THE BIRTH OF MODERN MAN
Posted by anthonynorth on July 4, 2007
Until the close of the Medieval period, storytelling was archaic, in that it didn’t really represent what it was to be modern. Typical of archaic storytelling was Homer’s ‘Iliad.’
Describing the epic siege of Troy, it identifies the taking of Helen by Paris, yet rather than a love story, it is a political move. Human feelings do not really come into it.
The epic has many heroes, such as Achilles, Agamemnon and Hector, but their vocabulary does not really involve thinking on their part. Rather, they are pawns of the gods, with humanity playing the lesser role to such dictats. Human urges seem to be missing, as if mankind is irrelevant.
BIRTH OF PERSONALITY
What such stories lack is human personality. Yes, their primal urges may be catered for in the mentality of the gods, but the feelings do not extend downwards to the person. There is a hint of personality in some of the Biblical prophets, with human feelings occasionally placed centre stage, but nothing in terms of modernity.
The same can be said for ancient ballads and the original tales of King Arthur. Only as the Arthurian legend advanced towards the end of the Middle Ages does a new form of human personality arise. Many of the Knights seem to take on personalities, and the feelings between Guinevere and Lancelot are human.
This change in storytelling, adding real urges that can be said to be human, came in line with the intellectual revolt against a strict Christian orthodoxy. The Renaissance was soon to burst out, heralding human genius, but first there was Humanism and the idea that human affairs in this life were important, rather than life being the prelude to afterlife.
EXPRESSION OF HUMANITY
One of the first to express true humanity was the Italian poet, Petrarch. In his love poems he narrated true feelings, and even included infidelity. Soon, he was to influence one Geoffrey Chaucer, who’s ‘Canterbury Tales’ were a sudden burst of modernity. Here, we find real characters of all persuasions and with distinct personalities. Even the stories were modern, in that these characters were influenced into bizarre behaviour by their own emotions.
Soon the Renaissance was well under way and the Reformation was to break out, forming Protestantism as a protest against Catholic dogma. The power of the Church was waning in western Europe and people were beginning to be themselves. And it was inevitable that a point would come when humanity was finally, and completely, represented in storytelling.
SHAKESPEARE
That moment was the arrival of one William Shakespeare. In Hamlet and Macbeth, in King Lear and in Romeo and Juliet, human personality had arrived, complete with his base and romantic urges. Mankind was on the point of being allowed to be who he wanted to be. But it leaves a disturbing question.
We saw earlier how storytelling defined what it was to be human. Hence, it is arguably the case that as storytelling changed, it influenced what humanity was. Could we therefore say that, before Chaucer and Shakespeare, man was not human in the modern sense? If so, then storytelling CREATES what we are.
© Anthony North, July 2007
For more posts in the Story of the Story see History Page, above.
Click Tony On, on Blogroll, for my current affairs blog.
While you’re here, why not have a look around? Check out the pages – you’ll also find sub-domains on the Blogroll. Beyond the Blog is the site that has everything.
Doug said
People may have told modern stories among their friends as “gossip” but may not have been able to write, or dared not write, not being among the elite. The Magna Carta and the sharing of power among peers was a beginning point for the diffusion of power and the beginning of freedom and democracy. Man was human before before Chaucer and Shakespeare — just not recorded…
anthonynorth said
Hi Doug,
This may be true, but if it was not recorded, how can we know? Further, if there wasn’t a ‘media’ that symbolised these human conditions, how would these human traits spread?
For instance, a human ‘behaviour’ – a new buzz word, as an example – spreads through media repetition. Maybe the human condition was, therefore, a local expression for each community. But would this be ‘collectively’ human?
Maybe we were human, but storytelling in the media gives ‘validity’ to our humanity. Even so, it still gives storytelling a lot of power.
Adam said
I’m just reading this essay after the season 3 “Doctor Who” episode featuring William Shakespeare. I had been meditating all Friday on the nature of the human self after reading about research in “New Scientist” about how much of our behaviour is “automated” and we “explain it” as a Self by creating self-consistent stories – we are our Stories.
I just recently returned to faith in Christ after a period of militant materialist agnosticism. Blame John Crossan and Don Cupitt or Dawkins and kin. I’ve returned to belief because of the fact that science tells stories as much as religion does – the militant atheists being the most egregious example. This is not to say that I think scepticism has no place in religion, but I’ve realised that our personal mythologies are important and vital parts of being human. I’ve yet to see an atheist mythology that can adequately replace a religious one, though SF often comes close. And, for example, “Doctor Who”, of late, is becoming more mythological, like much of SF.
Roger Cathey said
Hmmm. I would have to hesitate in acceding to your conclusion. According to the translation of the
Mahabharata by Van Buitenen, the Greeks gathered much of their ‘lore’ from the Hinus. And the idea
of romantic love is definitely present in the Hindu lore. Self sacrifice is there, even on the
so-called ‘enemy’ side. And the idea that the ‘winners’ are good is definitely called into
question and all manner of difficulties of moral judgements and paradoxes of moral choice are
broached in the epics of this so-called ‘heathen’ nation. I’m sure any general review of them
will remind one of several instances of a ‘Christ-like’ sacrifice or means of life that will
not allow anyone to have some conceit that it is a ‘new thing’ belonging only to the middle-East
or the life of Jesus.
What arises in the life of Jesus that is most distinct is the mockery of death, even physical death.
And yet, this potential for overcoming death is recorded in the lore of ‘ends of the earth’ as
the Bible refers to India . . . in my opinion.
That Jesus made these things reduced to practical demonstration is what is paramount in his life
in distinction to other lives reduced to mythology. The extension of his life in oral history
actually has more traction in traditions outside Christianity. Christianity has reduced his life
to a mere symbol: a figure on a method of torture. How, after all, does one symblolize resurrection
and immortality? How do you figure an empty tomb?
Teleportation, transmorgrification or ’shapshifting’, synthesis of food from ‘nothing’ are all
factors accomodated by science-fiction, but in terms of daily life, we refuse to believe these
things. We thrive on the mere ‘hope’ of them, but don’t really want to live them. Is it not because
we refuse to take up the operative principle that Jesus is said to have espoused? His life
espouses it, even if we received it only as a kind of ’silent movie’. Something we can do, but
refuse to do. Whose fault is it then? If we want to make Jesus an ‘idol’ and refuse to live
that way, we are like those who might have been players in the game, but would rather be
spectators. We don’t even have to be ‘quarter backs’. That is the idealization of the ‘hero-worsh-
iping idle. The grand stage is merely a kind of symbol of the private life or arena of life
at home and neighborhood. For all we know, Jesus himself is in that typically neglected house
somewhere nearby . . . living a normal life and letting others realize the purpose he idealized.
anthonynorth said
Hi Roger,
Many thanks. No matter how we see an icon, in different places or different times, we can usually guarantee it is the ’story’ of how we want things to be.