for the Middle Ages, and for the Renaissance, and further, up to the era of the Industrial Revolution.25

Significant is not the same as unchanging. However, until the paradigm was abolished as a principle, all changes proceeded from it, correlated, and measured against it. We must see the constant clearly precisely in order to see the novelty of the Renaissance.

The Greek paradigm has a very definite structure, and this structure does not resemble the image that arises behind the usual rubrication of our expositions of the general history of culture, including the Greek, where "literature", "art", "philosophy" and "science" indifferently follow each other as items of a single questionnaire offered to different epochs to fill out.

What we call "culture" was called by the Greeks ???????, "education" proper, (that which is transmitted and instilled in the child) ????. In the center of ??????? - two forces that are in constant conflict, but also in contact, in confrontation, but also in mutual correlation: the education of thought and the education of the word - philosophy, which seeks truth, and rhetoric, which seeks persuasiveness. They are closer to each other than we imagine: they have a common root in an archaic culture of thought and words, and even in the phenomenon of sophistry they showed an inseparable unity.26 That was why they were constantly quarrelling. Each of them strove to restore the inseparability of thought and word, truth and persuasiveness on its own basis, i.e., to absorb its rival and absorb it into itself. Philosophy claimed to be, along with all the others, "true" rhetoric: hence the rhetorical studies of Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Neoplatonists. Rhetoric claimed to be "true" philosophy: we have already seen that for Cicero a true orator and a true philosopher are one and the same, and in the representatives of the Greek "second sophistry" of the second and fourth centuries we find many similar declarations. In other words, philosophy and rhetoric are not parts of the culture of the ancient type, not its "provinces" and "domains" that could demarcate and quietly exist each within its own boundaries, entering only into light border disputes. No, the ancient type of culture gives both philosophy and rhetoric the opportunity to simply identify themselves with culture as a whole, to declare themselves the principle of culture. Face kul

353

There are two tours: these are "paideia" under the sign of philosophy and "paideia" under the | a sign of rhetoric. Duality is inherent in the very basis of the cultural structure created by the Greeks and is reproduced together with this warehouse itself. The victory of the "arts" over the "authors" in the transition from the twelfth to the thirteenth century, the revenge of the "authors" in the action of the humanists against scholasticism, the dispute between Pico della Mirandola and Ermolao Barbaro - all these complex events in the history of ideas, each of which has its own ideological content, fit into the framework of the old conflict between philosophy and rhetoric, although, of course, they cannot be reduced to this dispute.

Thus, philosophy and rhetoric are the very heart of the culture of the ancient type, and in this heart lives a reviving contradiction. But the Greeks would have hesitated to include the visual arts, which for us undoubtedly enter into the concept of "spiritual culture," in the concept of their ???????. As Plutarch famously remarked, not a single "capable" young man ("capable" of what? - of course, for activity in the sphere of intellectual and verbal culture or in the sphere of civil life), admiring the masterpieces of Phidias and Polycleitus, would himself want to be either Phidias or Polycleitus.28 It is curious that in Lucian's autobiographical work "On Dreaming, or the Life of Lucian" it is precisely the personification of ??????????? ????? ("Sculptor's Craft") - and ???????. The first refers in her speech to the names of Phidias and Polycleitus, Myron and Praxiteles29; but only the second is "culture" (according to Lucian's context, rhetorical culture).

It is at this point, as we know, that the Renaissance departed far from antiquity.

Even Petrarch thought in the ancient (and medieval) way: representatives of any "handicraft", any ?????, "mechanici", are excluded from culture, from the world where books are. "What will happen," he pathetically exclaims in the same pamphlet, "if men of manual labor (mechanici) take up pens (calamosarripiunt)?"30 Every philosopher, every poet, every learned man must protest against such a terrifying prospect. Vestra res agitur!

In order to appreciate the revolution brought about by the Renaissance, it is sufficient to compare the place occupied by Vitruvius, also a mechanicus, who took up the pen!, in relation to the culture of his own time and in the culture of modern Europe, from Alberti to Vignola and beyond.

354

Such is the contrast of tone in which the names of painters, sculptors, and architects are introduced in ancient texts on the history of art, and, say, in Vasari (whose work in other respects provides a fairly close analogy to these texts). For example, Pliny the Elder, who speaks of artists on an ancient scale very respectfully, begins his biographical rubrics as follows: "... In the ninetieth Olympiad there lived Aglaophon, Cephisodorus, Friel, Evenor..."33, "... In the fourth year of the ninety-fifth Olympiad, Zeuxis of Heraclea entered the gates of art that were now open..."34; "... His contemporaries and rivals were Timanthus, Androcides, Eupompus, Parrhasius..."36; "... Parrhasius, born in Ephesus, did many things there..."36 Pliny states that all the painters who were, are, and will be surpassed by Apelles37, as all sculptors were surpassed by Phidias38; This seems to be said quite strongly, not without rhetorical pathos, but it only marks the superiority of a certain person in a certain kind of activity, and in no way the superiority of this kind of activity itself among others. The appearance of Apelles or Phidias is an event in the fate of art; It does not follow from anything that this event is in the fate of mankind. On the contrary, Vasari describes Michelangelo's apparition not merely as a triumph of art, but as a reconciliation of heaven and earth, of God and man: "The most benevolent Ruler of heaven has turned His compassionate eyes to earth." Such a quasi-theological tone is very characteristic of Vasari: for example, Leonardo da Vinci was, in his words, "truly pre-literate and celestial (celeste)"40.

In this regard, the use of the epithet divinus "divine" is important. In ancient usage, this epithet was normally applied to the famous masters of the art of the word. For Cicero, for example, Servilius Galba is "divine in speech" (divinus homo in dicendo),41 and Crassus even "god in speeches," at least according to Quintus Mucius Scaevola, one of the participants in the dialogue.42 Cicero pathetically recalls Crassus's last speech in the Senate as "the swan word of a divine man" (cycnea divini hominis vox et oratio).43 The eloquence of Cicero himself is "divine" in the assessment of Quintilian44; the irony of Cicero's speech "In Defense of Lygarius"46 is specifically "divine"; the same Quintilian speaks of "the divine splendor of Theophrastus's speech".46 The "divine" orator and the "divine" poet (the latter, for example, in Horace) are

355