This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following was deleted, perhaps on a whimsy, in December: He also could boast of having recovered Ammianus Marcellinus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus, Flavius Caper and Eutyches.. Receiving no answer from the deleter, I have now restored it. Any dissension?-- Wetman ( talk) 05:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of this information is to provide connections of Niccolo de' Niccoli to Poggio Bracciolini, and the alleged forgery of Tacitus and other works by the hand of Poggio, as is considered by Hochart and Ross, who wrote about the forgery in the 19th century CE as well as infomation which can be found within the Fomenko books. For more information about their proofs, a selected group of sites can be seen at; http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=hochart+and+ross More information can be found in Chapter I, "History: Fiction or Science?, Vol. I", p. 26-26. 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Note, if any of you volunteers need any more sources that use "Horchart and Ross", I can provide them! 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
If you do just a little research, you will find that there also exists information and entries using the name Poggio Fiorentino! Translated, I believe this means "the Florentine!" Would it not be more condusive to any place using the word "encyclopedia" to make use of all of the known names of a particular subject? And, since this very article mentions that "Bracciolini" was a later adopted name, then why not use the better known name of "Fiorentino?" or "The Florentine?" It just makes good sense! Regards, 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
Maybe it's just me, but I think there need to be more citations in Methods. I didn't want to edit anything since I don't know much about the subject, but a few sentences left me with a lot of questions. In particular:
1. "Nothing marks the secular attitude of the Italians at an epoch which decided the future course of both Renaissance and Reformation more strongly than the mundane proclivities of this apostolic secretary, heart and soul devoted to the resuscitation of classical studies amid conflicts of popes and antipopes, cardinals and councils, in all of which he bore an official part."
This seems a fairly sweeping commentary of the attitude of Italians in that epoch derived from one man's hobby. Additionally, is the preservation of classical works and the "resuscitation of classical studies" fairly described as mundane? Considering the impact he had, I would not think so.
2. "If a codex could not be obtained by fair means, he was ready to use fraud, as when he bribed a monk to abstract a Livy and an Ammianus from the library of Hersfeld Abbey."
I think there should be a citation for this anecdote.
3. "Resolute in recognizing erudition as the chief concern of man, he sighed over the folly of popes and princes, who spent their time in wars and ecclesiastical disputes when they might have been more profitably employed in reviving the lost learning of antiquity."
I think there need to be some citations to demonstrate that he was so dismissive of the political disputes of the era. Alone, the fact that he had an interest in preserving and distributing classical works really doesn't suggest that.
4. "This point of view is eminently characteristic of the earlier Italian Renaissance. The men of that nation and of that epoch were bent on creating a new intellectual atmosphere for Europe by means of vital new contact with the texts of antiquity."
Given that the page is about Bracciolini, I am not sure that this commentary on the Italian Renaissance is entirely appropriate. In any case, as with my first objection, I think there should be citations to support the assertions if it is kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.253.113 ( talk) 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I read on the italian page for Poggio that he used to destroy the manuscripts he had copied to mantain his monopole. Is this information correct? Why haven't I read it on the english page? Have I missed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.156.45.153 ( talk) 15:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Section on "Methods", for the sentence, "He also could boast of having recovered Ammianus Marcellinus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus, Flavius Caper and Eutyches.", the link to Probus was to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Probus, whereas I think that's a minor mistake for Marcus Valerius Probus (who did indeed write), since I don't think we have anything by the emperor. Is this correct? Cornelius ( talk) 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That the whole article in the
1902 Encyclopedia was literally copied in integrality to produce the initial Wikipedia article, including its quaint phraseology. And why was "ammanuensis" never checked to discover that it is spelt "amanuensis"? What a lazy job!
No wonder the article sounded fancy, and some expressions so puzzling, but the text never acknowledged that the article also ignored all the scholarship on Poggio that has developed from 1902 to 2012.
Poggio deserved a far better and more thorough job.
--
ROO BOOKAROO (
talk)
08:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
This seems inappropriate for Wikipedia. At the very least it should not be the first thing in the article, before anything has been said about its subject! But it is entirely irrelevant whether some editor or other thinks that the language of a biography of Poggio is "quaint."
Also, the following doesn't belong in an article about Poggio -- it has nothing to do with him or his time. It might go in an article on De Rerum Natura or on Lucretius.
This also isn't about Poggio, but about Ambrose Traversari (bizarrely not mentioned) and Valla:
This too doesn't belong: it's about the influence of Valla, not about Poggio.
RandomCritic ( talk) 00:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
References
Anybody who has studied the scholarly work of Poggio in Italian Humanism is Aware that this Life was not lived in a solipsistic environment, but was intimately linked to his environment of Italian Humanists. It cannot be dissociated from it. This is history, not astronomy or science fiction. Similarly his place in the history of Ideas and Civilization is dependent on his extraordinary discovery of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura. Until "The Swerve" appeared, nobody in the public paid any attention to Poggio. No real article on Wikipedia had ever been composed. Only a copying of the old 1902 article. The fact of Lucretius and the fact of Greenblatt's "The Swerve" are intimately connected with the new spotlight focused on Poggio. From a scholarly viewpoint, this cannot be ignored, even if it is a bit sophisticated for ordinary readers. The initial article, as of March 7, does justice to all the complex aspects of Poggio's unique role in the development of modern Western Civilization, and the vital value of his find. It cannot be reduced to the simple barebones that would make sense for a more ordinary author of novels or historical fiction. -- ROO BOOKAROO ( talk) 09:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
209.45.91.9 ( talk) 21:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)== Baden in Germany or Switzerland ==
If you read the portion of the description in Chapter 3 of Walser 1914, the route taken from Constance to Schaffhausen, past the Rhine Falls and to the town of Kaiserstuhl stops there on the Rhine, and "After a short march, the Italians reached Baden." (translation from German), and then Walser mentions the river Limmat. I think that the town in question, unless some objection is made would be Baden, Switzerland, which is indeed a short (by Medieval standards at least) march. And in the case of Baden-Baden, that would require a hella trip down the Rhine past Strassbourg (nothing mentioned about that!) and then that little march to the east to Baden-Baden, Germany.
"Von Konstanz gelangte die kleine Gesellschaft — es hatten sich Poggio noch mehrere Freunde angeschlossen — zu Schiff nach Schaffhausen, dann ging es zu Fuß auf dem rechten Ufer des Rheins, vorbei an den tosenden Fällen, bis zu der alten Brücke von Kaiserstuhl; die aus der Germania in die Gallia hinüberführt. Der Donner des Rheinfalls erinnnert dabei Poggio sogleich daran, „daß Plinius erzählt, wie das Brausen der Fälle des Nil die Anwohner auf mehrere Meilen taub mache" und bei dem Namen Kaiserstuhl - Caesaris sedes — wirft Bracciolini die kluge Deutung ein: da stecke gewiß die Reminiszenz eines alten Römerlagers dahinter, das diesen Brückenkopf geschirmt und als einzige Spur den Namen Cäsars dem hochragenden Felsenneste hinterlassen. NACH KURZEM MARSCHE ERREICHTEN DIE ITALIENER BADEN. Mit wunderbarer Anschaulichkeit beschreibt nun Poggio das große Badehaus, unterhalb der Stadt, an der rauschenden LIMMAT gelegen: „wohin Frau Venus aus Cypern ihren Wohnsitz verlegt zu haben scheint." " - Walser, 1914, p. 62.
Also, read the article on Baden in the German Wikipedia, for more background on how close to the action around the Council of Constance that Baden Switzerland was.
(N.B. I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, but in my research I found this what I think to be an error, and I would like the OP to check this and then make their own conclusions, OK?)