Lazarillo De Tormes And His Criticisms Of Religion

Lazarillo de Tormes and his criticisms of religion

Lazarillo de Tormes was published by an anonymous author in 1554, although there are many speculations about the true author for the critical features towards religion, which could mean that it is a convert (a reformist priest). The main character is Lazaro de Tormes and his story revolves in his desire for a better life and the masters he had until reaching it.

From the first treaty, Lázaro makes a mockery of the Gospel of St. John and then the Gospel of St. Matthew. Lázaro knows corruption, falsehood and meanness of those who serve God and therefore judges them. In the first treaty he affirms that "we do not marvel at a cleric or friar because the one enhances the poor and the other of the house, for their devotees and for the help of the same" page 8. In this phrase not only denounces their corruption, but, Francisco Rico 3 points out that "for their devotees" can refer to voluntary and mercenary lovers. In the second treaty, criticism of clereciahypocrites. Antonio Hazas points out that this criticism can be of an erasmist type, since without charity you cannot be a Christian, and for Lazarus charity is not a characteristic or cleric of Maqueda, his master, nor of the others. The cleric "ate like a wolf and drank more than a health" while Lazaro had to settle

With the bones royted and cynically he said: «Take, eat, triumph that for you it is the world. Better life you have to the Pope ».

Then when the cleric suspects that he lacks breads in his ark and decides to have the account of how many are, Lázaro writes: "I comfort myself, I open the ark and as I saw the bread, eat worship, not daring Recegillo";This phrase is described as something mocking, since Lázaro sees the loaves as if they were ostias consecrated at the time of commuing. Another aspect of criticism that stands out in this treaty occurs in the phrase "Eat that, that the mouse is clean thing is", Covarrubias 4 points out that Christian charity is being attempted ironically, since the mouse not only is not "clean thing", but it is a dirty animal generated by corruption. To end the second treaty, Lázaro ends up writing how his master threw him into the street: "Santiguedo from me, as if I were demonized …", "hoisted" as if the cleric was actually worthy of doing so;"He was demonized" since the demonized is the cleric. Honor and religion are elements that are combined in the Third Treaty when Lázaro comments: «Oh, Lord, and how many of these you must have the spilled world, which suffer from the black one that they call honor what they would not suffer!", Pencing for honor what for God would not punish" may well be due to a critical intentionality of an erasmist nature […] since those nobles consider honor as a true religious idol to which they offer more sacrifices than God himself "5. Lázaro discovers that his third master (El Escudero) is poor because "… nobody gives what has no blind greedy and the malavese, criticism is directed towards the blind man, because he lived from the prayers he taught, and the cleric of the offerings that people made. In the Fourth Treaty the elements to be analyzed are: First, the friar of La Merced;Second, the reason for calling the mujercillas relative and, finally, the "other things that I do not say". The Order of Merced was censored by other missionary orders in America for its lack of evangelical spirit, since it was common that at this time those who are going to look for place in the monasteries do not do so to have a better spiritual life, but to be able to havea better material life 6. The reason why the mujercillas call on the relative friar is: a) because they had illegal relationships, since it was usual to make it seem that they had false relationship relations to be ableThe friar would be a pimp and the women. As for the "other things that I do not say," Batillo N 8 thinks they are situations of the worst, enough reasons for Lázaro to abandon this master;I do not say is related to Lázaro criticism, but he does not doubt the existence of God, what he does is question the "charity" of those Christians and highlights the meanness of those clergymen who must serve God.