An interesting way Brotton starts to describe the Renaissance for what it is early on in the book is by observing the Etymology of the word itself. Brotton writes "No 16th century audience would have recognized the term 'Renaissance'. The Italian word rinascita ('rebirth') was used in the 16th century to refer to the revival of classical culture." (Brotton 9) Brotton continues to allude to this revival of classical culture throughout the book and he explores it through educational, cultural, and artistic frameworks.

The foundation for this revival of classical culture that Brotton describes is the rise of Humanism and Individualism. Humanism can be defined as the attached importance to humanity instead of divinity. Brotton references the Swiss academic Jacob Burckhardt and his work, The Civilisation of the Renaissance in Italy, published in 1860. Brotton writes "the growing unease with organized religion meant 'man became a spiritual individual'. Burckhardt deliberately contrasted this new development with the lack of individual awareness that for him defined the Middle Ages. Here, 'Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation.'" (Brotton 11) This is an amazing standpoint on the rise of individualism in the 15th century. Burckhardt shows how humanity only associated themselves in a sort of group mentality prior to the 15th century, without any regard or any consciousness of their individual being and importance as individuals. Brotton also shows how this concept is touched back on in the 20th century by Stephen Greenblatt in his book Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. He argues that the 16th century went through a "'an increased self-consciousness about the fashioning of human identity'" (Brotton 16) The individual was beginning to become aware of his individuality as a man and man alone.

This baseline understanding of humanism became more understood through the translations of philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. Brotton, late in the book, describes the way the classical works of Aristotle and Plato were starting to become synthesized in the works of Renaissance humanism scholars. Brotton writes "Both Plato and Aristotle continued to exert an enormous influence upon the art, literature, philosophy, and science of the 16th century." (Brotton 113) I love seeing how the revival of philosophy prompted such an explosion of new ideas. I'm gonna do some more Etymology right here by saying this, but the word philosophy breaks down into the two Greek words philo (love) and sophia (wisdom) which comes together as the love of wisdom. From that, I say that philosophy during the Renaissance period was simply a rebirth of the love of wisdom and the exploration of it.

The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction helped me to refocus on concepts that I had previously learned but forgotten about the period of the Renaissance. I enjoyed the way that Brotton provides similar but individual standpoints from which I could pull from to build the perspective in which I can process and view the other sources from which I will be researching.

In the beginning of the oration, Mirandola kicks it off by pulling from ancient Arabian writings which sets the humanistic tone for the rest of the paper. Mirandola writes "Abdala the Saracen on being asked what, on this stage, so to say, of the world, seemed to him most evocative of wonder. He replied that there was nothing to be seen more marvelous than man..."What a great miracle is man Asclepius,"" (Mirandola, Paragraph 1) Mirandola begins to paint this picture of the importance that is man that is what is "most evocative of wonder" and a "great miracle". Then very shortly after that, Mirandola starts to build the connection between the importance of man in correlation to the divine. Mirandola begins talking about creation and how God, "the Mightiest Architect", had already filled the universe with other creations and "Intelligences", but there was still a need for a being that could appreciate and praise the works of him. He seems to argue that the ability of man to have the choice when to attempt to understand of the power of God is what attaches importance to man.

Another thing that piqued my interest was Mirandola's use of Pythagoras and his opinions. Mirandola writes ""Never sit on a bushel", never, that is, through slothful inaction to lose our power of reason, that faculty by which the mind examines, judges and measures all things; but rather unremittingly by the rule and exercise of dialect, to direct it and keep it agile." (Mirandola Paragraph 9) A key part of the beauty of our humanity is the ability to maintain our power of reason as alluded to by Pythagoras and touched on by Mirandola. To maintain that power of reason our ability to be rational and reason things out must be consistently honed and tested. I think that Mirandola, through this reference of Pythagoras, very beautifully reinforces and demonstrates these humanist ideas.

A major thing that I pulled from the reading is how Erasmus puts a strong focus on the way that the way a leader is raised can influence the quality of the leader's abilities. Two important quotes I pulled were "The good and wise prince should always bear in mind, in attending to his children's upbringing, that those who are born to the state must be brought up for the state, and not to suit his own feelings; what is to the public advantage always takes precedence over the private feelings of a parent" (Erasmus 7) and "Consequently, if it is an untutored boy we have in our charge, we must make every effort to have him drink, from the start, from the purest and healthiest sources and to protect him in advance, as if by an antidote, against the poison of what the common people think." (Erasmus 10) A prince bringing up his children is essentially a prince bringing up his replacement to his office of leadership. The child of a prince must be raised in a way that is pure and healthy to suit the needs of his people. I believe that Erasmus is showing us part of being that good leader as an individual, is the ability to impart the knowledge and methods required to lead well to his offspring. I would argue off of this that individualism as a leader is to always keep the health of the state at the forefront of his mind and imparting that wisdom as a leader to one's children ensures that.

It's very interesting the way that an awareness of the concept of individualism seems to have such an effect on the quality of leadership. I believe Erasmus does a great job at highlighting that.

Machiavelli has much more of a "win by any means necessary" and conniving approach in leadership versus the morality based and good-mannered approach that Erasmus took. In chapter XV, Machiavelli displays this approach when saying "Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. (Machiavelli, Chapter 15) Machiavelli essentially says that if there is a situational issue that can be satisfied by an action guided by the knowledge of how to do something generally considered immoral, then that knowledge of "wrong" and how it can be used to benefit oneself is a quality of a good prince. This is stark in contrast to Erasmus and how he believed a prince should be raised to eventually lead. Erasmus says "Since for the most part the nature of man inclines towards evil, and furthermore no nature is so blessed at birth that it cannot be corrupted by perverse training, how can you expect anything but evil from a prince who, whatever his nature at birth is subjected from the very cradle to the most stupid ideas and spends his...youth among...degenerate comrades, the most shameless flatterers...and pleasure mongers as they are foolish as they are worthless. In this company he hears nothing, learns nothing) (Erasmus 8-9) To Erasmus, there is nothing to be learned in immoral circles around people that could very easily live in ways that could be looked at as inherently "wrong". From that I would say that Erasmus would be on the other side of the spectrum of saying that it is not necessary to utilize a knowledge of wrong to handle issues as a leader.

A part of The Prince that I appreciated was Machiavelli speaking on being cruel and merciful. Machiavelli writes "Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies;" (Machiavelli Chapter 19) Machiavelli shows that an important trait to have as an individual leader is understanding the balance and timing of when to be merciful and when to be cruel. In simpler terms, I believe that Machiavelli is also saying that moderation is a key trait to possess as a leader. Even Erasmus goes to say, "If you want to show you are an excellent prince, see that no one outdoes you in the necessary qualities of wisdom, magnanimity, restraint, and integrity." (Erasmus 16) I believe that a key part of moderation is the necessary restraint that is needed. This is a point where I feel like there can be an agreement between the ideas of Erasmus and Machiavelli.