Major Problems in the History of the Italian Renaissance.

What is the Renaissance? Confusingly, the term is used as both a noun and an adjective. Many, including the founders of this journal, use it as a label for a period of time, from the later fourteenth to the early seventeenth century. Yet Anthony Molho, in the title of his latest work, refers to the fifteenth century in Florence as "late medieval." Joan Kelly argued that women did not have a Renaissance, implying that it was rather something cultural and male. Nonetheless, most courses on "Renaissance Europe" of which I am aware include discussions of women, and even children, servants and the poor. In their new academic reader, Kohl (Vassar) and Smith (Wagner College) weigh in with their own view that "[l]eft out of the Renaissance were the poor, peasants and workers, and especially women" (3). Yet all of these groups appear, however briefly, in their pages. The authors' claim is prefaced by the frowning observation that "[n]ot all sectors of the population participated equally in Renaissance culture." How surprising. But what does it mean for one to "participate" in a dominant culture? And does this imply that those who did not participate had no culture, or indeed felt left out? More to the point, in what pre- or early modern culture have "all sectors of the population participated equally"? If patronage is the issue, when did "the poor, peasants and workers" ever serve as effective patrons? If the act of creation is the issue, then artisans, carpenters and shopboys contributed far more to the building and decoration of the Sistine Chapel than Sixtus or Julius. As for exposure to the cultural products of Renaissance workshops, one can easily imagine that far more "poor and workers" than members of any elite enjoyed the spectacles and architectural wonders of Florence, and that far more women than men knelt before the period's magnificent altarpieces to pray.

The purpose of a good textbook is to make the students (and teachers) think, in addition to providing them accurate and relatively balanced information. The series of which this volume is a part is "designed to encourage critical thinking about history," and it is a tribute to the editors that their two passing observations, cited above, led me to such a range of informal personal reflections.

As an anthology of primary and secondary sources, Italian Renaissance includes a fine array of excerpts from the works of contemporary anglo-phone social historians such as Trexler, King, Muir, Chojnacki and Bouwsma, as well as the continental scholars Carpentier, Klapisch-Zuber and Dionisotto. The collection is leavened by the inclusion of Baron, Kristeller, Mattingly and Burckhardt. As a whole it leans heavily toward social history, broadly construed, and relegates the cultural products of the elite classes to a minor status. For example, the only section that really deals with art is labeled "Conspicuous Consumption," and includes Goldthwaite on minor arts and craftsmen, and Hughes on sumptuary laws. The selection of contemporary documents also reflects this modern "social" sensibility, to the exclusion of some more traditional materials. Both Kohl and Smith have translated a range of otherwise unavailable documents, including a will, dowry and household inventory, the fodder for modern scholarship. The collection also devotes a good deal of attention to the Veneto in addition to Tuscany. The selections are, given the emphasis of the book, well chosen and indeed representative of current scholarly concerns. But is it inclusive enough of the traditional material? The Italian Renaissance without Boccaccio or Castiglione, da Vinci or Michelangelo, with only the merest hat-tips to the papacy, Naples or Milan - indeed, who's being left out now?

JOSEPH P. BYRNE West Georgia College