist and linguist, he was the
North's modest candidate for uorno universale e singolare. Agrícola belonged to the tradition of
literary humanism from Petrarch, through Salutati, Bruni, and Aeneas Silvius, a tradition which
was given a critical scholarly direction by Valla. It is un-canny, in fact, how many sympathies and
antipathies Agricola shared with Petrarch, patriarch of hallan humanism. Both loved their
fatherlands, but loved as well to travel. Both were forced to study law, but turned to the politiores
litterae. Desire for personal freedom and independence kept Petrarch from the chancellery of
Avignon and prevented Agrícola from serving the Burgundian court or a far worse fate, teaching
school.° Self-conscious elitism and disdain for the masses coupled with unabashed flattery of the
patron prince were superficial conceits which Agricola acquired from Petrarch and the Italian
humanists.5 Petrarch sought solitude for meditation and self-realization. Agricola was anxious to
retain his quiet for studies.° To that end both remained single for, as Agricola explained to
Reuchlin, his kind of life prevented mar-riage.7 Both in their last years determined to study
Sacred Scrip-tures with all diligence. There were differences, for Agricola was less self-centered
and more capable of true friendship, and never indulged in invectives. On the other hand, in
terms of literary pro-duction he remained the poor man's Petrarch. Perhaps it was an intuitive
association, a subconscious sense of aflinity to a like mind, which drew Agricola to Petrarch. In
Italy, at any rate, he composed a life of Petrarch to honor the "father and restorer of good arts." 8
He based his biography factually upon a Life of Petrarch, published in Italian in a second edition
of the Rime Sparse (Rome, 1471), which in turn was a condensation of the Vita written in Italian
in the middle of the imattrocento by caber Fiero Candido Decembrio or Francesco Filelfo.
Agricola's treatise, more than twice the Iength of his Italian model, showed a deeper appreciation
of Petrarch's spirit, lauded precisely those characteristics which they had in common, and
displayed a respectable mastery of the language. He took the Epistola ad Posteros at face value
and painted a pretty picture of his soulmate. "We are in-debted to Petrarch," he intoned, "for the
intellectual culture of our century. AH ages owed hin-1 a debt of gratitude — antiquity for having
rescued its treasure from oblivion, and modern times for having with his own strength founded
and revrved culture, which he has left as a precious legacy to furure ages." Such personal verve
and humanist enthusiasm were truly a sep-tentrional phenomenon. In fact, for over a century after
Petrarch's death in 1374, not a single biography of Petrarch carne from the pen of a non-Italian
author. Compared with his contemporaries, flighty poets like Peter Luder, half-humanist
scholastics like Con-rad Summenhart, or half-hterary jurists hice Gregor Heimburg, Agrícola
possessed both substance and energy which were truly rernarkable.• His spirit was unequaled in
Germany and revealed in miniature those northern and southern influences which were shap-ing
the minds of a new generation. Agricola was born under cold northern skies on February 17,
1444, in Baflo, near Groningen in Frisia." His father was a parish pastor, not an ordained priest, at
Groningen for many years. He was elected abbot of the monastery at nearby Zelwaer, and ruled
this Benedictine house for thirty-six years. Agricola's first educa-don was in Groningen at the St.
Martin's school under the influ-ence of the Brethren of the Common Life." As a bright boy of
twelve, perhaps íntended for the priesthood, he set out for "many-towered Erfurt" where he is
sard to have earned his bachelor's degree withín three years." He rumed next to the University of
Louvain, where in addition to scholastic philosophy he learned French, studied mathematics,
practiced organ, and, most significant of all, developed an interest in classical líterature and carne
to realize the importance of Greek letters. He was awarded the Master's degree there, perhaps in
1465." In May 1462, he had matriculated in the arts college of Cologne and may have returned to
Cologne after Louvain for the study of theology for which he maintained an interest his whole life,
although he reacted negatívely to the inept logical and metaphysical dogmas there propounded."
Then, to the discomfiture of his biographers, Agrícola drops out of sight, to reappear in Italy in
1469. It is possible that in the intervening years he studied in Paris under the realist Heynlin de
Stein, but there is no real evidence for assuming that he did. The Renaissance was in full flower
when Agricola carne to Italy. He was quite overwhelmed by it all and stayed ten years, longer
than any other leading German humanist. These were de-cisive years for his development from
bis mid-twenties to mid-thirties, interrupted only twice, in 1470-71 and 1474, for visits to his
homeland. Italy offered him the very milieu which he desired mtellectual stimulation without heavy
dudes, learning combined wíth pleasure, art, and companionship. To a pnest of St. Manin's in
Groningen who carne to see him in Pavía his first winter there he exclaimed• "Does it not seem
glorious to you to see Italy, once the ruler of the nations, the home of such excellent, such famous
and earnest men?" 15 At the University of Pavia which enjoyed the largesse of the Sforzas,
Agricola was ostensibly studying law. But he had early developed an avtd interest in those
masters of elo-quence Cicero and Quintilian and in time gained a reputation him-self as an orator,
regularly delivering the inaugural lectures for new rectors of the University, a fact especially
remarkable as Melanchthon observed, for even Erasmus refused to speak publicly in Italy out of
fear of hallan derision." It was in Pavia in 1473 or perhaps 1474 that he wrote his Vita Petrarehae.
As his interest m the humanities mounted he moved on to Fer-rara, "the very home of all the
Muses," as he wrote in 1475, the year of his arrival. There he supported himself as the organist in
the ducal chapel of the house of d'Este and drank deeply from the fountain of antiquity. Theodore
Gaza's memory still lived on. Battista Guarino, son of the famous educator Guarino da Verona,
continued the tradition of his father, combining interest in Greek and prole style with a passion for
morality. Ludovico Carbone was Agricola's actual mentor in Greek and Titus Strozzi in poesy,
neither men of much stature. Perhaps a better faculty might have stitnulated Agricola to greater
things. He delivered one note-worthy oration In lauden': philosophiae et reliquarum artium orado,
but for the most part his energies went into mere translation of minor selections from Greek to
Latin. He began a major work, De inventione dialectica, which he did not complete until his return
to Germany.

A longing for borne drew him northward again in 1479, but he found, like Dürer, that he "frozc
alter the sun." From Groningen he lamented to Alexander Hegius that he was losing bis capacity
for thought and for ornamented style. His spirit would not re-spond." Nevertheless, he remained
for three years, frequently visiting the monastery of Adwerd whose abbot, Heinrich von Rees,
there assetnbled the lowland friends of Christian humanism. Oftcn he talked with deeply religious
Johann Wessel until late finto the night. He represented Groningen at the court of Maximilian in
Brussels for half a year in 1482. An Italian education for a norther-ner in the quattrocento meant
as much as a European degree in America in the nineteenth century. He was sought after by his
home tocan, by Annverp for the reform of the Latin School, and by the Burgundian court. Agricola
shied away from the discipline and routine of regular employment. He wrote to his friend J. Bar-
birianus, "To cake over a school is a bitter, difficult, joyless affair, viewed merely from the outside,
a very hard and sad thing: for 1 must chink of blows, rears and howling, a perpetual prison life . . I
should cake over a school? Where would I find the time for progress in learning? Where would be
the quiet and the cheerful frame of mirad for my own research and thought?" la Finally Elector
Philipp of the Palatinate won his services, largely by promising him absolute freedom. At
Ifeídelberg, he spent the last three years of his life study-ing, participating in disputations, and
lecturing unofficially when ir pleased him on logic, physics, astronomy, Aristotle's De Animal-ibus,
a novelty, Pliny, but especially on eloquence, Latin, and Greek literature.1° But even chis freedom
seemed too great a bur-den.2° He was about to find relief. The Elector sent a delegation ro Rome
headed by Bishop Johannes von Dalberg to congratulare Innocent VIII upon his election to the
papacy. Agricola accom-panied them and wrote the oration which Dalberg delivered in July 1485,
before the pope and the College of Cardinals. On the return rrip Agricola became ill with an acure
fever and died at Heidelberg on October 27 in the Bishop's arms. He commended his soul to God
and his body was bid to rest with the Franciscana. A master theme gave unity to chis restless and
seemingly unin-tegrated life: the desire for a renewal of learning in Germany and thereby of
religious thought and life. " I have the brightest hope," he exclaimed, "that we shall one day wrest
from haughty Italy the reputation for classícal expression which it has nearly monopolized, w to
speak, and lay claim to it ourselves, and free ourselves from the reproach of ignorance and being
called unlearned and inarticu-late barbarians; and that our Germany wíll be so cultured and
literate that Latium itself will not know Latín any better." 21 By Latín, Agricola meant not just the
language itself, but an idealistic reconstruction of selected cultural values from the resources of
antiquity which could be exploited in remedying educacional deficiencies and filling the spiritual
reservoirs which had became so dry. Like Johann Wessel, Agricola was a severe critic of late
scholasticism as a blight on refined culture and genuine religious thought. Petrarch had been
opposed to scholasticism to a large extent because its arid abstractions covered over the real
heart of Chris-tianity. In the case of Averroism its ratiocinations had even led to very heretical
positions. For Petrarch the struggle for closeness to life and a personal reformation of culture led
to a new in-wardness of religious feeling. This malaise against scholasticism became a constant
ingredient of literary humanism, though not always with the acerbity of a Valla. It reappeared in
Agricola who privately attacked the "rude, barbarous, stinking filth of the schools in our native
land." 22 The nature of his criticism con-formed perfectly to the familiar pattern. "As to theology,"
he queried, "what is it that it is truly necessary to say? These days, if you were to take away from
it metaphysics, physics, and dialectic, you would render it bare and destitute and unable to
preserve its own narre. Therefore, since the people must be taught and ex-horted to religion,
justice, and continence, some inextricable dis-putation is drawn out from these arts which
prolongs the time and strikes the ean of the hearers with a foolish din. They teach. as the boys
are accustomed, to propose in an enigma, what they then in-deed may not know themselves,
either those who teach or those who have learned. I have often heard these complaints from
most weightv and most learned men." " It was not by mere chance that in ciring the authors of
great theological classics, he failed to men-don a single scholastic.24 Melanchthon related that
Agricola struck at the false pride of the scholastics. but he appreciated the utility of the sumws,
while comparing eriticallv thc similariries And differ_ entes of recent writers with those of the
ancient chtirch.25 This „as a shrcwd insisztu, for Agrieolt like the preponderint number of
Renaissance lutnianists lliá not dissetu from the Christian con_ tent of scholastic philosopbv, but
reaeted against the method, the stvlelnd the by-producís of their combination. Agrieola was him-
self a moderare realist, in line with the tacit assumptions of the Brethren of the Common Life and
bis l'hoinist academie condi_ tioning. A few notes on the problem of universals were incorpor-ared
by his editor into the first book of his major work. But there can be no thought of bis humanism
growing out of an association with the vi/ snstiqua. At che end of his discussion of universals, in
fact. Aericola emphasized in words reminiscent of a passage in Cusanus' Idiota. thar he was not
interested in the defense of authorities and school traditions, but in establishing an independent
cruch.26Though there was no major clash of principies between the humanists and scholastics,
the rumbling of Agrícola against the schoolmen grew ro a deafening roar as youngcr men toolc up
the refrain. The reform which Agrícola envisioned and for which he worked in a haphazard
fashion was to take place on two levels, inrellectual and religious, not mutuallv exclusive.
Characteristi-cally. ín view of his habit of nonpublication, his ideas on intellec-cual or educacional
reform are best known from a letter advising his Antwerp friend. Jacob Barbirianus, as to what
kind of studies he should choose and the merhod by which he could achieve the best results from
the subjects chosen. This letter, later oftcn published under the ticle De Formando Studio, 1484
belonged to a genre of pedagogical writing with a long and respectable ancestry in antiq-uity and
in Italian humanism, much as Silvius' Adhorratio ad =dia.'!" But it, in turn, as thc first in Germany,
could claini a long fine of descendants and served itself as a sketchy surnmary of hu-manisc
pedagogical theories. In this work Agrícola employs the formula philosophia Christi for his
doctrine which sought to médi-ate between antique wisdom and Christian faith. Agrícola begins
with an attack on "the loquacious pursuits clatteríng with inane noises which we now cornmonly
call the arts and spend the day in perplexing and obscure disputations or even (to put in more
truly) in enigmas which for so many centurias have round no Oediptis who could solve them for
which none will cver be iound”. The n oblest study is true philosophy which em-braces nvo inajor
parts. The first is moral philosophy providing wisdom for a right and well-ordered way of life.28 "I'
his wisdom is not to be gained only from professional philosophers as eAristotle, Cicero, and
Seneca. but also from the historians, poets, and rhetori-cians who distinguish good and evil and,
what is more effective, present examples of each as in a mirror. Abox e all others, the 1 loly
Scriptures are the most dependable guide in life. The second di-vision of philosophy is a
knowledge of the nature of things. If the old search for the essence of things is not really
necessary, it can add luster to the spirit. It is most important, howeyer, to make things theniseb,
es one's possession. This natural philosophy em-braces the lay of the lands, seas, mountains,
and rivers, the peculiar-ities of the peoples, their custorns, borders, their nature, and their
empires, the powers of trees and herbs, which Theophrastus and Aristotle explored. It is
necessary to disregard all that one has learned and turn to the classic authors, especially those
whose knowledge of rhetoric enabled them to put the best light on worth-while things. It is
necessary for the student to master rhetoric in turn, an essential condition of the utility- of truth.
The skill of the rhetorician, if combined with training in Logic and knowledge in a given field,
enables one to handle al-most any problem presented, like the masters of style, the sophists of
ancient Greece, Gorgias, Prodicus, Protagoras, and Hippias. The most striking features of
Agricola's treatise are the limita-tions he sets to speculative knowledge, the new value ascribed to
example rather than precept as depicted by historian, poet, and rhetorician, the emphasis on
eloquence and form, and the recogni-tion of Roman orators and the sophists as the exemplars of
philoso-phy in this new key. In all this, however, Agricola is merely echo-mg beyond the Alps the
precepts of his honored teacher, Battista Guarino, summarized in his De ordine docendi ac
studendi (Ver-ona, 459)." Only his special stress on cognitio rerum is not to be found there in
equal force. But Leonardo Bruni in his De studiis a literis had explained that true human erudition
derives from the knowledge of Letters (peritia litteratum) and the knowledge of things (scientia
rerum). By the knowledge of Letters, Bruni meant abol% all a knowledge of classical texts, the
philosophers, Pocts, rhetoricims, and historians. By a knowledge of things he meant the
cxperience of another world revealed by thc /vine Word and a deeper understanding of the realit∎
surrounding atan. The mem of Agricola's dependence on these basic tliemes of Italian humanism
seems obvious. Aartcola's own contriburion to dialectic took thc forro of an introductorv manual,
primarilv for reachers in the arrs course, De litventiime Dialeetica, in which he sought ro
demonstrate the true function of logic as an element basic to rhetoric thrOUgh Strileht thinkimr
and effectix e stvle produces conviction. In seven-reera-centurv Fngland the work would have
been called 4 Ite compleat °rotor" rather than an "introduction ro logic." 3" Te express purpose of
bis work, Agricola explains in ternes similar ro Vallo's in his Dialecticae drsputationes, is to help
those to achieve rhe necessan- rhetorical skills who govern rhe republic in atfairs of the stare. as
peace and \V ir, those who prtsidc tn courrs of jus-ticie, accuse or defend, and those who teach
thc people righteous-ncss, reliaion. and pietv.31 This was the main dialectical work of the German
humanisN, eliciring praise from Erasmus and his tellows. Like Valla, Agricola tended ro direct
dialectic awav from Aris-corle tu Cicero. Cicero had distinguished the rechnique of discoverv (sus
inveniendi) from that of judgmg (ar, illdicandi). Agricola planned a comprehensil e \% ork Jovering
both diese aspects of dialectic, bur completed only the menú°. la three books he presents two
doten topics erertrot, loci), grounds for proof, shows how these copies are to be used, uid
demonstrates how rhetoric helps to achieve conviction in the hcarer. The work is completely
eclectic, in tune wirh Agricola's own narurc. In the se-lection on logic, in spite of his pyrotechnics
against the sophistry of the schoolmen, Agricola is very much dependent opon the tradicional
sources. He retains Aristotle's detinition of dialectic, supplies twenty-four improved loci related in
genre to Aristotle's, the seventeen of Cicero, and twenty-two of Themistius, as a conceptual
framework for the quaestiones or problematical senrcnces, the Scotist concept of haecceitas in
disringuishing the individual from the universal, and the like.32 With appropriate modesty Agricola
declares that he has added nothing new himself and Enarres the authoritics on whom he is
dependent, Cicero, Trebatius, Quintilian, (especially in book two), Themistius, a fourth-centurv
Peripate-tic kno\v u through Boethius, and Boethius himself. Ail the med-ieval texts, too, had
reflected Boethius' mixture of Cicero and Themistius in the sanee w,•ay.3" 'The tradition-bound
character of Aaricola's dialectic raises the question of his reputation as a pro-ta;onist of a "purified
Aristotle." 34 Agricola was mildly critical of Aristotle, \vhich endeared him to Peter Ramus
decades later, but his criticism vs-as neither syste-m:16c nor even always well-founded. "1 think,"
Agricola ventured in a sratement typical of bis obligue criticisms of thc traditional great llames,
"that Aristotle \vas 1 man of the highest genius, doc-trine, eloquence, knowledge of things, and
prudente and (as 1 repeatedlv sav) indeed the grcatest ;un, but I rhink that he ovas neverthciess
a man; that is, something could he hidden, so that he did not first fiad evervthing, so that some
things remained to be found bv others," scored Aristotle's darle and uncle lr dic-tion, 1 ceommon
complaint during the Middlt Ages. Moreover, he heló that thc sclf-stvled Peripatetics who chimea
ro have read the writing-s of Aristotle viere far from knowing the true worth of his teachirigs.36 He
even occasionallv corrected isolated terms or propositions in Aristotle.37 Certaiav he malle no
such a thorough criticism of Aristotle's dialectic as Valla who sharpl ∎ attacked his dialectic as well
as that of Boethius and Porphyrv, preterring Quin-tilian bv far. Agricoll at times misinterpreted
Aristotle, now and then ;lec epted him in preference to other authorities, but almost in-ariably
understood him in the light of the medieval dialectical tradition. His Aristotle can be called
"puritied," that is, phdologi-cally and philosophically exact, only by courtesy. But this does mx at
all prove that Agrícola was a late scholastic or bound by an en-tirelv traditional mentality. Rather,
it means that the primary sig. nificance of his mayor work lies elsewhere tiran in irs dialectical
presuppositions. Broadlv speaking, the three disciplines of the trivium each liad its special hour
on the medieval stage. During the scholastic penad dialectics superseded grammar in the maTor
role. Now rhetoric moved front and center for a lively dialogue with a revitalized grammar.
Agrícola was not one merely to repeat tradicional ideas for there is no ditference, he held,
between one who merely passes on the learning of the schools and a schoolbook.3` Thc novelty,
for the Nonti, of Agricola's work on dialectic. was the great emphasis he placed upon the practica!
use of di:acede, and the import ince of rhetoric in achieving for ir real social utility in the Roman
man.. ner. In manv respects, Agricola was really assimilating the art of dialectic to rhetoric.
Especially in the third book Agricola teaches how a speech can be made to create "effect" or
produce convic, don. One result of this ernphasis on practical application was that the distinction
between the two disciplines became less and less clear. Agrícola was no philosophic
systematizer, nor did he want to be. -- Agricola's influence \vas felt strongly in the dialectic
discipline of the trivium, which continued to be central in the traditional arts curiculum in spite of
the humanists' efforts to give preponder-ante to grammar and rhetoric. Erasmus, for example, in
the second book of his De ratione concionandi stressed grammar and rhetoric, arguing that
dialectic without grammar is blind. Agricola's logic took Paris by storm, where Johann Sturm
made it popular while teach-ing there from 1529 to 1536. Agricola's book was often repub-lished
in Paris, where at least fifteen editions appeared between 1538 and 1543. It ;vas influential also
in England where in 1535, in the Royal Injunctions to Cambridge Henry VIII directed that the
students in arts should read Agrícola, together with Aristotle, Trebizond, and Melanchthon instead
of the "frivolous questions and obscure glosses" of Scotus and other scholastics. Agricola's in-
fluence upon theological study developed out of the carry-over of dialectical study from the arts
course to the higher faculties. It was given wíde currency in Protestant education also indirectly
through íts impact on Melanchthon's work on dialectic. His work fir the mood and satisfied the
needs of the hour. 1-Iegers negative assessment of the theoretical significance of the
philosophical literature of the Renaissance was only tvpical of the predominant attitude of modern
philosophers since Descartes effected his decisive break with the humaníst tradition. In Agricola
two lines of influence converge which were both essentially non-speculative in nature. The
practical Christian piety of the Brethren ‘of the Common Life which helped to form his youthful
outlook co-incided perfectly in this respect with the Roman popular philosophy revitalizad by such
Italian humanists as Valla, emphasizmg living skills and moral sense over metaphysics. Agricola
and his literary fcllows were hice mental engineers standing in awe before the areat pyrarnids of
the system builders, but quite deliberately re-solving that henceforth the products of the quarries
shouíd be turned to more practical uses. This decision in no way reflected loss of faith in human
reason, for Agricola shared the wholesome respect for man's rational capacity and the grandeur
of the human spirit which characterized the Western Christian tradition. "For enormous, immense,
incredible is the power of the human mind, and for it almost nothing is difficult except what it does
not will," he exclaimed with great fervor.39 Just as in the inanimate world a meaningful ascent in
the categories of purpose can be assumed, Agricola reasoned, for God as a good housefather
has set his house in order, so also in realms of human knoss ledge there is a meaning-ful ascent
discernible. \Vithout a comprehensive understanding of the master blue print of the new structure
in being, Agricola ovas building on old foundations with stones from the classic ruins. Quintilian,
too, had waxed eloquent about the glories of human reason, and moved on to the practical
possibilities open to it. Agrie-ola was his apprentice. Rhetoric provided the new key to his
philosophy. There is a hint in Agricola of the attempt to make language the philosophical basis of
reality in the manner of Vico. For Aristotle rhetoric repre-sented the application of logic to the
character and feelings of the audience. Superficially, taking his own definitions at face value,
Agricola considered rhetoric merely as the art of ornamented speech which adorns, whereas
dialectic ovas the manner of speak-ing credibly.4° But closer analysis shows that for him, logic is
no longer just logic, but both dialectic and rhetoric serve the word, oral and written. This
development may be tagged the "new rhe-toric," or with reference to the receiving end of the
process, the "new philology." The Italian humanists rediscovered the ancient definition of man as
Wov Xeryov gxov, a living being having the power of speech.