The Revolution of the Renaissance

Before I left the train station for Florence, I bought a book titled, On Revolution by Hannah Arendt, a twentieth century political theorist and philosopher. I read the first chapter on the train ride into Florence, which is my weekend destination. It seemed so casual that this was the book I chose, but it has widened my perspective not only on what the American and French Revolution entailed (on which the book focuses), but also has given me some insights into what the word revolution has meant throughout history.

The word revolution derives originally as an astronomical term coined by Copernicus in his heliocentric model. It was used to describe a complete journey of a planet around a star. For example, the Earth makes one revolution around the sun each year. This denotation of the word revolution has several consequences. First, the revolution makes a circle, signaling the return to some original position, a retrograde to the beginning. Second, the revolution of the planets around the stars is a permanent, fixed, necessary event.

Now, you may wonder why I felt the need to tell you of the forgotten ideas of a vaguely remembered political theorist of recent times. This is why: Today, I am in Florence. The home of the birth of a new age in the Renaissance--a bursting forth from the regresses of a Middle Age into the rebirth of the height of a truly Roman heritage. Through the perspective of Arendt and her thought I would like to show the relevance of the topic of revolution on the Renaissance.

It is clearly evident that the Renaissance conforms to the first and second premonitions behind the word revolution. In the true fashion of revolution (not necessarily political revolution, but rather a cultural revolution), Michelangelo and the Renaissance artists wished to break free from the chains of the Middle Age and give birth to a freedom to express the desires of man in a new innovative way. 

On a contrary and paradoxical note, the Renaissance was a revival of older ideas. Yesterday, I gazed upon the artistic masterpiece of Michelangelo's David. After my experience with a wide array of Greek and Roman statues in Palazzo Altemps and Massimo, I could verify that Michelangelo wished to fulfill the artistic style established by the Greco-Roman canon. It was as if fourteen hundred years had not taken place. Michelangelo had perfected in 23 years what it took the Roman people centuries to attain--a virtuoso sculptor who far exceeded mere talent. In order for Michelangelo to transcend the Renaissance aspect and idea of beauty through the Mannerism he expressed in the later years of his life, he had to stand on the shoulders of giants i.e. the Greek and Romans. Botticelli utilized this method through his Primavera and Birth of Venus. Raphael does the same in his School of Athens. Similarly speaking, numerous Renaissance artists rested upon the heritage of the Roman Empire and respected its power and grandeur, in order to demonstrate the greatness of themselves.

In the words of Hannah Arendt, "Freedom is the root of necessity." Michelangelo was merely a pawn under the influence of the "necessity of history." In order to express these new ideas and undertake a greater freedom, Michelangelo was forced to recognize the past and its glory. This is where the paradox occurs: freedom is the root of necessity. Here it is possible to see the intertwining of these two ideas behind the word revolution: first, a calling back and second, a necessary succession of future respecting past. 

Michelangelo was merely the hinge of this Renaissance "revolution". His life spanned the era of the discovery of the New World, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and the receding of Renaissance ideals and standards. I would imagine these volatile events led to the inspiration behind Michelangelo's art work. But, in turn, Michelangelo's innovative revolution with regard to the ideas behind art led to future revolutions.

While in Florence, we visited several gothic churches, namely Santa Croce and Santa Maria del Fiori. I am convinced of the power behind the architectural decisions in these structures. The gothic and medieval obsession with leading the corporeal and the human to the divine and God-like is evident in the central nave of the churches. Your eyes are lead directly forward to the altar and immediately upward to the dome, which is the only artistically painted surface in the church. Clearly, this relationship with man and divine is at play.

The Renaissance countered this idea by focusing on the person, the man, as the center of all decisions, not exclusive to architecture. The rediscovery of the importance of the human person was revolutionary and eventually led to the modern ideas behind the importance of the individual. These ideas are manifest in the ideologies of most modern nation-states, especially in the thought of the founders of the United States.

So, from Gothic to Renaissance to additional revolutionary thinkers such as Machiavelli and friends, eventually came the leaders of the French and American revolution. The action of revolution has been constant from age to age, open to all those willing to be the actors in the "necessity of history".