What do we mean by the Renaissance? Various answers suggest themselves according to the point of view we choose for the moment to adopt. The institutional historian fixes his attention on the birth of a new political consciousness with the decline of the medieval idea of the Papacy and the Empire and the spread of the sentiment of nationality throughout Europe. The historian of society is mainly concerned with the birth of new social conditions accompanying the breaking up of the regime of feudalism and chivalry, the growth of commerce, and the beginnings of modern industrialism. The scientist emphasizes the rediscovery of nature, the opening up of the world by maritime exploration, the founding of astronomy, anatomy, physiology, medicine, and the establishment of the true scientific method. For the historian of thought the principal interest of the Renaissance lies in the abandonment of the old theological scholasticism and the rise of the spirit of free rational inquiry. To the student of religious evolution, the Renaissance suggests the Reformation; to the lover of art and literature, the recovery of the masterpieces of pagan antiquity and the rebirth of the classic I. The Renaissance in General. II. The Age of Discovery and Invention. III. The Revival of Learning. IV. The Renaissance in Religion – The Reformation. V. The Renaissance in Science and Philosophy. VI. The Renaissance in Education. VII. The Renaissance in Art. VIII. The Renaissance in Literature.
I went into this one blind, and was surprised that it was so robustly old-fashioned in its tone and candor. Checking the copyright date cleared things up: 1912. Back when you could still, after a measured acknowledgement that intellectual life didn't end in the Middle Ages, suggest that humanity has experienced some progress since then on most fronts.
Still, the weaknesses of old-school history are apparent in total focus on artistic, literary, and intellectual matters. There's not much about political history here, let alone social history, and -- rather stunningly -- I don't believe there's a single mention of disease, which was rather an important shaper of events in mid-millennium Europe. Hudson is also, to modern sensibilities, rather charmingly prudish, patriotic to the point of jingoism, and casually anti-Catholic. So you get a twofer: a little history of Edwardian thought along with your Story of the Renaissance. It's cool.
The style is genially professorial and easy to follow. We are repeatedly assured that we can't get tripped up on details and specifics, and then offered a list of details and specifics, but for my part that just demonstrated Hudson's likable enthusiasm for the task. Significantly, his Story of the Renaissance still captures much of what we ought to know about that time; it isn't WRONG, but only lacking the benefit of the subsequent century of scholarship. It holds up well, and I think the worst that can be said about it is that it ends very abr
If the renaissance is your thing, this book may be of interest, but if you're a causal reader, with a passing interest in the subject, this will be a tough read. There are a few tid-bits of interest, but it's more like a college level lecture on the subject, complicated by usage of terms, language and phrases which may have been more applicable to usage in twentieth-century England.
It wasn't until I reached the end of this audiobook that I learned it was written in 1912's Great Britain. Ah, that explains the stuffy tone and curiously English skew to the history. Still, it was a useful overview for me.
Written in 1912, this is a thorough exposition of the change from the Medieval thinking to the Renaissance in art, literature and thought. A bit pedantic by todays standards and totally misogynistic - but detailed and impressive.
This book does a good job of telling the whole story of the Renaissance - the cultural situations, the politics and intrigues, as well as the art and artists and why the Renaissance still matters for us today.