Essay on How Did Developments in Scholarship Affect the Writing of History During the Renaissance and Early Modern Period?

Introduction

Historians describe the early modern period to be between the end of the middle ages and the start of the nineteenth century (Cameron)[1]. Within this time frame a “movement”[2] known as the Renaissance took place. During the Renaissance upheaval and transformation of art, culture, politics and society occurred within Europe. As a consequence, there were huge developments in scholarship[3]. A scholar is defined as a learned person, particularly in the subject of the humanities[4]. Humanities also includes historical writing. During this essay I will be answering how these developments in scholarship directly affected the writing of history, for its subject matter and writing style.

The precise date of the Renaissance continues to be debated by leading historians. Brotton believes it began in the fifteenth century[5] whilst Green believes it was the sixteenth century[6]. Intellectual innovators, such as Petrach and Giotto revolutionized changes in both art and literature during the fourteenth century, Burke[7] and Kristeller[8] present strong evidence to suggest that the Renaissance began in the fourteenth century and ended in the seventeenth century. I will be framing my essay within this period of time. In terms of the geography I will be focusing upon the changes which occurred throughout Europe due to the Renaissance movement. However it must be acknowledged that Italy retains the honour amongst historians for being the home of the Renaissance[9]. This does not negate the importance of the spread of influence throughout the whole of Europe[10]. For this reason I have broadened my study of scholars and their effect on written history within Western Europe, including England, France, Italy and Germany. Due to the wide variant of time and geography that I have used, I will be focusing my attention on various themes of change, which occurred throughout Europe in the writing of history. Themes I will be exploring include, the new interest which arose in Latin and Greek, changing views on religion, the rise of historical narrative and criticism, the increase in the printing press and politics, history becoming a proffession and geographical discovery. However I will first discuss what historical writing was like before the Renaissance and early modern period, in order to provide a context and basis for comparison to show how historical writing changed.

Medieval history writing

History writing pre-Renaissance is extremely different from post renaissance work. The construction of Medieval history was naive in its concept in that events extended from the creation (which was in the past), to the last judgment (which was in the future). Inbetween was simply a sequence of events which were leading to the last judgement[11]. This linear evolution has been referred to by Gilmore as a “unified Christian drama”[12]. Medieval history lacked any “sense of reality and time” [13]. Many biblical scenes in manuscripts for example, are portrayed as if they had occurred recently, and not the distant events which are being described[14]. As well as this the writing of historians served the purposes of the church and religious matters,subject of history writings were more concerned with the divine than matters of the state[15]. There was a lack of interest by Medieval historians in distinguishing between different time periods[16]. The main method of writing history before the Renaissance being simple annals[17], chronologically ordered facts. There was no context or interconnection between the events described. Advancements in scholarship significantly changed this methodology of historical writing.

The Classics

During the Renaissance, there was an increase in enthusiasm for ancient texts and classical languages,[18] replacing the practice of studying, or writing historical texts in the historian’s native language particularly by scholars. Before the Renaissance only three books in the Vatican library were written in Greek, this increased by 1455 to four hundred books, which was approximately a third of the collection[19]. This new interest in classics brought about attempts to imitate the former classic cultures within their own lifestyles[20]. The first observable effect on the writing of history was the language in which new history books were produced. This is evident within Vergil’s Anglicae Historicae which was an account of English medieval history, but was written in Latin in 1534[21]. In France, in 1517 a history of medieval France was produced called ‘De rebus gestis Francorum’, again entirely in Latin[22]. Latin and Greek were so popular among historians that English translations were not made until decades after the creation of the original texts. Certain texts that were restored and published, such as ‘The History of the English Church and Nation’ were written in Latin in 1550, but were not translated into English until 1565[23]. This developing interest in the classics by scholars changed the style of history writing and even changed the vogue of the language in which it was written for a significant period of time. However there were difficulties in writing texts entirely in classical languages. Lorenzo Valla wished to write a history of Rome in Latin, but unfortunately the translation of language was not possible, as subjects such as Muslims, Guelf and Ghibelline, for example, had no Latin translation[24].

Scholar’s interest in languages did not only affect the language in which history was written, classical languages also became the subject of historical writing. Alberti, during the mid fifteenth century, began to research the history of the Italian language and its grammar. He discovered that Italian, although a unique language, was derived from Latin and subsequently wrote a historical text about it[25]. Scholars interest in classical languages, led to the “study of classical works” [26], such as the study of ancient Greece and Rome, not just its language, it extended to the society as a whole. Green describes how this led in recent history, to much criticisms and negativity towards the Medieval period. Medieval times appearing bleak and dull in comparison to the time of the ancient societies[27]. Scholars portrayed a romantic vision of what times were like during the era of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The writing of medieval texts did not attract this romantic embellishment, fewer books were written on the subject. Scholars interest in the classics at this time, changed the subject matter of historical texts

The advancement of scholarship in terms of classical studies, also effected the context in which history was written. The fact Roman culture was a main topic within Petrach’s biographies shows there was now a sense of division which separated classical and early modern periods[28]. This can be interpreted as evidence of an increasing awareness of the need to differentiate one period of time from another. Renaissance historians now had the ability to write about individual specific periods of time. This new “historical perspective”[29] was extremely different to the linear evolution of history, which worked to the pattern of seven ages (five concerned with the period between ‘the creation’, which was the first stage and the birth of Christ, the last stage being the end)[30]. Gilmore uses the example of Petrach having to consider the context of the times in which the Romans lived, and the differences that would have existed in comparison to his own time[31] to show the advancement of scholarship and the effect it had on historical writing. Due to the study of classical cultures, historians were now able to separate and differentiate different periods of time. History writing was now grouped into different stages of time.

Geographical discovery

As well as studying ancient cultures, scholars now had the ability to travel to different areas and personally experience a different culture. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries scholars took part in many “voyages of discovery” [32]. The development of travel by scholars resulted in various changes in the style and content of written history. Kidd discusses how historians were attempting to research the histories of religions and customs of civilizations such as Asia and America[33]. Historians and scholars became interested in the notion of “otherness”[34] they began to compare and contrast indigenous population with their own culture. History writing now became a text which encompassed comparison. Historians now had to add more detail to historical writing, to include comparisons which required context, not just a list of events as found in Medieval texts.

Historians were also commissioned by rich explorers to write travel guides that would detail the political and geographical history of various nations that could be visited[35]. The most famous examples of these guide books were published by the Leiden house of Elsevier, written during the sixteenth century, which covered almost every country[36]. This new way of writing history together with emerging new topics which could be studied and discussed, expanding the subject matter of historical writing.

Historical criticism

The Renaissance and early modern period has been described by historians such as Cameron as the “critical Renaissance” [37].historians began in earnest to review and critique others work in an attempt to identify mistakes, acts of negligence, incompetence or deception. Dorp was one historian who specialized in critiquing others works. Dorp criticized the work of Erasmus, in reply to Erasmus criticism of theology[38]. In fact many historical writings were solely based on the critique of the works of others.

Another way criticism affected the writing of history, was that history writers had to be very sure the facts they used were correct and that there was no mistakes or anachronisms within their work, in order to prevent shame or professional embarrassment. Therefore historians researched their topics more carefully and historical writings became more accurate, this was a positive effect on historical writing. Pre Renaissance anachronisms were common place within historical texts, for example, a scene was described between a son telling his father how he was going off to fight in the hundred year war written in 1356. This comment could not have been made until the war was over, so clearly cannot be true[39]. Renaissance historians discovered many mistakes such as this, showing how advanced critical historians had become.

Historians researched carefully their sources to ensure they were genuine. Including a forged source within their work would result in it being discredited or ridiculed. Such as Petrach who was even able to recognize particular words that should not have been used in the context they were written. Even a word as small as the word ‘we’, within a piece supposedly written by Julies Caesar was noticed[40]. The word ‘we’ would not have been used in the context it was applied within the forged document. Other anachronisms were also discovered, such as Caesar referring to himself as ‘Augustus’, a name not used till after Casers death[41]. Cusa, Peacock and Valla were other historians who participated in the critique of primary sources[42]. This critical approach was essential to the development of historical writing. Scholars wished to search out the truth within the subjects which they studied. Historians also went to great efforts to check sources in order to make sure the facts they were using were credible. This had a large effect on history writing, as proof reading and source checking became essential. This made the work of the historian and the art of historical writing become more professional.

Religion

Discovery and advancements historians made in utilizing both language and geography gave scholars greater belief in the possibilities of the human will[43]. Intellectual ties with religion were weakened during the Renaissance, this had an impact upon history writing. Pre-Renaissance history was focused on God being the main cause of an incident, this view changed to one in which the individual was more able to shape his own destiny[44]. Even historians who were religious were moving away from history writing being based entirely around religion and religious beliefs. Hay discusses Machiavelli and Guicciardini who were Christian, yet were more understanding of a secular administration, for example within Machiavillis The Prince[45]. Agnostic views were now penned by some historians, for example in the writing of Pomponaszzi within his text De Fato, libero arbitirio et preadestinatione[46]. These views would not have been expressed by Medieval historical writers. Scholar’s views of religion changed the focus and the context of historical writing at the time of the Renaissance.

Biblical texts were now open to critique in the same as any other historical document. Medieval historians accepted the word of the bible as fact, and did not challenge its content. Valla, wrote Annotations on the New Testament during the fifteenth century, he viewed the bible as a historical document written to illustrate particular circumstances, just like any other historical piece. Colet compared the New Testament with various other ancient historical sources[47]. Spinoza highlighted how parts of the New Testament with contradicted itself, for example Moses’ depiction of God being different in depending on the section of the New Testament which was being read[48]. Many Scholars now had a view that religion was not as important as the individual and the actions that he took to shape his own personal history. Historical writing often began to focus upon individuals, for example Commynes memories, which focused upon Charles the Bold, Louis XI and Charles VII[49]. Historians also had a wider variety of texts to study and consider now that religious texts were open to the same scrutiny as any primary source. This was a massive change from the style and content of Pre-Renaissance historical writings.

Politics

Scholars began to develop an interest in diplomacy[50], as a consequence the subject matter of historical writing changed. Machiavellis ‘History of Florence’, for example, discussed the failure of mercenary armies, one example of the scholars interest in which government affairs had impacted upon historical writing[51]. The new interest in politics caused biases to form within historical writing. In the Tudor chronicles which seemed to be very favourable towards royal authority[52], Sir Robert Cotton also let his opinions be known through political history writing, his work was thought to imply strong criticism towards Charles I’s government. Historians focused far more upon a Kings ability to rule, rather than their morality or sense of justice[53]. Historians began to write accounts based upon personal bias and favour, editing their work to strengthen their argument and gain support from the reader. History writing had other uses within politics, Gilmore tells how often it was used to show varying philosophies, principles and opinions, which could be debated within politics, such as the use of history as a tool in which the past mistakes would be learned from to ensure they would not be repeated[54]. Generally, however, history “served whoever it seemed politically expedient to follow” [55]. To achieve this goal, it needed to rely on eloquence and the newly formulated skill of adding narration to an historical piece of work[56]. The use of narrative was an attempt to capture the reader in order to change their opinion on the matter discussed.

Using Narrative

During the Renaissance and early modern period, scholars developed an interest in literature and art. Scholars often attempted to combine the two subjects in order for literature to be akin to an art form. This dramatically affected historical writing. This new method of “artistic literature” [57] became one of two accepted methods of historical writing, alongside the old annalistic compiler or chronicler[58]. Artistic literature still required a chronology but it now meant that it was necessary to describe, analyze and critique instead of simply being listed[59]. Historical authors took their role of description very seriously, and would even visit the places that were the subject of their writing in order to portray a first hand experience to the reader, this was a trend followed by post Renaissance historians such as Macaulay in the nineteenth century [60].

The art of describing historical events through “elegant expression” [61] became a new challenge for the historian. Gladstone particularly struggled with writing a piece that was both historically accurate and had a flowing narrative, this was evident on his writing about the conspiracy of the Jacobites[62]. Successful historians now had to have good story writing skills. According to Hay, this new method often caused historical writing to lose sight of historical facts[63]. I believe that it gave birth to the modern forms of history writing style, which are interesting because of their personal perspective, for example, the Memoires of Commines written during the sixteenth century, is full of personal interpretations on historical issues, such as the philosophy of history[64] Narrative history writing also attracted more historians to attempt historical writing, as a result a wider variety of opinions were created, advancing history writing. Many historians saw historical writing as a time to “while away dull hours” such as Mezerays when he wrote Histoire de France[65]. Writing was an extremely popular pastime, the writing of history now being similar to creative writing. Scholars interest in the arts and literature changed the rules and the style by which historical writing was constructed.

Research and the Printing Press

Because the writing of history had evolved to be more like historical stories the writings became extremely popular with the public. “Middling”[66] classes were becoming more literate and were reading more. Printing presses, had made many technological advances during the Renaissance. Owners of presses recognized that there was a profit to be made printing historical texts. This directly affected the writing of history. By the end of the 15^th century there were 73 printing presses in Italy alone[67]. Burke views this increase in the printing presses to be a cycle of demand leading to supplies[68]. If it was not for the original interest from the public the printing press would not have been used to print these historical works, the more works that were printed, the more interest grew. Also in order to increase their income some historians wrote about subjects which they thought would please the publishers and appeal to the masses. For example writing about the Tudors, as this was a favourite read for the British public[69]. The presentation of historical writing also improved[70]. Historians had to consider how to set out and display the information in order to enhance its appeal to the reader. However it was the content of historical writing and the research methods which saw far more drastic changes.

Changes to legislation also impacted upon the method and content of historical writing. Bibliographies now had to be included in books, to prevent plagiarism. Lists of sources also had to be given, a trend which is noted to have begun in 1628[71]. This meant historians could research and check the works of their fellow professionals. Historians were now comparing, contrasting and referencing the works of others within their own. For example Ranke who used Burnet’s ‘passion for primitive sources of information’[72]. Historical writing now placed as much emphasis as comparison and interpretation on facts and figures.

Pre Renaissance primary sources were the main sources of history writing. Because more works were available, historians were able to research from secondary sources and this became a popular method of historical research. Historians would collude to research a particular subject[73]. Critique and research methods led historians to new historical discoveries, such as, Nicholas V attempts to find the lost decades of Livy[74]. Discoveries which would not have been made if it wasn’t for the research of secondary sources. Historians did not abandon old methods of research in favour of the new methods, they were now able to combine old and new methods of historical writing, proven by Fate who searched through the archives of the British Museum to support points she had included within her work, as well as using the more modern methods of historical research.[75]. Historians discovered that their writing had a broader perspective because of the blend of secondary and primary sources now being used within their works. This meant they could not only compare sources but were also beginning to question how reliable historians arguments and their sources were. This was early stages of historical writing taking a critical form, critiquing both secondary and primary sources.

History as a profession

Because of the increase in printing presses and the commercial success of historical writings, historians were now able to create books and sell them for profit. History writing had now evolved into a viable career option. Historians now focused on their works full time. Educational institutes began to recognize the value of historical study as a “practical preparation for employment”[76] and curriculums were devised around this topic. This was also recognized by Sir Robert Cotton, who advised Queen Elizabeth to set up an academy for history students. The purpose of the academy was to train young noblemen for government service[77]. It was recognized that the research skills utilized by historians were transferable to those working in government service. The new education that historians gained changed the way in which history was written. It also gave historians a new purpose to their writing. They were now employed to research specific topics by interested paying parties. An example of historians being hired to research for a specific purpose, was when Edward I paid historians to search through evidence regarding his claim to the throne of Scotland, and write their opinion on the matter[78]. Henry the VIII employed historians in a similar matter when attempting to prove his claim to the headship of the English Church[79]. Prior to this Henry the VIII hired a team of historians and academics in order to find and provide evidence to support his case in justifying his separation from Luther, before he attempted to claim headship of the Church of England[80]. Historical writing became more flexible as historians endeavored to adjust their writing style to suit their employers objective. The respect for historians amongst the general public and the nobility grew as a result of the success of such cases, (Brotton)[81]. Their position as professionals was embedded and their market value increased as more people hired them for their services. Their success brought credibility to respect from society for the profession. Historians were trusted with extremely important tasks which enabled them to develop as writers in the way described.

Alternative views

However, there is evidence to suggest that historical writing actually did not change much during the Renaissance period. Many themes of change which occurred in historical writing, was not evident in other texts written during the Renaissance. Some historians during the Renaissance did not write in Latin, or acknowledge the new fashion for adapting their writing approach to a classical style. Corio was one historian who simply continued to write in his native tongue of Italian and did not acknowledge within his works either Latin or Greek[82]. Hay suggests that in many cases historians, during the Renaissance, did not comprehend the historical perspective in respect to time periods. There were also historians who were not interested in the major geographical studies made and were still focused upon the histories of their own towns.[83]

There were also historians who continued to use the more traditional techniques. There were still dozens of annalists working within Italy during the Renaissance[84]. This was also evident in England, particularly during the Tudor period. Works such as ‘The Great Chronicle’ were compiled, which still followed traditional methods of historical writing[85]. In many cases annals were simply converted into a more modern form i.e. adding a narrative. New information was often not even included, which would intimate that very little change during the Renaissance had taken place in historical writing despite all the innovations that scholars had made[86]. During the Renaissance period, in many cases it was only a minority who broke away from the traditional methods of history writing, however the minority have proved far more influential in the way historical writing is now written. This can be recognized by the numerous comparisons which can be made between Renaissance history writing, and modern history writing.

Conclusion

Because of the many factors I have identified historical writing during the Renaissance drastically changed and evolved. Many of these changes were the direct results of the advancement that had occurred in the field of scholarship. Interests and views of scholars directly affected, the subject matter, the writing style, the language used, and the context a historical text was now written in. The respect and professional status scholars had gained opened new doors to historians, this also directly affected their writing and caused a complete change in style and purpose. The changes in historical writing which the scholars evoked during the Renaissance and early modern period continued and evolved into what historical writing is today. Particular reference must be made to the critiquing style of writing scholars adopted. Having the ability to criticize a source or another historians opinion is one of the most important features of modern day historians. None of these changes would have taken place, if it was not for advancements in scholarship which occurred during the Renaissance and early modern period.

Bibliography

Books

John Kenyon, The History Men, The Historical Profession in England since the Reformation (Weidenfield and Nicolson 1983)

V.H.H Green, Renaissance and Reformation (Edward Arnold and CO. 1952)

Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, from the silk road to Michelangelo (Oxford University press 2002)

Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, Western Histoiography from the V111th to the XV111th century (Methuen and CO Ltd 1977)

Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, an Oxford History (Oxford University Press 2002)

Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism 1453-1517 (Harper Torchbooks 1962)

Peter Burke, The Renaissance, second edition (Palgrave 1997)

Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance (Harper Torchbooks 1959)

Colin Kidd, British Identities Before Nationalism, Ethnicity and Nationhood in the Atlantic World 1600-1800 (Cambridge University press 1999)

Peter Burke, The Renaissance, studies in European history (Macmillan Press LTD 1987)

Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past (Edward Arnold)

Internet resources

Vergil or Virgil, Polydore, Encyclopedia <http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0850693.html> [Accessed 20th April 2009]

Dictionary.com, “scholar,” Source location: Princeton University. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholar> [Accessed: April 12, 2009.]

[1] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, an Oxford History (Oxford University Press 2002), p.XVII

[2] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, studies in European history (Macmillan Press LTD 1987), p.59

[3] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, from the silk road to Michelangelo (Oxford University press 2002), p.20

[4] Dictionary.com, “scholar,” Source location: Princeton University. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholar> [Accessed: April 12, 2009.]

[5] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.20

[6] V.H.H Green, Renaissance and Reformation (Edward Arnold and CO. 1952), p.5

[7] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, second edition (Palgrave 1997) p.7

[8] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance (Harper Torchbooks 1959) p.103

[9] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, p.7

[10] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, p.63

[11] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.79

[12] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.79

[13] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism 1453-1517 (Harper Torchbooks 1962), p.201

[14] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, p.60

[15] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.201

[16] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.79

[17] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, Western Histiography from the V111th to the XV111th century (Methuen and CO Ltd 1977), p.94

[18] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.184

[19] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.185

[20] John Kenyon, The History Men, The Historical Profession in England since the Reformation (Weidenfield and Nicolson 1983), p.3

[21] Vergil or Virgil, Polydore, Encyclopedia <http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0850693.html> [Accessed 20th April 2009]

[22] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.3

[23] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.6

[24] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, p.19

[25] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, p.69

[26] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.64

[27] V.H.H Green, Renaissance and Reformation, p.33

[28] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.83

[29] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.81

[30] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.89

[31] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.77

[32] Colin Kidd, British Identities Before Nationalism, Ethnicity and Nationhood in the Atlantic World 1600-1800 (Cambridge University press 1999) p.11

[33] Colin Kidd, British Identities Before Nationalism, p.12

[34] Colin Kidd, British Identities Before Nationalism, p.289

[35] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.134

[36] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.55

[37] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, p.101

[38] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, p.74

[39] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.78

[40]Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past (Edward Arnold) p.51

[41] Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past, p.52

[42] Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past, p.55

[43] V.H.H Green, Renaissance and Reformation, p.55

[44] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.202

[45] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.87

[46] V.H.H Green, Renaissance and Reformation, p.55

[47] Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past, p.60

[48] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p. 116

[49] Peter Burke, The Renaissance sense of the past, p.66

[50] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.98

[51] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.113

[52] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.5

[53] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.11

[54] Wallace K. Ferguson, Facets of the Renaissance, p.86

[55] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.90

[56] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.94

[57] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, 110

[58] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, 110

[59] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.95

[60] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.73

[61] Euan Cameron, Early Modern Europe, p.72

[62] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.75

[63] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.98

[64] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.202

[65] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.142

[66] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.133

[67] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.188

[68] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, p.25

[69] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.201

[70] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.124

[71] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.136

[72] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.36

[73] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.124

[74] Myron P. Gilmore, The world of humanism, p.182

[75] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, p.55

[76] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.65

[77] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.2

[78] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.2

[79] John Kenyon, The History Men, p.2

[80] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.87

[81] Jerry Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar, p.73

[82] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.100

[83] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.100

[84] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.100

[85] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.118

[86] Denys Hay, Annalists and Historians, p.118