Talk:Italian Renaissance: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
[[User:Del|Del]] |
[[User:Del|Del]] |
||
Del, |
|||
I'd disagree with 'the renaissence was the first time that they had huge chunks of cash to blow'. One of the reasons for the level of consipicous consumption during the Quattracentro was that the Med was going through a commercial recession - before that, you dumped spare money into making more money. During the recession, you could either lose it trying to trade goods or invest, or you could blow it on a nice palazzo or some paintings ... |
|||
Anton |
Revision as of 15:49, 13 November 2003
This probably needs to be edited, I've put the warning about neutrality at the top for now (it can be taken out once someone with more knowledge on the topic has a change to look at it). - Tobin
heheh.
Of course I'll dispute the statement that says:
the Humanists concentrated on winning the argument rather than having their facts and logic straight
... until the cows come home, but it was written by an avowed scholastic.
I'll re-write this article at some point but be aware I'm a humanist. I'll try to keep it neutral, though. I will concede the point that Italian princes blew huge chunks of cash on stuff, but then again the renaissance was the first time that they had huge chunks of cash to blow.
Del,
I'd disagree with 'the renaissence was the first time that they had huge chunks of cash to blow'. One of the reasons for the level of consipicous consumption during the Quattracentro was that the Med was going through a commercial recession - before that, you dumped spare money into making more money. During the recession, you could either lose it trying to trade goods or invest, or you could blow it on a nice palazzo or some paintings ...
Anton