I'm going to miss this series, Mike. Can we start again? 😄
I'm fascinated by how difficult it is to state when the Renaissance started and ended, or whether it has ever ended. From what you say here I would instinctively say that in Britain it might have been during the Interregnum, 1649-1660, but it will probably have varied from country to country. Fascinated by the proposition that it could be considered to have stretched as far as 1800.
I think he did. At school I studied the Tudors and Stuarts so that was the period before the Protectorate but I gather it was a very austere time. The pendulum swings and swings back again!
This whole series was a delight, to me and my 13-year old, who loves history and art history (he incidentally won gold at the International History Olympiad in Rome). He thanks you too for this wonderful overview of the Renaissance!
Even if the excess was a fair complaint, I like rococo. It's the opposite of all this modern ugliness. Perhaps its lavishness is a fair criticism in, say, an archbishop's palace. But in a church, where the interior is meant to bring us as close to heaven as possible, I think it's among the closest we've come to depicting the nuances of heaven. Of course there is also beauty in austerity. But while God could make Heaven austere, austerity isn't that hard to do for us either. Or traditionally, it wasn't. But the other side of the coin? That's a lot harder, if at all possible. And in terms of the baroque's appeal, if you're ever in Vilnius - and I recommend you visit - they have an Orthodox church in the baroque-rococo style. Very unusual. In Vilnius the rococo style was very popular and outlasted its time as a trend further West. Also in the town of Lancut in southeast Poland, they have a baroque-rococo synagogue, indicating its trans-religious appeal; there were more I believe, but they were probably destroyed.
Now I'm really curious about your thoughts on Hannam's book because according to him, people in the Renaissance were actually more superstitious than in the Middle Ages. Of course this relies on recognizing that 1) belief in, say, the communion of saints and traditions that accompany them isn't in the same category; 2) astrology back then required strong mathematical skills to read the stars that aren't required today, which gave them scholarly qualifications: even then, the church was very skeptical about it because the idea of fates being written by the stars contradicted the concept of free will, meaning that even if it was as superstitious as today it was not a church-condoned practice; and 3) people didn't visit the herbal healer or the priest for medical praying for superstitious reasons, but from common sense. A prayer or herbal ointment might not have cured you, but it didn't kill you either. Medical practice back then did. It ultimately had nothing to do with superstition but what was considered rational at the time.
As for the Protestants: "forgive them Lord, they knew naught what they did," I guess that's all I can say. While some countries - like the Dutch with painting, the English with literature and some Germans with classical music - did preserve certain "national talents" where the arts are concerned, I don't think the Protestant countries ever recovered from their rejection of the arts. Scotland is perhaps the most extreme scenario, though it is fortunate to have a rich folk culture to compensate. I would also include America, where subconsciously we understand our artistic shortcomings but without that connection have sought to compensate for quality with quantity. By making the artist a careerist rather than an artist, and in this way saving face. Even if a career is counterproductive to furthering artistry unless, like the Renaissance, there is a particular zeitgeist to accompany it. Sure, Michelangelo had a career as much as an artistic drive. But having a career in Renaissance Italy for patrons like the Medicis and the Church was one thing; having a career in America is something entirely different.
Yes, clearly this was before arrival of 99 percent of what we know today from medicine and science. By superstition and magic I was thinking of supernatural powers of bones and relics.
I agree with you that the Scots suffered the most from their image-breaking, white-washing, etc.
Of course, Protestants brought other benefits to the Christian world. Like democracy.
I'll wait to engage about American society and culture and spirituality again till the future.
I'm going to miss this series, Mike. Can we start again? 😄
I'm fascinated by how difficult it is to state when the Renaissance started and ended, or whether it has ever ended. From what you say here I would instinctively say that in Britain it might have been during the Interregnum, 1649-1660, but it will probably have varied from country to country. Fascinated by the proposition that it could be considered to have stretched as far as 1800.
Yes, a very complex topic. Not objective truth. Subjective views. Oliver Cromwell shut down the theatres altogether, yes?
I think he did. At school I studied the Tudors and Stuarts so that was the period before the Protectorate but I gather it was a very austere time. The pendulum swings and swings back again!
This whole series was a delight, to me and my 13-year old, who loves history and art history (he incidentally won gold at the International History Olympiad in Rome). He thanks you too for this wonderful overview of the Renaissance!
Terrific. Thank you. Tell your son I honor and celebrate his potential in this life!
Even if the excess was a fair complaint, I like rococo. It's the opposite of all this modern ugliness. Perhaps its lavishness is a fair criticism in, say, an archbishop's palace. But in a church, where the interior is meant to bring us as close to heaven as possible, I think it's among the closest we've come to depicting the nuances of heaven. Of course there is also beauty in austerity. But while God could make Heaven austere, austerity isn't that hard to do for us either. Or traditionally, it wasn't. But the other side of the coin? That's a lot harder, if at all possible. And in terms of the baroque's appeal, if you're ever in Vilnius - and I recommend you visit - they have an Orthodox church in the baroque-rococo style. Very unusual. In Vilnius the rococo style was very popular and outlasted its time as a trend further West. Also in the town of Lancut in southeast Poland, they have a baroque-rococo synagogue, indicating its trans-religious appeal; there were more I believe, but they were probably destroyed.
Now I'm really curious about your thoughts on Hannam's book because according to him, people in the Renaissance were actually more superstitious than in the Middle Ages. Of course this relies on recognizing that 1) belief in, say, the communion of saints and traditions that accompany them isn't in the same category; 2) astrology back then required strong mathematical skills to read the stars that aren't required today, which gave them scholarly qualifications: even then, the church was very skeptical about it because the idea of fates being written by the stars contradicted the concept of free will, meaning that even if it was as superstitious as today it was not a church-condoned practice; and 3) people didn't visit the herbal healer or the priest for medical praying for superstitious reasons, but from common sense. A prayer or herbal ointment might not have cured you, but it didn't kill you either. Medical practice back then did. It ultimately had nothing to do with superstition but what was considered rational at the time.
As for the Protestants: "forgive them Lord, they knew naught what they did," I guess that's all I can say. While some countries - like the Dutch with painting, the English with literature and some Germans with classical music - did preserve certain "national talents" where the arts are concerned, I don't think the Protestant countries ever recovered from their rejection of the arts. Scotland is perhaps the most extreme scenario, though it is fortunate to have a rich folk culture to compensate. I would also include America, where subconsciously we understand our artistic shortcomings but without that connection have sought to compensate for quality with quantity. By making the artist a careerist rather than an artist, and in this way saving face. Even if a career is counterproductive to furthering artistry unless, like the Renaissance, there is a particular zeitgeist to accompany it. Sure, Michelangelo had a career as much as an artistic drive. But having a career in Renaissance Italy for patrons like the Medicis and the Church was one thing; having a career in America is something entirely different.
We'll agree to disagree about artistic taste.
Yes, clearly this was before arrival of 99 percent of what we know today from medicine and science. By superstition and magic I was thinking of supernatural powers of bones and relics.
I agree with you that the Scots suffered the most from their image-breaking, white-washing, etc.
Of course, Protestants brought other benefits to the Christian world. Like democracy.
I'll wait to engage about American society and culture and spirituality again till the future.
Thanks, Felix.