Talk:Renaissance

Hi Everyone! I have started this page! Please feel free to add to it. Please reference all of your sources. Cheers! :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew Harward (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Maybe we should make the title Renaissance (European) ? Anyway, I stated that focus in the introduction. Nancy Sculerati 20:27, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I've downgraded this to a stub. There's enough of an outline that can be built on to create a good article, so it's not really a candidate for deletion, but it hasn't developed in a while. Anthony Argyriou 13:27, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Nomenclature

I think that "Renaissance" is now somewhat controversial, or just old-hat, in much academic discourse, with "early modern" being a preferred substitute; the idea being, as I understand it, tat "Renaissance" describes what was going on among the privileged classes, while "early modern" is more class-neutral. Perhaps someone with more immersion in this issue could add some text on this question? Bruce M. Tindall 04:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did a little bit on this, based mainly on Leah Marcus's 1992 article. Anybody with more to say on this, please have at it! Bruce M. Tindall 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Organisation of the article

I think there is a problem with the article being organised around two distinct concepts: geographical regions, and topics. Either is fine. As it is, at the moment we have quite a lot said about art under the various regional headings, with the result that, although someone has put in the heading "Art", there is nothing under it. The relatively long discussion of Machiavelli rather unbalances the whole thing. And I wonder whether the bit about civic humanism might not go under Italy? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite a complicated topic. You might say (probably someone has said) that the Renaissance started in the 12th century with the reintroduction of many ancient Greek scientific and philosophical works, mostly translated from Arabic. Maybe that inspired Petrarch & Co to do the same for literature. And even the literary Renaissance started at different times in different places. I read a piece by C. S. Lewis arguing that Chaucer "medi(a)evaliz/sed" an Italian Renaissance work in his adaptation, the Renaissance not yet having reached England. And in music the Renaissance tends to be regarded as starting only about 1450. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am in no position to support or contest much of what is written in the article as it stands. Johannes Fried's latest book on the Middle Ages plugs the idea that development was more continuous than revolutionary, but he does use the term "Renaissance" and says that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was the beginning of a new stage in the influence of Greek, especially Platonic thought, in contrast with that mediated by the Arabs and mostly influenced by Aristotle. I suppose a lot depends on which aspects of the renaissance, art, philosophy, literature, science, music, etc, one is looking at. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Aquinas & Co used Aristotle as mainly imported from Islamic civilization (a few of his works had been preserved in Latin right through the Dark Ages). Little was known of Plato, I think, till he started being imported from Constantinople, and then you got Renaissance Neoplatonists like Ficino.

More generally, periodization of history is always rather arbitrary. Things don't usually change overnight. "Rome wasn't built in a day", and its empire didn't fall in one either. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I should like to revert to my original question and put it more specifically: does anyone object to deleting the "Art" heading, which has nothing under it? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Provisionally OK. Maybe we'll sort out the structure some time. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)