- We can give all kinds of satisfying explanations of why and when the Renaissance occurred and how it transmitted itself. But there is no explaining Dante, no explaining Chaucer. Genius suddenly comes to life, and speaks out of a vacuum. Then it is silent, equally mysteriously.
Paul Johnson
The Renaissance: A Short History
Not in possession of true genius myself, I certainly cannot claim to understand how it works. But I can examine the results of that genius, and see how the creations of one artist or author are influenced and inspired by the work of another. Therefore, I must adamantly disagree with Paul Johnson when he states in his recent work: "Genius ... speaks out of a vacuum." In fact, I believe the nature of the Renaissance, and its wonder, is that genius fed on genius; and genius was provided a time and place in which to flourish and to inspire others.
Perhaps I expect too much from a book that covers a subject I so adore. Perhaps the author has taken on too complex a topic to be adequately examined in such a short space. Perhaps Mr. Johnson's all-too-frequent value judgments rubbed me the wrong way. Whatever the reason, I found reading The Renaissance: A Short History a tedious, even enervating experience.
Johnson begins with an introduction to the topic that recognizes the need to "select and simplify and shape" the past, but then fails to do so. He provides a brief though useful "material background" on western technological and economic development, but he never defines the start- and endpoints of the era he plans to cover. He does touch on some significant dates that mark turning points in Western civilization, but he does not clearly associate them with the Renaissance.
The author then proceeds to cover literature, sculpture, architecture and painting in four separate chapters, primarily by focusing on individual authors, sculptors, architects and painters. The result is a somewhat disjointed effort that I found difficult to absorb. To his credit, Johnson includes a great deal of detail about various individuals of note. Yet after a while his descriptions, following one upon the other in a somewhat haphazard progression, grow tiresome. Furthermore, the reader must beware not to confuse fact with opinion, as in this depiction of Leonardo da Vinci:
- ... he was fascinated by the varieties of nature, above all by the human body in all its forms and moods. But he was interested in these things as phenomena, and viewed them with scientific detachment. There was not much warmth to him.
Why he should ascribe a lack of warmth to Leonardo is uncertain; though I confess I am certainly no expert, I am a great admirer of the artist, and I have never heard the man or his work so described. This assertion makes it appear that Leonardo's coolness is general knowledge. But is it? Or is it just Mr. Johnson's opinion?
Although there is a brief bibliography, there are no references, and this proved somewhat problematic when I began to suspect that Johnson was playing fast and loose with the facts. The first questionable statement I noticed occurred in his discussion of Chaucer and The Canterbury Tales. "The work has no precise model, for Chaucer had not read The Decameron, and the framework ... with each of a brilliantly varied company telling a tale, is entirely Chaucer's."
To indicate that Chaucer was solely responsible for the idea, and therefore was not even aware of Boccaccio's decades-old work, requires some explanation. Has Johnson some evidence that Chaucer was not aware of the unique book? Is he merely dismissing Chaucer's trips to Italy (the first in 1372, three years before Boccaccio's death) and any signs that Boccaccio and Dante influenced his work? Has he simply (gasp!) failed to do his homework?
Without references, we have no way of knowing. And unless the reader is at least somewhat familiar with Chaucer in the first place, he'll have no way of knowing there is something to question. This largely reduces the value of the work as an introduction to the topic.
The Renaissance: A Short History is one of a new series of books from Modern Library. I have no wish to discourage this endeavor, but I do hope a little more care will be taken in future publications.
Guide's Note: This review was first posted on August 24, 2000.
