How did the Renaissance and the Enlightenment contribute to the making of modern world?

 How did the Renaissance and the Enlightenment contribute to the making of modern world?

This essay introduces the gathering of articles contained during this special issue, explaining their necessity and contextualizing them within the historiographical debates around “ancient theology” and “civil religion”. It does so by pertaining to well-known influential figures in Renaissance and Enlightenment studies like Daniel P. Walker, Frances A. How did the Renaissance and the Enlightenment contribute to the making of modern world? Yates, Charles B. Schmitt, Eugenio Garin, Cesare Vasoli and Franco Venturi, also on newer studies like that by Dmitri Levitin. It further provides a quick overview of every contribution and places the special issue within the disciplinary context of worldwide and comparative intellectual history.

the essays presented herein partly originate from a symposium titled “From Ancient Theology to Civil Religion, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment”, which was held under the aegis of the Sydney Intellectual History Network at the University of Sydney, Australia, 9–10 November 2015. Six of the papers – those by Vasileios Syros, Fabrizio Lelli, Miguel Vatter, Umberto Grassi, Daniel Canaris and Jennifer Mensch – were presented there and are subsequently significantly revised for publication during this special issue, while Maurizio Campanelli, Giacomo Corazzol and Jeremy Kleidosty were invited to hitch the project at a later stage with original contributions. so as to start to summarize the papers and therefore the special issue as an entire , the range of methodological approaches adopted by each author should be emphasized. The widely differing approaches relate to how Martin Mulsow describes “global intellectual history” as a discipline within the making

which not only displays many of the characteristics of already existing sorts of intellectual history – from conceptual history to network analysis, from the history of political languages to the philological study of texts – but which ultimately amount[s] to innovative approaches to an old subject. The extension of the attitude into the worldwide creates new and unique problems that need imaginative solutions.

1. Recent scholarship on the “radical Enlightenment” has emphasized the theologico-political strategies adopted by this philosophical movement to cause a conception of the state that's “neutral” or “tolerant” in reference to religious (and perhaps also non-religious) world views. However, while one among the important concepts employed during this strategy revolves round the idea of a “civil religion”, the prehistory of this civil or political conception of faith remains less well explored. This special issue aims to bridge this gap by exploring the connections between the Renaissance idea of “ancient theology” and therefore the Enlightenment idea of “civil religion”. Although influential scholars like Daniel P. Walker, Frances Yates and Charles B. Schmitt have argued that the Renaissance idea of “ancient theology” proved fundamental to the event of the ecu and Anglo-American Enlightenment, and especially led to a republican conception of civil religion that inscribes religious tolerance into the political constitution, the precise nature of this filiation and its meaning has until recently remained to be explored. How did the Renaissance and the Enlightenment contribute to the making of modern world? Moreover, not enough attention has been given to the ramifications of this movement in reference to early eighteenth-century theological writings, which – although resisting the secularist currents of the Enlightenment – similarly drew upon and reacted to the Hermetic tradition in an effort to accommodate other religions within a Christian theological framework. This collection of essays has been created so as to supply a contribution to fill such lacunae.

2. As emphasized by one among the volume's reviewers, Guido Giglioni, the state – just like the bodies of all living beings – is inherently vulnerable and exposed to the chances of decline and destruction. Within this traditional way of representing the character of human commonwealths, Giglioni continues, religion are often seen as both the pathogen and therefore the antidote (as, as an example , addressed by Miguel Vatter's essay on Machiavelli). Between the late medieval and early modern periods, when religious divisions were often the explanation for or trigger for political and social unrest, reflections over the essence of divine creation and governance of the planet represented an integral a part of the political thinking of the days (an example of this is often Jeremy Kleidosty's article on Hobbes, who built his theory of political sovereignty on the experience of English war and therefore the notion that religion had a fundamental public role on which the steadiness of a commonwealth depended).

This collection of articles engages with this theologico-political predicament, moving from the idea that a number of its more original and innovative features originated from the way during which Renaissance authors (such as Leonardo Bruni, Jochanan Alemanno, Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico and Machiavelli , among others examined within the volume) recovered and reinterpreted themes belonging to the tradition of Greco-Roman historiography and political thought, also on biblical exegesis, historical narratives of ancient wisdom and travel reports on Indian and Chinese cultures.

3. Although such feeling can't be assumed for all contributors, I felt the urgency to assemble a set of critical perspectives to interact with traditional accounts of the connection between the “Renaissance” and therefore the “Enlightenment” periods and integrate them with newer interpretations of the first modern period in Europe. At first, my interest was sparked by Italian historian of philosophy Eugenio Garin's notion of an extended Enlightenment, which spans from Petrarch's fourteenth century to Rousseau's eighteenth century, and which Garin himself problematized further after borrowing it from Delio Cantimori's work on the periodization of European history.Such a notion, in short, considers the French Revolution because the end of the age of Renaissance Humanism, enclosing in one ideal world scholastics and humanists and therefore the revolutionary thinkers of the first Enlightenment “from Petrarch to Rousseau”. How did the Renaissance and the Enlightenment contribute to the making of modern world? the foremost influential Italian historian of the Enlightenment, Franco Venturi (1914–1994), reacted to the present interpretation in his “Trevelyan Lectures” delivered at Cambridge University in 1969, during which he protested against the tendency of students like Peter Gay and Cassirer to match philosophy and history of the Enlightenment, and especially against Cantimori, “one of the lads for whom the age of humanism ended with the French Revolution . He too enclosed in a perfect world scholasticism and therefore the humanists up to the dawn of the Enlightenment, from Petrarch to Rousseau

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post