From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Renaissance has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject European history (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


Ottoman ban on books?[edit]

I recently watched a 5 part BBC4 documentary called "Civilisation: Is the west history?". It talks about the fall of the Ottomans after the seige of Vienna (it doesn't specifically mention Vienna, but most historians would consider this a turning point). In particular, the border Austria then had with the Ottomans where they were said to have said (scholars can correct me on this quote from memory):

 "A drop of ink on a scroll is worth more than 1000 drops of blood of a soldier".

In other words, books were banned. So scrolls were happily going west from the Ottoman Empire into Austria, but books weren't going the other way because they were banned.

This was narrated by Niall Ferguson (the one listed in wikipedia) who narrated the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft of proposed major revision - comments & help needed[edit]

Okay. I'm quite new to Wikipedia, but I thought this article could really do with a lot of work, considering it's such a big topic. So, I went ahead and did some of it (someone told me to be bold...). The work I've done currently sits as a draft in my userspace, here. Here are some main points about what I've done:

  • Much, or most, of the current article is incorporated into the new draft. I have also added a good amount of writing of my own, which for the most part is referenced well.
  • Much of the work I did was simply in restructuring. As the article stands now, I think the structure makes little sense.
  • Concerns raised by Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, about the lack of focus on religion's part in the Renaissance, have to some extent been addressed. Although humanism did give greater emphasis to secular matters, it is quite true that Christianity played a huge role in shaping the Renaissance. However, the article's section on the Renaissance and religion is currently a stub, to be developed later.
  • More emphasis has been given to the role of Islamic scholars in preserving and developing ideas from classical antiquity.
  • I have spent some time verifying existing sections, increasing the number of references from 6 to 24.
  • Almost all the sections need considerable expansion. The following sections need significant work on them before they'll be even close to ready:
    • Social and political structures in Italy.
    • Science
    • Religion
  • The "Historiography of the Renaissance" section in particular needs more body, since as discussed below, this article should really be about the Renaissance as a general concept, not as a narrative or account of any particular country.
  • There are some parts of the current article not yet merged with the draft, that can be found on the talk page.

I really must emphasise that this is just a skeleton, but I hope it can give us the structure on which to build a featured article. I have put a good number of hours into this draft; I hope you'll see the logic in the structure I've tried to make.

So, I would really appreciate some comments, and, if you feel like it, some collaboration on the draft. Does the structure make sense to you? Should there be more emphasis on any particular section? Have I missed bits out? Is it all rubbish and I should go away? Thanks, MAIS-talk-contr 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't had any feedback about this. In the meantime, I've continued to improve my draft. It now has 35 references (41 if you count refs used twice). The sections have grown, and there's been some improvement in most of them. So, I'm now going to merge my draft with the main article. Cheers, MAIS-talk-contr 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On the basics[edit]

Why does this entire article imply that both Greek and Latin texts were lost in the West and were revived during the renaissance? This is true only for Greek texts, which were lost after the fall of the Roman Empire in late antiquity (due to the fact that Latins stopped speaking Greek and the untranslated Greek texts were no longer understood). To claim that Latin texts were rediscovered is quite absurd. "Having a new interest on the study of ancient Roman texts" is one thing, but repeatedly claim that the renaissance was about the revival of ancient Roman and Greek texts gives simply a wrong idea about the article's topic. Miskin 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the article generalises a bit too much - I'll change that. But it's not absurd to claim that some important Latin texts were lost. What about De architectura? It wasn't lost per se, but few people knew of its existence or significance until Poggio Bracciolini found it in a monastic library in Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommaisey (talkcontribs) 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
I'll give my thoughts on this for as far as Latin literature is concerned. Beginning with Petrarch in the first half of the 14th century, the works of the pagan authors came to be studied for their own sake instead of as an auxiliary discipline subordinated to theology, as was done in the (clerical) intellectual environment of the Middle Ages. The humanists took authors like the pagan Cicero, and not the church father Jerome, as their examples in matters of style, language and philosophy and other things that they were primarily concerned about. They tried to purge the Latin language, which they considered polluted by hundreds of years of wrong usage, of medieval 'barbarisms' in order to revive the Classical Latin of the ancient Roman authors. As is said above, humanists like Poggio actively traveled around Europe in search for more classical texts, and when they found them they made them known to a much greater public than had been the case before. My point is: while many works of the ancient Roman authors were not literally 'lost', they were not known to the general (intellectual) public; for instance, there was only one Catullus manuscript which was kept at Verona and was 'discovered' in the 14th century (and then lost and rediscovered in the 15th). The renewed interest gave such texts a much wider circulation and made them much more influential, than they had previously been. Latin itself was 'revived' insofar as the humanists tried to restore the Classical Latin of the ancients. (Ironically, in doing so they made it so rigid that they actually 'killed' it, in a way.) So in my opinion, it is not so much about Latin and Roman authors itself as it is about Classical Latin and its non-Christian Roman authors. In this way it would be accurate to speak of a 'revival' of classical Roman/Latin texts, some of which had been 'lost', as in 'unknown'; this being, of course, a figure of speech. Iblardi 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps we should edit down the above to include in the article for clarification? MAIS-talk-contr 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of copy edits[edit]

I have gone through the article section by section and tried to clean up problems with spelling, grammar, clarity, etc. If I've mucked up any meanings/sense, etc., go ahead and fix it - I've done the edits by section so it can be more easily reviewed by other editors. Someone might want to change the few American spellings to British, since the latter predominate in most of the article. - Special-T 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant drizzle of school-boy vandalism[edit]

I have more edits to this article than any other on Wikipedia--about 500--and just about all of them are vandalism reverts. Every day it is hit by graffiti, scribbles, and schoolboy obscenities. I have no idea why it is such a target. Should it be semi-protected long-term? Have there been any high-quality anonymous contributions? Anyone have an opinion? Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this article and many other high profile "high-school topic" articles get hit daily Crusades, Black Death, Feudalism -- I've tried in the past to get some sort of permanent semi-protection but have never had much luck. Black Death was just semi-protected today, you might ask the admin what he thinks of this article while he is at it. These articles have reached a point of maturity and sophistication it is rare an anon really adds something good, we mostly spend (waste) time keeping out the barbarians. -- Stbalbach 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of semi-protecting good but commonly vandalised pages. --3DS Mike

Perhaps this "anon" would like to add something useful in that printing was not the significant invention for the Renaissance but rather the movable type which is the important invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be protected, it is still being vandalised all the time. MR D —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro Paragraphs[edit]

It seems to me that the second portion of the intro paragraph, the one discussing the validity of the term, is somewhat out of place. It seems that there could be a "Conflict over the term Renaissance" section, because the intro is meant to give a basic summary of the article, not a basic summary and then a very specific and slightly irrelevant aside about the terminology. That's more appropriate later else, I think. 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Conflict over the term Renaissance" section, but it's named the historiography section. I don't think the second para is out of place (then again, I wrote it...) since it is a major concern when considering the "Renaissance" period, and as a historical debate, it's central to our understanding of the word. mais (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Very good article with good prose, however there are a few referencing issues that will put it on hold until they are resolved. The following sentences/paragraphs need a reference owing to the use of words such as 'others' and 'likely'.

  • The Renaissance's emergence in Italy was most likely the result of the complex interaction of the above factors.
    Yes check.svg Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • Arguing that such chance seems improbable, other historians have contended that these "Great Men" were only able to rise to prominence because of the prevailing cultural conditions at the time.
    Yes check.svg Done: Added reference to John Stephens, The Italian Renaissance: The origins of intellectual and artistic change before the Reformation.
  • Regardless, there is general agreement that the Renaissance saw significant changes in the way the universe was viewed and the methods with which philosophers sought to explain natural phenomena.
    Yes check.svg Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the science section.
    Yes check.svg Done: Added reference to J. Brotton, The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction.
  • Last paragraph of the 'For better or worse' section.
    Yes check.svg Done: Added reference to S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare.

When these issues are repaired, I will pass the article. Zeus1234 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I went to library and got a few books out. I have referenced all the bits you asked. My next task is to improve the historiography section, after which I think it could be ready for FAC. Cheers mais (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA, but...[edit]

A number of significant errors and omissions in the department of Art and Architecture.

  • Why was Durer cited by the writer as a prime example of an artist who tried to paint in a naturalistic manner? He post-dates Masaccio, Ghirlandaio, Leonardo, van der Goes, Messina, Bellini etc etc. Moreover, while some of his work is naturalistic, much of it is highly mannered and represents radical departure from human anatomy.
  • Raphael was not well known for depicting his contemporaries in Classical guises. Raphael was well known for his comtemporary portraiture and his sweet Madonnas. The School of Athens is the exception, not the rule in Raphael's painting. The info that appeared in the box with the pic. was simply wrong. I have corrected the identical misleading statement elsewhere, buut perhaps it is attached to the pic at WkiCommons so that it keeps getting quoted. (The artist who frequently portrayed contemporaries in historic settings (Christian rather than Classical) was Ghirlandaio.)
  • The introduction of "Renaissance painting" to Northern Europe? No. By about 1430, that is only 3 years after Masaccio's experimental painting of the Trinity in Santa Maria Novella, Jan van Eyck had a pretty good handle on linear perspective, and a vastly superior technique at landscape than any Italian contemporary.
  • When Hugo van der Goes took the Portinari Altarpiece to Florence in the 1470s, the effect that it on realistic portraiture was dynamic.
  • Architecture. Yes, Brunelleschi knew Vitruvius' work. but it is very simplistic to imagine it was the whole source of the revolution which Brunelleshi created in architecture, almost single handed. The significant factor is not so much that he knew Vitruvius as that he knew and studied the works of ancient Rome with a passion, as did the assistant on his "digs", Donatello. The writings of Vitruvius no doubt consolidated and informed Brunelleschi's vision, as his treatise owes much to Vitruvius.
  • No discussion of the art of the Renaissance can simply omit Michelangelo!
  • No discussion of the architecture of the Renaissance, regardless of how brief, can cite only the Dome of Florence which is not even Renaissance in style, regardless of its technology. St Peter's sums it all up.

I've made good the errors and ommissions.

--Amandajm 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have been trying to get this article up to scratch over the last month, but I readily confess that art and architecture (which are a very large part of what the Renaissance is about) are not my specialities. It would really really help if you could help to build up the article's art sections, since you are obviously much more knowledgable on that front than I am! This is an important and highly visible topic that needs to be covered well. A couple of replied points:
  • I cited Durer because I wanted to emphasise that this article is about the whole European Renaissance, not just the Italian Renaissance (which has a separate article). I am therefore trying to use examples from all over Europe. Are there any other non-Italian painters we could use to illustrate this point?
  • On Raphael, I am aware that this was the case, the bits you mention are left over from the article as it was before, and I forgot to correct them.
  • Just plain "oops" on Michelangelo!
Cheers for the help mais (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately unless an expert on the topic reviews the article, there is simply no way to make a judgement on the article as to whether it adequately covers the topic. Nevertheless, these seem to be rather minor issues that can be easily repaired.Zeus1234 01:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so rude, mais! You have taken it with remarkably good grace!
  • Durer, and realism. I think in this instance, you need to cite the Italian, because the main influence really sprang from Italy. They took in everything that the Northern painters had to offer, combined it with what they had, and then it was spewed out again by artists like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Caravaggio who completely changed the course of art. Masaccio is the right person. Durer definitely isn't. The impact of Masaccio went out in waves for generations.
In reply to Zeus, mostly minor, and a couple of major.

--Amandajm 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I just looked up Renaissance painting and it led me to Early Renaissance painting which has a number of useful lists and a smidgeon of information. It directs to Northern Renaissance painting which has an article. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia really does not have an article on the painting of the Italian Renaissance... Oh well... there will be soon. --Amandajm 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who's looking for this, Amandajm has created 2 great articles, at Italian Renaissance painting and Italian Renaissance painting, development of themes. That second one may undergo a name change, however. mais (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Croatia had rich Renaissance and should be added to region list.

At this time Croatia was part of the Hungarian Kingdom, which is mentioned in the article, but you're right that Eastern and Central Europe need more emphasis and mention in this article. At the moment it's a bit too Italy based. mais (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern (or Orthodox christian) Europe hadn't renaissance. Please don't use old Cold-war era political terms for the definition Eastern Europe for Central European (Catholic-protestant) countries. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


While it is true that Galileo had his run-ins with the Catholic Church, Copernicus was encouraged by the Church to release his theory. Ironically, the Church's main disagreement with both men was their lack of evidence, while the author of this piece has decided to state that they helped create scientific theory based on empirical evidence. The Church disagreed with teaching unsubstantiated theory as fact. This is in keeping with the scientific method. To imply that the Church is against the scientific method is untrue. Moreover, the writings of Copernicus were immediately made heretical by the early Protestant churches, while receiving support from the Catholic Church. It is likely that both men and their ideas would have faired even worse elsewhere. A rewrite of the Science section is definitely warranted.--Wilkyisdashiznit

Since no one had a contrary opinion, I went ahead and just took out mention of the Catholic Church. Please do contact me if anyone dislikes the change.--Wilkyisdashiznit


The article begins

 (French: "rebirth," Italian: "Rinascimento")

One of those is clearly incorrect, as the first is a literal translation FROM the language, and the second a translation INTO the language. Please would someone more familiar with 'pedia standards fix this? Thanks. --3DS Mike


What's with this emphasis on Polish and Hungarian contributions to rennaissance? Is it justified? One of the sources cited is some Polish government website, that's just sad.

Poland and Hungary have 2 small paragraphs between them, and why shouldn't they?. The citation you mention merely verifies a fact, not an opinion, so I think it's safe to source it from the Polish government's site. --mais (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

James Franklin[edit]

I removed a lengthy reference to James Franklin on grounds of undue weight. First of all, Franklin is not a historian. According to his web page, he is an "Associate Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW." In other words, in this field, he is an amateur and his views have no more credibility than any other random personal Web page. The contents of his Web site make it clear that he is primarily interested in defending the Catholic Church (see, e.g., [1]), and his views need to be understood in that light. His "Renaissance myth" page also contains blatant errors; for instance, he refers to the notion that "St Augustine believed the southern hemisphere must be uninhabited, since people living there would be unable to see the Second Coming over Jerusalem" as a "bizarre notion" and therefore a myth. In fact, even Jeffrey Burton Russell, who argued strenuously against a medieval belief in a flat earth, noted several times that the church once believed the equator was impassable and therefore the southern hemisphere was uninhabited. Franklin is simply talking out his arse here. His views have made no impact on the field, he has no professional standing to talk about history, and including his personal opinions in a lengthy paragraph constitutes undue weight. 08:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a historian. As detailed in my Wikipedia article, I am the author of The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal]], a book on the history of medieval and Renaissance ideas published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2001 - James Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaths (talkcontribs) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit which added the assertion that you are a historian was made by you on April 7, 2007. - Special-T (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Make that April 15, 2007 - my mistake. - Special-T (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not to the point, because the evidence that I am a historian is not the Wikipedia article but my published books on history (which fortunately are beyond the reach of Wikipedia vandals). I hope an apology will be forthcoming. I'm amazed that anyone would confess, in public and in print, to deleting material from Wikipedia in pursuit of an anti-Catholic agenda - and without feeling a need to provide any evidence whatsoever that the deleted material was wrong... - James Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaths (talkcontribs) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


while I was reading this while I was doing a short report, it said in the lower area that it started in Europe in the 16th century, but at the begining of the artice, it states that it started in the 14th century. can somebody verify this information and make the correct one stand out? Keneke45 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just Greek works[edit]

You wrote "*More emphasis has been given to the role of Islamic scholars in preserving and developing ideas from classical antiquity." However, it wasn't just ideas from the classical Greek world that were preserved and developed but also from India, particularly in mathematics. Without mathematics, Western science and technology would never have gotten off the ground. I have added a reference to this to the current page. Houseofwealth (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Art History - Renaissance[edit]

Could someone have a look at Art History - Renaissance to see if there is any useful material that could be merged to this article, and, if not, nominate the article for deletion. --rxnd (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that Renaissance art would be important enough a subject to warrant its own article?Xenovatis (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Large part of text deleted by accident?[edit]

Take a look at [this diff]. Seems that SmackBot in a fit of anti-vandalism accidentally deleted the latter part of the article, including the sections "For better or for worse" and "Other Renaissances" along with the list of sources and links. While some of the latter has been reconstructed, the articled has for a long time ended abruptly with a half-finished sentence and a broken quote. I'm reinstating the missing two sections as I feel it must be in error (minus the KFC reference). Merging the two lists of reference and links I'm leaving to somebody else. Geira (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it happened when I reverted some vandalism right after that. Although I think I did everything right - the automatic edit summary says I reverted to the valid SmackBot version - all the new merged text was removed with that edit. - Special-T (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


The lead was too long so I moved the last three paras to the Overview section. Lets discuss any comments as per WP:BRD. Also I added a see also and ref section but I am not sure I got all the relevant links for the see also. Any suggestions for other links? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenovatis (talkcontribs)

Hey Xenovatis, I don't agree with your thoughts about the lead. WP:LEAD says the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long, and many articles on lare subjects such as this have larger leads (think Middle Ages). We've had previous discussions about whether it's appropriate to include historiographical (i.e. the history of history) arguments in the lead, and I think in this case it is, because the term "Renaissance" is so controversial amongst historians. Regardless of all these points, just plonking that lead paragraph amongst the overview has created a disjointed and uneven section, so I'm going to move it back. If you want to talk about trimming that paragraph in some way, then I'm happy to, let's talk. mais (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If it is compliant with WP:LEAD than I have no further objections. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I might trim a couple of sentences for readability and to make it more appealing and accesible.Xenovatis (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrt to the following:

The term Renaissance, like the term Middle Ages, was coined by Western scholars in the 15th century to designate what they considered the revival of the classical world of Greece and Rome which had died in the West and its rediscovery at the beginning of their own century, a revival in which they felt they were participating. That world however was still alive in the Eastern Roman Empire and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 provided the Renaissance with a major boost, for many Greek scholars migrated to Italy, carrying important books and manuscripts and a tradition of Greek scholarship.[1]

Aside from the origin of the term (which can be ommited and another intro used) where else is it convered and why does it have no place in the lead? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The bits I was thinking of were these:

The term was first used retrospectively by the Italian artist and critic Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) in his book The Lives of the Artists (published 1550). In the book Vasari was attempting to define what he described as a break with the barbarities of gothic art: the arts had fallen into decay with the collapse of the Roman Empire and only the Tuscan artists, beginning with Cimabue (1240-1301) and Giotto (1267-1337) began to reverse this decline in the arts. According to Vasari, antique art was central to the rebirth of Italian art.


The study of mathematics was flourishing in the Middle East, and mathematical knowledge was brought back by crusaders in the 13th century.[15] The decline of the Byzantine Empire after 1204 - and its eventual fall in 1453 - led to a sharp increase in the exodus of Greek scholars to Italy and beyond. These scholars brought with them texts and knowledge of the classical Greek civilization which had been lost for centuries in the West.[16] and they transmitted the art of exegesis.

These are in the relevant sections "Historiography" and "Assimilation of Greek and Arabic knowledge", not the overview, because I feel that they don't belong in an overview of the Renaissance's characteristics, but rather explain the history of the term, and suggest some explanation of its origins, respectively. I think the general overview section should only describe the qualities we associate with the Renaissance. mais (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree on the origin of the term and agree further that most laymen don't associate the Renaissance with the Greeks but I think this is explained in WP:CSB and since there is a sourced ref from Britannica on the third para of its Renaissance article I think it is important enough to mention in the lead. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 provided Humanism with a major boost, for many eastern scholars fled to Italy, bringing with them important books and manuscripts and a tradition of Greek scholarship.

As for being civili this is your right and something one should expect and demand from all other editors rather than be thankfull for. Besides I am aware of and respect the amount of work you put here.Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Some more refs for inclusion in that para
Michael H. Harris, History of Libraries in the Western World, Scarecrow 1995
At least three quarters of the ancient Greek classics that survived did so through Byzantine manuscripts.
J.J. Norwich, A Brief History of Byzantium, 1997::::Much of what we know about antiquity – especially Hellenic and Roman literature and Roman law - would have been lost forever, if it weren’t for the scholars and the scribes of Constantinople
Xenovatis (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead seems very poor to me. It talks about linear perspective in painting, but never mentions humanism. The subsections of the "Characteristics" section seem like a more reasonable list. There seems to be very little relationship between them and the lead. There's also a lot of weasel-wording in the lead, and a lot of it sounds like it was the result of unhappy compromises between editors. If someone who didn't know what the Renaissance was tried to understand this lead, I don't think they'd be able to make heads or tails of it.-- (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance Art History[edit]

Merged the contents of the article that could be salvaged and were not too specialized (e.g. didn't include a painstaking description of a painting by Eyk) in the Art and Northern Renaissance sections. Proposed the article for deletion.Xenovatis (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents placement[edit]

Does anybody have strong feelings about the placement of the Table of Contents? At the moment it is floating to the right, which I find odd, since the vast majority of articles have it below the lead. I've looked around the style manual, but can't find any indication whether the placement of the TOC should or must be standardised. How do people feel about this? I, personally, would move it back to its default location – just my 2¢. mais (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Please look at the image description for the "spoken article" file for this article. It is obviously vandalised. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested: Patrician/Patricianship[edit]

Under a proposal made by me, the pages Patrician and Patricianship -- whose names presently are not specific enough -- will be renamed as follows:

(I dropped an earlier proposal for merging the two pages.)

For the rationale for renaming the pages and a couple of associated other changes, as well as the opinions of user:Johnbod, please see the discussion page at Talk:Patricianship.

My question is, do people here support my renaming proposal, or if not support it, at least would not oppose it.

Thanks in advance for all replies--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Spread of Renaissance[edit]

>>> Hungary <<< was the first non Italian country , where the renaissance appeared (14th century). Somebody always delete it. Why? In medieval age Hungary was more stronger and important country than England. Can somebody answer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference given alludes that Hungary was one of the first to implement humanistic and renaissance values. My suggestion is, instead of edit-warring and simply stating that Hungary was the first non-Italian country where the renaissance appeared in Europe (14 th century), why not make a separate section called Hungarian Renaissance including János Vitéz, Janus Pannonius, and a well written version taken from --> ( I'm quite sure you can find sources on Vitez and Pannonius to round out the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you would need a reliable source. That means a peer-reviewed article, a textbook, or something like that. Your cite appears neither to be a peer-reviewed article, nor does it exactly support your claim that Hungary was the first non-Italian "country" where the Renaissance appeared in the 14th century. It seems like a rather bald claim -- in what way did the Renaissance appear in the 14th century? Only in architecture? Was there a humanist movement, involving translations of Greek works into Hungarian? What about art and music? Can you support any of these with references? I don't think there's any doubt about the 15th century in Hungary, it's the 14th, which you claim, that needs a better citation. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Most greek works translated to latin in Hungary, after fall of Consatninaple , the byzantine scientists fled to Hungary and Italy. therefore the translation of greek works were remarkable in Hungary. In France Germany England Spain the renaissance fluorished just in the 16th century. Hungary had Italian origin kings (Charles I of Hungary and louis the great you can found in wikipedia) in the 14th century. In Buda, the Hungarian capital was full of italian artists architects , designers clothes customs. Are there any renaissance artists in France Spain England etc.. in the 15th century? There aren't. All Hungarian history books are proud of that Hungarian kingdom was the first renaissance kingdom in Europe. Did you read the Hungary article? Our royal courts was the richest in Europe. Gold mines etc.... About renaissance dances: hungarian little nobles (gentry) in the 15th century. Beautiful short video : this is part 5, original hungarian renaissance dances from 15th century (from a book 200 years later) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

__________________ Part of the UNESCO Memory of the World Register

30 January to 24 February 2008

The Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus had established one of the most important Renaissance libraries in his palace in Buda. However, after his death (1490), and in particular due to the invasions by the Turks, the collection was scattered. The great importance of this collection is not least based on the fact that Matthias Corvinus, who had enjoyed a humanistic upbringing, built up a systematic collection of manuscripts from a variety of subject fields, and even commissioned a number of manuscripts himself. Predominantly in Italy he had Latin texts written on parchment in an elaborate humanistic book script and had the works illuminated exquisitely, while he purchased valuable Greek manuscripts from Byzantium - also in Italy. All books were bound in a splendid cover and bore the coat of arms of the Hungarian king, making it possible today to reconstruct large parts of his library. Thus 232 of these Corvinus manuscripts are today preserved in almost 50 libraries all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a verbatim copy of the website above, which is a museum's ad for an exhibit. If it is intended to support some of the claims above, it doesn't cut it. Not a great source, and doesn't address the chronology of the Renaissance in Hungary. - Special-T (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

About the renaissance in Hungary (14th century) As I said : the renaissance started centuries later in other european states . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again... This ref is a single preview page of a book (can't see what the footnote on that page refers to). Not a sufficient ref, and AGAIN: It doesn't say anything about the claims above. - Special-T (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's fact that renaissance spreaded much later in other european countries. (like france british isles germany spain or N-Europe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo as Scientist[edit]

The reference under SCIENCE to Leonardo is as follows:..." with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci making observational drawings of anatomy and nature". This is hopelessly inadequate. Please include in the references the following: Fritjof Capra (2007)The Science of Leonardo Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance; Doubleday.

Capra's study shows much of the science theory and experiments of Leonardo, claiming his as the “father of modern science” whose science is more in tune with holistic non-mechanistic approaches to science becoming popular today. Leonardo proposed a strong version of the scientific method, conducted experiments, analysed data, etc long before Galileo, Bacon, Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRC 07 (talkcontribs) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct Error in Origins Section[edit]

Regarding Origins the following statement: "... fuel for this rebirth was the rediscovery of ancient texts that had been forgotten by Western civilization, but were preserved in the Byzantine Empire, the Islamic world, and some monastic libraries; and the translations of Greek and Arabic texts into Latin."

and yet it goes on to state that: "Renaissance scholars such as Niccolò de' Niccoli and Poggio Bracciolini scoured the libraries of Europe in search of works by such classical authors as Plato, Cicero, Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius."

Well, of these authors Cicero, Pliny and Vitruvius either wrote in Latin only, or in Latin and Greek, and their works would not have required translation. The reference should therefore say "and the translations of Greek and Arabic texts into Latin as well as original Latin texts"

PRC 07 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Numerals, Fibonacci and Universities[edit]

The reference: "The study of mathematics was flourishing in the Islamic world" THIS IS TRUE, BUT IT WAS ALSO FLOURISHING IN EUROPE AFTER FIBONACCI, LEONARDO OF PISA, WHO NOT ONLY INTRODUCED HINDU NUMERALS AND ARABIC MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE BUT WAS A MATHEMATICAL GENIUS IN HIS OWN RIGHT and "...mathematical knowledge was brought back from the Middle East by crusaders in the 13th century." WELL FIBONACCI BROUGHT BACK THE NUMERALS FROM HIS TRADING EXPERIENCES IN NORTH AFRICA, NOT CRUSADES IN THE MIDDLE EAST" and "The decline of the Byzantine Empire after 1204 – and its eventual fall in 1453 accompanied by the closure of its universities by the Ottoman Turks" THERE WERE THRIVING UNIVERSITIES IN ITALY FROM 1088, BOLOGNA, WITH INDEPENDENT STUDY OF ROMAN LAW AMONG OTHER FIELDS.

I realise that the purpose of this section is to show that the Renaissance didn't emerge without influence from abroad, but in its effort to achieve this purpose it overstates its case.

PRC 07 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Myth Myth[edit]

I agree that the middle ages has been given a "bum rap", as it were, but if we are to use this approach we don't necessarily have to diminish the Renaissance achievements. One who does is Rodney Starck, (2005), The Victory of Reason, Random House (NY) and I believe this article should cite his work. It isn't a case of endorsing its basic argument, or even any of its arguments, but rather to cover "the Renaissance myth" point in an different way from the works cited. Starck wants to argue against the sidelining of Europe's Christian basis as the source of its scientific flourishing, as later historians' attribution of free enterprise to the Reformation shows, while Starck places free enterprise and capitalism firmly in the City Republics of Italy and centuries before the Reformation.

PRC 07 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes I have made[edit]

OK, I posted the changes I thought should be made, no one commented and the site was not available for editing, so I have made the edits I had signaled. However, the references part is not available for edits, the edit tab appears to be hidden behind an advert, so I have incorporated the references (Capra and Starck and Van Doren, all highly reputable scholars, into the body of the text. Happy to move these down to appropriate spot if someone can explain how this is to be done.

PRC 07 (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CITE#Quick_summary. I have added <ref> and </ref> tags on either side of your reference for Stark, which does the job. It's Rodney Stark, not Starck, by the way. William Avery (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age[edit]

A general comment: Although the Renaissance came about for multiple reasons I would tend to argue that, from a macroscopic view of history, the Islamic Golden Age can be seen as the major driver of the Renaissance as well as the fall of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in the east. Had the Islamic Golden Age not happened most of the philosophical, mathematical, and scientific knowledge on which the Renaissance was based would have been lost (ironically even the Romans/Byzantines maintained their knowledge of these topics by learning from the Arabs/Persians even though the Arabs and Persians had originally gained much of their knowledge from the Romans). Europeans traveled throughout the Muslim world (especially Al-Andalus studying at Muslim universities. As the Muslim and Roman/Byzantine world declined Europe found its own inspiration to carry forward with what it had learned from these cultures.

It seems appropriate to bring out these historical connections more in the introduction to show how this period connects to the past. The details of the Tuscan revival, the Medici family and similar things, while important, are simply microscopic details in the broader picture (e.g. arguing that the Medici family caused the Renaissance is like arguing that the wind blowing a forest fire into town a little faster makes the wind the cause of the town burning down; the town was going to burn no matter what; the wind simply influenced the details of the progression).

--Mcorazao (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The main problem: Renaissance existed before the fall of Connstantinople. The translation of greek works were the idea of Hungarian renaissance. Medici family simply follow the habits of Hungarian court. --Celebration1981 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The translation of Greek works was not the basis for the Renaissance, and certainly not the greatest revelation of the period. Those works had been studied, learned from, and built upon for hundreds of years before the Renaissance, in the Islamic World. Not only were the original texts thus transferred to Europe (the reference to the Hungarian Reneissance seems awfully suspect, and I do not believe a word of it. There is a scholarly consensus on this much), but the centuries of innovation in the Islamic world was handed to the Europeans. Why is nobody paying attention to this issue? It is VITALLY important! It is a huge chunk of history missing from the sodding article.

Hahaha, The greek works came directly from the refugees of Constantinople after 1453, and from Hungarian translators. Be more educated. Your arabic world could nothing to do with Renaissance of Europe :) Majority of arabs were nomad desert sepherds who lived in tents, only the big arab cities have normal (stone) houses and churches. The muslim church styles were mostly copies of Byzantine and Indian styles. The Muslim churches were significantly smaller than Western and Central European Christian cathedrals.

Yes I just read this, and was choked/surprised how ignorant most people still are about the sigificance of the islamic civilisation in Europe for the renessance. The latest scientic research all points to this, that the renessance has been said to have started in Italy but had its real origin in muslim Spain. As a quick reference would I like to recommend to those who have missed this important point in European history, where Islam has been a part to see the documentary on youtube called "when the moors ruled Spain". Link to documentary:

Yes I just read this, and was choked/surprised how ignorant most people still are about the sigificance of the islamic civilisation in Europe for the renessance. The latest scientic research all points to this, that the renessance has been said to have started in Italy but had its real origin in muslim Spain. As a quick reference would I like to recommend to those who have missed this important point in European history, where Islam has been a part to see the documentary on youtube called "when the moors ruled Spain". Link to documentary:

The Macroscopic Influence was Local[edit]

Well actually neither the article as it presently stands, nor anyone I know or have read, says that the Medici "caused" the Renaissance. It is overstating things to claim the degree of dependence of the Italian and wider European Renaissance directly on the Islamic Golden Age for three reasons: 1), as you concede yourself much of the knowledge Arab/Persian scholars developed and retained was originally Greek and Roman, 2), much was available in monasteries in the west and among the Byzantines, and 3) the stimulating ideas of the Renaissance in Italy were not these in any case but political and literary Roman works, and physical evidence of Roman engineering marvels and their impressive architecture.

Of course the Islamic Golden Age was both magnificent and influential, but this is a separate argument. All cultures influence and impact on each other. From Petrarch onwards, and within the Church, the bulk of the ancient legacy was accessible to Italian writers, thinkers, artists directly; it didn't require the mediation. The Medici supported and financed much of this work, commissioned great artistic works,

Correct all cultures impact and influence on eachother, but that is not the point. The point is that history has been distorted and denied and the significance of the muslim civilisation in Spain consiously concealed. As historians it it our duty to look for the truth of this story and to rewrite history by revealing what really happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PRC 07 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC) so yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us concede for now on the matter of art, but one simply cannot deny Islamic learning in the fields of science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, etc. as not only an influence on, but a foundation for similar developments in Europe. The texts of the Islamic Golden Age were used in Europe up until the Enlightenment period. There is indeed a most laughable reference to empirical study and scientific method being credited to Copernicus and Galileo. As much as we may wish for this to be true, these methods were in use for centuries before those two characters utilised them in Europe, and that much cannot be denied. In such a time as we are living in now, a time of fractured relations and mutual antipathy in Europe and the Middle East, it is vital that an article as important as this makes at the very least a SINGLE mention to the enormous contribution of the Muslims to modern Western civilisation, and ideally devotes an entire section to it. To include the ridiculous Black Death theory, and make no mention of the Islamic Golden Age is a complete and utter travesty and a whitewash of well documented history.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 

Relationship to and influence over the Enlightenment[edit]

The (rough) starting dates of the Enlightenment is not very far from the "end date" (so to speak) of the Renaissance, per The present article does say a few things about the effects of the Renaisance on modern/contemporary or more recent events, but is currently silent on its effects on, and influence over the earlier period -- much closer to it time-wise -- of the Enlightenment. It would be great for some sources and some information to be added on the relationship (no doubt much more complex than "directly led to") between the two.--Harel (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Invention Of PRINT[edit]

I think it would be more appropriate to say the introduction of print and that way at least give some credit to the Chinese.

Xhmko (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine as an importation of Eastern technology into the West, but the boom of printed literature on the cheap was only due to the invention of movable type, not the introduction of printing. Printing itself has been around for a long time but the movable type is the real technological invention which needs to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any proof that European printing was introduced from chinese technology. Because the early European printing press had very very different solutions and layout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


This is not my area of expertise, so feel free to dismiss me and tell me I'm full of crap, but I was surprised not to see Cervantes, at least in the section about Spain. Sure, he comes along late in the Renaissance, but if you're talking about important Renaissance writers, especially important Renaissance writers in Spain, Cervantes deserves at least a brief mention. Am I right?F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Added him, good catch...Modernist (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been argued that little in the way of artistic treasures reached Italy following the Turkish taking of the city of Constantinople as there wasn't much left after the 1204 looting and burning of the city by the French and Venetian led 4th.Crusade. The most famous loot from this storming of the city was probably the Quadriga of bronze horses over the main doorway of St Marks cathedral in Venice.

Although England was a very minor player in the 4th. Crusade, at least one Byzantine relic, the Holy Rood of Swaffenham did reach England after the sacking of the city.

There are descriptions of the city, after 1204, as being both derelict and with vegetable gardens set up inside the city walls. The Emperers crown is also described as being inset with coloured glass instead of genuine jewels as in former pre 1204 years.

If the influx of greek art and scholars, craftsmen etc did indeed play a part in the later Renaissance it was probably during the years after 1204 rather than the later and much better known Turkish attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaissance music[edit]

It seems that there is a bit of controversy here. Gathering my knowledge of the facts, my conclusion was that Renaissance music did in fact begin in northern Italy. However, I am compelled not to remove sourced material out of principle. Nevertheless, I do question the accuracy of the source, and I suspect that maybe northern Italian music of around 1400 later influenced the music of the Burgundian school. After all, northern Italy did have access to foreign trade, and intellectual curiosity (even in music) was rooted there more than anywhere else in Western culture. Classicalfan2 (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine to me as written. There was minimal Italian influence on the development of northern musical styles during the period. The ars nova was a French development, and the Burgundian style -- what we commonly call "Franco-Flemish" -- came from that. Those are the musicians that the Italians hired in their courts during the 15th century, at a time when almost no Italian composers were known at all anywhere outside Italy. The Italians learned their polyphony from those travelers from the north, and by the 16th century were becoming famous in their own right, having adopted the polyphonic style. That's greatly simplified, but it doesn't help the article to replace with waffle "seems to have been a" "is believed to have" "the beginnings are a bit hazy" and what is "For instance, in the works of Italian composers such as Francesco Landini, signals eventually leading to Renaissance music are evident"? What signals? What is your source? Did Landini influence the Burgundians? Do you have a source for that assertion? The Burgundian style arose from the French ars nova, not the Italian. Antandrus (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When did Renaissance end?[edit]

The Oxford Dictionary and the hatnote of this article say 16th century, but the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the lead section say 17th century. Which one is correct? And how to define the end of the Renaissance? --Quest for Truth (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

historians give different dates because different places (like Florence, Rome, Paris) had different experiences (and for that matter, so did art, literature, music, etc). The Renaissance petered out, esp as attention turned to religion (Reformation) Rjensen (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} BLACK DEATH ORIGINATED IN ASIA (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: this issue is already addressed in the Black Death article. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

statue of david picture[edit]

is it really nssisary to have THAT particular statue at the top of the article? maybe put it lower down and put somthing like the last supper, mona lisa or school of athens (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Another solution: [2]
--Frania W. (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture of the statue should be replaced by some other representation of the Renaissance, something that is less offensive maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea: turn off your monitor before launching your browser. Rivertorch (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Russian Renaissance[edit]

Russia was not part of the Western (catholic-protestant) world. There were some Italian architects, who constructed some building, but there weren't renaissance arts,r. style poetry or other r. literature, r. paintings,r. philosophy or humanists, r. castles, r. clothes, r. style music, and r. lifestyle. From Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, gun-founders, gold- and silversmiths and (Italian) master builders were requested by Ivan. [2] The article of Russia and its size is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talkcontribs) 07:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the section on Russia better be reduced in size, but one couldn't deny that Renaissance influences were very notable in Russia in the 15th-16th cc., especially in architecture and technology, and in visual arts in the later period. Yes, there is no well-developed concept of "Renaissance in Russia", but we can certainly talk about the "Renaissance architecture in Russia", and of Renaissance influences on Russian literature, icon and portrait painting etc. This may be and should be reflected in the article. Greyhood (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The perhaps rather complicated difference between east and west Europe remains, clearly dating back to the Classical age and the creation of two separate Empires, east and west. So far as the present (21st Cent.) situation is concerned I comment on this in another Talk Page in relation to the 1945 Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten) in Berlin (see User_talk:Intelligent_Mr_Toad of date December 2011 under that title). Is there an answer? Do we know the truth? Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC) (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) The article does not really explain[edit] (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ......why the Renaissance was called the Renaissance in clear understandable terms. Why was it called that? What was reborn or brought about again? What was restored? In my opinion knoweledge should be spread in clear understandable terms and every attempt should be made to make articles "less lawyeristic".

The role played by Byzantine scholars had been exaggerated in a certain sentence[edit]

The “migration of Greek [wouldn't it be more correct to write "Byzantine"?] scholars to Italy following the fall of Constantinople” is definitely not amongst the factors proposed to explain the origin of the Renaissance: that may have been one of the many contributions to the development of the Renaissance, if anything. Not to mention that the Italian Renaissance started before the fall of Constantinople which took place in the second half of the 15th century: the article itself states so. So I've deleted that sentence. Please, don’t put it again, don't write exaggerations of the same kind while adding one hundred of B-series or unverifiable sources due to nationalistic reasons or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lines listing a series of Byzantine scholars have been deleted due to self quotation and because of hierarchical priorities[edit]

I’ve already talked about the invasive presence of lists of names of Greek scholars which thought the Greek language in Italy. This issue is treated in a specific article and I strongly suspect a case of self-quotation.

Apart from it, for obvious reasons we can’t give to those scholars the same hierarchical importance we give to Italian thinkers and humanists from Petrarch to Poggio Bracciolini when talking about humanities and the beginning of the Renaissance: the part I’ve deleted was in a section on the humanistic roots of the Renaissance where the lines mentioning scholars such as Chalcondyles and their activities were even more than the lines mentioning Poggio Bracciolini.

I know that I’ve deleted sentences showing references, but the references themselves worked as a trap there, since there was an abuse: e.g. references to books attesting a certain man lived in Padua for three rather than two years are not really needed, they just intend to make the undue lines look more authoritative.

I left a line about Manuel Chrysoloras, which is enough. If someone is interested in reading more about the specific issue of Byzantine teachers in Italy or elsewhere in Europe can go and read the specific article of the Wikipedia: there is no need to invade a general article on the Renaissance with a minor issue while destroying any encyclopedic priorities. In the same section the painting representing Demetrius Chalcondyles has been replaced by a painting representing Coluccio Salutati: again, it’s a question of hierarchy and "encyclopedic equilibrium".

Thanks- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
the anonymous editor has a weak argument--many scholars over the last century have emphasized the importance of the arrival of Greek scholars see 30,000 cites to books on Google for example. People uninterested in the topic can skip over it. We don't erase knowledge lightly here. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Self quotations, nationalistic exaggerations, encyclopedic equilibrium and hierarchy of the arguments are quite strong arguments here. And I am less anonymous than you when my IP is showed. The weak argument is yours with that rhetoric "we don't erase knoweledge". Propaganda and revisionism are not knoweledge, on the contrary all those minor informations on minor scholars cover the actual knoweledge. Why so many lines about the life of some Greek grammarians in Italy whereas just a few lines treat the actual Italian early Renaissance humanists (in that section)?! While so many space was given to the Byzantines (through a past and copy from another article contained in the Wikipedia) that were not even close to the concept of Renaissance man, while some Italian of exceptional importance is not even mentioned? There is not even one mention about Lorenzo Valla, who demonstrated the so called Donation of Constantine, the document used by the popes to justify their political and territorial authority was forged: and that is for real a crucial event within the origin of the Renaissance humanism because it changed the course of history thanks to the philological approach to the given text. I've never said the arrival of Greek texts and grammarians from Byzantium was not important. I am just talking about hierarchies and encyclopedic ways to face a subject. No reliable scholar "over the last century" has emphasized the importance of the arrival of Byzantine grammarians so much that they gave more importance to Greek translators than to humanists such as Coluccio Salutati, Petrarch, Poggio Bracciolini or Lorenzo Valla to explain the origins of the Renaissance humanism: here the point about the total absence of equilibrium in the section prior my corrections. Yet there are still many exaggerations and old dated stereotypes that I didn't correct because my time is not enough in this period. The Greek language was really a minor issue, though the section seems to state quite the opposite: in fact the point was the attitude towards the text. Those same Latin texts that were known already were read and understood differently: see how the treatise "De architectura" would become the conceptual basis for the western architecture through the work of Leon Battista Alberti. At the moment I've re-established the right hierarchy waiting for more informations on the rediscovery of Latin codices during the period, and the development of a new philogical approach to the texts, that are central aspect of Renaissance humanism. Greek texts arrived later, and it was the approach of the western humanists towards them that made them active in western Europe.

Influence from the Moors in Spain[edit]

It appears to me that the influence which came to Europe from the Moors in Spain is greatly under-estimated. Without that influence no kind of renaissance had been possible. I copy to here what I wrote on the talk page to the article Bettany Hughes

I just watched "When the Moors Ruled in Europe" narrated by Bettany Hughes and I am very impressed by the program. I already knew the most essential facts the program showed, but it is very valuable to have those facts put together in a single program which is accessible to all people in the world. Look up When the Moors Ruled in Europe Bettany Hughes and you will find that the program is available for free in many places on the internet, for example here:

I have seen many programs narrated by Bettany Hughes before and I think she is a very good narrator. This program about the Moors in Spain is especially valuable because it describes how the Greek ideas about dialogue as a tool for progression of knowledge, and the necessary companion, freedom of speech, the idea of democracy, with its necessary companion equality, and the development of sciences came to Europe via the Moors in Spain. These ideas are the basis for humanism, which broke the power of the Pope and slowly but surely transformed Europe into the modern world we see today.

Very little of these new ideas came from Italy, most of them came from the Moors in Spain.

The Catholic church fought against these ideas with every means possible for hundreds of years. When the idea of equality among people reached the minds of the people in France they realized that they should not accept to be treated like animals by the higher classes and the king so they started the French Revolution, which had a very big influence on world history.

A little later the idea of equality created the worker's unions, socialism, social democracy and communism. Today socialism and communism are dead words, but social democracy, a mixed system, a compromise between socialism and capitalism is in rule in most of the countries in the world. And science and technology are now free from all religious limitations.

Bettany Hughes is very important because she makes valuable science and knowledge available to people in general, which is also obvious when we hear that her programs have been watched by more than 100 million people. Very few academic authors or speakers have reached such a numerous audience. Roger491127 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal - from Early renaissance[edit]

I propose that Early renaissance be merged into Renaissance. I think that the content in the Early renaissance article can easily be explained in the context of Renaissance, and the Renaissance article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Early renaissance will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Chris the speller yack 15:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the Early renaissance article -- it contains nothing that isn't already in Renaissance (except for some vandalism about a non-existent artist). Anyone else please feel free to read it and confirm. Antandrus (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides[edit]

The DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides needs to be reviewed.

Did you know

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Annunciation has 4 n's[edit]

This should say The Annunciation by Nicola Pisano not

The Anunciation by Nicola Pisano (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)H (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Information about Renaissance historical date is wrong[edit]

Hello there!

A friend has just made me notice that in this page Renaissance date is set between the 14th and 17th century, which is wrong. There are many different theories about the exact date of this historical hera, but all converge that Renaissance is between 14th and 16th, specifically, it should end in 1600 more or less. Some scholars say that Renaissance starts in 1492 (date of Discovery of America) and 1527 (date of the Pillage of Rome). The Dutch, French amd Italian Wikipedia report the same period, between 14th and 167h century, so I think that this information here is wrong. But I don't want to edit a page without the permission of the author of this, or at least of your staff. Besides, since I'm italian, it is possibile that in English history books, Renaissance is explained to be between 14th and 17th century. Certainly not in Italian books.

What do you think? Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondchildren (talkcontribs) 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's very difficult to quantify. I would personally argue the the Renaissance began much earlier than 1492, and certainly earlier than 1527. I have always regarded the life of Petrarch as a starting point (1304-1374). As for the end, it's hard to say exactly. You say you think it ends in 1600 (which I think is roughly right), well that's in the 17th century! Of course there's no hard and fast beginning and end, so neither 16th or 17th century would be wrong probably. It's only a rough designation, so I don't think it matters vitally. --mais (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Borgia Myth[edit]

I believe it would be more accurate in the following excerpt to write "corrupt Popes" rather than specify the Borgias. There were many problems with corruption in the Holy See during this time and it began before the Borgias and continued well after them. There has been some revision around the Borgia myth and I feel it would be more accurate to not point specifically to them as the most corrupt of the popes.

Section in question is Debates about progress. Specifically: "...seem to have worsened in this era which saw the rise of Machiavellian politics, the Wars of Religion, the corrupt Borgia Popes, and the intensified witch-hunts of the 16th century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hieronymouslies (talkcontribs) 21:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't give the impression to the reader that the Borgia Popes were the only corrupt popes. --Vrok (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


I wrote the base which this article has been developed from, and gave it its currently structure. Since I did that a couple of years ago, there have been many constructive updates to the article, but does anyone else feel that it's getting a bit bloated? My feeling is that it could do with a bit of a prune, but I realise this might step on some people's toes. Does anyone have objections if I was to wade in and start compressing/trimming parts (particularly the introduction, which is a huge, uninviting block of text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mais2 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Of Baptistry = Baptistery?[edit]

In the "Origins" Section, I believe the spelling of the word "Baptistery" is wrong. If by Baptistery you mean what some churches, especially Baptist churches, use to baptise people upon confession of faith, then the more commonly used spelling (at least in he UK) is Baptistry (note the lack of an E) (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation 71[edit]

The source in citation 71 no longer exists. (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Galileo was born in 1564 and died in 1642, Does Galileo belong or is he even part the Renaissance? (Slurpy121 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

Later Renaissance[edit]

An interesting perspective of the Rebirth also known as Renaissance. Key information is included on the cultural identity with a good interpretation of the movement and with insight into politics during this period of art history. There is good reference to Historian Jules Michelet be it with possible byes in historical and national context. Positive reference to advanced culture and education with digestion of Humanism and Christianity profound within Renaissance art. Good date reference and categorisation relating to mentioned artists and influences, there's an interesting understanding of modernisation and it's place in renaissance art going forward. A good explanation in terms of the influence on Greece and therefore it's teachings of Humanism and Theology. Renaissance and it's place in modernisation and transition from the middle ages to a modernistic society is included well and how it formed the basis for new social and political structures to be formed in Italy and across Europe. The black death and it's influence on art and it's development is apparent and included. Economy and infrastructure in Florence is documented. Apparent is the inclusion of Humanism and it's place as a tool for learning and development in an earlier age, the explanation of Art itself during the Renaissance is good, understanding the techniques used and the focus on the beauty of nature and also understanding aesthetics visually within art along with the dissection of and including anatomy, within a broader understanding of Science in reference to the known artists around that time. Architecture and the usage of space within a mathematical framework is informed of. Self awareness and it's section is key in understanding the Riotto (rebirth) and it's place in institutionalised teaching's today. The appearance of "spread" throughout Europe during the middle and latter middle ages is well documented along with it's place in modern history. Art by Sandro Botecelli, Filippo Brunelleschi to mention forms the basis and ethos for "the arts" historically and educationally total and absolute. (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013[edit]

There are both incorrect dates and spelling in the article and i would like to change this. Catdino (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Quotation mark abuse in the Science subsection[edit]

I appreciate that Christopher Columbus' expedition was not truly the first to reach the Americas in modern times, but simply putting "discovery" and "new world" in quotes is totally uninformative and gives the article a negative tone. (I am assuming that this is why it was done, perhaps I'm missing something?) I suggest the quotes be removed and "discovery" be replaced with a more accurate term such as "expedition." Putting "scientific revolution" in quotation marks is equally uninformative. Thoughts? LilJimmyTables (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. — goethean 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please change

 referred to as il uomo universal


 referred to as the ''[[polymath|uomo universale]]''

Also, can we attempt unprotection please? It's been a while and hopefully the vandalism died down since then? Thanks. (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've added the piped link you requested, although I'm not sure the Latin form wouldn't be more appropriate. RudolfRed is correct about requesting unprotection; requests are handled centrally. Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).