Talk:Renaissance/Archive 1

Vandalism
The first paragraph is obviously vandalised and something should be done. Maybe a review of the whole article would now be appropriate to correct other possible vandalised things.

"In the 'gay as hell view, the Renaissance was understood as a historical age in Europe that followed the Middle Ages and preceded the Reformation, spanning roughly the 14th through the 16th century."

Expansion needed
A period of such historical importance should be much more than a bunch of lists, methinks. Tothebarricades.tk 21:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this article is poor. Look at this quote from the Overview paragraph 'The following article discusses the Renaissance in its most traditional form....' What following article?? It is just lists. Deus Ex 21:39, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I find and article on The Renaissance Festivals. I think that could be an important and interresting article. If there is one and I'm just not looking well enough then can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Possible source: German and Italian Wikipediae
Here's a comment copied from WP:AOTW:


 * If we have any German or Italian speakers keen to get stuck in here, both de:Renaissance and it:Rinascimento seem to have much more detail than the English Wikipedia. &mdash;Stormie 06:18, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Organization and structure
This is a large and complicated topic. I wonder how much can be done in a single article. There is a seperate page for the Italian renaissance. Perhaps a lot of the details should be moved there. Things that could be in this page include: historiography, definition, origins, signifigance, transmission. Keeping on topic with the term its self and leaving the specifc of the history for other articles. Have seperate pages for each of the renaissances like Italy, England, Germany, Spain with the specifics of cultural adancements. Seperate pages for the history of the period. I think someone who comes here and says "what is the renaissance?" should be able to get a good feel for it on a high level then branch off to more specific articles. Stbalbach 21:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spelling
I feel that US-specific spellings should be avoided on this article - the topic mainly discusses European history (yes it's relevant to the thereafter - but US-isms placed here are particularly striking). zoney &#09608; &#09608; &#09608;  talk 14:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

..for example "civilizations vs. civilisations" .. one the US the other the UK spelling. Does anyone know how this topic has been addressed by Wikipedia in general?


 * Yes. See Manual_of_Style. First and foremost - one spelling convention per article - i.e. each article is at least consistent. If an article is about a US topic - then US spelling. If about a UK or commonwealth / non-US topic, then British/International spelling. Ambiguous articles (very general topics), are generally left in the language they were started in. I argue that this topic is more European than anything else - and Europe generally uses international spelling, as used in Britain and Ireland. The European Union article for example, is written in British/International English. zoney &#09608; &#09608; &#09608;  talk 15:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This isn’t spelling, but under the “great man theory”, there were four listed names. Later in the short paragraph, it referenced the listed names as “these three geniuses”. I don’t think it’s too controversial that I changed it to ‘four’. That is all I changed. --160.81.78.102 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sculpture/dance and music
We need a section on sculpture and at least a small intro to music and dance, as opposed to the two links there.. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Turks
I watched a documentary (think it was BBC or discovery) some years back. It mentioned the in 1453, Constantinople was the centre of art and culture,(all the scholars resided there- in short it was way ahead of its time). Now that year, the Ottoman Turks, invaded the city. Since the scholars feared that their works would be lost forever if the turks razed their city, many fled to nearby italy. The "unenlightened" europeans, now became "learned" through these scholars and this started the renaissance. Please mention/research this. &#x00b6; &#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57; | [[User talk:nichalp| &#x2709; ]] 20:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is already mentioned in the origins section. However it should also be acknowledged that the Renaissance was well under way in Italy before 1453. - SimonP 20:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed major refactoring
This article (along with 3 others) has some excellent content, some of which is quite close to featured-quality. However, the organization leaves a little to be desired. We have the following main articles: I propose reorganizing the content between these four articles, as follows: Why reorganize? Now, I'll gladly do all of this refactoring myself (unless anyone wants to collaborate, of course), but I just wanted to discuss it on the talk page first. This is a big article that dozens of Wikipedians have worked on, so I'd like to make sure there are no objections beforehand. Thoughts? &bull; Benc &bull; 04:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Renaissance, a large article with the following main sections:
 * Historiography, a comprehensive discussion of historiographical issues
 * Start of the Renaissance, a detailed discussion about when the Renaissance actually began
 * Italian Renaissance, a mostly comprehensive well-organized discussion
 * Northern Renaissance, a detailed, well-organized discussion
 * Italian Renaissance, a disorganized mid-sized article.
 * Northern Renaissance, a stub.
 * English Renaissance, a small but growing article.
 * Italian Renaissance section moved/merged into Italian Renaissance article.
 * Northern Renaissance section moved/merged into Northern Renaissance article.
 * Add Template:Renaissance to the now-shortened main Renaissance article.
 * Append a brief general account of the Italian, Northern, and English Renaissances to the end of the main Renaissance article.
 * Removes redundancies, especially between the Italian Renaissance section and articles.
 * Makes it easier for readers to digest.
 * Sidesteps the issue (at least at the article structure level) of whether the Northern and English Renaissances really were part of the Renaissance.
 * (Ulterior motive) I think our Historiography and Italian Renaissance sections are very strong, and would like to see them featured in some form. :-)


 * I have also been thinking that something along these lines is necessary. One thing it is important to note is that the English Renaissance is a subtopic of the Northern Renaissance and should be treated as such.  It might also be good to include redlinks in the series box to the French Renaissance and German Renaissance which are just as important topics as the English Renaissance even if they do not yet have articles. - SimonP 05:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. The template should also include a redlink Renaissance painting, the one that's in it now links to Early Renaissance painting, and should be labeled as such. --Fenice 09:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a really good plan. Filiocht 09:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes - good idea. Please go ahead. I've been taking a bit of a break over the past few weeks, trying to avoid being sucked too far into wikiholism, but let me know if there is anything I can help with. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Expand
I notice no one has expanded this article, although it was discussed for several months. I'll be redoing this article over the next month, unless someone else already is going to actually be doing this themselves. If anyone is already, please say so. --Kethryn

Gargantuan task but by no means impossible!

The word "Renaissance" was actually first used by the Medici family. The ommission of any mention of this family is terrible, as is the incorrect fact. This page will by the way of it covering such an expansive and in depth subject as the renaissance, be a giant. if we could pull it off it would be a great achievement and make the article a prime candidate for being a featured article at some point. Not being a history student, and being of a listless nature, I might not be of much help, but i'll put some effort in, with guidance of course :) Oh and keep the English unamericanised, i will will find it hard not to oblige my duty as a briton to keep an eye on things--AeneasMacNeill 23:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, please go ahead! Let me know if (and how) I can help. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Just make sure to try and avoid duplicating too much of the content at Italian Renaissance and Northern Renaissance. - SimonP 01:42, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * If it was me taking on this task, I would not try to cover the historical events of the Renaissance, (which is a topic too large even for multiple articles, and correctly covered under "History of Italy" for example), rather, explore the historiography of the term; such as what was done for Dark Ages. The term Renaissance was invented by someone for a reason, it is propaganda to express disfavour of one culture and favour of another. The usage of that term has meant diffrent things to diffrent generations since then. Just like the terms "Enlightenment" and "Reformation" and "Romanticism" -- these are terms of approval and disapproval, they are political in origin and usage, and are not accurate historical descriptors. With that said, the history of the term its self is very valid and deserving of an article. --Stbalbach 01:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Columbus
Should the voyages of Columbus, and his later followers, be included in this article as one of the renaissance "acheivements"? I'm no historian, amd I'm not sure if Columbus falls into that era, but 1492 sounds about the time of the Renaissance in Italy to me (who funded his voyages not withstanding). If so, then should some of the moral questions also be brought up? Eg., the self-described "enlightened" people of the renaissance invoved in soundly barbaric acts against the local people of America.

I believe it was Spain that funded Columbus, wasn't it?

Croatian Offspring
The Italian renaissance spread to Croatia - Gunduli&#263;, Men&#269;eti&#263;, Drži&#263;, Vetranovi&#263;, Zlatari&#263;. I'd like to mention it, but I don't know where. --VKokielov 03:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirects
God, it was hard to find this page--it's a hard word to spell. We need to set up a network of redirects to the article. Any ideas for pages that should redirect here? Any that aleady do? HereToHelp 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

But what is the renaissance.
I wrote a paragraph in the Renaissance article titled But what is the Renaissance? and I just wanted to say I would appreciate it if it were not deleted as I believe others will find it of some help. It explains breifly what the word 'Renaissance' means in a form that young learners can understand.

Sincerely, User

- 4/10/05_12:32pm -
 * Sorry, I did delete it. First off it was wrong. Renaissance is not an Italian word. Secondly the subject is already well covered later in the article. - SimonP 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Arabs? (and Islam)
I certainly agree with the above comment that the Turks should be mentioned in the history and origin of the renaissance. As well as this, I think that the mere single mention of the arabs does not do any justice at all to the clear fact known to all unbiased historians that the renaissance was inspired and originated from Arab and Islamic thought and ideas from across the Mediterranean, the Islamic world being the seat of international learning in the years prior to the Italian renaissance. It was such thinkers, philosophers and scientists as Avicenna, Averroes, Alkindus, Alfarabi, Ibn Hazm etc. who preserved the thought and work of the Ancient Greeks to be studied by the Europeans, who returned to their countries to spread learning. This intellectual process was at its height when the Islamic world came into contact with Europe in the Iberian peninsula and Sicily, which galvanised and rekindled European intellectual thought. This needs to be sorted out urgently! (I don't mind if someone includes what I just wrote in any addition to the article, I'm just asking for someone to extend it, for the sake of wikipedia!) (Tanzeel 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

May I just add that it should not be attributed to the Arabs exclusively, but to all other Islamic civilisations at the time, including the Moors, Persians etc. And contrary to what was said above, they did not simply preserve ancient Greek knowledge, which they did, but developed many more ideas themselves. Please do not discredit Islamic Civilisation - it did more for this world than many people are ready to admit. This article seems to suggest that the European Renaissance actually began in Europe, and as ironic as it may be, this is completely untrue.


 * Renaissance and Modern Europe has tried very hard to deny this and has refused to accept the existence of any Arabic or Muslim (or other "heathen") influences. All traces of Arab or Muslim thought has been erased from our collective memory. I agree with you guys that the article should cover this, but don't expect too much from Euopeans and Americans for this. None of the thinkers you name means anything to me. You're free to write this section, don't wait for others. Piet 12:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, people, anyone who takes a high school Western Humanities course can tell you that there was no single monumental cause of the European Renaissance. It was rather due to a number of factors:


 * 1) Increase in secularism due to the declining reputation of the Church
 * 2) The Bubonic Plague - the Church used it by claiming that it was "God visiting his wrath on sinners"; yet the plague was indiscriminant, people noticed this, so the Church looked bad, especially when so many religious people were wiped out.
 * 3) Bad character of the Papacy
 * 4) There were up to 4 popes at a time during the captivity of the Papacy in Avignon by the French King. The Papacy's authority was diminished a la the "too many cooks spoil the soup" principle.
 * 5) There were also some corrupt popes and pope families, such as the Borgias, who, with their homicidal and incestuous tendencies, also didn't make the Church look very good.
 * 6) Rise of the merchant middle class
 * 7) A meritocracy (versus an aristocracy) developed that was based on performance rather than rank
 * 8) Middle-Classers sought to legitimize their social standing by being patrons of the arts (e.g. the Medici family). Therefore, there was a general increase in artwork.
 * 9) Change in Artists' Status
 * 10) The general attitude toward artists shifted. Their role moved from that of mere craftsmen to "geniuses"
 * 11) Rediscovery of Classical Past (especially Plato)
 * 12) Humanism - Many Greeks fled west from the Byzantine Empire after the Sack of Manzikert, bringing the tradition of humanism, the emphasis of the individual, with them, as well as their culture that was descended from Classical Greece. This point could also go under the "increasing secularism" section.
 * 13) This is also where the influence from Al-Andalus comes in, with the return of knowledge from the abandoned libraries and such in the north of Spain.
 * The European Renaissance most certainly did begin in Europe. Nothing has been "denied", it's just that history isn't as simple as some people would wish. There was a Muslim, especially an Arab, influence, but if you look at the big picture, it simply wasn't the single most important factor of the Renaissance. --Jugbo 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me you learned about Avicenna, Averroes, Alkindus, Alfarabi and Ibn Hazm in high school? Come on. What they will tell is during this period Arabian civilization was more advanced than European civilization and that's about it. And Europe has done efforts to conceal the fact and to deny the existence of non-Christian influences on Western science and thought. Piet 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Are you telling me you learned about Avicenna, Averroes, Alkindus, Alfarabi and Ibn Hazm in high school?"


 * No. I never said any such thing. In a Western Humanities class, one covering basically Western art history, to which the Renaissance pertains much, such scholars aren't to be mentioned. Maybe in a course on the history of scientific and technological development or something similar, but not in a Western Humanities class.


 * "And Europe has done efforts to conceal the fact and to deny the existence of non-Christian influences on Western science and thought."


 * Really. I recall that once, at a Barnes & Noble, I picked up a book on European History, glanced through the table of contents, and noticed a chapter titled "Islamic influence". Do you know what people in the West call these things?: 0123456789 - Arabic numerals (even though they're really Indian), and it's understood that they were born unto the West under the banner of Islam. No credit is denied where it's due, but the Renaissance isn't due to Muslims, but rather to Europeans. It didn't occur in the Muslim world. Rather, the "rebirth" (of Western heritage) occurred in the West itself. Most of the time it isn't even attributed to Christian impetus, either, but rather to a secular and humanistsic one, as I explained above. As I also explained above, texts and scholars from abandoned libraries in the former Al-Andalus and Muslim-occupied Sicily (which were incidentally reclaimed by Christians), and general cultural influence from these places, did contribute, but it wasn't the driving force of the Renaissance. Rather, shifts in social, political, and religious structure are what allowed the Renaissance to occur, and Europeans are the people who made it happen. --Jugbo 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we can all agree on that the "rebirth" part of the Renaissance was thanks to the Arabs, since all the Greek knowledge wouldn't have been preserved were it not for them; the Arabs also brought this knowledge with them to Europe. The "revitalization", which you seem to be talking about, was brought around by a multitude of factors. Whether the rebirth was a major or minor factor is something we can't be sure of, but the Arabs need more cred for this. I don't know if it's racism, the church or anything like that that overshadowed the Arabic influence, but it can't be denied that they played a big role. Where else would Europeans have found all that Greek stuff? Secret tombs?


 * "Rebirth is used in two ways. First, it means rediscovery of ancient classical texts and learning and their applications in the arts and sciences. Second, it means that the results of these intellectual activities created a revitalization of European culture in general."


 * The last sentence might need to change. It seems to me like it wasn't just those "intellectual activities" that did it.
 * And Jugbo, you went offkey a lot there. Do you really think cultures don't like to believe they got all the way where they are now by themselves? I'm sure the Arabs don't give European influence as much attention as they should, too. Just because we have "Arabic" numerals it doesn't show we care for our Arabic influences. Rather it shows ignorance and how little Europeans cared for other cultures. Anyway: info about the Arabs should be added, with good verifiability as always.

The "rebirth part" wouldn't have happened if the conditions hadn't existed, but Arabs and Muslims are given credit.


 * "but it can't be denied that they played a big role."

I agree, but it was only one of many, and it wasn't the most important one, as Arabs and Muslims weren't even participants in tha actual Renaissance. They had an influence, but it's not given more attention than it needs.


 * "Where else would Europeans have found all that Greek stuff?"

Perhaps from the Greeks themselves, even though that isn't how it happened; they did encounter it via the Arabs, but philosophy wasn't the primary factor of the Renaissance, either. It was a general change in attitude, facilitated with the arrival of Humanism in the West with the actual Greeks. Philosophy wouldn't have been worth anything without it.


 * "Do you really think cultures don't like to believe they got all the way where they are now by themselves?"

No, I don't "really think" that, and I never suggested it.


 * "Just because we have "Arabic" numerals it doesn't show we care for our Arabic influences."

I didn't say that, either. I said that it shows that the Arabic influence isn't "denied". Stay on the ball, buddy.


 * "Rather it shows ignorance and how little Europeans cared for other cultures."

No it doesn't, because it's known where those numerals came, but they're still called "Arabic" because that's what they were first called, when people didn't know that Arabs didn't really originate them. I don't know what you mean by this "caring for other cultures" stuff. You think Europeans didn't "care for other cultures" because they called the numerals they obtained from the Arabs "Arabic"? Whatever.


 * "info about the Arabs should be added, with good verifiability as always."

So do it. --Jugbo 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought you were talking about the content on the Wikipedia site, like everybody else! What I meant by "giving credit" was that they should be written about right here on Wikipedia. That's what was being discussed; if Arabs should be included in the article and how their influence would be described. While some comments made the Arabs sound perhaps a bit too heroic, this isn't what Wikipedia is for: we're trying to figure out what will be the best text.
 * "It was a general change in attitude, facilitated with the arrival of Humanism in the West with the actual Greeks."
 * But we don't know that for sure. The article Renaissance humanism also makes it clear that the humanism you speak of might actually be a product of the return of the ancient Greek knowledge.
 * "Humanists placed a heavy emphasis on the study of primary sources rather than the study of the interpretations of others.This is reflected in their motto of ad fontes, or "to the sources" which informed the search for texts in the monastery libraries of Europe"
 * It mostly mentions that they were searching for the most original works in Europe, but I would think that many of the books used had actually gone through Arabic channels, simply because more original texts couldn't be found.
 * (as a sidenote, just because not absolutely everything Arabic the Europeans received doesn't reflect that Arabs were the ones who brought it to Europe, it doesn't mean a lot of it is "denied" as some called it. also, in case you didn't know, most of the Greeks' books? burrrned. the Arabs were the ones who saved a lot of it, many famous works wouldn't have been left for us today if it weren't for them)--User:LW 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do you want the article to say? --Jugbo 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was taught in high school that most of the Greek texts came via Arabs. However, I'm not sure that was the trigger for the Italian Renassiance. It was probably the most important factor in the 12th century Renassiance when lots of Arab territory was being conquered, but in the case of the Italian I dunno. (The Caroligian Renassiance I believe used Irish copies of Latin texts)  I think with the Italian Renassiance a lot of research into lost Latin manuscripts (the kind written that were written over or lost in obscure libraries) and the fleeing of Bzyantine scholars from the falling empire were very important in giving texts.  But the Arabs were important in Greek texts in general, so I dunno.  Just what I think on the subject. Jztinfinity 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jztinfinity, you're right, contrary to what some indignant detractors of mainstream historical academia claim. --Jugbo 15:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text
I've removed the following text from section 2. It just came out of nowhere with no explanation of who the arguers were or are. --*Kat* 06:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Goldthwaite says it was part of the emergence of the family and the submersion of the clan system.
 * However, the Kents (F.W. and Dale) have argued that this was and remained a society of neighborhood, kin and family. Florentines were very constrained and tied into the system; it was still a very traditional society.

More name dropping which is not very encyclopedic (unless you are reading the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica). Plus this theory seems to be too weak to be legit. But I don't know enough about the time period to really understand what happened during that time period.
 * The Emergence of the Middle Class
 * Frederick Antal has argued that the triumph of Masaccio et al. was the triumph of the middle class over the older, more old-fashioned feudal classes, so that the middle class wanted painters to do more bourgeois paintings.


 * This does not make sense. Palla Strozzi commissioned old fashioned paintings whereas Cosimo de' Medici went for new styles in art.


 * [[Image:Leonardo da Vinci - Lady with an Ermine.jpg|thumb|right|200px|[[Leonardo da Vinci]], Lady with an Ermine, Czartoryski Museum, Kraków]]

s Baron]]'s argument is based on the new Florentine view of human nature, a greater value placed on human life and on the power of man, thus leading to civic humanism, which he says was born very quickly in the early 15th century. In 1401 and 1402, he says Visconti was narrowly defeated by republican Florence, which reasserted the importance of republican values. Florence experienced a dramatic crisis of independence which led to civic values and humanism.


 * Against this we can say that Baron is comparing unlike things. In a technical sense, Baron has to prove that all civic humanist work came after 1402, whereas many such works date from the 1380s. This was an ideological battle between a princely state and a republican city-state, even though they varied little in their general philosophy. Any such monocausal argument is very likely to be wrong.


 * Kent says there is plenty of evidence of preconditions for the Renaissance in Florence.

None of this seems encylopaedic to me. --*Kat*

14th Century Italy (text removed)
This was stuck between two paragraphs and doesn't seem to have anything to do with either of them. --*Kat* 07:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Petrarch in the mid-14th century hated civic life but bridged the gap between the 14th and 15th centuries as he began to collect antiquities.

Van Eyck
Why do the Van Eyck paintings keep turning up on Renaissance-related paintings? He was not a renaissance painter. Many even refuse to call him early renaissance, but rather classify him as late gothic. Nothing about the merits of the painter, but to illustrate the northern renaissance far better examples are possible. Piet 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance society.
I have just completed a (smallish) thesis on homosexuality within Florence during the trecento and quattrocento... i think that in order for this renaissance page to be taken seriously we must focus oon renaissance culture/society. Below is my paper, feel free to edit it and and upload it onto the renaissance page. Regards, Raphael Korman rakorman@hotmail.com

What place did male homosexuality and sodomy occupy in Renaissance Florence during the trecento-quattrocento period?

Introduction

During the 14th and 15th centuries sodomy was rife within the city of Florence. This essay will focus firstly upon the place of ‘homosexuality’ in a societal context within Renaissance Florence, investigating the public and governmental perceptions of sodomy and ‘homosexuality’, the methods of determining dominant and subordinate roles in homosexual activity, the socio-economic classes of people, and their neighbourhoods of origin involved in sodomy and the nature of homosexual encounters. The essay will then discuss the political, familial and cultural aspects of homosexuality within Florence.

It should be noted that during the thirteen and fourteen hundreds in Florence, sexual identity was very different from today’s standards. The notion of ‘gay’ culture was nonexistent nor was the stereotyped ‘effeminate’ male. In Renaissance Florence, homosexual relationships were generally accepted to exist only in the physical realm of daily life. Homosexuality was not about ‘pride’ or being ‘camp’, but rather the gratification of sexual lusts, power brokerage, material gain and networking advantages.

Another definition that must be clarified is the term ‘place’. In this paper ‘place’ refers both to geographical location, in terms of Florentine neighbourhoods, and status and function.

'''The place of homosexuals in societal context

Popular perceptions''' Whatever their view on the subject, Florentines generally shared the same perceptions regarding the ‘active’ (sodomizing) and ‘passive’ (sodomized) roles. The passive or subordinate partner was the subject of great scorn and ridicule by society. Conversely, the active or dominant partner was viewed far less negatively.

The negative view of ‘passive’ partners can be attributed to the misogynistic climate within Florence during, the thirteen and fourteen hundreds. Allowing oneself to be sodomized caused ones status to be lowered to the subordinate status of a woman.

The public perceived an adult passive partner to be a great insult to their society as he undermined their masculine identity and public image. However, a passive partner under the age of about eighteen was classified as a minor and was not subject to the same degree of scorn that adult passives received. Boys under the age of eighteen were considered to be socially and physically immature, and were also perceived to be sexually ambiguous. Thus boys were treated more leniently by society and also by the law, and perhaps this is why the frequency of passive partners is much higher among minors than adult men.

Nevertheless, younger subordinate partners were still subject to a degree of public ridicule and embarrassment. Passive boys were labeled as “bardasse” or “bardassuola”- an Arabic word roughly translating to mean ‘slave girl’, or “cagna” meaning bitch and were considered to be similar to female prostitutes.

In Florentine society to be the active partner or sodomite did not compromise ones’ masculinity or virility; Machiavelli notes sodomites are “men of broad interests, easygoing and good fellows”. The governmental perceptions

The Florentine government generally shared the public’s views regarding sodomy. The first anti-sodomy legislation passed in 1325 proved ineffectual, so in 1432 the Office of the Night was founded. The penalties prescribed by the Office of the Night matched public perceptions of homosexual acts.

Passive partners considered minors -if fined at all- were given small penalties ranging from ten to fifty florins depending on the number of previous convictions. Adult passive partners however, were subject to far harsher punishments such as being “burned publicly as a wicked and infamous man”, imprisoned for life in an insane ward with a diet of bread and water, or major fines in excess of 100 florins accompanied by lashings and exile. Such harsh punishments were because the accused “could be called men, not boys”.

Active partners were subjected to fines that varied according the age of their partner, location of the crime and previous convictions. The determination of subordinate and dominant partners

In Florence the active partner was usually aged over eighteen years, while the passive partner was generally between twelve to eighteen years old. In addition to age, other social factors such as: masculinity, status, honour and shame determined sodomitical roles.

Between the years of 1478 to1502 it was reported that in 12% of all confessed homosexual relations fellatio occurred. However, the common notion of the senior partner playing a dominant role and having a “right to phallic pleasure”, whilst the younger partner played a submissive role and allows “his partner to gratify his own desires”, was reversed in almost every instance. In almost every recorded case of fellatio, the older partner is the “insertee”, whilst the younger partner is “fellated”. Such occurrences perhaps demonstrate a desire to achieve mutual enjoyment in sexual practice.

Social groupings of people involved in sodomy.

Between 1432 and 1502 approximately 17000 Florentines were accused of sodomy, and around 3000 were convicted. The fact that during this time the population of Florence was only around 40000 (males and females), sheds some light on the prevalence of homosexual practice. Sodomy in Florence was not limited to one particular social group, or neighbourhood. It was also spread throughout all occupations: between 1478 and 1502, accused sodomites were occupied in 350 different trades, including tradesmen, artisans, clergymen and government workers.

'''Youth ''' During the thirteen and fourteen hundreds Florentine fathers “took the business of rearing their male progeny with deadly seriousness”. Fathers tried hard to raise responsible heirs and the upbringing of their sons was often strict, regimented and closely supervised. Youths, meaning men under the age of thirty had no role in business or politics, were excluded from guilds and confraternities, and were denied economic autonomy by their fathers. Unable to enter the “sphere of adult male enterprise”, youths often opted to marry only after they were granted economic autonomy, and the ability to lead an “active civic life”: usually at around the age of thirty. Most youths were unmarried with no familial or political duties, and were expected to flaunt their virility and indulge their sexual desires, and unmarried women were forced to live by chaste principles: these conditions encouraged male youths involvement in sodomitical relationships. Between the years of 1478 to 1502 83% of acts of sodomy involved males under the age of thirty. A survey of the years 1459-1502, reveals one in every two Florentines under the age of thirty was implicated in sodomy, as were two out of every three Florentines under the age of forty.  Bachelors (over 30 years old) From their adolescence Florentine bachelors were brought up on largely misogynistic values, they were taught to “spurn feminine idleness” and to be wary of the “debilitating company of females”. Moreover, respectable women were either closely guarded by protective fathers and brothers, or they lived in cloistered convents. The bachelors’ social world was largely male dominated. Civic life, education (both academic and non-academic), entertainment, confraternities, and workshops, were all restricted to the male domain. Thus it seems plausible that Florentine bachelors used homoerotic relationships as an adaptation to their circumstances.

On the other hand, however, between 1486 and 1490 the Office of Decency commissioned 150 prostitutes to help contain the demand for sodomy. Bachelors also were able to seduce their female servants and slaves, and men could, and frequently did, take women by force.

So why did bachelors have such a desire to pursue homosexual relationships when it was possible to pursue heterosexual relationships? Firstly, homosexual and heterosexual encounters were not mutually exclusive. Bachelors often had both male and female partners: bachelors seem to have simply enjoyed sodomizing boys as well as engaging in sexual relationships with prostitutes. In addition, as already mentioned, some bachelors were overtly misogynistic and did not wish to marry a woman.

Husbands There are many occurrences in Florentine literature that explore the desires of married men to sodomize boys. Beccadelli’s “Decameron”, Francesco Maria Molza’s “Ridolfo il fiorintino” and Giovani Cavalcanti’s “Trincaglia” are all concerned with married men who pursue boys. Marriages during the quattrocento differed greatly from contemporary marriages; they were arranged on the premises of dynastic ambitions, monetary and material procurement, and familial honour and prestige. Whether the partners enjoyed each other in a physical and emotional sense was secondary. Due to the male dominated nature of the times, pursuit of extra-marital affairs was not taboo. Married men pursued both whores and boys with a simple desire to achieve sexual gratification. Neighbourhood

During both the thirteen and fourteen hundreds sodomites were originated from every part of Florence. Sodomy charges in Florence were spread throughout the city’s five largest parishes, San Lorenzo, Sant’Ambrogio, San Piero Maggiore, San Frediano and San Felice.

The wealthy and aristocratic classes

In the Early Modern period sodomy was assumed to be a vice only of the aristocrats and the learned. During the trecento and quattrocento periods neo-Platonists, artists, humanists and wealthy individuals did participate in sodomitical relationships. However, members of the other socio-economic groups also participated in sodomy, as discussed below.

Dante’s “Inferno” written in the late 13th century, depicts many of Florence’s “clerks, and great men of letters and of great fame” sitting in hell as they have all been “defiled by the one same sin”. His poem reveals just how stereotyped the connection between learned and aristocratic individuals and sodomy was. In 1422 Bernadino di Siena openly condemned the affluent and politically privileged classes for their childrens homosexual practices. “You don’t make your sons work in a shop, nor do they go to school to learn any virtues. Instead… they lead another life, idle and bestial.”

Between the years of 1478- 1502 ninety-one of the most prestigious Florentine families had members implicated in sodomy, including the Medici, Bardi, Peruzzi, Strozzi, Soderini, Ruccelai, Machiavelli and Albizzi families. Whilst most sodomy charges lodged against the wealthy and learned classes were ‘active’ charges, affluent children such as Girolomo di Bartolomeo Nuti, Perozzi Cerbini and Bernardo di Giovanni Martini all had ‘passive’ charges lodged against them. Hence, it is fair to assert that the elite families were well represented in sodomy charges.

The poorer classes

An Office of the Night report in 1459 stated that, “sodomy is most common among the humble and unrefined”. 88% of sodomy charges between 1478-1502 did not include the wealthy and ruling classes. Whilst the wealthy partook in sodomitical practices in order to experience pleasure and enjoyment, the poorer classes partook in sodomitical practices due to a more ‘desperate’ range of reasons. Fathers often ‘pimped’ their sons to gain monetary or material benefits, and networking advantages; however, this is discussed below.

Political context

During the Renaissance, Florentines were renowned for their great interest in leading an active civic life; sodomy gave some the ability to gain greater influence and leverage over others in the political environment.

Social and political status

Sodomy enabled people to achieve greater social status or higher political standing. In the 1460’s, for example, the Lorenzi family, a wealthy family with little political standing began pimping their son to families enjoying higher status, major guild membership, and secure positions in the government. The Lorenzi’s ‘lent’ their child to a total of five highly prestigious and influential families, the Bellaci, Cavalcanti, Guidotti, Strinati and Giovanni families. Through sodomy, alliances and interests of individuals were woven, nurtured and exploited. Dietaivto d’Antonio, Santi d’Cenni and Alessandro di Roberto Salviati, all convinced the child Francesco di Marco Fei was destined to be the neighbourhood gonfalionier, sent presents to the Fei family and sodomized Francesco, in an attempt to build relationships and develop networks with the Fei family.

Using the Office of the Night for political advantage

When Cosimo Medici returned from exile in 1434 he manipulated the governmental body opposed to sodomy, the Office of the Night, and filled it with Medici sympathizers. Between 1433 and 1435 a total of seven Medici sympathizers operated in the council. Associates of the Albizzi faction, enemies of the Medici, were condemned as sodomites. Members of the Medici faction facing sodomy charges escaped unscathed. The policing of sodomy also provided the ability to defame opponents, simply by placing the names of ones enemies into the Office of the Night boxes.

In an effort to temporarily boost their image as fighters against ‘immorality’, the Medici dominated office drastically increased arrests of sodomy (from 4 to 37 per year) during the year of Pope Eugenius’s visit to Florence in 1435.

In 1458 under the order of the Medici controlled republic, the Office of the Night lowered fines for sodomy and exempted minors implicated in passive roles. Despite the fact that the Office of the Night used this as an opportunity to fine more people for homosexual activity, the Medici’s lowering of the fines won them great popularity among the poorer classes, artisans and young people. In 1458, when the new laws took effect, the Medici regime had been under serious threat of losing power. The new laws boosted pro-Medici support, and helped secure the Medicis’ long tenure in Florentine government.

Familial context

During the 14th and 15th centuries sodomy had a unique role within the ethos of the family. Often the entire male cohort of a family was involved in sodomy. The patriarch tolerated boys ‘and youths’ sexual activity, as he once had or still had similar sexual experiences. Bernadino di Siena claimed, “boys learned about sodomy from their father, who were sodomites themselves”. In 1470, for example, Jacopo di Lorenzo del Lietina was sodomized by three boys; twenty years later his son Domencio was in turn sodomized.

Parents were often complicit in arranging their sons’ sodomitical encounters. As mentioned, the main reason for complicity was due to networking and political benefits, as well as material and monetary gain. In 1490 Bernado di Lorenzo Lorenzi encouraged his sons to engage in sodomy “because it is useful for the family”. In 1496 a father consented to his sons sodomy as he “receives certain favours”, and was “aided by his son’s admirers”.

However, not content with passive complicity, some families actively sold or ‘pimped’ their sons. In 1496 a mother was found guilty for pimping her two boys and in 1481 Cipriano was denounced twice for prostituting his son Guiliano. Parents generally prostituted their children because they were financially strained, and there was a high demand for young, attractive boys.

A prevention of dispersion of family estates among many heirs motivated families to tolerate their sons’ homosexual partners. Francesco di Messer Tomasso Minerbeti, for instance, reportedd an argument with his brother Andrea who urged Francesco to “not have any more children” and would instead “rather I did certain other things.”

Redirection mess
Early Renissance redirects here. Early Renissance is proped to be merger with Early Renissance Art, which is also proposed to be merged with Quattrocento. (Which is silly because Early Renissance redirects here!) Links on this page to "Renissance Painting" redirect to Early Renissance Art described in my last sentance. Clearly there is a redirect/merger mess here. I would ask whose in charge here, but we are in charge. It looks like some of this work was undertaked a few years(!)ago but I don't know how much of that was accomplished.Lizz612 21:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is Quattrocento is a term used by art historians so it should deal with the fine arts in Italy. So everything seems OK - although Early Renissance Art could cover any country, not just Italy - so disagree with that merger. Also Early Renaissance should clearly not merge with Early Renaissance Art. -- Stbalbach 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted those merge tags altogether. Someone added them and made no discussion to rationalize it. Confusing and largely incorrect understanding of what these terms mean. -- Stbalbach 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom
I've dropped by to review the article for GA. The work here is well done, but short of GA in one respect. The GA standards now require in-line references, which this article does not use. I normally look for at least one reference per section. The point behind these is so the reader can easily move from the article into its supporting literature. For example, if I was curious about the coining of the term and wanted to go to Giorgio Vasari's work, an inline note would let me know where in the fine bibliography of this article I would look.

Although it really isn't necessary for GA status, the language could use some work. We should avoid passives, long sentences, uncommon english terms such as "efflorescence" and semi-colons. These kinds of things tend to slow down english readers and seem to make the text feel ambiguous (even when the text is precise).

I've put the article on hold to let you all get at it. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article through the GAC. It's not a bad article, but there seems to be one major problem: this article is about the Italian Renaissance of which there already a separate article, Italian Renaissance. After glancing at that article, it appears to be a better and more comprehensive article. It would seem that this article would concentrate on the concept of a renaissance (the uncapitalized version) and rebirth throughout history. A disambiguation page would lead readers to the Italian Renaissance and others. Just a suggestion for discussion. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be a historiography article about the term - it's origins and (mis)use, not unlike Dark Ages versus Middle Ages articles. -- Stbalbach 13:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. The article needs a better focus to make it more than just a retread of the Italian Renassance article.  Eusebeus 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA failed; Hold Expired
The hold has expired on this article's nom. When time permits, please follow the suggestions above and renom. It only needs a little work left for GA status. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comments
Lincher 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * for example, hold the view that the changes in art, literature, and philosophy affected only a tiny minority of the very wealthy and powerful, leaving the lives of the great mass of the European population unchanged. should be complemented with a citation for it is purely refutable as many articles didn't come from the high bourgeoisie. In fact, many of them were children of peasants, and then later became acquiainted with the royalties through their painting/scupting talent.
 * Another passage, Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th century authors, but were concerned by these social maladies., needs to be cited as it claims a fact not to be seen in all the Renaissance litterature.
 * Such a subject as nominalism should be expanded upon to give more strength to the claim.
 * Can Causes really be the name of a section which talks about the emergence of the Renaissance? I would choose something that carries information on the fact that it is the beginning, Start of Renaissance. This is only an opinion, if you feel it doesn't need to be changed just don't do it.
 * The subsection Causes should have inline citations to let readers know who came up with such arguments as those for the starting point of the Renaissance.
 * This article should stick to one type of english (I would guess British English as per the MoS).
 * Is There were collaborations between patricians and artisans without which the Renaissance could not have occurred. Thus it makes sense to adopt a civic theory of the Renaissance rather than a great man theory. some material taken out of books or not for it could pass as original research, a citation would be greatly appreciated.

Citation need for theories of causes
Ahh, I think the Causes section in the Renaissance is very fascinating (and a little fuzzy), but I would like to have some more citations and references to make the text more significant and stringent (read: "rhetoric with NPOV kept"). Rursus 12:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Besides: I think it's a perfectly proper heading, since it's a common scientific topic). Rursus 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Education
Why isn't education in the Renaissance even touched on in this article? It's certainly a worthwhile topic. . . --Bertieismyho 04:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian Renaissance
Why is it not mentioned? An article to prove it is located here RAMBAUD

I believe it should be included as this article more than proves that the Russian Renaissance existed.

strange wordings
Though generally the article is not too bad, it drifts here and there and on more than one occassion uses old fashioned quasi-Hegelian ideas. Take "Early Renaissance arrived in the Iberian peninsula.." It is a bit humerous in fact to imagine this. Brosi 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

very odd phrasing
What does this mean? "When the Roman Empire fell, some carried its knowledge to the Middle East for safe keeping." Where did this safe keeping take place and what was "its knowledge" Are we talking about te Sassanian Empire or something. And what "body of knowledge" was brought back???? The 12 and 13th centuries in the West were influenced to a high degree by Islamic philosophy and mathematics, is that what this is about..Brosi 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I suggest the following wording: ''Compared with the West, where science was repressed by the Church, math and the sciences flourished in the Arabic Islamic countries. Some of this knowledge made its way into the West through Spain or was brought to Europe through the crusaders.'' At least this is verifiable.Brosi 17:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another wording issue
The first sentence could be redone too: "In the traditional view,...." what tradition? whose tradition? Should it not -at least - be something "In the view many historians since the middle of the nineteenth century." But even that is a bit too loose and difficult to unsubstantiate. The "traditional" view is still the basic view, and so the contrasts with the "modern" does not apply.Brosi 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion on causes
Just throwing in my two cents on the above discussion on the "causes" of the rennaissance. Certainly it is easy to argue that a lot of things contributed to the rennaissance and I am not a historian. However, I believe most of the "causes" listed (although they are certainly "traditional" arguments among Western scholars) really are more incidental issues rather than "causes." For example, the internal problems in the church and the rise of the middle class likely created a positive climate for the Rennaissance but from what I read these really didn't make the Rennaissance happen. The specific reason that rediscovering the Roman/Greek heritage became trendy in Italy was all the Byzantine Romans carrying documents and education which hadn't existed in Western Europe for hundreds of years flooding into Italy as Constantinople was going down the tubes. Contact in various forms with the Arabs certainly contributed dramatically as well but I have never read anything (nor would I believe very easily) that the Europeans were inspired to learning by the Arabs directly. If anything, until the Rennaissance was well under way, Western Europeans tended to disdain anything Arab simply by virtue of its being Islamic. It was the Eastern Romans (i.e. Byzantines) who tended to be a little more open-minded about accepting new things from foreign cultures.

I'm not arguing that these other "causes" should not be discussed, but the way things are worded, the contributions of the Eastern Romans and the Arabs are significantly more downplayed than seems appropriate given the understandings of modern historians. --Mcorazao 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

More on 'causes'
I do not like the term 'causes' since it seems to suggest that one or the other led directlty to the Renaissance. The term should be 'contributing factors'or 'contextual considerations.' The 'great man argument' is not a cause but a historical argument, and a not very good one at that. 'The Balck Pague theory' is not a 'theory' it was a real event the economic impact of which has been discussed by historians as playing an impotrant part in the economics of th erly renaisance. etc. ANyway.. the whole section needs to get redone and put in a more scholarly-professional tone.Brosi 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The big problem
The BIG problem though is that this article is about the Italian Renaissance and overlapps with the site Italian Renaissance which is better organized etc.. This site, should be more generally about the renaissance and various renaissances. i.e. it should be MUCH shorter.We can fiddle with this page all we want but if it overlapps with Italian Renaissance then we are doing a diservice to the users.Brosi 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

School of Athens
"Raphael was famous for depicting illustrious figures of the Classical past with the features of his Renaissance contemporaries. The School of Athens (above) is perhaps the most extended study in this."

This is an exaggeration. Raphael was famous for portraits and Madonnas. He did, however, execute a number of frescoes at the Vatican in which he portrayed Pope Leo X as an earlier Pope and, in another fresco, Pope Julius II observing a scene from antiquity. The School of Athens is remarkable in its extensive depiction of contemporaries, rather than being something that Raphael was, in general, known for.

--Amandajm 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiedererwachung or Wiedererwachsung
In the historiography part -- Yes Wiedererwachung is correct, (i.e. rebirth) BUT the source here - a book by the eminent Erwin Panofsky - sais Wiedererwachsung (which of course means something a bit different: 're-growth' or something to taht effect) p. 8. Renaissacne and Renascences. So what to do? Should we go with the assumption that the source made the error?Brosi 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page receives so much vandalism - is there any way to put a block on the page!Brosi 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just put in a request for semi-protection. --Ashfire908 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the request was approved. The article is now semi-protected. "(Protected Renaissance: Heavy vandalism from multiple sources. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)))" --Ashfire908 16:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance technology
Surfing through the topics, I realized that we still have no survey article about "Renaissance technology", though we already have one on "Medieval technology". This is really a deficit, since a wealth of exciting technological developments took place in the Renaissance like
 * patent laws
 * linear perspectivity
 * printing press
 * bastion
 * new and more powerful hoisting machines
 * new and more powerful cannon
 * double shell domes and many others

And we have those famous artist-engineers like Taccola, Keyser or daVinci whose drawings show the whole range of technology then. So, why don't we create a new topic called 'Renaissance technology'? Gun Powder Ma 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good source of information
Hey, I found this site just a bit ago and it has a lot of information on the Renaissance. It's in PDF format: Compendium. There is problay some useful information there. --Ashfire908 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Found another source. It was used in 1550-1600 in fashion, and is very long, but does have a lot of information. Here is the link. --Ashfire908 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia
To anyone who's interested, Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, was on the BBC morning radio in England Today 7 March 2007, 8:16am (archived at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ ) singling out this article in particular as being too full of liberal bias and for having all his contributions deleted. He also said the quantity of European spellings present showed that it was anti-American.Goatchurch 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * European spellings?? In an article on a European phenomenon? Imagine!  LOL.


 * I don't see any contributions from Andysch (talk • contribs) in the history. Did he say what his username was?  I'd love to see what was "deleted."


 * For what it's worth, I think the article does need a bit more expansion and explanation, preferably from someone with a broad historical expertise (my own expertise is rather focused on musicology .... er, is that "focussed"?) Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like he was driven off Wikipedia. That is a good sign things are working well. -- Stbalbach 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is peculiar that some of his claims are indeed valid. Regardless, I believe that this article was done well and with excellent collaboration. These are the type of encyclopedic articles which I believe gain Wikipedia its earned respect. 70.121.163.4 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The funny British spelling issue aside, it is a serious claim, and one I can understand well being a conservative but loving Wikipedia. Just take a look at Joseph McCarthy or Paul Wolfowitz and you will see what horrible left-wing sink holes they are. Christianity and its influence in the Renaissance should be included and conservatives should be invited to participate, since we are supposed to be building a neutral point of view encyclopedia. Just thought I'd share :) Judgesurreal777 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Renaissance as a historical age
This article refers to the Renaissance as a historical age, both in its introduction and the section of the same name. However, I think this might be quite an outmoded way of describing the Renaissance (as is evidenced by the 19th century works cited by that section). I'm only an undergraduate, but in all of the works I've read, it is described as a cultural movement, seperate from a historical age (I suppose it straddled the middle ages and the early modern period). Would anyone object to me changing the article to reflect these views? Tommaisey 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)