The
Renaissance
Although
in many ways a period of decline and disintegration, the Late Middle Ages also
witnessed an extraordinary outburst of cultural and intellectual creativity
known as the Renaissance. The Renaissance started in the fourteenth century in
the cities of northern Italy, where scholars and a social elite became more
interested in the literature and ideas of ancient Greece and Rome. As interest
in Classical civilization grew, so did a tendency to reject many of the ideas
and practices of medieval civilization. While remaining deeply religious, people
of the Renaissance concerned themselves more with the secular, physical world
than medieval people did. The term that best encompasses the meaning of the
Renaissance is humanism: a new concern with people as powerful, creative
individuals in a dynamic secular world. All this was reflected in the
literature, art, and societies of northern Italian cities from the fourteenth
century through the beginning of the sixteenth century, when invasions and other
problems led to a decline of the Renaissance in Italy.
In
Northern Europe the Renaissance started during the fifteenth century and lasted
through most of the sixteenth century. This Renaissance was heavily influenced
by the earlier Italian Renaissance; indeed, it was common for people to travel
south across the Alps and return north with the ideas and styles they were
exposed to in northern Italy. Nevertheless, the Northern Renaissance had some
roots and characteristics that distinguished it from the Italian Renaissance.
Above all, it was more integrated with Christian concerns. For example, more
emphasis was placed on learning Classical languages to improve translations of
the Bible, studying Classical literature for its relation to Christian ideals
and life, and producing artistic creations with predominantly religious themes.
This
chapter concentrates on one broad issue: the Renaissance. Examined here are
traits historians define as typical of the Renaissance, such as literary
humanism, humanistic education, and humanism in general. What was literary
humanism? How was the development of humanism reflected in educational changes
such as the new emphasis on the liberal arts? What problems were faced by those
involved in humanism? Artistic and political trends that reflect this humanism
are also explored. In what ways did Renaissance art differ from medieval art?
How are some of the main elements of the Renaissance reflected in the art of the
period? How did political theory mirror characteristics of the Renaissance? What
was the nature of the Renaissance in the North? How were some of the connections
between medieval concerns and Renaissance style reflected in the art of the
Northern Renaissance? Above all, the materials concern efforts by people of that
time as well as modern scholars to distinguish the Renaissance as a whole from
the preceding Middle Ages. How did important figures of the Italian Renaissance
view the Middle Ages? How sharp was the break, if any, with the Middle Ages? How
should the Renaissance be interpreted as a whole? Efforts to answer questions
such as these have caused considerable scholarly disagreement, most notably over
the interpretation by Jacob Burckhardt, which emphasizes the modernity and
distinctness of the Italian Renaissance. Secondary sources exemplify this
tradition of controversy over the meaning of the Renaissance.
The
Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy
Jacob
Burckhardt
Modern
interpretations of the Renaissance almost uniformly start with the Swiss
historian Jacob Burckhardt's The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy first
published in 1860. Burckhardt rcjected a chronological approach and pictured the
Italian Renaissance of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as a whole,
strikingly distinct from the preceding Middle Ages and clearly a superior
civilization. Until the 1920s, historians almost unanimously accepted his
interpretation. After that time various aspects of his thesis were attacked,
particularly by medievalists. In recent decades, however, Burckhardt's work has
gained new respectability, at least as an idealized cultural history of the
Italian Renaissance. In any case, all historians who approach this topic must
deal with Burckhardt's argument, some of the central points of which appear in
the following excerpt.
Consider:
What most distinguishes the Italian Renaissance from the preceding Middle Ages
according to Burckhardt; any support the primary documents might provide for
this argument; how a proud medievalist might respond to this argument.
In
the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness-that which was turned within
as that which was turned without-lay dreaming or half awake beneath a common
veil. The veil was woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through
which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues. Man was conscious of
himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation-only
through some general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an
objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all the things of this
world became possible. The subjective side at the same time asserted itself with
corresponding emphasis; man became a spiritual individual, and recognised
himself as such. In the same way the Greek had once distinguished himself from
the barbarian, and the Arabian had felt himself an individual at a time when
other Asiatics knew themselves only as members of a race.
In
far earlier times we can here and there detect a development of free personality
which in Northern Europe either did not occur at all, or could not display
itself in the same manner... But at the close of the thirteenth century Italy
began to swarm with individuality; the charm laid upon human personality was
dissolved; and a thousand figures meet us each in its own special shape and
dress. Dante's great poem would have been impossible in any other country of
Europe, if only for the reason that they all still lay under the spell of race.
For Italy the august poet, through the wealth of individuality which he set
forth, was the most national herald of his time. But this unfolding of the
treasures of human nature in literature and art-this many-sided representation
and criticism will be discussed in separate chapters; here we have to deal only
with the psychological fact itself. This fact appears in the most decisive and
unmistakable form. The Italians of the fourteenth century knew little of false
modesty or of hypocrisy in any shape; not one of them was afraid of singularity,
of being and seeming unlike his neighbours.
The
Myth of the Renaissance
Peter
Burke
Many
historians attacked Burckhardt's interpretation and the legacy built up around
it. These historians argued that Burckhardt overemphasized how modern the
Renaissance was. They stressed how much the Renaissance, even in Italy, was
still part of the medieval world. Other historians have responded that criticism
of Burckhardt go too far In the following selection Peter Burke criticizes
Burckhardt's idea of the Renaissance as a myth and describes the main objections
to it.
Consider:
Why, according to Burke, Burckhardt's idea of the Renaissance is a myth; how a
supporter of Burckhardt might respond; whether the sources give greater support
to Burckhardt's or Burke's interpretation.
Jacob
Burckhardt defined the period in terms of two concepts, 'individualism' and I
modernity'. 'In the Middle Ages', according to Burckhardt, 'human consciousness
... lay dreaming or half awake beneath a common veil.... Man was conscious of
himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation-only
through some general category.' In Renaissance Italy, however, 'this veil first
melted into air ... man became a spitual individual, and recognised himself as
such'. Renaissance meant modernity. The Italian was, Burckhardt wrote, 'the
first-born among the sons of modern Europe'. The fourteenth-century poet
Petrarch was 'one of the first truly modern men'. The great renewal of art and
ideas began in Italy, and at a later stage the new attitudes and the new
artistic forms spread to the rest of Europe.
This
idea of the Renaissance is a myth.
Burckhardt's
mistake was to accept the scholars and artists of the period at their own
valuation, to take this story of rebirth at its face value and to elaborate it
into a book. To the old formulae of the restoration of the arts and the revival
of classical antiquity, he added new ones such as individualism, realism, and
modernity.
This
nineteenth-century myth of the Renaissance is still taken seriously by many
people. Television companies and organisers of package tours still make money
out of it. However, professional historians have become dissatisfied with this
version of the Renaissance, even if they continue to find the period and the
movement attractive. The point is that the grand edifice erected by Burckhardt
and his contemporaries has not stood the test of time. More exactly, it has been
undermined by the researches of the medievalists in particular. Their arguments
depend on innumerable points of detail, but they are of two main kinds.
In
the first place, there are arguments to the effect that so-called 'Renaissance
men' were really rather medieval. They were more traditional in their behaviour,
assumptions and ideals than we tend to think-and also more traditional than they
saw themselves. Hindsight suggests that even Petrarch, 'one of the first truly
modern men', according to Burckhardt, had many attitudes in common with the
centuries he described as 'dark'. . . . . In the second place, the medievalists
have accumulated arguments to the effect that the Renaissance was not such a
singular event as Burckhardt and his contemporaries once thought and that the
term should really be used in the plural. There were various I renascences' in
the Middle Ages, notably in the twelfth century and in the age of Charlemagne.
In both cases there was a combination of literary and artistic achievements with
a revival of interest in classical learning, and in both cases contemporaries
described their age as one of restoration, rebirth or 'renovation.
Machiavelli
and the Renaissance
Federico
Chabod
Reactions
to and appreciations of Machiavelli's thought in The Prince form an apparently
contradictory history in themselves. On the one hand, few thinkers in the
history of political theory rank more highly than Machiavelli; he is recognized
as being the first modern political theorist. On the other hand, there is a more
popular tradition of rejecting his ideas as immoral; the term Machiavellian is
pejorative, referring to political opportunism and ruthlessness. In the
following selection Federico Chabod, an Italian historian who has written
extensively on Machiavelli, analyzes Machiavelli and the significance of his
ideas.
Consider:
Why Machiavelli's ideas are so appropriate to the historical realities of his
time; how the selections from The Prince support this interpretation of
Machiavelli.
The
leitmotiv of Machiavelli's posthumous life was his great assertion as a thinker,
representing his true and essential contribution to the history of human
thought, namely, the clear recognition of the autonomy and the necessity of
politics, 'which lies outside the realm of what is morally good or evil.'
Machiavelli thereby rejected the medieval concept of 'unity' and became one of
the pioneers of modern spirit.
For
Machiavelli accepted the political challenge in its entirety; he swept aside
every criterion of action not suggested by the concept of raison d'itat, i.e.,
by the exact evaluation of the historical moment and the constructive forces
which The Prince must employ in order to achieve his aim; and he held that the
activities of rulers were limited only by their capacity and energy. Hence, he
paved the way for absolute governments, which theoretically were completely
untrammelled, both in their home and in their foreign policies.
If
this was made possible by the Florentine Secretary's recognition of the autonomy
of politics, it depended, conversely, on his own peculiar conception of the
State, which he identified with the government, or rather with its personal
Head. Accordingly, in The Prince all his attention was riveted on the human
figure of the man who held the reins of government and so epitomized in his
person the whole of public life. Such a conception, determined directly by the
historical experience which Machiavelli possessed in such outstanding measure
and presupposing a sustained effort on the part of the central government, was
essential to the success and pre-eminence of his doctrine.
This
was a turning-point in the history of the Christian world. The minds of
political theorists were no longer trammelled by Catholic dogma. The structure
of the State was not yet threatened in other directions by any revolt of the
individual conscience. An entire moral world, if it was not eclipsed, had at any
rate receded into the shadows, nor was any other at once forthcoming to take its
place and to inspire a new fervour of religious belief; hence, political thought
could express itself without being confused by considerations of a different
character. It was an era in which unitarian States were being created amid the
ruins of the social and political order of the Middle Ages, an era in which it
was necessary to place all the weapons of resistance in the hands of those who
had still to combat the forces of feudalism and particularism. It was, in short,
an era in which it was essential that the freedom and grandeur of political
action and the strength and authority of central government should be clearly
affirmed. Only thus was it possible to obliterate once and for all the traces of
the past and to offer to the society of the future, in the guise of a precept,
the weapons which would preserve the life of the united nation in the face of
disruptive elements old and new.
This
was the great achievement of Niccolo Machiavelli, who accordingly became the
legitimate representative of politics and government, the man who was at once
admired and hated, followed and opposed, throughout two centuries of European
history; and it was on him that the eyes of men were to be fixed, because only
he, a poor, weary citizen of a city divided against itself, had proclaimed with
an eloquence that was now muted the nature of the arms which the sovereign
authority must employ in order to achieve victory.
Northern
Sources of the Renaissance
Charles
G. Nauert
Most
modern scholars argue that there were some differences between the Italian and
Northern European Renaissances. Perhaps most obviously, the Northern Renaissance
came later More importantly, while heavily influenced by Italian humanism,
humanism in Northern Europe was more tied to Christian culture and concerns. In
the following selection Charles Nauert explains differences between the Italian
and Northern Renaissance and argues that the North accepted Renaissance culture
only when that culture came to suit the particular historical needs of the
North.
Consider:
The ways the Northern Renaissance differed from the Italian Renaissance; how
Nauert explains these differences.
The
North itself would never have accepted Renaissance culture if that culture had
not suited its needs. The reorganized, powerful monarchies of the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries needed a new ideal for their servants and
courtiers, and the emphasis on public service, on personal merit, and on
learning provided an attractive substitute for the traditional manners of the
unlettered, unruly, and discredited feudal classes. The new ideal contained
enough emphasis on social class and military prowess to make it
credible
to a society where the hereditary nobility still counted for much. For the
kings, it offered the added advantage of servants who were refined and
cultivated, and who would wield the pen as well as the sword for their master.
In
addition to the monarchs and their courts, other important groups in the North
also found humanistic culture attractive. The powerful, self-confident merchant
oligarchies that governed the important towns, especially the prospering towns
of the Rhine Valley and of south Germany, found in humanism a cultural ideal far
more suited to the needs and prejudices of urban magnates than were the
chivalric and scholastic traditions of the Middle Ages. The large group of
would-be Church reformers found the characteristic Renaissance repudiation of
the recent past and the desire to return to the original sources quite
attractive, for the Roman past included the apostolic and early patristic age,
when the Church was still pure and uncorrupted.
The
humanism that grew up in the North was not a mere copy of the Italian culture,
but a grafting of Italian elements into a cultural tradition that varied from
country to country. Obviously, for example, Germans or even Frenchmen could not
revere the ancient Romans as their ancestors in quite the same sense that
Italians could.
What
did develop everywhere was a revulsion against the heritage of the immediate
past (often more open and violent than in Italy because scholastic traditions
and a clerical spirit had much greater strength in the North), and the conscious
adoption of an idealized Greek and Roman Antiquity as the model for reforming
literature, education, and the whole ideal of the educated man. Even more than
in Italy, Northern humanists enthusiastically looked to the apostolic and
patristic age of the Church as a valuable part of the ancient heritage they
sought to restore. This emphasis on ancient Christianity, combined with the
widespread movements of lay piety that flourished in the lower Rhine Valley and
other parts of Northern Europe, explains why humanism north of the Alps directed
much of its reformist activity toward reform of the Church and deepening of
personal religious experience.
Chapter
Questions
1.
In what ways was the Renaissance a new development, strikingly different from
the preceding Middle Ages? How might the "newness" of these
developments be minimized or reinterpreted as an evolutionary continuation of
the Middle Ages?
2.
According to the sources in this chapter, what was particularly humanistic about
the cultural productions and the attitudes of the Renaissance?