Talk:Renaissance/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Name of the article

Can someone please explain to me why the name of this article is simply "Renaissance"? From face value, this is very Euro-centric as there are many other periods before and after this with the name "Renaissance" but all classify what they are referring to e.g. Timurid Renaissance. I'd like to know why this article is simply "Renaissance". Thanks KhakePakeVatan (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

−

66.68.14.216 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 07:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Long Renaissance

There is probably a general consensus that the high medieval period precedes the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment follows it. So the Renaissance can arguably be defined as a historical period somewhere between the limits 1250 and 1650 (with a "core period" in the High Renaissance between 1500/1517 and 1520/1527). "The Renaissance" – as opposed to medieval renaissances, especially the 12th-century one – certainly isn't to be sought prior to 1200 nor after 1687. However, at least in Italy and the rest of Southern Europe, the late medieval period certainly overlaps the Renaissance to some extent – in the period between 1453 and 1500 at the very least. Ending the late medieval period already around 1450, which could potentially get rid of the overlap, appears to be unpopular nowadays.

For this reason, if the historical periods are defined like this, the Renaissance can only be conceived as a transition from the medieval to the early modern period. The Early Renaissance from 1453 (at the latest) to about 1500 is still more or less medieval, while the High Renaissance from about 1500 to at least 1527 is already early modern. Petrarch still considered his own time part of a "dark" age, and we consider it a time of crisis that only ended around 1500, while modernity (expressed by the "light" metaphor) only appears fully blown sometime in the 17th century. However, it can be argued that the period 1250–1500 showed enough innovation that it should be considered its own period, the Early Renaissance, rather than part of the Middle Ages. Certainly the 15th century is not fully medieval anymore. The 14th century has a greater claim to being considered medieval, at least in Western Europe, but perhaps it should not be considered either medieval nor (early) modern really.

I think the real lesson is that "the Renaissance" is essentially impossible to nail down and is more like a fuzzy category: there's a prototypical core around 1517–1520 that everyone agrees on, and then it extends towards either side and peters out in the 13th century on one side and in the 17th century on the other. And "medieval", which is similarly fuzzy, with a core in the 12th century, or even in the late 11th century (before or around the First Crusade), depending on what you think is most characteristic of the period, and arguably revolves around (largely Germanic-derived) "feudal" structures and the overwhelming influence of the Catholic Church, strongly overlaps with "the Renaissance". Historiographic tradition (Petrarch vs. Bruni and Biondo) and the striking caesura of the 14th-century crisis definitely favour a break around 1400 rather than around 1500 (or around 1300), however. It just seems odd to place Botticelli and the whole Early Renaissance of Italy in the medieval period, and contradictory to imply that somehow the Early Renaissance isn't really part of "the Renaissance", whose prime feature is a reaction against medieval Christian scholasticism and the re-establishment of pagan Greco-Roman values over medieval Christian ones. Therefore it seems that the debate is also influenced by personal bias: Those who prefer to think of the Middle Ages as a backward time tend to have it end earlier, while those who want to portray it as a progressive era (or alternatively the early modern period as regressive), especially medievalists, push its end forward – up to the extreme of Le Goff, who wanted to end the "long Middle Ages" only in the 18th century, effectively eliminating the "early modern" label. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the current first sentence (C15th & 16th) - too emphatic and limiting. In late 2019 it said "covering the span between the 14th and 17th centuries and marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity", which is equally bad as a flat statement. The range over which the term is useful varies considerably between countries and topical areas. There was a similar discussion pretty recently on another page - can anyone remember where? Middle Ages may be a better model for defining the indefinable. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You gave me an idea. How about a vague phrasing like "in the middle of the second millennium AD", "centered on the 15th and 16th centuries" or even "centered on the early 16th century"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more of something like (from MA): "The most commonly given starting point for the Middle Ages is around 500,[12] with the date of 476 first used by Bruni.[11][A] Later starting dates are sometimes used in the outer parts of Europe.[14] For Europe as a whole, 1500 is often considered to be the end of the Middle Ages,[15] but there is no universally agreed upon end date. Depending on the context, events such as the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Americas in 1492, or the Protestant Reformation in 1517 are sometimes used.[16] English historians often use the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to mark the end of the period.[17] For Spain, dates commonly used are the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, the death of Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, or the conquest of Granada in 1492." I think one has to get more precise, and be clear there is no single answer. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Both can be easily combined. Maybe "centered on the Italian High Renaissance of the early 16th century" or even "centered on the time of the Italian Wars (1494–1559)" as a concise definition for the lead sentence, plus a paragraph or section on dating and sub-periodisation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

About Traditional views on the historical character of the Renaissance

"The traditional view focuses more on the early modern aspects of the Renaissance and argues that it was a break from the past, but many historians today focus more on its medieval aspects and argue that it was an extension of the Middle Ages."

The Renaissance was clearly a departure from the past in every possible way, it bears it on its name! contradicting this is contradicting the very nature of the event and seems arguably confusing to the first reader. 
  Yes, the Renaissance is a very long period of time, most of which developed during the Middle Ages, but the nature of the event itself battles core medieval values. **I do not think anyone argues whether or not the Renaissance was a departure from the past** I think whoever wrote this paragraph fails to deliver a coherent message to the reader on the historical character of the Renaissance. The Renaissance responds to a medieval world, it originates in a medieval world, it only makes sense in a medieval world, no one argues that. 
  My point is, regardless of the historical period in which the Renaissance occurred, no one argues the revolutionary nature of the event, and the fact that it may be an extension of the middle ages does not argue this (Actually, the Renaissance as I've studied it, has always been a divider event, like the French Revolution or the Fall of Rome, these kind of events change the world and are both part of the period they leave behind and the one they preceded). If the Renaissance was indeed an extension to the Middle Ages, it is so because of how long it took to dismantle it, not because of it being in absolute harmony with it and with the characteristics it held. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

History

You should be more informative 2409:4064:E99:C9C:50CF:34ED:7164:2BCA (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Teacho12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisions dealing with women's and gender history, institutional history, social history, and-in general--bringing this article in line with contemporary Renaissance scholarship

This article presents a very conservative understanding of the Renaissance--the scope of content is very similar to what I studied as an undergraduate in the mid-1980's. Indeed, I notice that the most recent peer-reviewed work discussed and cited in the "Historiography" section is from 1980. Women's history, queer history, gender history, Jewish studies, institutional history, and colonialism are mainstream elements of contemporary scholarship on the Renaissance, but they are virtually absent here. Examine, for example, the contents of the latest issues of _Renaissance Quarterly_ and _Sixteenth Century Journal_ These are the academic journals of the Renaissance Society of America and the Sixteenth Century Century Society--the most influential scholarly societies in the US that focus mostly on the Renaissance. As of right now (February 2, 2022) RQ lists the "most read" article of the last 30 days as Cloe Ireton's "Black Africans' Freedom Litigation Suits to Define Just War and Just Slavery in the Early Spanish Empire," and that two of the eight research articles in the most recent issue are focused on the Jewish political thought in the Ottoman Empire and the impact of Japanese religious politics on a Jesuit college in the Netherlands. We no longer The lastest issue of the _Sixteenth Century Journal_ is locked, but the one right before that has six research articles, one of them about how Beatriz of Portugal articulated her own political agenda and another about queer readings of a work by Edmund Spencer's. I am teaching teaching a a class on the Renaissance as part of Wiki Edu (HI 320 Women of the Renaissance) and I anticipate my students will want to make edits on this page and on a number of related articles. At a minimum, I expect they will want to add more recent bibliography that includes womens, gender, queer, and colonial subjects. We will probably also want to make some changes to the "see also's." Finally, I'm not persuaded that scholars use the word "Renaissance" to mean "marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity and covering the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by an effort to revive and surpass ideas and achievements of classical antiquity." We use the word "humanist" to describe the movement to discover and adapt classical models. I am not sure how many would agree that the Renaissance is a transition to modernity--I am accustomed to seeing scholars use "modernity" to describe the period starting with the second industrial revolution. I may be wrong: my area of expertise ends roughly with Napoleon. I am an inexperienced wikipedia editor, so I apologize for problems in formatting in this talk page.Pamela McVay (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela McVay (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Pamela McVay (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Marxist Historians

Concerning the following section, is there a compelling reason this should be included? Marxist historiography seems about as pertinent to the Renaissance as it does to the history of the Babylonian Empire.

"Some Marxist historians prefer to describe the Renaissance in material terms, holding the view that the changes in art, literature, and philosophy were part of a general economic trend from feudalism towards capitalism, resulting in a bourgeois class with leisure time to devote to the arts." 98.229.202.43 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

mobile app - image of a bee on feces

Im on mobile app, there is an image of bee sitting on a pile of feces, also the subtitle is "consumption of feces". Please, anyone who can, change this, i dont know how. Thanks 2A00:102A:400E:714C:1:0:3190:F33A (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing like that on pc. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I also have thus problem on PC with a few random articles having the same issue. Some weird vandalism project? 86.5.107.216 (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:102A:400E:714C:1:0:3190:F33A I'm having the same issue. Oscar Quintero Huerta (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Latin in the Renaissance

The article focuses on 'recovery' of latin texts, but this was just one aspect of Latin in the period. For contemporaries, just as important was the shift in what was studied in schools and Universities - moving back to pagan Classical literary texts, learning more about rhetoric (which is mentioned) and Classical linguistic styles, and using a more Classical linguistic idiom. Just as importantly, the "new learning" was transmitted through Latin in new Latin texts in this new style. There was, in other words, a "Renaissance" of Latin in standards, style and content.

The relation between Renaissance vernaculars and Latin also needs some nuance in the body (it's stated better in some parts than others) as at the time, both Latin and vernacular uses were often promoted by the same people, for differing reasons; in other words, it could be seen as more a question of domains and audiences than a kind of simple "displacement" story; while that clearly happened in the longer run, such a perspective would risk obscuring the parallel and intertwined development of both Latin and vernaculars. There's more on this at Neo-Latin, and plenty of discussion on these points in sources. Jim Killock (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments that need to be fixed

So, there are problems with this article

• The lead is way too long, it should be four paragraphs
• Then there looks to be uncited material such as
  • This ideology was referred to as the uomo universale, an ancient Greco-Roman ideal. Education during the Renaissance was mainly composed of ancient literature and history as it was thought that the classics provided moral instruction and an intensive understanding of human behavior.
  • Humanism and libraries section
  • Music section
  • In October 1517 Luther published the Ninety-five Theses, challenging papal authority and criticizing its perceived corruption, particularly with regard to instances of sold indulgences. The 95 Theses led to the Reformation, a break with the Roman Catholic Church that previously claimed hegemony in Western Europe. Humanism and the Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation, as well as in many other contemporaneous religious debates and conflicts. Pope Paul III came to the papal throne (1534–1549) after the sack of Rome in 1527, with uncertainties prevalent in the Catholic Church following the Protestant Reformation. Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) to Paul III, who became the grandfather of Alessandro Farnese, who had paintings by Titian, Michelangelo, and Raphael, as well as an important collection of drawings, and who commissioned the masterpiece of Giulio Clovio, arguably the last major illuminated manuscript, the Farnese Hours.
• A lot of the spread section

and many more. Though, if these are supported by general references then do tell me. If this receives no comments by monday I will open a GAR on this and possibly have it delisted from GA status. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd leave it a bit longer than that. I can't see anything above is actually wrong. You, or anyone could pretty easily reference it. There are 142 refs as it is. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? Luther nailing the 95 Theses to the church door needs a citation? XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually the problem with this article is that 90% of it reads like it was written by either art history students or amateurs who don't understand why historians find this whole concept of "Renaissance" deeply problematic, extremely misleading, and part of that genre of whiggish pseudohistory circa 19th Century. You write that "humanism and Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation", essentially parroting the Whig myth to the letter. What actually "sparked" the Reformation was the economic boom in Western Europe that occurred after new trade networks were established in the Americas, which began a process of centralization and secularization in European states. By the first two decades of the 16th Century, states like France, and the city-states in Northern/Central Italy, managed to marginalize the Church and secularize their governments. Countries like England, on the other hand, still had a powerful state Church and so backing the reformers was a way to wrest power from the clergy. This is why the Reformation succeeded in states that backed the reformers, and failed in states that didn't. It had nothing to do with this mythical Renaissance which was supposedly happening all over Western Europe.

Art history students wouldn't understand this but economic historians do. This article makes it seem like there's a big debate over this periodization when it's been good and settled for a while now. Virtually every characteristic that's been attributed to "the Renaissance" -the rediscovery of classical learning, the dabbling in classical art forms, the exploration and discovery of new lands etc -are all things Europeans had been doing for the entirety of the Middle Ages. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article, which by the way is on Renaissance not Reformation? While it's certainly not perfect, the sort of thing you are talking about is certainly addressed "...but many historians today focus more on its medieval aspects and argue that it was an extension of the Middle Ages" is in para 2 of the lead. The section on art is pathetically small and several screens down, itself one of the article's problems. Like many other dubious concepts dreamed up by historians in the past, "Renaissance" is still very widely used in scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Like many other dubious concepts dreamed up by historians in the past, "Renaissance" is still very widely used in scholarship."

This is the problem with the rules on here, or how some editors interpret the rules: historical arguments are evaluated on their merits, not by merely repeating something that's been repeated by scholars who are not even seriously analyzing whether the term or concept is historical or not. The historians who have actually critically scrutinized this concept find it incoherent, with the exception of art historians. And there are real problems when your whole basis for periodization relies on such a narrow and subjective focus on 'new' art forms, or what is presumed to have been a new style of art (wasn't Romanesque architecture a 'rebirth' of classical art? -there was nothing new here either).

"Have you actually read the article, which by the way is on Renaissance not Reformation?"

The Reformation remark was in response to another editor who is trying to improve this article with suggestions that will only make it worse. I read the whole article and my opinion is that it's light on criticism and heavy on conferring credibility to this idea. Just read the first sentence in the lead, where they've emphatically declared "Renaissance" to have been "a period in European history". How about we start by rewording this to say "a period in European art history" since it is primarily art historians defending this concept? Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Renaissance, so I will try to tread lightly; but from my recent readings on Neo-Latin I don't think you can argue there is no intellectual link between the Renaissance and the Reformation; after all, Erasmus and others were engaging in textual criticism of Bible translations which led to the idea that people needed to engage directly in the texts. That is foundational for the Reformation, surely. For sure the success of the Reformation is a political matter, not an intellectual one, but that is a matter of explaining the difference and relationships between ideologies, social change and political power. That's not wholly straightforward either, it took significant political (and military) efforts to dismantle religious movements where they threatened political power.

While I am sure the Renaissance is easy to overstate as a decisive break from "medieval" backwardness, it is hard dismiss the idea that there were significant changes in education, writing, ideas and intellectual frameworks with what's generally called Humanism. Likewise linguistic standardisation of Latin and vernaculars does undergo a qualitative and generalised change, even if there were plenty of antecedents. These changes seem to be linked with urbanism in Italy, essentially improving professional education, in law and medicine, for instance. In northern Europe, there is a bigger jolt, as educational change had lagged, which may have added to the view of a break.

It's worth noting that the ideas of a decisive break come from the period's own commentaries and understanding, in order to boost the new thinking's importance no doubt, rather than being a purely nineteenth century view.

In terms of approaches to a page like this, I would venture that it is important to explain the range of views, whether they are seen as "traditional", "revisionist", or owe their background to economic or other perspectives. I wouldn't be surprised if the thinking presented on the page isn't rather outdated tho, it does seem to be a feature of many WP articles that they parrott half remembered thinking and emphasise cliches fairly uncritically. That's why we have to go ad fontes, natch. Jim Killock (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Anglicized?

"The term rinascita ('rebirth') first appeared in Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Artists (c. 1550), anglicized as the Renaissance in the 1830s." --should say "gallicized". It was first adapted into French and then borrowed from French into English. Anglicized would be "renascence" (cf "nascent"), which is occasionally seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.212.255 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Global renaissance

There's a lot of studies that nowadays focus on the spread of Renassaince culture outside of Europe. I believe the article should mention them and their content. Daniel Savoy's globalization of Renaissance art is a good read on the matter.Barjimoa (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Renaissance in Russia

The section contradicts itself, is completely unsourced and mostly a synth. First sentence is There was no Renaissance in Russia in the original sense of the term. - and that's right, sources confirm it! F.e. Oxford Bibliographies: the “Renaissance Era” is not a category of periodization in Russian history, largely because Russia did not experience the Renaissance—nor, of course, the Protestant Reformation—even if it did borrow from the political, cultural, and even religious styles and vocabularies developed then in the West. Despite that, the section on Russia is longer than for any other country, though there were no such period in Russian history! The fact that Ivan III commissioned an Italian architect to build a palace didn't bring the Renaissance to the country. And this A Moscovite monk called Isidore used this technology to produce the first original Russian vodka c. 1430. is just ridiculous.

I'm removing the section as synth and probably OR, please don't revert unless you have scholarly sources on the subject. Artem.G (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Renaissance in England is questionable

Renaissance in England is questionable, due to the lack of Italian style Renaissance architecture painting and sculpture in England.--Pharaph (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a very well-informed opinion! As the article says, music and literaure were the most prominent forms, and the Renaissance style in the visual arts rather late, and mediated through the Low Countries. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod!

England had no Renaissance because of its insular medieval continuities

(C.S. Lewis, 1954, p. 55–56; Neville Coghill, 1965, p. 60–61, Charles A. Gill · 1943 p.25, Stephen Games 2016, p. 149, Russell Sturgis, ‎Francis A. Davis · 2013, p. 902, William M. Sloane · 2023 , p. 6, ) These experts are famous serious names in this topic. Pharaph (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We already have an article on the English Renaissance, covering the literature, visual arts, music, and architecture of the late 15th century, the entire 16th century, and the early 17th century. Basically, the entire Tudor period and part of the Stuart period. With new ideas spread by the printing press.Dimadick (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Literature belongs to humanism instead of renaissance. Can you show me a true Renaissance (Italian look-alike) architecture in England? Or English renaissance painters? As far as I know England was the last country of Western Christian world , where printing press appeared.--Pharaph (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Raising sharply (again) the question of how much you do know! See Global_spread_of_the_printing_press#Dates_by_location - England was ahead of Iberia, Munich, Vienna, Scandinavia & most of Eastern Europe, among other places. Your "true Renaissance (Italian look-alike) architecture" is just a nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources actually say--and they see a strong English Renaissance and emphasize literature: Maley, Nation, State and Empire in English Renaissance Literature: Shakespeare to Milton (Springer, 2015); D Norbrook Poetry and politics in the English Renaissance (2002); SJ Greenblatt - , Representing the English Renaissance 1988 ; KE Maus, Inwardness and theater in the English Renaissance (1995); D Norbrook Poetry and politics in the English Renaissance (2002); on literature see also SJ Greenblatt - , Representing the English Renaissance 1988 ; KE Maus, Inwardness and theater in the English Renaissance (1995). On architecture see: D Howarth, Images of rule: art and politics in the English Renaissance, 1485-1649 (1997); M. Marx, "Architecture and the English Renaissance" The Sewanee Review; P Borsay, . "The English Urban Renaissance: The Development of Provincial Urban Culture c. 1680–c. 17601." in The Eighteenth-Century Town (2014) pp. 159-187. On painting see C Hulse, "Recent Studies of Literature and Painting in the English Renaissance." (1985). Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC).

So dear Johnbod, "English Renaissance" is a misleading name, because it has nothing common with the renaissance of the Continental Europe, it is rather a very different renaissance as the the Carolingian renaissance. Pharaph (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

1476 for printing press is a late date. England had to import paper from the continent, due to the lack of paper manufacturing in medieval England.

But let's return to the main topic: If there is a Carolingian Renaissance, why not an English Renaissance?

See how many "renaissance" exist here, the modern inflation of the world "renaissance" is shockingly big: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Renaissance_(disambiguation)

The "English renaissance" phrase exist since long time, nobody denied it, however it is less or not related to the Renaissance of continental Europe, which was a directly Italian influenced phenomenon.

About literature: I uphold the firm traditional conviction that literature as a genre actually belongs to humanism rather than the Renaissance.--Pharaph (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very personal view, certainly not "traditional" at all. You should read Artists of the Tudor court for the limited but steady flow of Italian and Netherlandish artists working in England. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Where are the English Renaissance architects painters, buildings sculptors? I can't see the "English Renaissance" as similar to of the directly Italian influenced Renaissance of the continent. I think the English renaissance term is rather a very different "renaissance" as the Renaissance of the 12th century or Carolingian Renaissance. They are also Renaissances similar to the English. Only their names are similar to the original Italian influenced RENAISSANCE. Maybe England the only country in Europe, where the literature belong to renaissance, in all other countries the literature belongs to Humanism. --Pharaph (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

Please change the following sentence: The Renaissance began in Florence, one of the many states of Italy.

To: The Renaissance began in Florence, one of many states of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Italy). Spargel 24 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No - at the time HRE influence was minimal. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Florence was part of the HRE until 1806 and therefore under its jurisdiction. Florence was not independent. Spargel 24 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Sources that describe Florence this way? Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that it was the Republic of Florence throughout the relevant period - and that is the link we use. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Arguments, that the Republic of Florence and its successors, the Duchy of Florence and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, where part of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE):

In the article Republic of Florence, the following is mentioned:

• Florence was part of the HRE in 1138.
• „In 1529, Clement VII signed the Treaty of Barcelona with Charles V, under which Charles would, in exchange for the Pope's blessing, invade Florence and restore the Medici.“
• „Following the Republic's surrender in the Siege of Florence, Charles V, issued a proclamation explicitly stating that he and he alone could determine the government of Florence.“

In the article Holy Roman Empire, the following is mentioned:

• A map from 1356 that shows, that Republic of Florence was part of the HRE.
• A map from 1544 that shows, that Republic of Florence was part of the HRE.

In the article Herzogtum Florenz (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:

• A map from 1559 that shows, that the Duchy of Florence was part of the HRE.

In the article Großherzogtum Toskana (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:

• The Grand Duchy of Tuscany was part of the Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) until 1801.

In the article Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire), the following is mentioned:

• „While they were excluded from the Reichstag, the Italian states were still considered vassals of the emperor, like other states of the empire, and thus subject to certain obligations and jurisdiction. A special Italian section of the Aulic Council was created in 1559. It handled 1,500 cases from Imperial Italy between 1559 and 1806 (out of 140,000 total), with most of those cases coming from later dates.“--Spargel 24 (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yada, yada. As Republic of Florence says, Florence was "nominally" part of the HRE. It may have been considered Imperial territory in Germany, but not by the Florentines during the crucial period (well before Charles V etc). The change you propose would simply mislead the reader. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In the article List of states in the Holy Roman Empire you find in the section Italian territories Florence mentioned with a link to the Republic of Florence. And other North Italian states, e.g. Siena. I think it is now your turn to provide sources that support your point of view, so that we can reach consensus.

Additionally to my above proposed change, I propose to implement a sentence in the article which explains, that the HRE was the center of the renaissance with its North Italian states, and the states on the territories of todays The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria. Spargel 24 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, mentioning HRE would be simply misleading. The majority of sources say just "Florence", not "Florence, a part of the HRE" or smth similar. And there is no need here for long explanation of what was the political structure of HRE and how Florence was nominally a part of it. And especially there is no need for "HRE was the center of renaissance", that's even more misleading. Artem.G (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Italy, The Netherlands and Germany are mentioned in the article. This is misleading because there were no such states at the time. The entities that existed at the time were the Republic of Florence, Republic of Siena, Duchy of Milan, Duchy of Brabant, Diocese of Liège, Diocese of Trier, Electoral Palatinate and the 100+ other entities which all were part of the HRE.

The article describes the renaissance not in the correct historical context.

But I admit, that the HRE is very complex and therefore hard to describe and that seeing the renaissance in the context of the HRE is for many authors new and I guess it needs some time to be digested. Spargel 24 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

I would like to change the area where it says 15th to 16th and add a 14th because that is the year the renaissance had started Blitzo Lee (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's complicated question, which been discussed here at length. Remember we are not just talking about Italy. The paragraphs after unpack this rather bald statement, Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, such a proposal will require reliable sources for the discussion, in support of potentially building consensus. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

History

What to do mean by Renaissance? Explain the factor which lead to the rise of Renaissance? 2409:40D5:5D:47CC:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The article does that. Read it. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Only Hungary imported Trecento and Quatrocento from Italy

All others (French Germans Spanish) etc. had only Cinquecento period. We must be mention it on the lead section too.--Pharaph (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Suggested edit to the sentence "The term rinascita ("rebirth") first appeared in Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Artists (c. 1550), anglicized as the Renaissance in the 1830s." in the introduction section of the article.

I suggest this be changed to "The term rinascita ("rebirth") first appeared in Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Artists (c. 1550), the corresponding French word, renaissance, was adopted into English as the term for this period during the 1830s."

Why: The term 'renaissance' is not an anglicisation but a loan word from French, also meaning "rebirth". To be a pedant, "renascence" is technically the anglicised version, with usage from the 1720s. ResplendentMackerelSky (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Got any refs for that? Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The French word "Renaissance" was first used by Jules Michelet in the middle of the 19th century.

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 11:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

All the causes of Renaissance

for example all the causes such as capture of constant people decline of dialysm discovery of new trade routes spirit of enquiry and printing press to be discussed in detail 2409:40E4:1B:3D20:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)