On other threads, some have discussed the development of the Italian language. I have investigated this matter, too, and at some length.
One of my books, published by Peter Lang, 1998, has as its title "Marsilio Ficino, Pietro Bembo, Baldassare Castiglione: Philosophical, Aesthetic, and Political Approaches in Renaissance Platonism." The three Italians who are the subject of my study made outstanding contributions in their respective fields; their undertakings relate either directly or indirectly to the evolution of the Italian language.
~Marsilio Ficino 1433-1499: Scholar, musician, doctor of medicine and priest, Ficino, the Neoplatonist, exemplifies the Renaissance ideal of versatility. As the first translator ever of the writings of Plato, he renewed and permanently transformed the intellectual life--not just of Italy, but of all of Europe. Before Ficino, Plato was often referred to but hardly read in the original Greek and therefore not understood.
~Pietro Bembo 1470-1547: Despite the important literary contributions of Dante and Petrarch and Boccaccio, Italy in Bembo’s day remained linguistically divided in a way that we can no longer imagine. Other regions vied with Tuscany for linguistic preeminence in the vernacular while scholars insisted on writing in Latin only. Pietro Bembo, poet, humanist, cardinal (and lover of Lucrezia Borgia), succeeded in definitively establishing the linguistic norms that determined the standard Italian language of today.
~Baldassare Castiglione 1478-1529: Castiglione is the author of "The Book of the Courtier," on the surface a book of etiquette. Sometimes compared to Machiavelli’s "Principe" and Guicciardini’s "Ricordi," Castiglione's work is of greater richness and complexity and a representation of the Renaissance itself. The book was instantly accepted as the authority for correct behavior in all situations, political and social, initiating standards that have lasted down to our own times.

Now if someone will just point me at Galateo I can act like a Christian-- which is how my neighbor designates humans vs beasts.

Oh, well, that time's etiquette was quite different from ours. astiglione in his Cortigiano points out that the gentleman should not wipe his moutih on the sleeve during a dinner, he's supposed to use the tablecloth! (Yes, I did read parts of it, when I still thought about getting a university degree.)

I think you're missing the point of Castiglione. It is much more than a book of etiquette; it's a thoughtful book of diplomacy. Maybe you should read it again.

Christine, I have read carefully the book and sat through about 40 ours of (I assure you) extremely boring lessons with the teacher of Italian Literature (boring not because of the subject as well as because of who taught it: professor Barbaresco was known to be sleeep-inducing). I know quite a lot about the book. Mine was supposed to be a funny reply to Judith.

I'm sorry your professor put you to sleep. The book is still worth our reading, a portrait of the idealism of the Renaissance. But then, not everyone is fond of the Renaissance.

And then everyone..move on to "The Italians" by Luigi Barzini... my ex (from pozzuoli) hated/hates it..says it hits home too much. ha.

I am not particularly fond of Renaissance. I honestly think it's overrated. I am a contemprary stuff fan. Now that I have long been out of university, I have sometimes pondering the idea of finally getting the degree: only this time in Contemporary History! if I only was paid for studying instead of working... Anyhow, Renaissance to me is the big, confused smudge that sits between two nice bits of history, the Middle age and the Modern age, with all those interesting wars and religion conflicts and famines and plagues... And while in the rest of Europe everyone butchered everyone else, making history fun to read, Italy was busy doing what? Art? Architecture? Pah! Boring stuff! ;-P

It's a big step from the Renaissance to Luigi Barzini. In any case, all of you Renaissance-haters might enjoy reading the love letters that Pietro Bembo wrote to the unfairly maligned Lucrezia Borgia.

You might also enjoy reading the adventures of Lorenzo's little brother, Giovanni dei Medici as Pope Leo X. Absolutely extraordinary!

I think our legs are being pulled. Condottieri leveled a lot of Italy during the Renaissance, and legends of poisoning and knives in dark corners abound, and there should be enough blood and guts even for Alice.
My own historical preference is the everyday life, in detail, of any ere. I like the series "The History of Everyday Life." The floor plans of Fiorentine apartments, what they ate, how families were organized... And then "A Merchant of Prato" which introduced me to Irigo and explains how people kept warm before central heating. Adjusting to living in a house of the 1500s makes me wonder all the time about those who built it.

Yes, it was a bloody and gutsy time.

Christine, I had no idea you were an author. What are your other books about?

My perception is that during Renaissance the Italian states essentially were all introverted, concentrating on their little wars and squabbles, while the world was developing just on the other side of the Alps. Here they fought over puny border issues and small markets, over theyre the first bricks for future globalization were laid, the world was crossing the strict borders of the Mediterranean, tackling with oceanic explorations, setting up the essential structures for modern political and economic world, expanding the borders of technological knowledge, revolutioning religion, and inventing capitalism (which in its own time was revolutionary!). No wonder that, just a century later, Italy was a prey for Spain and later for the Austrian Empire. Italians built cathedrals and shed blood, but it was just soap opera, while the real games were played elsewhere. THis is why I find Renaissance quite boring.

I may be wrong, but I think the Italians invented capitalism. Egads! They did invent banks. Le banche. And I do know that during the Renaissance usury ceased to be a sin. Now it's a way of life. All the other things, globalization, wars, voyages of discovery and the extermination of various peoples have had untold consequences of horror and sorrow. The mindless plundering of the earth and pollution of the seas and the air--and even of space! I wish we were still painting the Cistine Ceiling. I wish we were still interested in Neoplatonism, in reconciling the thinking of Aristotle and Plato. But then, I'm an old Luddite.

quote:

Originally posted by mani doro:
Christine, I had no idea you were an author. What are your other books about?

Along with the book on Neoplatonism, which deals with the development of Italian, I did a study of the French Renaissance poet, Maurice Sceve; the rhyme scheme of his Delie, 449 ten-line verses lead one to believe that there is another hidden pattern in his work that gives an entirely different view. I also edited an anthology and am now writing novels. Fiction only. I have an agent, but so far I haven't hit pay dirt. As soon as I do, I'll let everyone know. You may have to wait years.

Actually, capitalism has nothing to do with banks. I would not sound too much of a maestrina, but capitalism is strictly connected to production, not speculation (which is what banks do). And nobody invented it, it's a byproduct of the end of the medieval system of communal lands, of their privatization (should talk of illicit appropriation) that on one side caused the end of the medieval production system based on self-use, on another a decline in the income and assets of peasants which forced them to accept to work for the market and, finally, which caused the first accumulation of capitals to be invested in the production of a surplus. That's all in "Das Kapital" Book I, chapter 24. ^___^

As far as I know capitalism is an invention. It did not spring whole out of the earth and it is not typical world-wide. To the amazement of many, in some places it simply won't take, no matter how hard they try. Capitalism first happened when peasants were evicted from their land, when the land was turned into pasture and the starving peasants were forced to work in factories for slave wages--otherwise known as the Industrial Revolution. Check out Dickens, "Hard Times." A great read.

I'm rather pleased about capitalism, because without it I would be scratching out something to eat from 118 acres of stony and sandy soil in Maine with about 30 other family members. Not at all what I had in mind for me.

It must have something going for it- the Chinese gave communism a go, found out it sucked, and switched to capitalism. Now 70% of the stuff folks in the states buy is from China. Somehow I don't see them switching back to Mao anytime soon.

And yet the way I see it is that the nearest thing to 'real'communism can be found today in the kibbutz system in Israel and to some extent within the co-operative systems elsewhere in the world. Sharing the common good, but with the opportunity remaining for each part of the group to accumulate personal wealth.

So while living within a communal group, capitalism (Note: small 'c')is still possible.
Maybe a naive point of view, but I can live with it!
Carole B.

Capitalism has its place, but cut-throat capitalism is pretty bad, dare I use the word evil?, and I think that's what we may be witnessing today in some parts of the world. Like other things, C. has to be kept in check, and it certainly shouldn't become our religion!!! It almost is for some. "Shop till you drop."

quote:

and it certainly shouldn't become our religion!!! It almost is for some. "Shop till you drop."

That sums it up for some people I know! Shop, shop, shop, fill your house with crap you don't need or could do without.
They have made tons of TV shows teaching people how to clean up their houses and not hoard junk!

Domyou think that the average Chinese guy is better off now than 25 years ago? As a matter of facts, now CHina has the worse of the two world: iot has totally deleted from its system all those balangcing measures that allowed the poor and the rich to have the same opportunity to access services and facilities while retaining a soviet-type dictatorship (which has nothing to do with socialism as it was meant by its foudners, I point out) with no right to free information or speech rights. People in the CHinese countryside only barely manage to make a living of their land because the land products sell soo poorly on the market that they end up living in "XIX century" conditions, with little access to, for isntnce, medical care which they cannot afford; as they move to the cities to work they end up being enslaved by the indutrials that, in a country where there is n right for the workers to form trade unions, each factory is a sweatshop where the workers are forced to trudge for 12 hours a day with no days off; than there is the minority (a few million people in a country that's well over one billion inhabitants) that live in a western-world type wealth in the cities. None of them can have, foir instnace, access to the web in an uncontrolled way.
Let's not use China as an example: the times when it could be are long time since over.