“Early Modern” And “Renaissance”: Investigating Difference

Introduction of “Early Modern” and “Renaissance”                                             

The expressions “early modern” and “Renaissance” sometimes, undergo confusion in usage with being alternatives of each other, specifically, in the arena of the literary studies or critiques of the literary texts appearing during that period. In the literary world, however, there is a slight difference between “early modern” and “Renaissance” in that whereas “early modern” connotes an emphasis on “economic continuity between periods” (Dubrow and Dolan, 1994, p. 1025), Renaissance seems to give “privileges to certain groups of culture” (1025). Yet, an early modern term not only points to mercantilism in the rural centers but also large “historical divisions” instead of minor or small divisions (1026) which it interestingly presents a ready “badge,” facilitating critics to select texts (1026) of that specific period. It means that the term early modern in the phrase “early modern” and “Renaissance” mostly refers to the period that roughly falls in the late fifteenth and early sixteen century during the Tudor dynastic rule in England marked with “humanism” and stress on “for goodness in humans” (Allegretti, n. d.). Some historians, other than the literary ones, also call it the period of spreading globalization (de Vries, 2010, p. 710), while regarding literary output, Scott Robinson argues that early modern writers “sought to appropriate, to reinvent, or to repudiate romance, in the effort to reimagine a changing world” (2007, p. 02). His stress is on the changing world about “early modern” and “Renaissance”. The argument that the Renaissance, too, changed the world causing globalization, stands in the way of this difference that could resolve with the polemic of Renaissance as an inclusive, exclusive as well as broad period compared to the term, early modern.

Inclusivity of Renaissance in “early modern” and “Renaissance”

Whereas inclusivity of Renaissance is concerned in “early modern” and “Renaissance”, it is the hallmark of this period not only in terms of the inclusion of art and literature but also different regions such as the French and English regional emergence following the Italian contributions (Robin et al. 2007, p. xv). Yet some also suggest the use of “early modern” in “early modern” and “Renaissance” for the same period, adding it is “less encumbered by the cultural baggage of the past” (p. xv). This shows the interesting distinction that seems broad in that it includes regionalities as well as inclusive humanistic, ethical, and epistemological advances spreading throughout Europe (p. xv). Some, on the other hand, put it as a complete field of studies as it “produced a new transnational cultural formations” with new ways to analyze the “modernity” of entire Europe (Robinson, 2007, p. 15).

Vastness of “Early Modern” and “Renaissance”

This shows that it means not only just one field of study but various others, including philosophy and economics, and cultural values across different cultures. It is clear from Jerry Brotton”s argument that “National museums and art galleries are the most obvious places” to understand the phenomenon of “The Renaissance” (2006, p. 02). Despite its historical relevance to the multifarious phenomena in other cultural fields, in the scholarly and academic arena it led to studia humanitatis which included the whole humanity and social sciences of today (p. 03). After recounting all the diverse fields that prospered during this period, Brotton concludes that the term refers to “profound and enduring upheaval and transformation” from “1400 to 1600” (p. 09). Yet, he has refrained from the periodization of this phenomenon. Brotton refers to Michelet to explicate it further, saying it was not only the age of the discovery of the world but also of the discovery of man (10). With its double distinctive features, he states that it broke with the Middle Ages and led to a “modern understanding of history” (p. 10).

Differences between “Early modern” and “Renaissance”

A cursory glance at these arguments shows that there does not seem much difference yet Leah Marcus (1992) not only differentiates but also puts both “nomenclatures” for each other, saying it is a “conceptual reconfiguration” with tracing of the features that are “precursors” of our own period. Then, he highlights the contestation of the terminological polemic arguing that whereas Renaissance scholars are not concerned with periodization, the scholars using the early modern term strictly adhere to periodization (p. 42). Despite playing with the significance and dilution of this significance of the literary studies, he continues saying that early modern is less hierarchical and less energy-consuming in terms of terminological initiation (p. 42) as the lovers of Renaissance term do. Yet, he has objections to its elitism (p. 43), when he underlines the stress on the quantitative method of the early modern period with further emphasis on “the common place lives of the common people” (p. 44). Although he argues that the interest and his research about both terms is to redraw “disciplinary boundaries,” he states that both have special purposes while the objective of the usage of the term, early modern, is “preservation of literature” (p. 56). Interestingly, he seems consistent in preferring early modern and jettisoning Renaissance when he adds studies with it in another article “Cyberspace Renaissance” (1995) showing difference between “early modern” and “Renaissance”. In this article, he argues that that as Renaissance”s glorification of despotism and intellectual hierarchies have missed the community or a huge segment of the population, and states that now literary critics call it an “early modern era” because Renaissance, as a term, is too hegemonic and too titular to leave its holistic, inclusive and exclusive tendencies to include specifics of literature under its banner (p. 388). Therefore, his contention seems appropriate when he argues that most of the usages of “Renaissance” are full of discomfort to be used freely for every other study or field (p. 389). Hence, the early modern term wins the contest and becomes one of the terms having no negative or positive, inclusive or exclusive, upbeat or low-beat connotations as Renaissance has, yet it has its own usage in literary studies referring to specific periodization as well as the specific emphasis on “the common lives of the common people” (Marcus, 1992, p. 44).

References

1. Allegretti, C. (n. d.). The Early Modern Period. Eastern Connecticut University, Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://www.easternct.edu/speichera/understanding-literary-history-all/the-early-modern-period.html
2. Brotton, J. (2006). The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, UK.
3. de Vries, J. (2010). The limits of globalization in the early modern world. The Economic History Review, 63(3), 710-733.
4. Dubrow, Heather, and Frances E. Dolan. “The Term Early Modern.” PMLA 109, no. 5 (1994): 1025–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/462969.
5. Robinson, B. (2007). Islam and Early Modern English Literature: The Politics of Romance from Spenser to Milton. Palgrave, MacMillan, New York, America.
6. Robin, D. M., Larsen, A. R., & Levin, C. (2007). Encyclopedia of women in the Renaissance: Italy, France, and England. Santa Barbara, CA.: ABC-CLIO.
7. Marcus, L. S. (1992). (1992). Renaissance/Early Modern Studies. Redrawing the Boundaries: The Transformation of English and American Literary Studies, ed. Stephen Greenblat and Giles Gun, The Modern Language Association of American, New York, 41-63.
8. _____ (1995). Cyberspace Renaissance. English Literary Renaissance, 25(3), 388-401.

Relevant Questions about “Early Modern” and “Renaissance”

1. How do scholars and historians distinguish between the terms “Early Modern” and “Renaissance,” and what specific characteristics define each period in the context of intellectual, cultural, and societal changes?
2. When examining the transition from the “Renaissance” to the “Early Modern” era, what key shifts in thought, art, and governance mark this transformation, and how do these changes shape our understanding of these two distinct periods?
3. In the study of history and literature, how does the nuanced exploration of “Early Modern” and “Renaissance” periods enhance our comprehension of the evolving intellectual and cultural landscape, and what critical aspects help demarcate one from the other?