Are there any Good Chronological Histories of the Renaissance?

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

Every history of the Renaissance that I have found, much to my disappointment, presents the Renaissance out of chronological order by categories such as "The Discovery of the World and of Man" in Jacob Burckhardt or "Science and Philosophy" in Jerry Brotton (a post-modern hack whose book was given as our "textbook" in a class on the Renaissance). This is all fine and dandy if you already understand the context and the general progression of events and ideas during the Renaissance, but it leaves someone with little knowledge of that period (like me) completely befuddled.

Is there a decent history of the Renaissance that proceeds in chronological order?

[ewv 0]

google "renaissance chronology"

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

google "renaissance chronology"

I do not want a Renaissance Chronology, but a Renaissance HISTORY that is presented chronologically.

[ewv 0]

google "renaissance chronology"

I do not want a Renaissance Chronology, but a Renaissance HISTORY that is presented chronologically.

Then go to the library and find the best history you can, then use the chronological outlines to keep track of the order. Whatever kind of history you read, it usually helps to make a diagram for yourself showing who of the major figures followed or overlapped whom, with major events plotted on your diagram. No history is purely chrnological because there are too many overlapping, parallel trends that have to be grouped conceptually to understand them.

[Bill Bucko 0]

One rule of thumb: if the book doesn't mention Manuel Chrysoloras or Coluccio Salutati, then it's definitely lacking.

Where did the Renaissance start? Florence. How? It was of course a broad intellectual movement; but certain figures were enormously important. After the impetus provided by Petrarch, the two figures I mention above were highly instrumental. In 1375 the scholarly Coluccio Salutati became chancellor (official secretary) of the city, and until his death in 1406 did all he could to promote rekindling of classical learning and a humanistic world-view.

Very notably, he invited Manuel Chrysoloras of Constantinople to the city. Chrysoloras (1353?-1415) taught Greek to most of the first generation of Renaissance humanists (Lionardo Bruni, Niccolo Niccoli, Guarino of Verona etc.), and his activity in Florence (1397-1400) marks the beginning of the Renaissance.

Similarly, no treatment is adequate unless it mentions Tommaso Parentucelli who, as the first humanist Pope Nicholas V (reigned 1447-1455), founded the Vatican Library and enormously fostered scholarship.

Offhand, I'm afraid I can't recommend a single chronological overview. I read many books, then created my own overview in my mind.

===

Chrsoloras appears as a character in Chapter 1 of my novel The Outcasts : http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=7627 ;

Salutati appears briefly in Chapter 2: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=7652 .

Pope Nicholas V is a major character in my (unpublished) apprentice novel Bring Me Giants!, the hero of which is an atheistic scholar the pope calls to Rome to be the Vatican Library's first librarian.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

One rule of thumb: if the book doesn't mention Manuel Chrysoloras or Coluccio Salutati, then it's definitely lacking.

Where did the Renaissance start? Florence. How? It was of course a broad intellectual movement; but certain figures were enormously important. After the impetus provided by Petrarch, the two figures I mention above were highly instrumental. In 1375 the scholarly Coluccio Salutati became chancellor (official secretary) of the city, and until his death in 1406 did all he could to promote rekindling of classical learning and a humanistic world-view.

Very notably, he invited Manuel Chrysoloras of Constantinople to the city. Chrysoloras (1353?-1415) taught Greek to most of the first generation of Renaissance humanists (Lionardo Bruni, Niccolo Niccoli, Guarino of Verona etc.), and his activity in Florence (1397-1400) marks the beginning of the Renaissance.

Similarly, no treatment is adequate unless it mentions Tommaso Parentucelli who, as the first humanist Pope Nicholas V (reigned 1447-1455), founded the Vatican Library and enormously fostered scholarship.

Offhand, I'm afraid I can't recommend a single chronological overview. I read many books, then created my own overview in my mind.

===

Chrsoloras appears as a character in Chapter 1 of my novel The Outcasts : http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=7627 ;

Salutati appears briefly in Chapter 2: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=7652 .

Pope Nicholas V is a major character in my (unpublished) apprentice novel Bring Me Giants!, the hero of which is an atheistic scholar the pope calls to Rome to be the Vatican Library's first librarian.

An excellent article! Well done. In addition to the items you mention, the Original Poster might consult the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_sch..._in_Renaissance

which gives a good listing of the Byzantine Scholars that brought some of the ancient Greek learning back to Italy. The list of references in the wiki article could be a good starting point for digging into the past.

When Chrysoloras arrived in Florence to teach the Greek language and to translate Homer and some of Plato into Latin, Greek had not been studied in Italy for over 700 years! My gracious, that is a long dark forgetful night since the collapse of the Roman Empire. The light of mind and learning flickered dimly in the monasteries. Fortunately it was never extinguished entirely.

A word to the Original Poster: I doubt that there currently exists a detailed chronologically ordered history of the Renaissance, such as you want. Mr. Bucko's suggestion that you construct such a history for yourself, from disparate sources might be in order. However, it would be a very derivative history, unless you know Greek and Latin and can access original source material .

Peace and a blessing,

ruveyn

[Bill Bucko 0]

... No history is purely chronological because there are too many overlapping, parallel trends that have to be grouped conceptually to understand them.

[emphasis added]

Excellent point!

One further benchmark:

The majority of popular writers on the Renaissance thoughtlessly pay lip service to the myopic, hackneyed idea that the Renaissance was a Platonist trend, in reaction against the allegedly Aristotelian Middle Ages. They have little conception of the role of ideas in history, or the way ideas gradually produce their results over a span of time. Or, indeed, of what a fundamental idea is. A perceptive minority of (conceptually-minded) scholars agree with Miss Rand's profound observation (in "For the New Intellectual") that the Renaissance was essentially Aristotelian.

You'll find a similar phenomenon concerning the "Scientific Revolution." Galileo himself protested against the common misconception that he was anti-Aristotelian; in fact, he wrote, he disagreed with a few non-essential specifics of Aristotle's physics, but was very much in tune with Aristotle's fundamental emphasis on the role of observation as the starting point of science.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Every history of the Renaissance that I have found, much to my disappointment, presents the Renaissance out of chronological order by categories such as "The Discovery of the World and of Man" in Jacob Burckhardt or "Science and Philosophy" in Jerry Brotton (a post-modern hack whose book was given as our "textbook" in a class on the Renaissance). This is all fine and dandy if you already understand the context and the general progression of events and ideas during the Renaissance, but it leaves someone with little knowledge of that period (like me) completely befuddled.

Is there a decent history of the Renaissance that proceeds in chronological order?

There obviously is not going to be any good, proper history of the Renaissance published in the last 100 years. Ewv's advice just to go in the library will not work; worse, you're likely to pick one of the books fairly respected in the modern scholarly community, such as by Paul Kristellar. If modern scholars would accept the notion of Renassance at all, he would be the one to explain it to them. He's the expert on that period in modern times, and I cannot tell you just how terrible is, and how horrible his ideas are. He's the epitome of the men who twisted young minds into horrific, comprachico proportions.

So -- who else is there then? I think what you're asking is: what are the great Victorian books which were written on the Renaissance. Then people still understood its greatness.

The best book, I've found, is Education in the Age of the Renaissance, by W.H. Woodward. It focuses with an intense light on the early humanists, their Latin Classical education, their deepest values; the transmission of Greek Classics by Crysoloras in the nick of time before the Turks savaged Constantinople; etc. It's not a whole history. It won't give a lot on the great Petrarch who founded the Renaissance, and there's not much in it on art. It just deals with the essentials, and the essential few figures at the core of it -- Guarino who taught Italy, Erasmus who taught France, and Melanchthon who established Classical schools in Germany (which Kepler and Leibnitz were later educated in). This is book is the key to unlocking all of the Renaissance, since education and literature are more fundamental than artistic developments.

But art is important, and what the Renaissance is famous for. To get the best insight into the Renaissance art, from early Florentine efforts to shake off medievalism, to fullest expresions later, there's nothing better than Medici, by G.F. Young.

Both of these were published in the first years of the 20th century, and represent the last (and best, as far as I know) effort to give the Renaissance its due. Burckhardt is not a great Renaissance book.

There was a book published just this month, making huge waves in literary circles: 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. It's an incipid volume all about how the Chinese delegation to Florence in 1434 transmitted to Italy all of China's great inventions, which ignited the marvelous scientific and technical jumps which Italy is signified by in the 15-16th centuries. But I'm going to surprise you by saying that it's actually a fairly great access-point into the amazing Italian engineers, because if you disregard the book's preposterous and horrible thesis, the detail and attention which the author lavishes on the staggering Renaissance engineering is unparalleled anywhere in modern literature. The author puts all of his breath and effort into explaining how the great Renaissance was fueled by (sic) equally great Chinese scientists, while no self-respecting critic today will admit there even was a Renaissance worth talking about. So this horrible book, with a horrible thesis, underneath it all has a good and accessible insight into Italy's engineering and scientific revolution.

That's about all the topics I can help with -- education, Classics and values; then art; then engineering and science.

[B. Royce 0]

Does anyone know if Denys Hay is any good?

[Vespasiano 0]

Every history of the Renaissance that I have found, much to my disappointment, presents the Renaissance out of chronological order by categories such as "The Discovery of the World and of Man" in Jacob Burckhardt or "Science and Philosophy" in Jerry Brotton (a post-modern hack whose book was given as our "textbook" in a class on the Renaissance). This is all fine and dandy if you already understand the context and the general progression of events and ideas during the Renaissance, but it leaves someone with little knowledge of that period (like me) completely befuddled.

Is there a decent history of the Renaissance that proceeds in chronological order?

Well . . . the Burckhardt is, in many ways, the benchmark history of the period not least of which because it is a wonderful read. Although the Renaissance was not my particular area, I've never considered the period to be one that would lend itself to a purely chronological presentation. After all, the Renaissance was not a period marked by a linear progression of simultaneous or contemporaneous developments either within a single field or across different fields of interest, let alone all the regions of Western Europe. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that, outside of general statements pertaining to the period as a whole, any attempt to draw such a thing would create more confusion than it could ever resolve.

[Bill Bucko 0]

Does anyone know if Denys Hay is any good?

Denys Hay edited one excellent source book that's a CORNERSTONE of my library: The Age of the Renaissance (Thames and Hudson, 1967). This is an attractive, OVERSIZED volume, LAVISHLY illustrated with hundreds of color and black and white pictures, including many contemporary woodcuts. Reading the captions alone consitutes a real education! You want to see an actual portrait of Chrysoloras, or Salutati, or Bruni, or Poggio, or Valla, you go here. Individual chapters are written by noted scholars.

I just searched Amazon for this book, and find only a much smaller work with the same title, apparently lacking all the illustrations.

Instead, go to http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchEntry , specify the title, specify the publisher as Thames and Hudson. You are in luck! I am AMAZED to find any copies of this huge volume available for under $100! Instead, it has several in the $10-20 range, which is a steal. E.g.:

Book Description: Thames and Hudson, London, 1967. Hardcovers. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good. Large Qto. Large, heavy book. 359 pages, 600 illustrations, 180 in colour, 420 woodcuts and photographs, drawings and maps.

[Bill Bucko 0]

I might add that the authors of the chapters in The Age of the Renaissance were actual working scholars (not armchair "experts"), who've spent years digging through the massive surviving archives, to uncover fascinating insights into the way people thought and lived.

When it comes to Florence, my favorite scholar will always be Dr. Gene Brucker (especially his wonderful collection of documents, The Society of Renaissance Florence). In spite of a few shortcomings, his digging in the archives and publishing his finds gave me invaluable ideas for my novels!

If you want a sense of what it was like to live back then, I recommend these two novels:

The Florentine by Sandra Shulman (make sure you order the American edition, not the British one), and

Bellarion, by Rafael Sabatini .

Both are beautifully-written masterpieces that deserve to be much more widely known. My favorite, The Florentine, does degenerate, toward the end, into a romance novel; but it is HIGHLY ACCURATE in showing a WIDE RANGE of characters, from strong-spirited little girl to savage peasant to degenerate aristocrat to great artist.

[B. Royce 0]

Does anyone know if Denys Hay is any good?

Denys Hay edited one excellent source book that's a CORNERSTONE of my library: The Age of the Renaissance (Thames and Hudson, 1967). This is an attractive, OVERSIZED volume, LAVISHLY illustrated with hundreds of color and black and white pictures, including many contemporary woodcuts. Reading the captions alone consitutes a real education! You want to see an actual portrait of Chrysoloras, or Salutati, or Bruni, or Poggio, or Valla, you go here. Individual chapters are written by noted scholars.

I just searched Amazon for this book, and find only a much smaller work with the same title, apparently lacking all the illustrations.

Instead, go to http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchEntry , specify the title, specify the publisher as Thames and Hudson. You are in luck! I am AMAZED to find any copies of this huge volume available for under $100! Instead, it has several in the $10-20 range, which is a steal. E.g.:

Book Description: Thames and Hudson, London, 1967. Hardcovers. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good. Large Qto. Large, heavy book. 359 pages, 600 illustrations, 180 in colour, 420 woodcuts and photographs, drawings and maps.

Thank you, Bill.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

I have found a decent read in The Italian Renaissance by J. H. Plumb. What do you think of this book? The only thing that I dislike about it so far is an absurd comment about how unbridled capitalism caused the economic swings of the Renaissance. Other than that it seems quite good.

[Kitty Hawk 0]

There was a book published just this month, making huge waves in literary circles: 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. It's an incipid volume all about how the Chinese delegation to Florence in 1434 transmitted to Italy all of China's great inventions, which ignited the marvelous scientific and technical jumps which Italy is signified by in the 15-16th centuries. But I'm going to surprise you by saying that it's actually a fairly great access-point into the amazing Italian engineers, because if you disregard the book's preposterous and horrible thesis, the detail and attention which the author lavishes on the staggering Renaissance engineering is unparalleled anywhere in modern literature. The author puts all of his breath and effort into explaining how the great Renaissance was fueled by (sic) equally great Chinese scientists, while no self-respecting critic today will admit there even was a Renaissance worth talking about. So this horrible book, with a horrible thesis, underneath it all has a good and accessible insight into Italy's engineering and scientific revolution.

I just perused the comments about this book on Amazon, and from that is sounds like the author just guessed that this Chinese fleet went to Italy? In other words, there is historical evidence for a series of voyages, but no evidence that they went to Italy, let alone ignited the Renaissance. That's pretty bizarre. The comments mentioned an earlier volume claiming the Chinese discovered America in 1421, and a third volume to come about their sending a rocket to Mars. Does he give better sources for the portions of the book that deal with the Italian engineering achievements?

[Free Capitalist 0]

I just perused the comments about this book on Amazon, and from that is sounds like the author just guessed that this Chinese fleet went to Italy? In other words, there is historical evidence for a series of voyages, but no evidence that they went to Italy, let alone ignited the Renaissance. That's pretty bizarre. The comments mentioned an earlier volume claiming the Chinese discovered America in 1421, and a third volume to come about their sending a rocket to Mars. Does he give better sources for the portions of the book that deal with the Italian engineering achievements?

The prequel, about how the Chinese discovered America in 1421, is highly controversial. It is not as easy to dismiss it as one might think. Cranks who make it onto a world stage usually have some very good arguments they can fall back on. The facts are, that in 1420 a gigantic fleet shipped out from China, containing some ships that have measured 200+ feet in length, dwarfing Columbus' Santa Maria. That much is pretty certain. Also, at that time China was on a cultural high, not unlike the Muslims. We know this humongous fleet reached at least the eastern coast of Africa, and explored it. Conventional history has it that having performed the exploration, the fleet turned back, its intrepid navigator was imprisoned at home, and detailed records of the voyage were burned by the court eunichs. "1421" argues that what the eunichs burned was this fleet continuing on past Africa, circumnavigating it, then sailing across the Ocean, exploring America, returning to Spain and passing off this knowledge to the Spanish/Portugese, and then sailing home, getting records burnt, etc. One of the pivotal arguments on which this rests are is a pair of highly, highly controversial maps. One of them is a European map from 1450s, showing parts of the American coast, before they ever were supposed to have such knowledge. There's an even more explosive Chinese map, dating from 1418 and again showing parts of America. The original didn't survive, so the proof is a 1700's copy of that map. There's other evidence the book falls on, including some hearsay that the Spanish knew exactly where they were going; and that Columbus wasn't afraid to miss, because supposedly he carried the Chinese maps with him. Like I said, a complicated story, and like all successful pseudo-intellectual works, it is strongly wedded to hard facts, and a few 'maybes' which push the course of history its way.

The "1434" is a sequel to all this. That the way Italians discovered their perspective in painting, built their simply stunning and ingenious machinery, was that this giant fleet stopped in Italy and taught them. I don't know the details, but there supposedly was some sort of a Chinese embassy to Florence in 1434; I don't know enough but I wouldn't discount that fact. Hinging on this, the author sketches how the fairly advanced science of China was generously shared with the Italians, who created the Renaissance. And again, the ostensible factual details all look extremely strong. The book has supposed sketches of machines from 1300, that then find their way to Leonardo's handbooks. There's an image of a Chinese painter employing projection, in the same way that Italians later would in helping them paint perspective. Again, a very involved argument, deeply mired in hard facts and speculative maybes. That's the sort of enemies we're dealing with. No self-respecting scholar will even accept a Renaissance, and the only famous author who does, does it to ascribe the credit to someone else. We need serious, great scholars, like in the day.

Anyway, fine the Chinese may have had surveyors performing projection on a building, like Italians later would. But I have a factual stumbling block this author will never get me across -- the Chinese never invented perspective. Chinese paintings are the flattest things that can ever be found in the pictoral arts. They didn't even understand shadow, let alone perspective. So he can pull out all kinds of arcane Chinese manuscripts which look similar, but the fact is, the Chinese never had that Renaissance. So they couldn't have caused it in others. So there. Having realized that, I let myself sleep untroubled at night.

[Bill Bucko 0]

... The "1434" is a sequel to all this. That the way Italians discovered their perspective in painting, built their simply stunning and ingenious machinery, was that this giant fleet stopped in Italy and taught them.

So the a______ who scribbled this wretched tome maintains that Italians in the 1430s were too primitive to write down that an enormous fleet from Cathay visited them?

1434 saw the dedication of Santa Maria del Fiore, the city of Florence's cathedral. Those who attended the festivities, however, were unaware that there was a Chinese delegation in their midst ... neither did they notice space aliens, or lineal descendents of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. But perhaps the Chinese used a time machine to go back a few years and teach the great architect Brunellesci how to build the cathedral's dome. They may also have used the time machine to teach Lorenzo Ghiberti, Paolo Uccello and Donatello about perspective.*

Perhaps the Chinese used an invisibility cloak. Or the aliens beamed them down from their mother ship. And all written records vanished into the Bermuda Triangle.

* As fans of the aforesaid book are probably unaware, Donatello was not a turtle.

[PhilO 0]

Somehow a book claiming that the Chinese invented and discovered everything related to the Renaissance reminds me of Chekov's constant claims on Star Trek that the Russians invented everything first.

The book could be interesting from one perspective: are the self-aggrandizing Chinese communists, who've managed to rationalize that *they* are the miraculous cause of China's recent economic prosperity, funding propaganda that retroactively gives credit to China for the success of the West in the first place?

[PhilO 0]

I poked into this a little more (google: Gavin Menzies chinese propaganda) and my surmise isn't unique; see e.g. http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=298, from one of the posts regarding the book (written by a multiculturalist who was on a student exchange to Berkely, the sort of Western anti-objectivity airhead that the book is partly aimed at - see the other posters on that thread as well):

To get a feel of the spectrum of responses, here’s a lecturer from New Jersey:

As a professor of Chinese history, I cringe now thinking about the time that I will have to take during class, time that could be used teaching about Chinese history and civilization, to disabuse students who have heard about this caper. … Perhaps the most significant part of this project is this: Mr. Menzies stated that he was surprised to meet two professors in China who were making the same argument. This idea, that China 'discovered America', reflects a new nationalism in China. This idea is not popular among professors in China, but I will not be surprised if we discover a few months from now that this project enjoyed support from political circles within China.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I just perused the comments about this book on Amazon, and from that is sounds like the author just guessed that this Chinese fleet went to Italy? In other words, there is historical evidence for a series of voyages, but no evidence that they went to Italy, let alone ignited the Renaissance. That's pretty bizarre. The comments mentioned an earlier volume claiming the Chinese discovered America in 1421, and a third volume to come about their sending a rocket to Mars. Does he give better sources for the portions of the book that deal with the Italian engineering achievements?

There is good archeological evidence that Vikings made landfall at what is now Cape Cod, Mass., back in the 12 th century. Viking anchor rings were found in the part of the cape furthest out from land. Several Viking landfalls were made in North American back in the 11 th and 12 th century.

I don't know if one could call that discovery or not. In any case the Vikings never made a permanent settlement in North America.

ruveyn

[Vespasiano 0]

There is good archeological evidence that Vikings made landfall at what is now Cape Cod, Mass., back in the 12 th century. Viking anchor rings were found in the part of the cape furthest out from land. Several Viking landfalls were made in North American back in the 11 th and 12 th century.

I don't know if one could call that discovery or not. In any case the Vikings never made a permanent settlement in North America.

In a real sense, you've answered your own question. The "discovery" of the Vikings went nowhere (i.e., had no further meaning or noteworthy value), either for them or for anyone else.

The idea that Chinese sailors may have reached the western coasts of North and Central America has been around for quite a long time. Definitive evidence that they had done so wouldn't surprise me in the least -- after all, China was one of the most technologically advanced, if not THE most advanced, civilizations on Earth for many, many centuries. But if this was so, what came of their "discovery"? As with the Vikings, nothing of notable value either for them or for anyone else.

Columbus' discovery, however, was of a different nature altogether.

[Free Capitalist 0]

1434 saw the dedication of Santa Maria del Fiore, the city of Florence's cathedral. Those who attended the festivities, however, were unaware that there was a Chinese delegation in their midst

Like I said, I wouldn't discount the possibility that there was a Chinese embassy in the first place. It didn't have to be a big parade noticeable to the whole city; we're just talking diplomatic contacts, perhaps a relatively quiet meeting between two nations. I think some papers were discovered in recent years which show that some such contact did take place. This is where "1434" takes off, but that doesn't mean the diplomatic contact wasn't there. Just like "1421" takes off with the fact that a gigantic, and technologically impressive fleet left China and sailed as far as eastern Africa. I can accept that fact, and even appreciate some Chinese ingenuity behind this. Even if it underlies the whole premise of "1421", it seems to be a fact, and I'm comfortable with it. I dispute Menzies on the many particulars. Like I said, clever authors like him always begin with explosively controversial big facts, which inevitably are true. While you waste time denying that such a fleet sailed, the mainstream community will be against you because such a fleet probably did sail. And the criticism of Menzies on where it counts -- on discovery of America, on ocean-worthiness of those 400ft ships -- that all gets swept by the wayside. So I'm fine accepting the big facts. If he starts with them, they're probably true. But where he really seeks to stake his claim is in the small distinctions, and that's where the true falsehood lies,

[Bill Bucko 0]

... There's other evidence the book falls on, including some hearsay that the Spanish knew exactly where they were going; and that Columbus wasn't afraid to miss, because supposedly he carried the Chinese maps with him ...

The crackpot author piles the BS higher and higher. As every student of history knows, Columbus miscalculated the size of the earth, and expected China to be about as distant from Europe as the Americas actually are. If he had information from the Chinese that there was a new, unknown landmass thousands of miles to the east of China, how could he have held that?

* * *

Also for the benefit of followers of this crackpot: Michelangelo and Raphael were not turtles.

[Free Capitalist 0]

As every student of history knows, Columbus miscalculated the size of the earth

Or so he said. Hmm? The conspiracy grows deeper?

I'm just kidding

[Kitty Hawk 0]

Upon learning of these startling revelations about the Chinese discovery of America and igniting the Renaissance, this was how femme fatale Audrey Totter reacted: