Mark McCallum

Anonymous. “Finance & Economics: 1400s: Those Medici” The Economist ( London ) 353.8151 (1999): 90.  

The central theme of the article is the city of Florence and the powerful family that sat at the center of it: the Medici family.  During the Renaissance era, this family had a stronghold whose light of influence cast a shadow that included four popes and two queens of France and ran Florence for almost four hundred years (90).  The power of the Medici family originated from its indulgence in the banking industry where it ran a family bank.  The origin of the Medici power started in 1397 with Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici, who managed a bank in Rome (90).  The family was not great innovators but utilized certain techniques such as double entry book-keeping, bills of exchange and book transfers (90).  The new ruler, Cosimo Medici, ruled with an iron rod and his dealings with Rome and the Vatican gave the bank immense clout  with the church (90).  Most of the Medici’s lending was to royalty and thus the return from interest was high.  They would also build a hidden rate of interest into the exchange rate (90).  The center of the Renaissance and the home to the development of urban life, the city of Florence was home to the Medici’s.  

The work focuses on the Medici family’s influence on the city of Florence .  The author states that the family came to be in power because of the industry they were in: banking (90).  Their money was used to finance military campaigns or princely lifestyles and thus resulted in having great influence.  I agree with this interpretation because the power wielded by this family had an immense influence and is seen through the eventual four popes and two queens of France the family provided.  After the death of Cosimo Medici the business went downhill and concluded with the eventual collapse of the Medici bank power of influence.  The article says little about the city of Florence and its influence in the European Renaissance.  The city itself was home to the Medici family whose influence was wielded all over Europe but it is not shown how that was a direct influence on the decline of the Church’s influence on daily life.  In fact, if the family had quite a few direct dealings with the church and the Vatican than there must have been close relations between  them.  Most of the revenue to run the city came from the Catholic church and I am sure that they did not want to see cities like Florence become ever so more independent from the control of the Church.  I believe this situation only worked because of the dominant personality of Cosimo Medici and his iron-fist personality put the church in their place.  Once Cosimo died, the sons and grandsons faltered in trying to keep control of the business.  Overall, the article itself provides great information into the real influence this family had and why the success of their bank industry had greatly impacted the running of the city of Florence , the centerfold of the Renaissance. 

Eisner, Robert A. “In Search of the Real Theme of The Song of Roland.” Romance Notes 14 (1972): 179-83.  

When time is considered as an important part of The Song of Roland, many issues come up in regard to its validity.  Situations arise when talking about the characters of King Charlemagne, Roland, and Ganelon and the difference in time periods.  The first issue is of Charlemagne and his power and the evident non-use of it.  Charlemagne demands that the council nominate an ambassador and when the council chooses his father-in-law, he does nothing about it (179).  Further along in the story, Charlemagne is confronted with several important decisions that he seems neither confident nor decisive in making them.  This is quite a contrast from the real Charlemagne who was an exceptionally strong ruler, very confident in making choices (180).  The author believes that Charlemagne rules with an old, eighth-century authoritarian order in a new, eleventh-century setting.  Also in question are the inconsistencies with the characters of Roland and Ganelon and their discrepancies with time periods.  Roland is a character with a perfect heroism and anachronism that is directly associated with the age of innocence back in the eighth-century, no longer valid in the eleventh century (182).  On the other hand, Ganelon reflects the mentality of those living in the tenth century, not a time of innocence.  He reflects individualism and freer thinking with his various actions including committing treason and denying any degree of loyalty to the king (183).  The argument of this study centers on  the differences between Ganleon’s character that reflects a newer age and that of Roland’s character that of a much older period of history, and particulary the portrayal of Charlemagne and his distinction from the real one historical figure.   

The article itself points to the theme of real time and the question of whether or not real time is adequately portrayed.  The author effectively defends his position through three characters and their apparent inconsistent actions according to time.  Each character displays attitudes that reflect different time periods in history: Charlemagne displays hesitation at a time when in reality he is the emperor of a kingdom; Roland perpetuates an aura of perfect heroism that dates back to the eighth-century; and Ganelon parades a distinctive personality that represents a new age of individual thinking (182).  These three characters are argued in great detail.  Eisner defends his argument well, pointing out the fact that the real Charlemagne had power over every man over the age of twelve, since each one had to swear fealty to him (180).  He also notes how Charlemagne contributed to the rise of feudalism by ordering nobles to enlist in the army (180).  This is a perfect example of how the author uses two real life facts to prove Charlemagne’s real life action’s contrast to his attitude in the poem.  Agreeing with the author, I believe that time is surely in doubt as these characters represent personalities that are not of the same time frame.  The reading goes through this clearly and portrays events very well.

Gerli, E. Michael. “Social Crisis and Conversion: Apostasy and Inquisition in the Chronicles of Fernando Del Pulgar and Andres Bernaldez” Hispanic Review 70.2 (2002): 147-67.  

Spain in 1492 expelled the Jews and leading up to this was a series of critical events that have been chronicled by two observers, Fernando Del Pulgar and Andres Bernaldez.  Each author fashioned his interpretation of history by personal identity and ideological convictions.  Pulgar’s narrative is marked by a predominance of direct, business-like observation, with few comparisons, little learned embellishment, and an absence of interpretive displays (148).  On the other hand,, Bernaldez tells a story with a global interpretation (149).  His story is one in which he puts real life events into a plot and adapts them to a fable.  By doing this he accomplishes the idea that the Inquisition should be accepted as being right.  He points to the idea that the Jews were the bearers of the Plague and that they are unsavory and rank, as well as calling them naturally secretive, mendacious, and untrustworthy (152).  Pulgar served Queen Isabel during his lifetime and condemns apostasy (156).  Both authors describe the events that led up to the Inquisition in different ways.

The central focus of this article is to describe the difference perspectives people can have on the same event.  The Inquisition was a huge event because of its impact on the Jewish community who made up a large part of the population.  The author defends his position that the differences between the two authors are broad by pointing out Bernaldez’s story is largely plotted like a fable.  This could have come from the fact that he worked for Queen Isabel and had to twist the story to remain  in her favor.  The reading itself was done well and it is easy to agree with the author because of all the points he makes.  The author does a great job at pointing out differences such as different narrative voices, chilling descriptions, and the difference in styles.  Fernando Del Pulgar definitely has a different view on the Inquisition than Andres Bernaldez.         

Jurdjevic, Mark. “Civic Humanism and the Rise of the Medici.” Renaissance Quarterly 52.4 (1999): 994-1017.  

The article argues that there is support for the ideals of civic humanism and support for the Medici regime.  The Medici’s rose to become the unofficial lords of Florence ; at the same time principles of civic humanism also arose.  The catalyst to this movement was the tyrannical Milanese Visconti who forced the Florentines into developing ideals of freedom of speech, free access to political office, equality of all citizens before the law, and self-government because of his fight to overtake them in his territory (995).  Yet the Florentines won and humanism grew out of this (995).  The Ruling head of Florence , Cosimo Medici, held power through a position that would seem to offend the humanists (being a sole authority ruler), however, many humanists supported Cosimo because of his great intellect and personal achievement that complimented the humanists and their movement.  Middle-rank Florentines had lost their political voice with the ruling Cosimo as the majority of humanists belonged to the governing class and their ideals of humanism actually complimented Cosimos’ position (999).  So, the humanists could not deter Cosimo from his state of rule, otherwise they might deter their own ideals.  At the forefront of these ideals was the idea that wealth was a key to life and that the ability to achieve it was a necessary part of healthy civic life (1007).  Medici had achieved this and thus achieved healthy civic life.  

The correlation between civic humanism and the Medici family is one that is quite complicated.  The relation is both positive and negative, with the ideals that spurned the humanist movement also drove Cosimo Medici to ultimate political power.  His drive to succeed is portrayed in an effective way as the author describes his rise as a perfect example of what the humanists were fighting for.  In a way, their ideals could be related to those of free-enterprise in America and even more-so the conservative values here in America .  These values represent that citizens should be free to make money as they wish without the persecution of the government or ruling body.  Indeed, that is what Cosimo did and his charisma and intelligence garnered him even greater roles in society.  This democratic view allowed the humanists to believe even more in their convictions with real, living proof that their ideals really do work, as Cosimo was the perfect example.  His example was also the exact thing they were also fighting against because he was a as a singular ruler, an ideal that the humanists were firmly against.  The suspicious motivation of the humanists has to come up as those who believed in the movement so strongly were those of the governing class (1008).  Thus, I believe that their motivation was to move up in rank by portraying that the movement was for all citizens who wanted to move up, however, they knew that they were the only ones that could possibly do so.  This analysis is absent in the article and should have been noted.  This viewpoint would have given this study a clearer picture into the motivation of the humanists.  The article itself was clearly written as the two contrasting views were accurately portrayed.  The rise of Cosimo and the Medici family and the ideals of civic humanism are noted well.

Lehfeldt, Elizabeth A. “Ruling Sexuality: The Political Legitimacy of Isabel of Castile. ” Renaissance Quarterly 53.1 (2000): 31-56.  

The main theme of this study is that of Isabel and her ruling of the kingdom of Spain .  Being a woman was an advantage as well as a disadvantage.  The ability to run a kingdom while having the qualities of a woman must have been known to be both difficult and easy.  Her rule was very significant as she helped deliver Spain into the Goolden Age. Women were wrongly viewed at this time as being fickle and weak, without resolve and Spain was in need of a strong ruler (33).  Her reign had several handicaps because of her gender, however, she quickly changed those preconceived notions.  She was bold and made quick decisions.  After the former ruler Enrique’s death in 1474, she strode out into the city’s main square and publicly pronounced her title as ruler (34).   

The author makes many great points on the legitimacy of Isabel. She is pointed out as being strong, with several examples clearly showing her resolve.  In agreement with her, Isabel had done a wonderful job of making Spain hers, unlike Enrique, the previous leader.  Although many believed that her gender would be her shortfall, it indeed propelled her into a greater realm of respect because of the great overachieving she did.  The article provides the events in the life of Queen Isabel and of her legitimacy.in great detail.