The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty

by Alexander Lee

A fascinating and counterintuitive portrait of the sordid, hidden world behind the dazzling artwork of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, and more 

Renowned as a period of cultural rebirth and artistic innovation, the Renaissance is cloaked in a unique aura of beauty and brilliance. Its very name conjures up awe-inspiring images of an age of lofty ideals in which life imitated the fantastic artworks for which it has become famous. But behind the vast explosion of new art and culture lurked a seamy, vicious world of power politics, perversity, and corruption that has more in common with the present day than anyone dares to admit.
     In this lively and meticulously researched portrait, Renaissance scholar Alexander Lee illuminates the dark and titillating contradictions that were hidden beneath the surface of the period’s best-known artworks. Rife with tales of scheming bankers, greedy politicians, sex-crazed priests, bloody rivalries, vicious intolerance, rampant disease, and lives of extravagance and excess, this gripping exploration of the underbelly of Renaissance Italy shows that, far from being the product of high-minded ideals, the sublime monuments of the Renaissance were created by flawed and tormented artists who lived in an ever-expanding world of inequality, dark sexuality, bigotry, and hatred.
      The Ugly Renaissance is a delightfully debauched journey through the surprising contradictions of Italy’s past and shows that were it not for the profusion of depravity and degradation, history’s greatest masterpieces might never have come into being.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Art, Italy, Renaissance, Historical, European History

448 pages, Hardcover

First published September 26, 2013

Reviews

[☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frankly, I am not nearly as impressed with Michelangelo's broken nose as the author seems to be. What's so shocking about it? It's not like artists have to be celibate pacifists to create things. They can but don't have to. Same thing applies to Benvenuto Cellini and Giotto and Leonardo and Pico della Mirandola and the rest of them. They were human and as such were susceptible to pretty much all the vices and weaknesses and making mistakes or enjoying, well, ill-advisable or frownable upon things. And yes, some of them 'occasionally were very unpleasant people'. Anyone can have a bad day or a year (or life, generally).

I have no idea who would have thought to think that Renaissance was a thing of sheer beauty. Quite obviously, it wasn't, since had there been no issues at that time, it wouldn't have been a 'Renaissance' but rather 'an ongoing development of an already advanced society'. Doesn't sound quite as exciting as 'Renaissance', right?

Another thing. Has anyone looked at the problematic areas of our age of modernity or postindustriality or whatever that we're living today? We have issues, even today. And our modern issues are ugly and violent and depraved as well, thank you very much.

I did enjoy the book, other than the above hype-y stuff, since I occasionally love titillating anecdotal tidbits.

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 3 out of 5]

The content doesn’t deliver on the title sadly

[Christine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclaimer: ARC read via Netgalley.

The popularity of the Renaissance to the modern mind can’t be overstated. Whether it is due to the works of Shakespeare, the romance of star crossed lovers, sweaty men astride horses, certain Showtime series, or the sense of fashion, something about the Renaissance captures the imagination of people.

Of course, there is the art. Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael. They have press everywhere. Even Disney World, so the Renaissance arrived in the modern mythos a long time ago. It isn’t the real Renaissance of course. Everyone’s teeth are prefect, skin isn’t pockmarked (unless the character is a baddy), clothes are clean, hair is flawless, and everyone looks like they go to the gym. It’s not the just the people – the streets are clean of poop and other things, chamber pots aren’t seen, and the food looks great. Everything is grand except for the scheming blackguards.

Intellectually, most people are aware of this fake cleanliness, but even then the average person is convinced that the Renaissance was a high mark, when people rediscovered everything and started the humanist traits that would be fully developed in the American and French Revolution and the various movements of the 20th century.

Perhaps there is a truth to this very. Alexander Lee, however, does people a service by giving the boot to the fairy tale image.

Lee’s look at the ugly side of the Renaissance focuses mostly on Italy, understandable when you think about it. He starts with Michelangelo, who apparently smelled something awful. The presenting of the ugly side of the Renaissance Art World soon becomes an in depth look at various business practices, marriages, issues of se and slavery throughout the Renaissance.

Lee’s discussion of the Underbelly allows the reader to understand the various factors that led to the creation of not only the famous artwork but also the creation of famous literature. It isn’t simply a discussion of the various business practices of the banking families, but also a look at the average day to day life of the nobody, the various risks and dangers of being a woman as well s the various views on marriage. The Renaissance view of homosexual partnership might surprise you.

It is to Lee’s credit that when he moves away from Italy, it is in part to look at the effects of the Renaissance where the Europeans are the strangers. It isn’t just a look at what the “discovers” did to the native, but also how art and literature portrayed such discoveries. There is a look at the Jewish residents and their treatment, something that points forward to the Holocaust.

This book does what Lee intended it to – to make the Renaissance into a reality as opposed to a Hollywood myth.


Crossposted at Booklikes.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yawn. Believe it or not. The Renaissance had sordid episodes and had a seamy underside. As if this is unusual in human history. To be honest, I was disappointed in what I thought was a rather shallow critique of the period.

The author, early on, noted the import of this book (page 5): "And by the end of the journey [of the book], the Renaissance will not just appear to have been populated by angels and demons; it will never seem the same again." Sorry. I don't see anything that one would not have guessed.

[Melody · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh. His premise is weak- how many of you didn't realize there was sex, greed, and depravity in the the Renaissance going in? I don't think I learned anything except how deep some of Lee's bigotry runs. Frankly, I was looking for seamy, titillating stories- not judgy Pecksniffian anecdotes.

Here's where he lost me. He was trying to paint a picture of what homosexuality was like. And he conflated it with pedophilia in a way that is extreme EVEN considering the cultural man/boy love thing going on then. His most detailed example of how homosexuality carried penalties was of a pedophile who sexually abused two young boys and had his house burned down because of it, and he equated that with the sexual relationships grown men were having with 20-somethings. Also, only persons with penises practiced homosex, there were zero examples, discussions, or allusions to lesbians.

[Sud666 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Lee pulls off a small miracle. He has written a book that is at once scholarly and deeply researched, while still being very enjoyable to read. In this book he takes us on a tour of the Renaissance world of the Italian city-states, with a notable emphasis on Florence. Using many of the famous pieces of art from that time, Dr. Lee dispels the myth that the Renaissance was simply a time of high-minded ideals and beautiful art. He shows us a world of sex, scandal and suffering. The great city-states of the time were filled with depravity and inequality. You will get to travel down cramped, dirty streets filled with prostitutes, murderers, robbers and perverted clergy. From the elite banking families of the Medici to the powerful Papal families of the Borgias, we are introduced to a world of seduction, shady backroom deals and conspiracies of every shade. Using the art of the age he shows us the famous people of the time, including famous condottieri (mercenaries), super-rich merchant bankers, political figures and other luminaries of the age. Yet, instead of merely showing the famous artists as just brilliant superhumans, Dr. Lee shows them to be normal people with superb talents. They were just as likely to do things we normally would not associate with these brilliant minds. Just people like anyone else, albeit superbly talented. This book shows a side of the Renaissance as it is rarely shown. From anti-semitic preachers, to corrupt Lords and horribly greedy financiers- these were the people who financed the great works of art we associate with the time. This is a great book for anyone interested in this period or the art of this time. It shows who the patrons of the arts were and what the motivation of the artists were. Using 40 classic painting, Dr. Lee shows us a great view of what is in the art many of us are so familiar with. A well written and superbly researched history.
So why only three stars? It has to do with the inherent bias the author displays. This is a product of his background- obviously a younger man with degrees from Cambridge and Edinburgh and now a lecturer at Oxford, the author suffers from the "ivory tower" complex that is very endemic to the elite academic world. This is a person who has always been in the presence of similarly brilliant academicians and has little understanding of the real world, per se. His judgements on certain things mirror the same bias and prejudiced of the super-liberal Ivy League professors here in the US. For example Dr. Lee seems to find it inexplicable that Condottieri were harsh, often brutal men. Really? War is a harsh business and only the strong survive and only the strongest ever reach the heights of power and fame as some of his historical figures. They did not achieve this fame by attending elite finishing schools and spending their days giving lectures, but rather by bashing in skulls, rape, pillage, plunder, etc. An example is when he seems to conflate the famous Captain Montefeltro's injury and subsequent "surgery" with a morbid penchant for of paranoia and a character that was overly afraid of assassinations and conspiracies. What do I mean? When young Montefeltro had his right eye popped out during a joust, finding his peripheral vision to be destroyed he had the surgeon hack out the bridge of his nose so that he could see. This is not because of paranoia or fear of assassins, Dr. Lee, but rather because it is REALLY hard to survive hand to hand combat with NO peripheral vision. Something, one only knows if one has been in ACTUAL combat versus reading about it in a book. I often find similar views held by many of my peers that I encountered during my graduate and post-grad studies- liberal types who had always been in academics who had NO concept of actual combat and thus sitting comfortably ensconced in their safe, academic worlds they pass judgement on things they only vestigially understand. I, personally, feel a historian ought to render the facts and explanations but reserve moralistic views to their own personal beliefs and not expect others to see the world their way. Morality is a uniquely individual thing-beware the man or woman that speaks of general morals. It's not real. So Dr. Lee please keep your personal ideologies to yourself and not expect everyone to hold similar views. The world is what the world is-the historian should tell you about the world and let you decide the right or wrong of it based on YOUR individual morality.

[Kate · Rating 1 out of 5]

omg horses! shitting! in teh very streets! I HAVE TOTALLY CHANGED MY STARRY-EYED PICTURING OF THE RENAISSANCE NOW gee thx Alexander Lee!

[Gaele · Rating 2 out of 5]

There is a curious propensity of humans, back to the dawn of time, to appreciate beautiful things. There is a certain beauty in antiquities from cave paintings at Lascaux to the hieroglyphs of Egypt, even incorporating newer forms from street and graffiti artists. While much of the earlier forms were also communicating or signifying important messages in the imagery, their decorative appeal is not to be missed. But one can also think in terms of this imagery being a contrast to the realities of life: bleak, barren, violent, or smelly, the art can provide a lasting visual for generations, where often the reality is long forgotten.

When people today hear Renaissance, they often think of Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Botticelli and the other masters so prized today. Alexander Lee has presented a work that is ostensibly based in fact, but his lack of clear premise, a penchant for poor application of today’s beliefs and approaches to situations some 500 years earlier, and an inability to convincingly present his information in a way that proves his premise made this a difficult read. Complex and nuanced situations are reduced to trivialities with vague and often conflicting pieces of “fact’ twisted to suit his own premise, which loses in both bite and believability as the story continues.

What is most striking about Lee’s story is his tone: which felt to me very condescending. This is not a ‘for pleasure’ read for many, people drawn to this title would already understand the ‘realities’ of the Renaissance era: plague, disease, superstition, religious overreach, power struggles, political unrest and poverty that was rampant in most of the population. As a matter of curiosity and some gobsmacking overreach, the Medicis and Borgias are somewhat familiar to many with their devious manipulations for power. Unfortunately, Lee brought forth no new information, and when there was a nugget of interest his poor use of extrapolation and inability to find a clear link to his premise served only to show his lack of belief in his premise.

I had great hopes for this story, and can only wonder where the editors were to challenge some of the glaring inconsistencies and wandering prose that did nothing for reader’s understanding of the story, and did not serve the author’s intent, however muddled that may be. I expected a far more academic tone, with some new information that encouraged my reading elsewhere for more information, but I got a clearly unfocused 448 pages with spates of pedantic conclusion, conflicting arguments to prove the same premise and slovenly bordering on sloppy research.

I received an eBook copy of the title from the publisher via Edelweiss for purpose of honest review. I was not compensated for this review: all conclusions are my own responsibility.

[Jo Walton]

I can't disagree with the conclusion -- that things on the Renaissance were far from perfect but at least beautiful things were being produced, whereas now we still have power imbalances and injustice without even getting the art.

This isn't a bad book, but there wasn't much in it that was new or surprising for me -- it might be a good introduction. It tends to focus on a work of art and bring together information about the creator and the time and place of creation, sometimes forcing the narrative back to the artwork. I don't know how anyone could read anything about the Renaissance without running into sex, greed & etc, so I don't see how Lee expected this to be shocking. Meh.

(But I am totally on for a new Renaissance. Any time.)

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe Alexander Lee achieved something with this work that many historians dream of doing; combining excellent scholarship with readability. Though this book jumped around a bit from time period to time period, it was an incredibly factual and detail-oriented look into the world of Renaissance Italy. Was it as ugly as the title implies? Maybe not. But this was still a wonderful window into the past. Lee separates the book into three parts; Renaissance artist, Renaissance patron, and Renaissance world. I believe this was a great way to understand the day to day lives of men such as Michelangelo against those who paid for their work, like the Medici.

[Richard · Rating 1 out of 5]

By no means an academic work. Lee's entire work is a straw man argument for which he provides no counter argument apart from "modern historians" and the random reference to Burckhardt who has been dead for almost 200 years. This work is a collection of ideas which were relevant to the field in the 50's, but in a more palatable presentation. Works as designed, intended to be a pop history book which gives the reader a few bits of interesting trivia for their next book club meeting.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Gave up after just a few chapters. Disorganized and selective historical presentation.

[Al Bità · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his introduction Lee mentions his concerns that the emphasis by some historians and others on “the beauty and elegance of the art and literature of the Renaissance” has made many “succumb to the temptation of viewing it as a period of cultural rebirth and artistic beauty during which men and women were impossibly civilised and sophisticated”, that this view has become widespread, and that this tends to make us overlook and forget about the uglier side of the period.

For Lee, it becomes important for us to understand that “the achievements of the Renaissance coexisted with dark,dirty, and even diabolical realities” (his list includes atrocities committed by corrupt bankers, greedy politicians, sex-crazed priests, religious conflict, rampant disease, and living lives of extravagant excess). This book is Lee’s attempt to redress this imbalance.

If you agree with Lee’s concerns then you might find this work instructive and even useful. Certainly, his writing is very accessible, and is not a chore to read. There is a part of me which agrees with the general statement that any historical writing which is all sweetness and light should raise red flags as a warning that there may be more to the story. On the other hand, where equal emphasis is given to all aspects of a situation, it may be that the writing will become bland and unexciting: it depends on the effect one might wish to present to a reader.

As I read through this work I could not help but feel that Lee’s concerns seemed a bit “off” — that the term “ugly” began to split up into different kinds of meaning: distasteful; unpleasant; immoral; hypocritical; dangerous; evil; and so on. What these have to do with the art and literature of the Renaissance is problematic, and for me the connection continually slips away into comparative insignificance.

Lee selects the period from 1300–1550 CE as an appropriate time for what historians have called the Renaissance in Europe — fair enough — but European history during this 250 year period covers quite a lot of ground. It includes such events as the Bubonic Plague; the Hundred Years’ War between England and France; the Avignon Papacy and the Great Schism for the Roman Catholics; papal and political entanglement; the discovery of the Americas; the Slave Trade; the Spanish Inquisition; rampant antisemitism, anti-witchcraft and homophobia; peasant uprisings and other anti-authoritarian activities indicative of major social upheavals on a number of fronts; and the Protestant Reformation, among others. Anyone familiar with this history will no doubt have had some idea about many of these situations; they will not need to be reminded of the many “ugly” elements they embody.

While Lee briefly covers some of these events, he prefers to limit his concerns not with all of them in general, but with the situation in the Italian peninsula, with Florence in particular, and also with Rome and a few other cities. Even so, while the items and details Lee presents are accurate enough, their relationship to what he calls “ugly” is more ambiguous and unclear. I suspect he relies on more modern concepts of what may be ugly and what may be not.

The Renaissance was certainly a period of cultural rebirth and artistic beauty, but while it might also be true that some of the people involved were learning to become more civilised and sophisticated in a number of areas, that does not necessarily mean that everyone was. Lee wants us to believe that there were both angels and demons during this period — but one could say that about any historical period. I believe such a simple dichotomy is wrong and misleading. Human beings live, adapt and react as best they can within their specific political, religious, social, economic and cultural environments. Those generations living during the Renaissance were neither angels nor demons: they were just being human.

[Keli · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't get very far in this book before putting it down. I was hoping for either an exploration of the paradoxical nature of renaissance art and the corrupt and brutal politics or a gleeful look at some of the lurid lives of the famous people at the time. However, the author spent the entire first chapter trying to convince me that the Renaissance was full of brutality, hypocrisy and and depravity. I already know that. It's not a secret. In fact, that's why I picked up the book. I would think that most people who pick up this book would already know that. Maybe the book god better when it moved from generalities later in the book, I just didn't get that far. I just felt that the author was a prig and decided to read something else.

[Elze De · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interessant boek als je meer wilt weten over het leven tijdens de renaissance. Met name in florance. Waarbij je vooral leert hoe de rijken hun geld en macht veroverde. En hoe er gedacht werd over de onderklassen en niet christelijke volken. Heb hierdoor een nog beter beeld van deze tijdsperiode gekregen.

[Raluca Daniela · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5 The title verges on clickbait (readbait?), but the content was pretty interesting, albeit quite dry at times.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a yawn - the Renaissance was not full of people talking about refined and abstruse topics but lots of polit6ics, battles, blood, guts and pretty horrible things - well what is new about that. Did anyone think that the renaissance was a time of lovely gentle aesthetes? Honestly the author has created a paper dragon of beliefs to demolish to provide a reason for his book. It is all bogus - there is nothing new here - it is insulting that such tripe can be published and promoted. There are many great books about the renaissance - go search them out and avoid this trash like the plague.

[Maud Van Keulen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I liked this book so much! My next city trip is booked to.... Florence!

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a huge scholarly apparatus and is full of interesting information about various aspects of Renaissance art and society in Italy. It was fine to listen to. However, I have several quarrels with it.

First, if it has a theme it's the rather banal one that notwithstanding producing lots of great art, the Renaissance in Italy was full of lust, greed, violence, and gluttony. Hardly a surprise, that.

Second, there was no organizing principle, neither chronological nor analytical. It seemed a collection of essays that could have been free-standing articles, with only the conceit that each reflected an aspect of Renaissance sinfulness.

Third, the author retrojects 21st Century shibboleths into the era in a rather silly way. He lambastes the ethnocentrism of the era from a contemporary multi culti perspective, but cuts his subjects none of the slack he thinks they should have cut their Jews, Muslims, Africans, usw. In effect, he demands cultural and historical relativism of his 500-years-ago subjects, but offers them none.

In particular, his treatment of what he anachronistically call "anti-Semitism" views it with alarm, but makes no reference to Jewish behavior, or to simple ethnic competition. Classic "lachrymose history" in lieu of analysis.

In short, a flawed but frequently interesting and scholarly work.

[Val · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved how Alexander Lee organized the Ugly Renaissance to tell the story of the rise of merchant bankers, like the Medici, condottiere, and Catholic Popes to then discuss the impact their greed and repulsive behavior had on the renaissance arts and the world at large. Closing by highlighting the antisemitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Black and anti-aboriginal attitude of the era was crucial, but it made the book frustrating to finish, as a Black American reader. I definitely want to learn more about the free Black Italians (looking at you Alessandro de Medici). Lastly, this book opened my eyes to the “push” factor the Ottoman Empire had on the development of the age of discovery and the rise of the Transatlantic Slave Trade… I always knew of the “pull” factor of monetary greed, but that was a nice addition to my understanding of the historical context of the age of “discovery”.

[Alexandra Townsend · Rating 3 out of 5]

7/10. The title is misleading and while the book is interesting I think the author goes over the same things again and again in the chapters making the book longer to what it could be...
Throughout the book you get a good insight as how Renaissance Italy was politically, culturally and economically, but you get nearly nothing related to marginalised communities or woman of the time, which was very disappointing. The author excuses himself saying women were just not important enough to write about them, I think he was just not interested enough. You get some chapters about religion and racial differences but otherwise the 80% of the book is about rich, powerful men and how good and bad they were and how they shaped Italy at the time.

[Muaz Jalil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book to say the least. The key argument is that Renaissance too often has been portrayed as a period of high humanistic ideals, filled with god like humans; reality, as author argues , is very different with an ugly side. But the author for first 40 percent focuses on Michaelangelo and then the Medicis much like heroworship version of Renaissance, which the author criticizes. Later on it picks and we get to explore other aspects but it is still a collection of biographies rather than a sociological or anthropological analysts of Renaissance.

Few things that stood out:

1. Renaissance inequality, excessive wealth, juxtaposition of high culture with poverty reminds me very much of modern world

2. In Renaissance= religion was priority and it was glorified by art...."art business" as justification for rich people

Modern time = science priority and it is glorified by tech...."science business space and gizmo" as justification for mega rich. Explains Bezos Musk and Branson preoccupation with space travel when world is suffering from pandemic, malaria and basic poverty.

3. The level of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism during Renaissance was insane. It seems previous scholarship was more objective. I guess Renaissance was also a good time for 'fake news'

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this one up at my local library. While I am not sure why Lee considers it a major revelation that people in the past behaved badly - the depravity of the Renaissance was certainly taught when I was in school - it is an excellent tome on the subject, even if there are no revelations that should shock the reasonably educated reader. Good, solid scholarship/

[Lulu (the library leopard)]

i got the DIRT on the renaissance now

[Jim Swike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Returned by Kindle. Provides a complete picture of the Renaissance, as the title suggests. Great resource for research and or a term paper. Enjoy!

[Hayley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The subject matter of this was interesting but at times it felt like the author was doing his best to make it boring.

[Tomandrews · Rating 5 out of 5]

I couldn't recommend this book too highly. I picked it up knowing what I thought was quite a bit about the Renaissance, but the author succeeded in completely changing how I think about the whole period. From the first page, it was a great read. It's clear that Lee has done a huge amount of research, but he has an immediately accessible and engaging style, and has a real talent for making complex scholarly arguments comprehensible and fun.

His basic argument is that the art of the Renaissance can only be understood (and appreciated!) when placed in its social context, and that when it is set brought back to earth, even the most beautiful paintings take on an entirely different appearance. To do this, he deconstructs three spheres of artistic activity. In the first part, he examined the social world of the Renaissance artist, and shows not only that artists lived sometimes quite unpleasant lives in dirty, cramped, and deeply divided cities, but integrated these often shocking everyday experiences into their artworks. In the second, he looks at the world of Renaissance patrons - the people who paid for the art to be made. Looking at three specific groups in turn (bankers, mercenaries, and popes), Lee convincingly shows how art was used to legimate the power, wealth, and authority of each of these morally questionable groups, and really succeeds in bringing out not only the propagandistic value of art, but also the contrast between image and reality. In the third part of the book, the author turns to look at the way in which Renaissance attitudes to the wider world can be found in the art of the period, and this is perhaps the most surprising section of the whole work. Many of the encounters he finds evidenced in Italian art are surprising at the very least, and I was really taken with how Lee manages to tease out the hidden stories behind even the smallest details in particular paintings. So, he shows that Mary's earrings in Lorenzetti's painting of the Presentation at the Temple reveals both an admiration for the shared heritage of Christianity and Judaism, and a deep-seated anti-semitism running through Renaissance society. In the same vein, his discussion of the weird pseudo-Arabic script in another painting says a lot about how Renaissance artists were both fascinated and horrified by Islamic culture. But most surprising of all in this respect is Lee's examination of how Renaissance art responded to the discovery of the Americas. He makes the point (which took me aback) that the New World left no mark on Renaissance art at all and almost left the artists of the period nonplussed. Crazy.

What I loved most about this book was the way Lee manages to bring the Renaissance to life. As he takes you on a journey with the young Michelangelo through Florence in the opening chapter, for example, you can almost smell the stench of the streets rising off the page or hear the cries of the prostitutes calling from their brothels near the market. But the whole book is rich with an amazing range of really engaging and illustative anecdotes that bring what could otherwise be a rather dry subject immediately to life. And the characters he brings out are just intriguing. Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (the Wolf of Rimini) sends shivers up the spine, and Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, or Pope Pius II, comes across as a clever, but almost two-faced figures with a real appreciation of the power of learning and art. It's also nice to see that an author who clearly has a solid scholarly background has a good sense of humour, too!

In short, whether you know a lot about the Renaissance or not, you should definitely give this book a go. I loved every page!

[mica · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't say I liked this book. I don't think I like Lee's writing style in the least - he tended to be needlessly verbose - never used one word if it was possible (not necessary, but possible) to say it in five or more. It's pop-history, but, despite the fact that I willingly subject myself to dense texts on the regular, I found it a slog of a read.

My biggest complaint, besides overall writing style, was the lack of on-page citations. In general I hate hate hate flipping back and forth from an end-notes section, but it sure beats there being no citations in text. If you do look through the notes section, notes do often specifically correspond to quotations, through the text, but nothing on the page of actual text suggests that there is a citation. Additionally, this set up makes it super annoying to cross-reference. I get that this book is not meant for someone writing their history thesis, but when I'm reading non-fiction, even for fun, I want to be able to see where the author is getting their information, without having to stop and flip through the book constantly. (And, since there were no in-text citations, cross reference the page number, then the snipped of the quote/sentence that is referred to...).

Lee also likes to set out with a theme and refer back repeatedly. I've had professors who do that, and it drives me nuts. I had, by the end of the first (and longest) section of this book, read enough about Michealangelo's broken nose to want to hurl this book across the room.

A couple nitpicks:

in three of the final four chapters, about the treatment of Jewish, Muslim and African people, Lee starts each chapter with a glossy cherry picked history of the renaissance as tolerant of the subject people. This was confusing at best. Sure, not everyone was spitting bile at these people constantly, but considering the witch-hunts of Jews and Muslims and the enslavement of an entire race, none of which should be even slightly surprising to anyone with the smallest knowledge of European history, the beginnings of these chapters felt spectacularly cherry picked and unnecessary, and seemed to be a grasping attempt to set up a false scene for the sake of dramatics.

If you are looking for a book with information about the existence of women as real live humans in the renaissance, this is not the book. I didn't expect much, (I'm a realist), but Lee's language about women was a classic combination of women-as-objects and complete erasure.

Re: the final paragraphs of the epilogue - as a person who is pretty well versed in art history, Lee's complaint about art in the modern day (in his epilogue) irked me to no end. I could write a lengthy rant-essay about why evolution in artistic style is a good thing, and why modern art is no longer striving to create lavish and dramatic realistic portraiture and religious illustration that also serves as propaganda for the wealthy elite (hint - it's something to do with the advent of photography and film, and do you know how long it takes to paint in the old-masters' style, and how people don't want to pay for that when they could just get a photograph/reality TV show done? Also - artists are usually kind of creative, and none of us want to retread familiar ground forever), but I'm mostly going to leave it at that.

Didn't like this book, didn't think it really delved enough to deliver on its thesis, unless the reader is really unfamiliar with renaissance/medieval history (or at least, it seemed to be pretty basic history to me, and I don't consider myself particularly well versed on my Italian renaissance history beyond basic art history).

[Desirae · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alexander Lee in his book The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty introduces and develops the theme that there is an alternative, different and much darker side of Renaissance era. There is no doubt that the Renaissance is one of the most beautiful periods in human history, especially in the history of art. After the dim and mediocre Medieval times, there came this enormous explosion of fresh and interesting thinking, philosophy, and of course artistic masterpieces. It was called the Renaissance (Rebirth) since the idea was to revive the beauty of ancient Greek and Roman cultures, but it became much more than that. The ideas were not only reviewed but were built upon, and expanded and reformed into fresh and novel concepts. In fact, the Renaissance era generated so many new objects and subjects, that despite many books already written about the Renaissance, there is always a place for another book, especially if it aims for a fresh angle. Of course the first question is, is this really a new angle? The author seems to think so, someone else may disagree. The scholars always knew that for all these beautiful paintings, buildings, and erudite philosophical and literary discourses, the real life looked rather different. A famous painter often was a difficult person to deal with if you were his apprentice (apparently Michelangelo practically never washed or changed his clothes); the fancy flights of the brilliant architect's imagination didn't build themselves and if you were a mason working on such a project, most likely you were underpaid and worked in dangerous conditions with no regard for your safety; and all these philosophers and erudites usually weren't too nice to their house servants. Perhaps the general public was not aware of that fact, but one would think that since the cable show "The Borgias" became so popular a few years ago, this gaping hole in general knowledge has been plugged.

To give the author his due, it is evident while reading the book that Dr. Lee has extensive knowledge of the Renaissance period (if there are any mistakes, it would take an expert to spot them) and feels very strongly about the subject. He really, really wants the reader to know how different was the everyday life for those who happened to be just ordinary people and not highly gifted artists or extremely wealthy patrons (and let's not even mentioned how miserable was life for these who happen to be of different religious persuasion or race). That need to expose the seedy underbelly of Renaissance is so great that it oftentimes leads to repeating things over and over again. The author mentions economic and social interactions while discussing the world the artists live in (in a subsection entitled suitably: "The World of the Renaissance Artist") but then he also discusses similar issues when he talks about the world the patrons live in (this time the subsection title is: "The World of the Renaissance patron"). While the details and the emphasis vary between subsections, there is still this overlap which leaves the reader with a feeling of repetitiveness. In a way the last subsections entitled "The Renaissance and the World" (and yes, we get the clever titles in subdivisions) is actually the most interesting with the least repetitions. I was surprised to learn that the relations between republics, cities and people from the lands of the Italian Renaissance and people of either different religion (Jews, Muslims) or people from a different continent (Africa, America) weren't very good and intolerance and racism were rampant. One would think that all these exalted philosophical ideas espoused by the Renaissance crowd would translate into better understanding of each other and better interactions.

The writing style is very erudite, rather dense and full of detail. While the author tries to make an effort to accommodate the general public, it is mostly by using some popular literary devices that he does it. He is especially fond of anecdotes, which often serve as a launching point for a more scholastic discourse. I like how the book starts with a description of a summer day in 1491, which is a day when a 16-year old Michelangelo Buonarotti (later known simply as Michelangelo), an apprentice sculptor in Florence, got his nose bashed in. The author uses this anecdote to start a discussion how such a brutal thing could happen in a supposedly happy and enlightened world of the Renaissance. He makes some effort trying to develop characters of personae populating his book and he succeeds to a degree, especially when discussing his favorites, such as Michelangelo. But the book has so many characters, that the reader easily becomes first lost and later immune to literary efforts! The book could have benefited from a few more tables and/or lists (only two in this edition). Since the author introduces so many people, for someone who is not well versed in history, the plethora of names can be quite daunting.

The book The Ugly Renaissance: Sex, Greed, Violence and Depravity in an Age of Beauty by Alexander Lee strongly promotes the view that whenever we talk about Renaissance era, apart from acknowledging all the beautiful things that happened during that time, we should also remember that this cultural development didn't happen in a vacuum but was a product of specific social and political situations. The book discusses in great details the chiasm between the artist as a divine creator, admired and worshipped for his creativity perhaps for the first time since Antiquity and the artist as a human being exposed to all temptations and customs of that period. There are several chapters describing in minutiae the ever-shifting politics and flow of money in Florence and Rome. The reader gets the impression the author strongly objects to the fact that the wealthy patrons would commission works from the artists not necessarily purely for their artistic values but to show off their family fortune and influence! And since the author also shows how many of these many fortunes were acquired by nefarious means and how political plans often required unsavory measures, the reader again gets an impression that this offends the author's sensibilities. Well then, how about some sense? The author would do well to remember the story of Aristippus of Cyrene, a Greek philosopher who taught that the meaning of life was pleasure and that the pursuit of pleasure was the most noble path one could take (that squares right with the writings of Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola; the author's favorite Renaissance writer). One day Aristippus was asking a favor for a friend from the tyrant Dionysius and when he was initially unsuccessful, finally he fell at the tyrant's feet and got his wish granted. Later someone criticized his behavior, to which Aristippus said, "It is not I who am to blame, but Dionysius who has his ears in his feet." The rich and their riches were products of their time and if they wanted beauty for their selfish reasons, so be it! Should we enjoy works of art less just because they were commissioned out of hubris?

There are few other faults to be found with this otherwise well-written book. One is that it is extremely detailed. While it may please history buffs to no end, it becomes tiring and tedious for an ordinary reader. There are many interesting details but the author keeps going forward and provides more and more information, while the reader wishes for a moment of respite to contemplate what's already known. The author manages to avoid generalizations and stereotyping but falls often into a didactic mode as he has a habit of viewing and judging the past while using modern moral values. He seems to be so upset by all that ugliness associated with Renaissance that he all but forgets to ask a fundamental question: was that ugly reality that much different than one before or even after the Renaissance period? Were all these social and political machinations shown in the Italian Renaissance much different than the living conditions and politics in other countries? The author criticizes a lot but rarely looks at the situation from the point of view of a XV-century citizen. Doing so would answer for him some very rhetorical questions he posses. Why such anti-Semitism? - look no further as to the Catholic Church and its teachings. Why racism? - looking through history shows that even nowadays people are afraid of strangers, especially of a different appearance. The questions could continue but hopefully, there will be answers to them in the next edition.

[Carla Coelho · Rating 3 out of 5]

“In short, dreams must be dreamed. A new Renaissance is long overdue.”
É com este repto que termina o livro de Alexandre Lee, The ugly renaissance que, paradoxalmente, procura recordar o lado menos bonito desse período histórico. Mas, se num primeiro momento, há a tentação de nos lançarmos entusiasticamente no desejo de uma nova Renascença, tenho que dizer que talvez o renascimento que tenho em mente não seja exactamente igual ao sonhado por Lee. Mas já lá vamos.
The Ugly Renaissance é, em primeiro lugar, um livro de História que tem por objecto o Renascimento italiano.
Está dividido em três partes. A primeira é centrada no papel do artista e tem em Miguel Ângelo a figura principal. A segunda foca-se no papel do patrono de artes, explorando as suas motivações e interesses. É aí que conhecemos Cosimo Médeci, Galeazzo Maria Sforza e Sigismundo Pandolfo Maletesta, entre outros. Ficamos a conhecer as suas origens e traços de personalidade que não são imediatamente visíveis nas obras de arte que custearam. Em particular Sigismundo é alguém que nos leva a concluir que há pessoa com as quais é melhor manter uma distância existencial de várias centenas de anos. A última parte do livro de Lee analisa o Renascimento italiano nas suas relações com o resto do mundo. Explora a noção de alteridade fornecida por judeus, muçulmanos e africanos.
Este é um trabalho muito bem documentado e que cumpre o prometido. A pobreza extrema em que vivia parte substancial da população das cidades em que emergiu o Renascimento, a injustiça social e a discrepância entre as leis e os costumes (por exemplo, no plano da situação das mulheres e da vida dos homossexuais) são tratados de forma detalhada. Recordamos também a crueldade extrema dos que tinham o poder, fosse ele de origem terrena ou clerical, bem como a ausência de sistema de justiça independente e a existência de preconceitos raciais, religiosos e sexuais. Trata-se de leitura interessante, sendo o livro escrito de forma escorreita e com muita informação. Surgem nomes conhecidos (como Dante e Bocácio), mas também pistas para novas descobertas (como Bartolomeu Facio, por exemplo). Na minha perspectiva, foi uma leitura que valeu a pena. Ainda assim, há pontos que me merecem reparo.
Em primeiro lugar, a inexistência de qualquer referência às mulheres artistas e de letras que viveram e fizeram o Renascimento. Por exemplo, Túlia de Aragão (filósofa nascida em 1510 e falecida em 1556, que viveu em Florença e publicou Della infinitá di amore) e as pintoras Artemisia Gentilisihi (1593-1656) ou Sofonisba Anguissola (1532-1625). Esta última, aliás, privou com Miguel Ângelo que reconheceu desde sempre o seu talento. Esta ausência num livro de publicação recente é algo incompreensível. Tanto mais que Lee dedica várias páginas à condição feminina e que o trabalho por si empreendido pretende dar uma visão global do Renascimento italiano.
Um segundo ponto de crítica foram as conclusões a que o autor chega na parte final do seu trabalho e que são, a meu ver, algo simplistas. É verdade que nos nossos dias existem problemas sociais graves de natureza social, política e cultural. Mas comparar o cenário actual ao que se vivia no século XVI na península itálica é, no mínimo, pouco rigoroso. Desde logo, porque o âmbito da investigação de Lee começa por ser traçado no Renascimento Italiano (e assim se mantém por todo o livro, sem uma palavra sobre as obras de arte de outros pontos europeus) para terminar com o que parece ser uma tirada geral sobre o estado do mundo. Ora, a verdade é que se compararmos a situação do cidadão europeu hoje com a de um italiano do século XVI a diferença é abissal. Em termos de direitos humanos, acesso a educação, saúde, habitação, sistema de justiça e nível de vida, a comparação, de tão abissal, é risível. Mais ainda, se alargarmos a comparação ao mundo, e mesmo aceitando a fórmula genérica do autor de que “o escândalo, sofrimento e corrupção” continuam a existir é sabido que o nível geral da vida dos seres humanos é hoje muito melhor do que no século XVI. Isto, apesar do muito que há ainda a fazer em termos de justiça global. Tenho dúvidas quanto a projectos utópicos. Mas também não me parece que a solução perante a verificação dos problemas sociais seja, tão só, enchermos o mundo de mais monumentos, num novo Renascimento. Creio que o melhor que podemos deixar às gerações vindouras é lutar contra as injustiças sociais gritantes e não meter a cabeça na areia, fazendo de conta que o escândalo, corrupção e injustiça não existem ou que são um mal necessário.
Por último, compreendendo embora o entusiasmo do autor com o Renascimento, há que recordar que não foi o único período em que os seres humanos se transcenderam através da artes. Antes e depois desse tempo, em todos os pontos do mundo há belíssimas demonstrações do nosso génio individual e colectivo.
***
The Ugly Renaissance is, first and foremost, a history book that has as its object the Italian Renaissance.
It is divided into three parts. The first is centered on the role of the artist and has in Miguel Ângelo the main figure. The second focuses on the role of the patron of the arts, exploring their motivations and interests. The third part focus on the relationship between the italian Renaissance an the rest of the world. The book is written in a way that is easy to read and with lots of information. There are familiar names (such as Dante and Bocacio), but also clues to new discoveries (such as Bartolomeu Facio, for example). From my perspective, it was a worthwhile reading.
Still, there are points that deserve me fix.
First, there is no reference to any women artists who lived and made the Renaissance. And there are many, as we know. For example, Túlia de Aragão (a philosopher born in 1510 and died in 1556, who lived in Florence and published Della infinitá di amore) and painters such as Artemisia Gentilisihi (1593-1656) or Sofonisba Anguissola (1532-1625). The latter, in fact, met Michelangelo who was fast (but no alone) in recognizend her talent. This absence in a recent publication is incomprehensible. All the more so since Lee devotes several pages to the feminine condition and that the work he undertakes intends to give a global vision of the Italian Renaissance.
A second point of criticism are the conclusions that the author reaches in the final part of his work. In my opinion, they are a bit simplistic. It is true that in our day there are serious social problems of a social, political and cultural nature. But comparing the current scenario to what was experienced in the sixteenth century in the Italian peninsula is, at least, not very strict. First of all, because the scope of Lee's research begins by being traced back to the Italian Renaissance (and thus remains throughout the book, without a word about works of art from other European points) to end with what appears to be a general take about the state of the world. The truth is that if we compare the situation of the European citizen today with that of a sixteenth-century Italian, the difference is abysmal. In terms of human rights, access to education, health, housing, justice system and standard of living, the comparison, so abysmal, is laughable. Moreover, if we extend the comparison to the world, and even accepting the author's generic formula that "scandal, suffering and corruption" continue to exist, it is well known that the general level of human life is much better today than in the century XVI. This, despite much that there is still to be done in terms of global justice.
I have doubts about utopian projects. But it does not seem to me that the solution to the verification of social problems is simply to fill the world with more monuments in a new Renaissance. I believe that the best we can leave to future generations is to fight against the blatant social injustices and not to put our heads in the sand, pretending that scandal, corruption and injustice do not exist or are a necessary evil.
Lastly, while understanding the author's enthusiasm for the Renaissance, it must be remembered that it was not the only period when human beings transcended themselves through the arts. Before and after that time, in every part of the world there are beautiful demonstrations of our individual and collective genius.