Lets say you we're to compare Renaissance era Italians to present day Americans. The American people feel patriotic about the free thinking, freedom loving forefathers that built their country, yet it comes with a sort of "white guilt" due to years of slavery and oppression of black people. I'm just wondering if the free thinking* Italians of the Renaissance era had any of the same conundrums.
*When i use the term "free thinking" i'm referring to the artists, peasants, inventors, ect. or more so the non-ruling class of Italy at the time.
I do understand there is a huge difference in time when comparing the Roman Empire to 15'th~ century Italy, and the 1600's~ America ^(or ^the ^British ^colony ^at ^the ^time, ^if ^you ^insist) and today. However, considering they we're from the same 'country' per say, it would be interesting to know if they had similar views on the subject.
I apologize for the poor English, as it is not my first language.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Absolutely. During the period of the Italian Renaissance, many of Italy's most prevalent literary figures weighted in on the issue. Renaissance Italy was plagued by warfare and foreign incursions. The Italians writers looked back at the Roman Empire with fondness: an era in which Italians were united and not separated, could fight the might of foreign aggressors and dominated other parts of the world.
In Chapter XXVI of Machiavelli's "The Prince," you can find the following reference to the Roman heritage of the Italian people:
"Virtue against fury shall advance the fight, And it i' th' combat soon shall put to flight: For the old Roman valour is not dead, Nor in th' Italians' brests extinguished." *http://www.online-literature.com/machiavelli/prince/26/
Francesco Guicciardini, a Florentine historian and close friend of Machiavelli also wrote about Rome. In his book "The History of Italy," Guicciardini speaks of some of the "ancient customs" that corrupted the Romans and led to their decline. While friends with Machiavelli, Guicciardini did not favor adapting a Roman model to contemporary Italian politics in the way Machiavelli did. You can read Guicciardini's comments on Rome here:
http://cuwhist.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/guicciardini-history-of-italy.pdf
Others such as Dante and Petrarch, while not historians or political writers such as Machievelli and Giucciardini, showed a lot of interest towards Roman culture and society. Dante, being a devout follower of the church, interpreted Rome's influence as positive. They were responsible for bringing Christianity to people from all across the world. Furthermore, he picks Virgil as his guide, as if there was any doubt of his respect towards the Roman world. In Canto 15.75, Dante informs us of the following:
in which there lives again the sacred seed of those few Romans who remained in Florence when such a nest of wickedness was built.
We are going into literary interpretation now which is different territory than history, but judging from some of Dante's comments made during the Divine Comedy, it is very clearly that he looks kindly upon Romans and their values as opposed to some of the corrupt political practices of his society.
Petrarch also wrote heavily on the Romans..including a collection of biographies of Roman figures titled "De Viris Illustribus." In general, there is no shortage of Italian thinkers from the era that greatly admired the Romans and wished to embrace them. From Machiavelli, to Petrarch to Boccaccio..all had something to respect..or in the case of Giucciardini, warn against.