Talk:Humanitas

It's a test for a start but not the ultima ratio. User: Mario todte, 14:53, 2 June 2005 (CEST)

An editor removed the statement that Petrarch liked Cicero's Pro Archia on the grounds that he or she didn't believe such a statement could be proved. I am restoring it because, on the contrary, there is ample evidence to support this statement. In his essay on "Classical Scholarship" in the Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. MIchael D. Reeve writes:

If it is true that Italian humanists has no expression closer to ‘classical scholarship’ than studia humanitatis, the Pro Archia provided classical scholarship in the Renaissance with its charter of foundation. In Petrarch’s attention to Pro Archia eight elements can be distinguished:
 * 1.	He discovered the speech.
 * 2.	He liked it because it extolled poetry
 * 3.	He used it in works of his own
 * 4.	He marked details in it, sometimes because related things had struck him elsewhere in his reading of ancient literature
 * 5.	He adjusted its text
 * 6.	He spoke of his discoverey in correspondence that he put in wider circulation
 * 7.	He put the speech itself into wide circulation
 * 8.	Such was his prestige both as a writer and as a collector that after his death Pro Archia became one of many texts in his library sought out for copying .—Michael D. Reeve, “Classical Scholarship” pp. 20-46 in Jill Kraye, editor, The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 22.

Paragraph
Cannot work out what the "(1,1, 3)" would mean. It should be paragraph 1.1? JMK (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to Renato Oniga's 2009 article is not dead
The text is in Italian, however. https://www.tulliana.eu/documenti/Oniga_Humanitas.pdf

I don't know how to fix it.Mballen (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)