Talk:Renaissance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic Renaissance topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Good article Renaissance has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Renaissance was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on August 8, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Renaissance as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Romanian language Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Draft of proposed major revision - comments & help needed

Okay. I'm quite new to Wikipedia, but I thought this article could really do with a lot of work, considering it's such a big topic. So, I went ahead and did some of it (someone told me to be bold...). The work I've done currently sits as a draft in my userspace, here. Here are some main points about what I've done:

  • Much, or most, of the current article is incorporated into the new draft. I have also added a good amount of writing of my own, which for the most part is referenced well.
  • Much of the work I did was simply in restructuring. As the article stands now, I think the structure makes little sense.
  • Concerns raised by Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, about the lack of focus on religion's part in the Renaissance, have to some extent been addressed. Although humanism did give greater emphasis to secular matters, it is quite true that Christianity played a huge role in shaping the Renaissance. However, the article's section on the Renaissance and religion is currently a stub, to be developed later.
  • More emphasis has been given to the role of Islamic scholars in preserving and developing ideas from classical antiquity.
  • I have spent some time verifying existing sections, increasing the number of references from 6 to 24.
  • Almost all the sections need considerable expansion. The following sections need significant work on them before they'll be even close to ready:
    • Social and political structures in Italy
    • Science
    • Religion
  • The "Historiography of the Renaissance" section in particular needs more body, since as discussed below, this article should really be about the Renaissance as a general concept, not as a narrative or account of any particular country.
  • There are some parts of the current article not yet merged with the draft, that can be found on the talk page.

I really must emphasise that this is just a skeleton, but I hope it can give us the structure on which to build a featured article. I have put a good number of hours into this draft; I hope you'll see the logic in the structure I've tried to make.

So, I would really appreciate some comments, and, if you feel like it, some collaboration on the draft. Does the structure make sense to you? Should there be more emphasis on any particular section? Have I missed bits out? Is it all rubbish and I should go away? Thanks, MAIS-talk-contr 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't had any feedback about this. In the meantime, I've continued to improve my draft. It now has 35 references (41 if you count refs used twice). The sections have grown, and there's been some improvement in most of them. So, I'm now going to merge my draft with the main article. Cheers, MAIS-talk-contr 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the basics

Why does this entire article imply that both Greek and Latin texts were lost in the West and were revived during the renaissance? This is true only for Greek texts, which were lost after the fall of the Roman Empire in late antiquity (due to the fact that Latins stopped speaking Greek and the untranslated Greek texts were no longer understood). To claim that Latin texts were rediscovered is quite absurd. "Having a new interest on the study of ancient Roman texts" is one thing, but repeatedly claim that the renaissance was about the revival of ancient Roman and Greek texts gives simply a wrong idea about the article's topic. Miskin 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the article generalises a bit too much - I'll change that. But it's not absurd to claim that some important Latin texts were lost. What about De architectura? It wasn't lost per se, but few people knew of its existence or significance until Poggio Bracciolini found it in a monastic library in Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommaisey (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I'll give my thoughts on this for as far as Latin literature is concerned. Beginning with Petrarch in the first half of the 14th century, the works of the pagan authors came to be studied for their own sake instead of as an auxiliary discipline subordinated to theology, as was done in the (clerical) intellectual environment of the Middle Ages. The humanists took authors like the pagan Cicero, and not the church father Jerome, as their examples in matters of style, language and philosophy and other things that they were primarily concerned about. They tried to purge the Latin language, which they considered polluted by hundreds of years of wrong usage, of medieval 'barbarisms' in order to revive the Classical Latin of the ancient Roman authors. As is said above, humanists like Poggio actively traveled around Europe in search for more classical texts, and when they found them they made them known to a much greater public than had been the case before. My point is: while many works of the ancient Roman authors were not literally 'lost', they were not known to the general (intellectual) public; for instance, there was only one Catullus manuscript which was kept at Verona and was 'discovered' in the 14th century (and then lost and rediscovered in the 15th). The renewed interest gave such texts a much wider circulation and made them much more influential than they had previously been. Latin itself was 'revived' insofar as the humanists tried to restore the Classical Latin of the ancients. (Ironically, in doing so they made it so rigid that they actually 'killed' it, in a way.) So in my opinion, it is not so much about Latin and Roman authors itself as it is about Classical Latin and its non-Christian Roman authors. In this way it would be accurate to speak of a 'revival' of classical Roman/Latin texts, some of which had been 'lost', as in 'unknown'; this being, of course, a figure of speech. Iblardi 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps we should edit down the above to include in the article for clarification? MAIS-talk-contr 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of copy edits

I have gone through the article section by section and tried to clean up problems with spelling, grammar, clarity, etc. If I've mucked up any meanings/sense, etc., go ahead and fix it - I've done the edits by section so it can be more easily reviewed by other editors. Someone might want to change the few American spellings to British, since the latter predominate in most of the article. - Special-T 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constant drizzle of school-boy vandalism

I have more edits to this article than any other on Wikipedia--about 500--and just about all of them are vandalism reverts. Every day it is hit by graffiti, scribbles, and schoolboy obscenities. I have no idea why it is such a target. Should it be semi-protected long-term? Have there been any high-quality anonymous contributions? Anyone have an opinion? Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this article and many other high profile "high-school topic" articles get hit daily Crusades, Black Death, Feudalism -- I've tried in the past to get some sort of permanent semi-protection but have never had much luck. Black Death was just semi-protected today, you might ask the admin what he thinks of this article while he is at it. These articles have reached a point of maturity and sophistication it is rare an anon really adds something good, we mostly spend (waste) time keeping out the barbarians. -- Stbalbach 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of semi-protecting good but commonly vandalised pages. --3DS Mike

[edit] Intro Paragraphs

It seems to me that the second portion of the intro paragraph, the one discussing the validity of the term, is somewhat out of place. It seems that there could be a "Conflict over the term Renaissance" section, because the intro is meant to give a basic summary of the article, not a basic summary and then a very specific and slightly irrelevant aside about the terminology. That's more appropriate later else, I think. 70.108.216.222 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Conflict over the term Renaissance" section, but it's named the historiography section. I don't think the second para is out of place (then again, I wrote it...) since it is a major concern when considering the "Renaissance" period, and as a historical debate, it's central to our understanding of the word. mais (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Very good article with good prose, however there are a few referencing issues that will put it on hold until they are resolved. The following sentences/paragraphs need a reference owing to the use of words such as 'others' and 'likely'.

  • The Renaissance's emergence in Italy was most likely the result of the complex interaction of the above factors.
    Y Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • Arguing that such chance seems improbable, other historians have contended that these "Great Men" were only able to rise to prominence because of the prevailing cultural conditions at the time.
    Y Done: Added reference to John Stephens, The Italian Renaissance: The origins of intellectual and artistic change before the Reformation.
  • Regardless, there is general agreement that the Renaissance saw significant changes in the way the universe was viewed and the methods with which philosophers sought to explain natural phenomena.
    Y Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the science section.
    Y Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • Last paragraph of the 'For better or worse' section.
    Y Done: Added reference to S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare.

When these issues are repaired, I will pass the article. Zeus1234 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to library and got a few books out. I have referenced all the bits you asked. My next task is to improve the historiography section, after which I think it could be ready for FAC. Cheers mais (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA, but...

A number of significant errors and omissions in the department of Art and Architecture.

  • Why was Durer cited by the writer as a prime example of an artist who tried to paint in a naturalistic manner? He post-dates Masaccio, Ghirlandaio, Leonardo, van der Goes, Messina, Bellini etc etc. Moreover, while some of his work is naturalistic, much of it is highly mannered and represents radical departure from human anatomy.
  • Raphael was not well known for depicting his contemporaries in Classical guises. Raphael was well known for his comtemporary portraiture and his sweet Madonnas. The School of Athens is the exception, not the rule in Raphael's painting. The info that appeared in the box with the pic. was simply wrong. I have corrected the identical misleading statement elsewhere, buut perhaps it is attached to the pic at WkiCommons so that it keeps getting quoted. (The artist who frequently portrayed contemporaries in historic settings (Christian rather than Classical) was Ghirlandaio.)
  • The introduction of "Renaissance painting" to Northern Europe? No. By about 1430, that is only 3 years after Masaccio's experimental painting of the Trinity in Santa Maria Novella, Jan van Eyck had a pretty good handle on linear perspective, and a vastly superior technique at landscape than any Italian contemporary.
  • When Hugo van der Goes took the Portinari Altarpiece to Florence in the 1470s, the effect that it on realistic portraiture was dynamic.
  • Architecture. Yes, Brunelleschi knew Vitruvius' work. but it is very simplistic to imagine it was the whole source of the revolution which Brunelleshi created in architecture, almost single handed. The significant factor is not so much that he knew Vitruvius as that he knew and studied the works of ancient Rome with a passion, as did the assistant on his "digs", Donatello. The writings of Vitruvius no doubt consolidated and informed Brunelleschi's vision, as his treatise owes much to Vitruvius.
  • No discussion of the art of the Renaissance can simply omit Michelangelo!
  • No discussion of the architecture of the Renaissance, regardless of how brief, can cite only the Dome of Florence which is not even Renaissance in style, regardless of its technology. St Peter's sums it all up.

I've made good the errors and ommissions.

--Amandajm 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have been trying to get this article up to scratch over the last month, but I readily confess that art and architecture (which are a very large part of what the Renaissance is about) are not my specialities. It would really really help if you could help to build up the article's art sections, since you are obviously much more knowledgable on that front than I am! This is an important and highly visible topic that needs to be covered well. A couple of replied points:
  • I cited Durer because I wanted to emphasise that this article is about the whole European Renaissance, not just the Italian Renaissance (which has a separate article). I am therefore trying to use examples from all over Europe. Are there any other non-Italian painters we could use to illustrate this point?
  • On Raphael, I am aware that this was the case, the bits you mention are left over from the article as it was before, and I forgot to correct them.
  • Just plain "oops" on Michelangelo!
Cheers for the help mais (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately unless an expert on the topic reviews the article, there is simply no way to make a judgement on the article as to whether it adequately covers the topic. Nevertheless, these seem to be rather minor issues that can be easily repaired.Zeus1234 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so rude, mais! You have taken it with remarkably good grace!
  • Durer, and realism. I think in this instance, you need to cite the Italian, because the main influence really sprang from Italy. They took in everything that the Northern painters had to offer, combined it with what they had, and then it was spewed out again by artists like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Caravaggio who completely changed the course of art. Masaccio is the right person. Durer definitely isn't. The impact of Masaccio went out in waves for generations.
In reply to Zeus, mostly minor, and a couple of major.

--Amandajm 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flabbergasted!

I just looked up Renaissance painting and it led me to Early Renaissance painting which has a number of useful lists and a smidgeon of information. It directs to Northern Renaissance painting which has an article. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia really does not have an article on the painting of the Italian Renaissance... Oh well... there will be soon. --Amandajm 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who's looking for this, Amandajm has created 2 great articles, at Italian Renaissance painting and Italian Renaissance painting, development of themes. That second one may undergo a name change, however. mais (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatia

Croatia had rich Renaissance and should be added to region list.

At this time Croatia was part of the Hungarian Kingdom, which is mentioned in the article, but you're right that Eastern and Central Europe need more emphasis and mention in this article. At the moment it's a bit too Italy based. mais (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Croatia is in personal union with Hungary, and Croatian renaissance has nothing to do with Hungarians. Plenty of ppl are acting as if Croatia doesn't exsist since 1102. but it does, very very much!!!

[edit] Science

While it is true that Galileo had his run-ins with the Catholic Church, Copernicus was encouraged by the Church to release his theory. Ironically, the Church's main disagreement with both men was their lack of evidence, while the author of this piece has decided to state that they helped create scientific theory based on empirical evidence. The Church disagreed with teaching unsubstantiated theory as fact. This is in keeping with the scientific method. To imply that the Church is against the scientific method is untrue. Moreover, the writings of Copernicus were immediately made heretical by the early Protestant churches, while receiving support from the Catholic Church. It is likely that both men and their ideas would have faired even worse elsewhere. A rewrite of the Science section is definitely warranted.--Wilkyisdashiznit

Since no one had a contrary opinion, I went ahead and just took out mention of the Catholic Church. Please do contact me if anyone dislikes the change.--Wilkyisdashiznit

[edit] Inconsistency

The article begins

 (French: "rebirth," Italian: "Rinascimento")

One of those is clearly incorrect, as the first is a literal translation FROM the language, and the second a translation INTO the language. Please would someone more familiar with 'pedia standards fix this? Thanks. --3DS Mike

[edit] Poland/Hungary

What's with this emphasis on Polish and Hungarian contributions to rennaissance? Is it justified? One of the sources cited is some Polish government website, that's just sad.

Poland and Hungary have 2 small paragraphs between them, and why shouldn't they?. The citation you mention merely verifies a fact, not an opinion, so I think it's safe to source it from the Polish government's site. --mais (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Franklin

I removed a lengthy reference to James Franklin on grounds of undue weight. First of all, Franklin is not a historian. According to his web page, he is an "Associate Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW." In other words, in this field, he is an amateur and his views have no more credibility than any other random personal Web page. The contents of his Web site make it clear that he is primarily interested in defending the Catholic Church (see, e.g., [1]), and his views need to be understood in that light. His "Renaissance myth" page also contains blatant errors; for instance, he refers to the notion that "St Augustine believed the southern hemisphere must be uninhabited, since people living there would be unable to see the Second Coming over Jerusalem" as a "bizarre notion" and therefore a myth. In fact, even Jeffrey Burton Russell, who argued strenuously against a medieval belief in a flat earth, noted several times that the church once believed the equator was impassable and therefore the southern hemisphere was uninhabited. Franklin is simply talking out his arse here. His views have made no impact on the field, he has no professional standing to talk about history, and including his personal opinions in a lengthy paragraph constitutes undue weight. 76.97.163.77 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a historian. As detailed in my Wikipedia article, I am the author of The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal]], a book on the history of medieval and Renaissance ideas published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2001 - James Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaths (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit which added the assertion that you are a historian was made by you on April 7, 2007. - Special-T (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Make that April 15, 2007 - my mistake. - Special-T (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not to the point, because the evidence that I am a historian is not the Wikipedia article but my published books on history (which fortunately are beyond the reach of Wikipedia vandals). I hope an apology will be forthcoming. I'm amazed that anyone would confess, in public and in print, to deleting material from Wikipedia in pursuit of an anti-Catholic agenda - and without feeling a need to provide any evidence whatsoever that the deleted material was wrong... - James Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaths (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Inconsistencies

while I was reading this while I was doing a short report, it said in the lower area that it started in Europe in the 16th century, but at the begining of the artice, it states that it started in the 14th century. can somebody verify this information and make the correct one stand out? Keneke45 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not just Greek works

You wrote "*More emphasis has been given to the role of Islamic scholars in preserving and developing ideas from classical antiquity." However, it wasn't just ideas from the classical Greek world that were preserved and developed but also from India, particularly in mathematics. Without mathematics, Western science and technology would never have gotten off the ground. I have added a reference to this to the current page. Houseofwealth (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art History - Renaissance

Could someone have a look at Art History - Renaissance to see if there is any useful material that could be merged to this article, and, if not, nominate the article for deletion. --rxnd (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that Renaissance art would be important enough a subject to warrant its own article?Xenovatis (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large part of text deleted by accident?

Take a look at [this diff]. Seems that SmackBot in a fit of anti-vandalism accidentally deleted the latter part of the article, including the sections "For better or for worse" and "Other Renaissances" along with the list of sources and links. While some of the latter has been reconstructed, the articled has for a long time ended abruptly with a half-finished sentence and a broken quote. I'm reinstating the missing two sections as I feel it must be in error (minus the KFC reference). Merging the two lists of reference and links I'm leaving to somebody else. Geira (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it happened when I reverted some vandalism right after that. Although I think I did everything right - the automatic edit summary says I reverted to the valid SmackBot version - all the new merged text was removed with that edit. - Special-T (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead was too long so I moved the last three paras to the Overview section. Lets discuss any comments as per WP:BRD. Also I added a see also and ref section but I am not sure I got all the relevant links for the see also. Any suggestions for other links? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenovatis (talk • contribs)

Hey Xenovatis, I don't agree with your thoughts about the lead. WP:LEAD says the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long, and many articles on lare subjects such as this have larger leads (think Middle Ages). We've had previous discussions about whether it's appropriate to include historiographical (i.e. the history of history) arguments in the lead, and I think in this case it is, because the term "Renaissance" is so controversial amongst historians. Regardless of all these points, just plonking that lead paragraph amongst the overview has created a disjointed and uneven section, so I'm going to move it back. If you want to talk about trimming that paragraph in some way, then I'm happy to, let's talk. mais (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is compliant with WP:LEAD than I have no further objections. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I might trim a couple of sentences for readability and to make it more appealing and accesible.Xenovatis (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrt to the following:

The term Renaissance, like the term Middle Ages, was coined by Western scholars in the 15th century to designate what they considered the revival of the classical world of Greece and Rome which had died in the West and its rediscovery at the beginning of their own century, a revival in which they felt they were participating. That world however was still alive in the Eastern Roman Empire and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 provided the Renaissance with a major boost, for many Greek scholars migrated to Italy, carrying important books and manuscripts and a tradition of Greek scholarship.[1]

Aside from the origin of the term (which can be ommited and another intro used) where else is it convered and why does it have no place in the lead? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


The bits I was thinking of were these:

The term was first used retrospectively by the Italian artist and critic Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) in his book The Lives of the Artists (published 1550). In the book Vasari was attempting to define what he described as a break with the barbarities of gothic art: the arts had fallen into decay with the collapse of the Roman Empire and only the Tuscan artists, beginning with Cimabue (1240-1301) and Giotto (1267-1337) began to reverse this decline in the arts. According to Vasari, antique art was central to the rebirth of Italian art.

and

The study of mathematics was flourishing in the Middle East, and mathematical knowledge was brought back by crusaders in the 13th century.[15] The decline of the Byzantine Empire after 1204 - and its eventual fall in 1453 - led to a sharp increase in the exodus of Greek scholars to Italy and beyond. These scholars brought with them texts and knowledge of the classical Greek civilization which had been lost for centuries in the West.[16] and they transmitted the art of exegesis.

These are in the relevant sections "Historiography" and "Assimilation of Greek and Arabic knowledge", not the overview, because I feel that they don't belong in an overview of the Renaissance's characteristics, but rather explain the history of the term, and suggest some explanation of its origins, respectively. I think the general overview section should only describe the qualities we associate with the Renaissance. mais (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree on the origin of the term and agree further that most laymen don't associate the Renaissance with the Greeks but I think this is explained in WP:CSB and since there is a sourced ref from Britannica on the third para of its Renaissance article I think it is important enough to mention in the lead. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 provided Humanism with a major boost, for many eastern scholars fled to Italy, bringing with them important books and manuscripts and a tradition of Greek scholarship.

As for being civili this is your right and something one should expect and demand from all other editors rather than be thankfull for. Besides I am aware of and respect the amount of work you put here.Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Some more refs for inclusion in that para
Michael H. Harris, History of Libraries in the Western World, Scarecrow 1995
At least three quarters of the ancient Greek classics that survived did so through Byzantine manuscripts.
J.J. Norwich, A Brief History of Byzantium, 1997::::Much of what we know about antiquity – especially Hellenic and Roman literature and Roman law - would have been lost forever, if it weren’t for the scholars and the scribes of Constantinople
Xenovatis (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Art History

Merged the contents of the article that could be salvaged and were not too specialized (e.g. didn't include a painstaking description of a painting by Eyk) in the Art and Northern Renaissance sections. Proposed the article for deletion.Xenovatis (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents placement

Does anybody have strong feelings about the placement of the Table of Contents? At the moment it is floating to the right, which I find odd, since the vast majority of articles have it below the lead. I've looked around the style manual, but can't find any indication whether the placement of the TOC should or must be standardised. How do people feel about this? I, personally, would move it back to its default location – just my 2¢. mais (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)