지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
It is well known that Maerten van Heemskerck often dealt with humanistic ideas in his art works. One of these is Momus criticizing the works of gods, executed in 1561 in Haarlem (now in Berlin). With regard to the textual source of this painting and its iconographic meaning, scholars have so far presented various opinions.
As the text which van Heemskerck might have consulted, two literary works have been taken into consideration. One is Lucian’s Hermotimus or concerning the sects (2nd century), and the other is Emblema nr. 1 in Hadrianus Junius’s Emblemata. The most prominent feature that these texts and Heemskerck’s Berlin picture have in common is that only one part of the whole story is depicted to lay emphasis on a certain message. To be concrete, they all focus on the critique that Momus presented against the work Vulcan created. The notorious critic Momus namely expressed his regret that the man Vulcan created didn’t have a window on his chest, which according to him could have enabled everyone to see into the heart whenever one wanted to.
The problem is that the scholars didn’t reach a harmonious conclusion concerning the meaning of this episode and that of the Berlin picture in particular. David Cast, above all, contented that the figure of Momus, though notorious as a critic in the Antiquity and still in the Renaissance, should contain a positive meaning in Heemskerck’s Berlin piece, because Erasmus considered Momus as a critic who fought for the sake of justice and interpreted the motif of a window on the chest as the spiritual and intellectual nudity. This notion refers to a christian virtue, honesty, according to Cast.
However, Cast’s contention is only based on the textual tradition of the Momus episode, which he related to religious and political circumstances in the Netherlands in the 16th century. It seems that he neither paid any regard to the pictorial characteristics of the Berlin picture nor to the inscription depicted in it.
Among others, the fact that the Momus figure in the Berlin painting stands on a piece of dry rock in contrast to the flowery ground of the gods should allude to the barrenness of his critique. In addition to this, such expressions in the inscription as Momus as the son of Night or as the companion of Envy clearly imply negative aspects of Momus. And most of all, the idea of a window through which one can look into the mind could not be understood as honesty, since it does not mean transparency. It should rather be interpreted as referring to an act of disclosing someone other’s secrets or hidden thoughts in order to criticize them.
The negative meaning of the Berlin painting should have been then intended to convey an opposite, positive meaning, for this was mostly the case with Heemskerck’s art works of especially 1550s to 1560s. And it could be assumed that the Berlin picture gave expression to the notion of tolerance as the opposite of indiscrete and harsh critiques. Tolerance was one of the main ideas which the northern humanism pursued since Erasmus. This great humanist strived to reform the Church based on the values he found in early Christian texts of the Late Antiquity, so that the netherlandish humanism came to be characterized as christian humanism. Erasmus strongly advocated tolerance, because he believed only that virtue could lead to the unity and harmony of the Church. His thought exerted a great influence on 16th century Dutch intellectuals. Two humanists who were active in Haarlem and seem to have had close contacts with Heemskerck were also followers of Erasmus. Among them, Hadrianus Junius is assumed to be one way or another involved in the Berlin picture.
Besides this, the year 1561 in which the Berlin picture was executed seems to be crucial. In the mid 16th century the political and religious situation was very complicated in the Netherlands and Haarlem was no exception. During the Reformation movement the Haarlem government attempted to keep tolerant and liberal attitudes about religious matters. This underwent a radical change when the first bishop was inaugurated in Haarlem in March, 1561, as the result of Spanish intervention. Therefore Heemskerck’s Berlin picture was made in the year when the religious tolerance came to an end and the period of acute political crisis began in Haarlem. In other words, Heemskerck might have designed the painting as a reaction to the current events and had as its theme in mind the idea of religious tolerance instead of harsh critiques. He is namely known to have believed in this thought as a follower of Erasmian christian humanism. This assumption could also be supported by the facts that the patron of the painting is not known and even van Mander who is considered to know almost everything about Heemskerck did not have the information on the existence of this painting. This would mean that the painting was kept from public on purpose because of the danger to which the Berlin picture should have been submitted on account of its contents.
As the text which van Heemskerck might have consulted, two literary works have been taken into consideration. One is Lucian’s Hermotimus or concerning the sects (2nd century), and the other is Emblema nr. 1 in Hadrianus Junius’s Emblemata. The most prominent feature that these texts and Heemskerck’s Berlin picture have in common is that only one part of the whole story is depicted to lay emphasis on a certain message. To be concrete, they all focus on the critique that Momus presented against the work Vulcan created. The notorious critic Momus namely expressed his regret that the man Vulcan created didn’t have a window on his chest, which according to him could have enabled everyone to see into the heart whenever one wanted to.
The problem is that the scholars didn’t reach a harmonious conclusion concerning the meaning of this episode and that of the Berlin picture in particular. David Cast, above all, contented that the figure of Momus, though notorious as a critic in the Antiquity and still in the Renaissance, should contain a positive meaning in Heemskerck’s Berlin piece, because Erasmus considered Momus as a critic who fought for the sake of justice and interpreted the motif of a window on the chest as the spiritual and intellectual nudity. This notion refers to a christian virtue, honesty, according to Cast.
However, Cast’s contention is only based on the textual tradition of the Momus episode, which he related to religious and political circumstances in the Netherlands in the 16th century. It seems that he neither paid any regard to the pictorial characteristics of the Berlin picture nor to the inscription depicted in it.
Among others, the fact that the Momus figure in the Berlin painting stands on a piece of dry rock in contrast to the flowery ground of the gods should allude to the barrenness of his critique. In addition to this, such expressions in the inscription as Momus as the son of Night or as the companion of Envy clearly imply negative aspects of Momus. And most of all, the idea of a window through which one can look into the mind could not be understood as honesty, since it does not mean transparency. It should rather be interpreted as referring to an act of disclosing someone other’s secrets or hidden thoughts in order to criticize them.
The negative meaning of the Berlin painting should have been then intended to convey an opposite, positive meaning, for this was mostly the case with Heemskerck’s art works of especially 1550s to 1560s. And it could be assumed that the Berlin picture gave expression to the notion of tolerance as the opposite of indiscrete and harsh critiques. Tolerance was one of the main ideas which the northern humanism pursued since Erasmus. This great humanist strived to reform the Church based on the values he found in early Christian texts of the Late Antiquity, so that the netherlandish humanism came to be characterized as christian humanism. Erasmus strongly advocated tolerance, because he believed only that virtue could lead to the unity and harmony of the Church. His thought exerted a great influence on 16th century Dutch intellectuals. Two humanists who were active in Haarlem and seem to have had close contacts with Heemskerck were also followers of Erasmus. Among them, Hadrianus Junius is assumed to be one way or another involved in the Berlin picture.
Besides this, the year 1561 in which the Berlin picture was executed seems to be crucial. In the mid 16th century the political and religious situation was very complicated in the Netherlands and Haarlem was no exception. During the Reformation movement the Haarlem government attempted to keep tolerant and liberal attitudes about religious matters. This underwent a radical change when the first bishop was inaugurated in Haarlem in March, 1561, as the result of Spanish intervention. Therefore Heemskerck’s Berlin picture was made in the year when the religious tolerance came to an end and the period of acute political crisis began in Haarlem. In other words, Heemskerck might have designed the painting as a reaction to the current events and had as its theme in mind the idea of religious tolerance instead of harsh critiques. He is namely known to have believed in this thought as a follower of Erasmian christian humanism. This assumption could also be supported by the facts that the patron of the painting is not known and even van Mander who is considered to know almost everything about Heemskerck did not have the information on the existence of this painting. This would mean that the painting was kept from public on purpose because of the danger to which the Berlin picture should have been submitted on account of its contents.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 루키아누스의 모무스 이야기
Ⅲ. 하드리아누스 유니우스의 『엠블레마타』의 엠블레마 1번
Ⅳ. 모무스와 가슴에 창 달린 인간 모티프
Ⅴ. 이탈리아와 네덜란드의 인문주의 운동
Ⅵ. 베를린 작품의 인문주의적 요소들과 하를렘의 인문주의
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (1)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
통일 독일의 도시공간적 통합을 위한 베를린의 철도망 재구조화에 관한 연구
한국공간디자인학회 논문집
2019 .01
-
그리고 싶은 것
한국독립영화협회 기타간행물
2014 .01
-
회화의 위기, 회화의 대안
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
알베르티의 건축 설계론과 비트루비우스
미술이론과 현장
2010 .01
-
베를린에서 바라본 한반도의 불안
현대영화연구
2014 .01
-
외식업체의 서비스품질이 점포충성도에 미치는 영향과 매개변수의 역할 : 양식 레스토랑을 중심으로
관광레저연구
2004 .05
-
전처리 식재료 사용이 학교급식 생산성과 만족도에 미치는 영향
대한영양사협회 학술지
2009 .01
-
A Study on Survey Questionnaire to Measure the Knowledge Level of the Foodborne Disease
한국데이터정보과학회지
2008 .03
-
서비스품질을 통한 고객충성도 형성요인에 관한 연구
산업경제연구
2006 .02
-
고등학교 급식 조리종사원들의 위생교육 경험과 위생지식 및 실천과의 관계
대한지역사회영양학회지
2004 .10
-
창원시 학교급식 식재료 구매 실태 및 공급업체 수행도 평가
한국식품영양과학회지
2012 .06
-
대학교 급식소의 급식서비스 품질에 대한 인식이 소비자태도에 미치는 영향
한국식품영양과학회지
2006 .07
-
비가공 농수산 식품소재의 미생물 오염분석
한국식품과학회지
2006 .08
-
미취학 어린이의 손씻기 교육에 따른 미생물학적 실태 분석
Culinary Science & Hospitality Research
2011 .06
-
중학교 학교급식의 식당과 교실 배식의 급식만족도와 위생상태 비교
대한지역사회영양학회지
2010 .06
-
청소년수련시설 급식소의 운영실태 및 이용자의 급식만족도
한국식품영양과학회지
2015 .09
-
부산지역 제과제빵종사자의 위생요인에 대한 중요도와 수행도 평가
한국식품영양과학회지
2010 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-609-002691832