MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2166378990 · doi:10.1353/cjm.2013.0025

Creating Magnificence in Renaissance Florence by Peter Howard (review)

2013· article· en· W2166378990 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guido Rebecchini

Notice bibliographique

RevueComitatus · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThe RenaissanceArtArt historyClassics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Creating Magnificence in Renaissance Florence by Peter Howard Guido Rebecchini Peter Howard, Creating Magnificence in Renaissance Florence (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies 2012) 173 pp. Building on an article previously published by the author in the Renaissance Quarterly 62.2 (2008) 325–369, Peter Howard fully develops his discussion of magnificence in a new book which presents a formidable re-conceptualization of one of the virtues best known to the Renaissance scholar. Since 1960, the achievement of magnificence had been recognized by Sir Ernst Gombrich as one of the driving forces for fifteenth-century Medicean patronage in Florence. Taking up the latter’s argument, A. D. Fraser Jenkins’s article “Cosimo de’ Medici's Patronage of Architecture and the Theory of Magnificence,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970) 162–170, seemed to have definitively demonstrated that the fundamental intellectual and historical coordinates for the emergence of the virtue of magnificence as one of the components that most forcefully re-shaped the cultural life of Renaissance Florence should be located in the 1450s in the entourage of Cosimo de’ Medici. Solidly positioned in the secular realm, magnificence has thus far been primarily connected to the renewed interest in Greek and Latin texts that spread in Florence and in particular to Leonardo Bruni’s translation into Latin of Aristotle’s [End Page 278] Nichomachean Ethics, where the idea that conspicuous spending could be perceived as a virtue, if practiced according to the rules of decorum for the common good and in honor of God, is set out. According to this interpretation, the idea of magnificence has been widely used to justify extravagant expenses for large private dwellings, private chapels, façades, and other major architectural projects and to explain the expansive force that led to reshaping the cityscape of Florence. In this view, private individuals and family groups transformed and manipulated the urban fabric as a result of their desire to display magnificence, and thus to gain visibility and power. Following a different path, Peter Howard’s research shows that the idea of magnificence has a longer and more complex history and that fifteenth-century Florentine humanists adopted it from the religious world of Dominican preachers, where it was originally developed and disseminated. Howard authoritatively and convincingly argues that the virtue of magnificence reached preeminence in Florence within the scholastic theological discourse in the 1420s. An in-depth analysis of the Summa Theologica by Antoninus of Florence (1389–1459), which occupies chapters 3–6 of Howard’s book, reveals that this influential Dominican preacher, who was Archbishop of Florence from 1446 and eventually made a Saint in 1523, had already fully developed a theory of magnificence embedded in a theological discourse, and had incorporated it into his much-attended sermons at least since 1427. According to Howard, it was from the pulpit of Dominican churches in the 1420s and not from humanistic study rooms in the 1450s that the idea of magnificence as virtuous spending incurred for major architectural works destined for the common good of the city and in honor of God began to spread among Florentines. Antoninus conceived his Summa as an archive of resources mostly derived from different authorities, which he made available to himself and subsequent preachers and confessors. In chapter 6 of the book, Howard demonstrates that, according to long-standing practice, Antoninus had collected previous materials on magnificence focusing in particular on the treatment of this matter in a late thirteenth-century treatise on virtues and vices by Henry of Rimini (d. after 1308), whose discussion of magnificence Antoninus largely copies verbatim presumably from a copy of the text then preserved in the library of the Dominican church of Santa Maria Novella. Although explicitly mentioned in Antonino’s Summa, this antecedent has never been noticed thus far. This important textual and philological discovery allows for the re-establishment of the chain of transmission that brought to the community of humanists living in Florence in the 1450s the idea of magnificence, starting from Aristotle, through Thomas Aquinas and his commentators, including Henry of Rimini, to Antoninus, who knew Cosimo de’ Medici and praised his patronage of religious sites such as...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,910
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,187 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueComitatusMême sujetHistorical Economic and Social StudiesTravaux en français237 207