This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I know nothing about its historiography other than that I have seen and read it. A quick Google search only verifies that the term is in use. The Grammar of Architecture defines the period from 843 to 1204 as the Middle Byzantine and calls the first 180 years under the Macedonian dynasty a "golden age," but not, as I thought, a "renaissance." The term renaissance, however, seems appropriate even if the article, at the moment, doesn't move beyond art. Certainly, the Macedonian period saw a rise in Byzantium's military fortunes and an achievement of a certain stability which allowed for the resurgence (or rebirth) of great art. I will, if I have the time and remember, look up something about this when I'm at the university library (soon I think).
Srnec18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Macedonian art is to Macedonian Renaissance as
Carolingian art is to
Carolingian Renaissance. One is a sub-set of the other. We have a
Medieval art series of articles and Macedonian art is a part of that structure. If you want to make an article on the Macedonian Renaissance that's fine, it would be similar to the Carolingian Renaissance article. --
Stbalbach13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I've created a new
Macedonian Renaissance article. This is really a question of historiography. Its usage is varied and not fixed depending on who is using it. It could mean art, it could mean more. But more so, the term "Renaissance" is problematic as a neutral historical descriptor (it is in fact a pejorative term) - the Macedonians never used or knew of the term "Renaissance" and didn't call their era that, it was invented by 15th century Italians to describe their own era - "Macedonian Renaissance" was first coined in 1948 as an analogy because there are some parallels with rediscovery of classical culture. It's a kind of "vouge" term that some people use.
Dictionary of the Middle Ages calls it "Macedonian art" which is a neutral and unambiguous description. --
Stbalbach14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)reply
If either term is a used scholarly term, no matter how rare (I wouldn't say vogue), it may be a candidate for an encyclopaedia article: especially where that encyclopaedia is not limited by the constraints of paper and ink. Thus, Wikipedia may incorporate some information in articles under rarer titles because it can and it's better (in my mind at least) than articles with titles like "
Napoleon's invasion of Russia."
Srnec02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge back
I don't have a problem with the term renaissance, but the MR article at the moment just does not justify its separate existence, nor can I really see it doing so in the future. I don't think there was a really major literary component to the "renaissance" (not that I would know) and otherwise you are just talking about the art.
I think it would be better to keep the Renaissance title, as it creates less confusion with people looking for ancient or modern Macedonian art (in the sense of actually coming from Macedonia). Paris Psalter & no doubt other pages link to the renaissance page, when the art one would be more appropriate, and a page with both lots of content the best.
Johnbod01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I can see that reasoning. My thought was MR is a historiography article like
Dark Ages - the term "renaissance" is somewhat problematic, as explained in the MR article. MA is a more neutral description and fits with the rest of the
Medieval art series. MA is a term commonly used by art historians, but then so is MR, depends on the context. MA seems more professional and specific, while MR is more general and popular culture. --
Stbalbach16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't argue with the first bit (I'm not so sure about the second), although in my experience art historians tend to refer to the "so-called MR" on first mention, then often use the term (you also see that with MA it must be said). But at the moment the whole MR article would fit well as a "origins of the term" or whatever para in the MA article, retitled to MR. One of these days someone will write an article on art from Macedonia (ancient or modern) & then we'll be in disam country. At the moment all the articles on specific objects link to MR not MA, which is not right for a historiography article.
Johnbod17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)reply
That is true,
Carolingian art and
Carolingian Renaissance were able to split once a lot more material was available. The
Dictionary of the Middle Ages has MA and MR as separate (but small) articles. The MR article says "increased interest in classical scholarship" which suggests there is more to it than just art. I guess part of the problem is both articles are stubs, and editors are pointing to one or the other without distinction. --
Stbalbach04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Well I would be very happy to split again if & when the material justifies it, but the present situation is unsatisfactory. Personally I'm doubtful there is much beyond art, & English WP coverage of medieval Greek literature is understandably less full than that of art, and always likely to be so. Remember the term was invented by art historians, & within the last 60 years. So I think we should merge now & see how things develop.
Johnbod15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I kind of cringe at the term MR because it was invented in 1948, but I know it has reached into popular imagination. The links and stuff are all manageable with dabs, I was hoping not to perpetuate a myth and anachronism and keep MR as a historiography article. But whatever you think is best I will not object. --
Stbalbach13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The image
Image:Harbaville.jpg is used in this article under a claim of
fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the
requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an
explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a
non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.