The title of this thick orange book—Inventing the Renaissance—intrigued me, and also the subtitle: The Myth of a Golden Age. I checked it out of the library the other day, surprised to imagine that at this late date historians still cling to idealized “periods,” and that other historians feel the need to let us all know that such categories are perhaps helpful as mnemonic devices but useless as categories of judgment or deeper understanding.
I somehow overlooked the fact that the purpose of a book
title is to sell the book. Looking back at other books along similar lines that
I’ve purchased in recent years—The Dawn of Everything: a New
History of Humanity (2021); Time of the Magicians: Wittgenstein,
Benjamin, Cassirer, Heidegger, and the Decade that Reinvented Philosophy (2018);
Magnificent Rebels: The First Romantics and the Invention of the Self
(2022)—I can see that I’ve been a sucker for such ambitious popularizations …
but I don’t regret it.
And the same can be said for Inventing the Renaissance.
It’s written by a scholar, but it’s not really a scholarly work, except by
chance. It’s a chatty and insouciant look at the world of academic history,
impressively larded with anecdotes about Renaissance figures—she knows the era
well—but more seriously interested in the historiographic questions to which
that vague and slippery “age” give rise.
The author, Ada Palmer, teaches at the University of Chicago.
She also writes science fiction, which no doubt gives her additional insight
into how a world or a social milieu takes on body through the accumulation of
specific details which have been selected with a given end in mind. (Gee.
Historians do that too.) She seems more interested here in stirring the
hornet’s nest of controversy regarding the ways historians have assayed the Renaissance
than in providing the reader with anything resembling an accurate picture of
the era.
In short, this is not a book I’d recommend to someone who’s curious about Italian culture during the early modern period. You’d be better off reading Burkhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860), or Bernard Berenson’s Italian Painters of the Renaissance (originally published as independent essays between 1894 and 1907). If you’re interested in the science of era, why not try George Sarton’s Six Wings: Men of Science in the Renaissance (1957)?
In fact, there is no easy way to come to grips with the
Italian Renaissance, because it’s a welter of widely divergent personalities,
jurisdictions, ideas, images, and events. Perhaps this explains, in part, why
so many people are fascinated by the era. It’s rich in color and detail, but
the political details need not concern us much. Whether Florence dominated
Siena (50 miles away) or conquered Pisa (fifty miles away) has little bearing
on the course of European history or the issues we face today.
Palmer narrows her field of view almost immediately to
Florence itself, and proceeds to weigh various theories as to why such a focus
might be justified. Might it be the banking industry that developed there? How
about the vaguely “democratic” form of government? Florentine art isn’t too shabby, either: Brunelleschi,
Donatello, Masaccio, Botticelli, Leonardo, Luca della Robbia, Fra Angelico, Filippino
Lippi. And how about the Neoplatonic philosophy of Ficino, Pico, and other
lesser lights? It’s an impressive roll call for such a middling conurbation,
though Florence’s population in 1450 is estimated to have been around 60,000,
making it one of Europe’s larger cities.
And to top it all off, we have Machiavelli! Personally, I
find his remarks about selling firewood more interested that his analyses of
political life. Perhaps Palmer would approve!
Rooms could be filled with the books have been written about
the art and culture of Renaissance Florence, of course. Palmer mentions quite a
few that piqued her interest as a youth, many of them written in the early
twentieth century by women who had married into lesser Italian nobility. (None
of these works, she adds, are considered historiographically reputable these
days.)
Palmer informs us that there was an uproar within academic
circles when Paul Oscar Kristeller included two humanists in his book Eight
Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (1965). Why? Because humanists might
be good Latinists, but that doesn’t mean they contributed anything to philosophy.
The moral and aesthetic “concepts” they fiddled with usually came straight from Cicero.
But such remarks drive me immediately to hunt out Kristeller's book on the shelf--no easy task. The introductory essay on Petrarch is a good one. To begin with, Kristeller emphasizes the personal nature of Petrarch's remarks, highlighting "the eminently personal, subjective, and as it were, individualistic character of all his writings. He talks about a variety of things and ideas, but essentially he always talks about himself, about what he has read, and felt."
Yet Petrarch is also reaching for a formal and objective understanding of things, and this quest comes to a head, in Kristeller's view, in Petrarch's appraisal to the relative importance of will and intellect:
It is safer to cultivate a good and pious will than a capable and clear intellect. The object of the will is goodness, the object of the intellect, truth. It is better to will the good than to know the true ...
The issue of Renaissance humanism--its character and value--is but one of many that Palmer addresses in her lively book. It's an example of her willingness to cheerfully expose us to the behind-the-scenes disputes that divide university departments into cabals and camps, perhaps more so that actually engaging with the issues. She’s an academic herself, but her shoot-from-the-hip style is anything but academic. She’s having fun, airing both her many enthusiasms and her dirty laundry in public, and she doesn’t seem to mind bringing us along for the ride.
The one rambunctious judgment for which it would be difficult to forgive Palmer is her description of the Italian historian and philosopher Benedetto Croce as a fascist. On the contrary, Croce was a beacon of liberalism throughout the Mussolini era, and everyone knows it. As the Italian historin Momigliano puts it:
"The liberty Croce spoke about was not just a philosophic notion. It was the liberty our fathers had won for themselves in the revolution and on the battlefields of the Risorgimento. Croce represented a constant reproach to Fascism, a constant reminder of what we had lost—freedom and honesty of thought, especially in matters of religion, of social questions and of foreign policy, tolerance, representative government, fair trials, respect for other nations and consequently self-respect."
Yet for the most part, subsequent generations of Italian scholars have resented the man ever since. They have not been inclined to reread him.
Palmer does herself no credit by joining that bandwagon.

















































