More Renaissance Conference

One of things that puts a little difference between me and the rest of those attending CRC this past weekend is our notions of what the Renaissance actually is. There were art historians, who have a very clear and quite useful sense in terms of art. For example, attention to details like fingers, attempting to portray a figure realistically rather than stylistically, interest in landscapes, and a preference for natual colors rather than expensive materials. The shift from International Gothic to Early Renaissance is clear and makes sense. Something new is at work. The same is true for literature. I am not in a position to describe what is different, but I have enough of a sense of then difference to accept that something new is going on. But for me, the new thing occuring, the thing that needs a name to distinguish it from that which happened before, concerns the nature of the state. For me, the Renaissance is a new era for the state which involves a new emphasis on Roman Law, Roman concepts of soveriegnty invested in a monarch, professional bureaucracies, and a seperation between the person of the monarch and the office of the monarchy. I also look to the new permanent diplomacy, the new structure of international relations, and the military revolution. For me, these are the markers of the Renaissance, not new arts and letters. Certainly I am aware of what the new arts and letters mean for the new thinking, and they are important, but aside from issues of patronage and the political uses of art, the items I have mentioned prove to be much better markers for the Renaissance in the areas in which I work. I probabaly ought to write a paper on this subject for the next time I go to this thing.