![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
−
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
66.68.14.216 ( talk) 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
"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)
You should be more informative 2409:4064:E99:C9C:50CF:34ED:7164:2BCA ( talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So, there are problems with this article
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)
"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)
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)
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, due to the lack of Italian style Renaissance architecture painting and sculpture in England.-- Pharaph ( talk) 10:43, 13 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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Actualcpscm
scrutinize,
talk
17:49, 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:
In the article Holy Roman Empire, the following is mentioned:
In the article Herzogtum Florenz (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:
In the article Großherzogtum Toskana (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:
In the article Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire), the following is mentioned:
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
−
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
66.68.14.216 ( talk) 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
"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)
You should be more informative 2409:4064:E99:C9C:50CF:34ED:7164:2BCA ( talk) 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So, there are problems with this article
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)
"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)
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)
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, due to the lack of Italian style Renaissance architecture painting and sculpture in England.-- Pharaph ( talk) 10:43, 13 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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Actualcpscm
scrutinize,
talk
17:49, 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:
In the article Holy Roman Empire, the following is mentioned:
In the article Herzogtum Florenz (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:
In the article Großherzogtum Toskana (Wiki_DE), the following is mentioned:
In the article Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire), the following is mentioned:
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Renaissance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)