|
28 Aug 08 - 09:09 PM (#2425047) Subject: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: EBarnacle I was travelling and ruminating last weekend and began to wonder, which was more causative, the weaponization of gunpowder or the increasing power of the merchant class. The weapons theory is based upon the concept that, as more weapons got into private hands, power would have shifted from the church and nobility to those who were willing to resist them. Roving bands of freelance soldiers got to be better armed around this time, also. The merchant theory relates to the idea that, in order to supply the needs of the church and nobility, the merchants acquired more freedom to travel and trade. As they were not tied to the land and lived in the towns, both they and the towns became more independent of the power of the upper classes. This freedom would have required both artist and other specialists to meet the needs of those around them. |
|
28 Aug 08 - 09:34 PM (#2425068) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Riginslinger A couple of comments: Just having weapons does not make a military force. Look at the street gangs we have today. It takes organization and leadership to change things with force. It's kind of always bothered me that the artists of the day had to suck up to the church and the upper class. What might they have expressed if they could have simply said what they thought? |
|
28 Aug 08 - 09:41 PM (#2425070) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: catspaw49 I think it was a small group of performance artists living in a commune in Muncie, Indiana. One day they just woke up and saw the futility of wrapping miles of freeway guardrail in tin foil and calling it "art".......not too mention living in Muncie. As they stared at each other over a breakfast of soy milk and All-Bran, they collectively had one thought............"Jesus Christ! We need to get our shit together!" And indeed they did. Spaw |
|
28 Aug 08 - 10:14 PM (#2425081) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Rapparee I think Spaw's got it in one. Ball State caused the Renny...Renas...that thing. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:15 AM (#2425116) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: CarolC I think it was probably weapons, but not for the reasons stated. Weapons enabled the rulers of Europe to amass fortunes by going to other parts of the world and simply taking whatever they wanted (including human beings). These fortunes in large part paid for the Renaissance. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:25 AM (#2425121) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Amos I suspect it was a convergence of elements, including economic factors, health factors, and new communication lines from the Orient by way of Venice stimulating new modes of thought. A |
|
29 Aug 08 - 03:09 AM (#2425158) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Paul Burke Gunpowder was fairly marginal as a weapon, except for sieges, up to the late 15th century- the Italian states (we agree the Renaissance started in Italy?) used mercenary forces of Swiss pikemen as their mainstay up till then. It was only in the 17th century that gunpowder really democratised death. It was a term that was only used afterwards, when the effects were obvious, like the Industrial Revolution, so it's perfectly possible that it didn't have an origin, rather several streams that happened to flow fortuitously together. There had been revivals in learning, art, architecture, technology, and agriculture earlier- see Jean Gimpel's excellent book The Mediaeval Machine. My own take involves the adoption of paper- becoming widespread by the 14th century; increasing complexity of society as landowners found it cheaper to pay people than to extract unwilling customary services, and to enter the market economy to a greater extent. Their needs were serviced by the merchant class, who both had money and needed to keep track of their trading. The more complex accounts thus required by both aristocracy and merchants lead to more widespread literacy (Chaucer, Piers Plowman, many others); this leading to a demand for reading matter, with the invention of printing (mid 15th century onwards) supplying the demand. I think it was paper, printing and literacy that made it "The Renaissance" rather than a mere change in artistic style, and spread it among the population at large. This in turn led to the examination of social structures that brought about the Reformations. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 06:34 AM (#2425265) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Teribus Knowledge and the dissemination of it to a far greater audience than before. I don't believe gunpowder had anything to do with it for the reasons given above by Paul Burke whose last paragraph is absolutely correct. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 11:11 AM (#2425458) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Rapparee I actually think that the diffusion of knowledge made possible by movable type, coupled with a great dissatisfaction with the Roman Church and the form of government in use, did more to kick start it anything else. Gunpowder and cannon were only really affordable by the nobility. The bow or crossbow, the spear, or the knife were far more populist weapons. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:01 PM (#2425534) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,Peter T. I am reminded of the joke, man goes into a restaurant advertising "Breakfast Anytime!" and orders ham and eggs during the Renaissance. yours, Peter T. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:20 PM (#2425551) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,lox Don't forget the church - much maligned and typecast as the anti progress vilain of the piece - they initiated the whole process of exploring the wonder of Gods Universe that paved the way for people like Galileo. It backfired on them of course as instead of bolstering their power it ended up undermining it, but they nonetheless got the ball rolling, in philosophy, music and science. Of course in those days there was no divide between science art and philosophy as is evidenced by Da Vinci. But to focus my ramblings a bit better lets just remind ourselves that "rennaissance" means rebirth in french. Rebirth of what? - old knowledge. How? - academic study of ancient texts. Where? - monasteries. why? - in attempt to explore, expose and glorify the greatness of creation and consequently, God. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:00 PM (#2425673) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: EBarnacle Interesting concept about paper and literacy. Bear in mind that the Spanish/Visigoths did their best to supress an earlier Renaissance in Spain by pushing the Muslims and, ultimately, the Jews out as a threat to their way of thinking and performing religion. Both societies emphasized learning, especially literacy and numeracy. In almost all of Western Europe, the only "Jewish" jobs allowed which allowed interaction with the populace were goldsmithing, jewelry and handling commerce and money. The local minions of Holy Mother Church, in conjunction with the civil authorities, did their best to squeeze the Jews and make their lives intolerable, possibly to encourage conversion as well as supporting the regimes. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:25 PM (#2425691) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,Uomo Universale The concept of "rebirth" was certainly contemporaneous, and as lox states above involved the study of all things ancient (not exactly rediscovery - the Holy Roman Empire was in many respects a persistence of the Western Roman Empire (i.e excluding the Eastern, based in Constantinople) - but rather a study that gained force over decades and centuries), including manuscripts, and architecture and sculpture. The Sorbonne in Paris was particularly noted for the study of Aristotle. Definite borrowings from ancient sculpture may be found in the work of the Pisani from the mid thirteenth century, and in fact it's been shown that the "vocabulary" of sculpture in particular, as practised i fifteenth-century Italy, can invariably be traced to Antique prototypes. As Amos mentions too, there was a combination of many, "non-artistic", factors too. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM (#2425847) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Peter T. Yes, but remember the term only comes in to use in the nineteenth century. yours, Peter T. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:52 PM (#2425855) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,lox Peter, Agreed - the term rebirth is an observation made in hindsight by later generations. At the time it was probably perceived more as newly emerging wisdom and a glimpse of gods great revelation. And it must have been a great time to be alive if you were one of those on the cutting edge with permission to indulge, as advances in knowledge and understanding were so raw and so monstous in their significance. Scientific knowledge was in its infancy. Europe was stepping up out of the primordial ooze, looking up and seeing the stars. When I listen to Tallis I fantasize about how that kind of thing must have sounded in an old church to a commoner. I see a farmer used to small dark buildings walking into a huge stone structure lit up by vast colourful windows, seemingly by God himself, and the sound of a choir echoing in acoustic majesty. The sense of majesty of the universe must have filled the academics of the day with awe and wonder. Anyway, enough euphoric wandering ... |
|
29 Aug 08 - 07:47 PM (#2425932) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Q (Frank Staplin) The European renaissance was supported by trade with the Mediterranean, Middle and Far East and by the gold and silver from the New World. The church, nobility and merchant traders would not have developed the leisure and the means to support art, science, study and industry without the cash and fusion of ideas these endeavors made possible. The expulsion of the Muslims and Jews from Iberia, with their knowledge and tolerance, was followed rather rapidly by expansion into the Americas, building on the beginnings by the Portuguese. Often forgotton in a discussion of the renaissance are the Spanish and Portuguese boom towns of the 1500s in the area from Mexico to Brazil, and similar development in India and the 'Spice Islands,' followed soon after by the English and their rapid naval expansion. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:05 PM (#2425970) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Don Firth A major factor: For much of the first millennium the Church and what scholars there were, were bogged down in the Platonic view that what we see in the outward world is like distorted shadows on a wall (Plato's Allegory of the Cave), and the Truth is to be found by looking inward—the contemplation of the True Essence of Things. The Church translated the realm of True Essences onto "Heaven" and inward contemplation into meditation and prayer (guided, of course, by the Scriptures). Knowledge came through God's revelation. In the wake of the Crusades, many presumed lost manuscripts and scrolls were brought back from the Middle East, among them, many of the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle's world view was diametrically opposed to Plato's. Look outward, examine what you see, and think about it. Not just random speculations, but logically (and Aristotle essentially invented logic, writing a substantial treatise on the subject which is still considered valid today). The mathematics of thought. Thomas Aquinas tried to use Aristotle's principles of logic to prove the existence of God. His understanding of Aristotle's logic was not too good, and all of his arguments contained fallacies (but that doesn't stop some modern theologians from still using them). But the effort got others interested in the use of logic—in combination with Aristotle's other principle: observation. Many of these folks did observe, took what they saw and thought about it logically as Aristotle said, came to tentative conclusions (theories), then went to take another look. The scientific method. Galileo. Copernicus. Soon whole bunches of others. At the same time, painters developed perspective, and learned about anatomy (Leonard da Vinci, Michelangelo), because they looked, and painted what they saw rather than trying to work from some inward vision. A millennium and a half before, the Greeks, judging from their statuary, were quite good at this, but it seems to have been forgotten during the Middle Ages. Not the whole story, but that was the core of it. People started looking for themselves and thinking about it rather than simply accepting what they were told by priests and aristocrats. Don Firth |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:10 PM (#2425973) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Jack Blandiver I always thought it was down to decent glass... |
|
30 Aug 08 - 01:11 PM (#2426329) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: EBarnacle The mention of the New World is one of the issues not often mentioned. Many of the Conversos and other expelees from Spain and Portugal ended up there. A century later, the first Jewish inhabitants of New York were refugees from the Spanish colonies. Despite the presence of the Inquisition, the New World was more amenable to non-Catholic inhabitants simply because they could leave the major settlements and live "out there." Although urban areas are conducive to the development of non-subsistence culture, groups of people living relatively unsupervised could be a lot more freely. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 01:13 PM (#2426332) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: EBarnacle Oops, make that last "live more freely" and develop the concepts which were stifled elsewhere. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM (#2426481) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: McGrath of Harlow Fall of Byzantium in 1453 was always given as a major factor when I was at school. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 06:07 PM (#2426498) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,lox "People started looking for themselves and thinking about it rather than simply accepting what they were told by priests and aristocrats." Don, I find the rest of your post illuminating and as useful as you present it But don't forget that copernicus was a monk and Galileo's education came from the church and Pope Urban initially supported Galileo and encouraged his work before Galileo was found guilty by the inquisition of breaching a decision made in 1616 that the copernican view was wrong. The right wing of the church clearly had a lot to answer for, but the advances in knowledge that occurred during that period were made by christians in a religious environment so to imply that all priests were against progress is wrong. As for elitism, the idea that the common man had access to this kind of education at all is wrong. Any education has been an elitist privelege till comparatively recently. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 06:19 PM (#2426505) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,lox a useful link that supports 99% of dons post. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 08:14 PM (#2426553) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Don Firth Thanks for posting the link, lox. My comments were not meant to be an exhaustive thesis on the origin(s) of the Renaissance, I was trying to point out one of the more important of a number of factors that brought it about. ". . . to imply that all priests were against progress is wrong." I wasn't trying to imply that. I'm aware that many of those who were involved it kick-starting the Renaissance were clergy who, more often than not, were the only literate folks around. In the main, about the only way a young man could get an education in those days was to join a monastery. Nor do I mean to say that, as important as Aristotle was in the process (through the roughly one-quarter of his writings that survived the intervening centuries), he was most definitely not right about everything. His ideas of astronomy were as off-base as just about everyone else's at the time. But "Observe carefully" and "think systematically," then "observe again, . . ." A few good ideas go a long way. By the way, Aristarchus was another Greek who was beginning to get a grasp on things. He even came up with pretty definitive proof that the earth was round, and by measuring shadows at noon on two different summer soltsices many miles apart and applying a bit of primitive trigonometry, he got a pretty close estimate of the circumferance of the earth. Pretty cool for a guy running around in sandals and a bed sheet! Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 08 - 08:20 PM (#2426556) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: McGrath of Harlow It's a mistake to talk about the Renaissance and the Reformation as if they were one and the same. In some ways the Reformation can even be seen as a reaction against the Renaissance. |
|
31 Aug 08 - 03:26 AM (#2426632) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: GUEST,Oakville Ah thought this thread was about our friend Jane Relf singing Northern Lights. |
|
31 Aug 08 - 07:09 PM (#2427152) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Rowan And, all this time, I've been led to believe the origin of the Renaissance was in the Risorgimento. Cheers, Rowan |
|
01 Sep 08 - 10:25 AM (#2427640) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Riginslinger "In some ways the Reformation can even be seen as a reaction against the Renaissance." McGrath - How do you make this connection. It seems to me that the Reformation was simply a continuation of Renaissance. |
|
01 Sep 08 - 10:33 AM (#2427648) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Donuel Ah Aristarchus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you do not know Aristarchus GET TO KNOW HIM A name virtually censored to this day and an all time favorite enlightened person to Carl Sagan! however did the origin to the Renaissance begin with dr. who leaving his lap top back in 1466? |
|
04 Sep 08 - 05:41 PM (#2431299) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: McGrath of Harlow Well, you could say the Cold War was a continuation of World War Two. One led into the other, and helped shape it. The artistic and cultural flowering of the Rennaissance was associated with a fair number of excesses, sort of analogous with sex and drugs and rock and roll in the Sixties, along with the music etc. In both cases you got a reaction against it from people who didn't like that kind of stuff and saw it as a corruption of true religion and family values In the Sixteenth century, the Reformers, in the 20th century the Religious Right. I wouldn't stretch the analogy too far, since real life is always more complicated than that, and the Religious Right never got round to doing stuff analogous to wrecking cathedrals (they's been more the style of that other bunch of latter-day Reformers, the Taliban and Co.) But I'd maintain that it's best to recognise a distinction between the Renaissance and he Reformation. |
|
04 Sep 08 - 10:42 PM (#2431490) Subject: RE: BS: Origin of the Renaissance From: Skivee Slightly off-topic It was fun seeing and singing with the both of you |