Skip to comments.How the Renaissance Led to the Reformation
Posted on 06/13/2010 7:30:19 AM PDT by FredJake
I do not wish to diminish the contributions of any of the many individuals or events that will be left out of my articles, but in order to be as concise as possible I will inevitably fail to give proper credit to the accomplishments some. I have settled upon the following six areas to cover which I put in five parts. Follow any link to read other parts.
Never in history has one man's thesis so rattled the powers that be, than did Martin Luther's when he nailed his ninety-five grievances to the Church door at Wittenberg. It was an act of defiance that would eventually topple a church state organization that held sway over kings and paupers alike for a thousand years. And while every history class that covers the reformation will tell you that it was Johann Tetzel's selling of indulgences that pushed Luther into action that day, Tetzel's action was only the final straw, not the cause of the revolution. At the time the Reformation began, there were many factors that enabled and emboldened the common man into action but none was more profound in it's influence then was the Renaissance.
Encyclopedias and history books all seem to point out that the word Renaissance is French for "rebirth". However, the Italian painter Giorgio Vasari was probably the first person to describe this era as the "Renaissance" when he used the word rinascità in a book he authored in 1568. The book was titled, "Le vita de' più eccellenti architetti, pittori, ed scultori italiani" ("The Lives of the Most Eminent Italian Architects, Painters, and Sculptors") the more commonly used title is, "Lives of the Artists". Vasari applied this concept specifically to a "revival", or "rebirth", in the chapter titled "Andrea di Cione, Spinello, Dello, and Paolo Uccello" where he wrote;
"In the year 1350 was formed the Company and Fraternity of the Painters in Florence, for the masters were there in great numbers, and they considered that the arts of design had been born again in Tuscany, and indeed in Florence itself."
The Renaissance started in southern Europe or the Italian city-states while the Reformation started in northern Europe or Germany. There is a debate as to whether the Renaissance ended when the Reformation started, or continued up to the Age of Enlightenment. To make things even more interesting the Renaissance started at different times in various parts of Europe. There are also numerous dates given as to when the Renaissance took place, and depending on your source it started anywhere from 1300 to 1450. I believe the Renaissance originally began around 1350 in the Italian city-states of Florence, Genoa, Milan, Venice, Verona, and Siena. Although through different means and sometimes with ulterior motives, it would spread to France, Germany, England, Spain, and other parts of Europe.
After many centuries of what they considered intellectual and cultural decline during what is popularly known as the Dark Ages, Europeans thought they had rediscovered the superiority of Greek and Roman culture and came to the conclusion that their own cultural achievements rivaled those of antiquity. This thinking was influenced by the concept of humanism, which emphasizes the worth of the individual. The Renaissance humanists believed it was possible to improve human society through classical education that relied on teachings from ancient texts and emphasized a range of disciplines including poetry, history, and moral philosophy.
This period of history is also marked by great achievements in art, literature, inventions, explorations, and an increase of trade from the eastern Mediterranean lands that led to a rebirth of knowledge and understanding of foreign lands and cultures. While the Renaissance man's hunger for understanding his world led some to engage in self satisfaction that set him free from the churches morals, others searched for a deeper understanding of the scriptures to get closer to what the gospels taught. All this took place during a time of social and political upheaval that would lead to the end of the state bowing to the pressure of the church.
In my next article, I will attempt to show how the political and social changes of the Renaissance led to the end of the feudal system and the Dark Ages, while triggering a capitalist-based society, that set the stage for a revolution which would ultimately create new religious, political, geographical boundaries in Europe.
To conserve space, I am not posting documentation of my research. If someone desires documentation for any of my claims, I will gladly share with you a copy of my complete Bibliography upon request.
Would you do the same thing to Anthony Watts who has a site with the same news paper called “Watts Up With That”?
Because this is not just a normal blog site,. This is a very respe4ctable news paper in Northern Ca. So I will expect you to do the same thing to anything posted about Anthony Watts site, which by the way Rush Limbaugh mentions often.
OV asked that I post this for him and I did,. what you did is not only wrong but uncalled for. The guy is a respected reporter and yes a blogger for the “Enterprise Record Newpaper” in Chico Ca. What is your beef?
Because I would like to see you get your work submitted and accepted at any professional newspaper outlet in the country. This site he has is not some off the wall free blog site like “Blogsspot” where anyone can start a blog. He has worked many years to get recognized by a reputable news source, and you wish to diminish his success.
Would you prefer only liberals get recognized by news sources around the country?
Now you've done it!
The "Dark Ages" ended centuries before the Renaissance.
Obviously you did not bother reading that chapter because if you did you would not make that statement.
The article never said the two overlapped, it talks about one ending and the other beginning.
But you would much rather comment on what your preconceived idea of what the article says without reading it.
You will forever be blind because you refuse to actually read what others write. You are one of those who comments on the title of an article yet never once ever reads what the article says.
Liberals do that all the time, that’s why newspapers give misleading tittles’ and never ever tell the whole story until the last paragraph of an article because they know people like you will never bother reading past the first few paragraphs.
And we wonder why people vote liberal, believe in global warning, that Rush is and idiot, Ronald Reagan was evil, Obama is good, and the government can supply all their needs while businesses are corrupt.
Keep reading just enough to not be properly informed and you will be forever blind.
But heck, at least you have an opinion, and uninformed opinion, but an opinion just the same. Right?
Next time read the article before commenting.
There was no need to get nasty.
FWIW, I thought the article was well written, but when you put up a nasty defense of the article not only attacking the substance of the poster's comment, but the character of the poster, based merely upon an opinion which may or may not be in contrast to the author's, you diminish the whole argument you are trying to convey and you likewise cast the article's legitimacy in doubt.
You know, after I read what I posted I realized how cold and harsh I sounded.
I really should have contemplated what i wrote more thoroughly before I hit the post button.
It has been a long bad week for me and I have been testy all week.
I do apologize for my tone.
I did OV a favor, and I know he would not approve since I am quasi representing him by posting it.
Next time I will step back and think before I post.
That seems to happen to all of us from time to time. :-)
Yup you are sure prone to irrational outbursts
Not usually, but lately I must admit that things have been irritating me a lot easier then they used to.
I have a lot of friends and relatives who have been adversely effected by the many things the Fascists have been doing for the last few years and I just don’t take very kindly anymore to those who seem to fit the same profile in their actions towards others.
ie.. post Nazis,those who seem to think that they are the gods of what we can and cannot say or do. Also those who continually comment on article when they even admit they never went to the site to read the never even read the article. They remind me of the liberals who attack Arizona for a law none of them have even read. I have just had it with those morons, regardless of where they come from or what they claim to believe.
So as I said earlier, I need to begin really contemplating what it is I want to say before I hit the post button.
You should bump the original threads instead of engaging in thread spamming for another Freeper.