Berdyaev and Florence. Aesthetic Intersections

Kudaev Aleksandr Egorovich PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, State Academic University of Humanities (GAU); Gnessin Russian Academy of Music 119049, Russia, Moscow, Maronovsky Lane, 26 a9e6k3@mail.ru Other publications by this author

                                                   I will remember these days for a long time when I

                                                   I came into contact with "other worlds"...

                                                                                         N. A. Berdyaev

It is known that N. Berdyaev visited Italy three times. According to him, he experienced these meetings with Italian culture and art (and, above all, the first two trips) so "strongly and acutely" ^{[1, p. 460]} that they determined the coordinates of his entire further both general creative and aesthetic development. As a result, Italy itself appeared to him no longer as some well-known territory or state entity ("Italy cannot be looked at as one of the countries, like other European countries" ^{[2, p. 367]}), but above all as "a sacred land of creativity and beauty", as "eternal the element of the spirit" and "divine joy" [ibid.; 1, pp. 459-460].

Already from these words it becomes obvious that Italy seemed to him no other than a sacred aesthetic Mecca. And if Greece was for him "the birthplace of creativity and beauty" ^{[3, p. 119. Italics are mine. – A. K.]}, then Italy is its classic expression, "embodied beauty" ^{[2, p. 367. Italics are mine. – A. K.]}. Hence his special aesthetic love for Italy, its amazing cultural and artistic achievements. "Italy has given me infinitely much, and I love it with exceptional love" ^{[4, p. 19]}. Later, explaining the exclusivity of his Italian love, N. Berdyaev will explain: "The joylessness of Russian life, the lack of plastic beauty in it, brings our love for Italy to extreme tension" ^{[2, p. 367]}. Thanks to this "extreme tension" of "exceptional love", Italy will no longer exist for him as an ordinary state, but will appear in its purely artistic and aesthetic halo, and he himself will turn into a Russian "Italianist". And it is his first trip, undertaken in late summer and early autumn 1904, that will play a decisive role in this attitude towards Italy, which will be the subject of this article, but above all, the main purpose of this trip (which in this case is no less important) is Florence, which has become for him the "key" not only to the art of the Florentine Renaissance, but also to the artistic and aesthetic culture of the wholeItaly.

The first mention of the philosopher's desire to visit the "sacred land of creativity and beauty" is found in his correspondence with his future wife Lydia Rapp, in particular, in a letter dated August 16 (29th), 1904, in which he shares with her his impressions of his stay in Clarence and Montreux (where he was at that time he was), and with impressions, which is significant, purely aesthetic [see: 5, pp. 230-231], and here he adds: "From here, maybe (!), I will go to Florence for a week" [ibid., p. 231. My italics. – A. K.]. This is the first letter in which we find mention of Italy, in particular, of the coveted Florence, and it is significant in several ways at once.

Firstly, the letter begins precisely with aesthetic impressions, which, as is known, played an extremely important (not to say decisive) role in the life of N. Berdyaev [see about this podr.: 6]. Secondly, it is the first time that his intention to visit Italy is mentioned here, but so far, as we see, it is not very definite, which most likely indicates that this issue is unresolved until the end ("maybe ..."), and thirdly, it is extremely important that the author indicate the purpose of such a visit, again - purely aesthetic (!): "... I want to return to my homeland under the impression of the greatest beauty" ^{[5, p. 231. My italics. – A. K.]}! And it is very significant that this is the only – but for him, obviously, the most significant – explanation that he felt it necessary to indicate. And no more additional considerations regarding the purpose of this (so far proposed) trip. Considering that this is not a detailed and detailed message (which are very characteristic of N. Berdyaev's epistolary manner), but a rather short message – literally in a few lines – the predominant emphasis on its aesthetic component also seems very indicative and eloquent (and, of course, not accidental).

In one of the following letters to the same addressee, we find confirmation of this intention, but which retains the same uncertainty about its implementation: "In two days I'm going to Geneva, and then maybe (!) to Florence..." [ibid., p. 231. My italics. – A. K.]. And finally, just a few days later, in a letter dated August 23 (5.09 a.m.), 1904, for the first time we meet his message about his intention to go to Italy as already definitively resolved: "Then (i.e. after Geneva. – A. K.) I'm going to Florence for five days" [ibid., p. 232]. The question, apparently, was only how long he could stay in the "divine Florence" so desirable for him.

And the first question that inevitably arises here is: why was Florence the destination of his first trip? Why, for example, is not the same "Eternal City" – Rome, which was perceived by many (if not by the overwhelming majority of travelers) as the "main" city and center of the ancient world civilization ("king and head of the world", as Petrarch would say about it) and it was to him that the routes of an infinite number of travelers stretched, as if confirming the well–known saying - "Tutte le strade conducono a Roma", all roads lead to Rome. And N. Berdyaev himself once wrote about him with no less enthusiasm [see, for example: 7, p. 118].

As for Florence, in the first approximation, the answer would seem to suggest itself. It was enough to have an idea that Florence is the cradle of that cultural movement, which will be called the Renaissance, in order to make the art and culture of this city the primary object of their interests, and the city itself – as a result – the main purpose of travel. Where can one comprehend the culture of the Renaissance if not in the homeland of the Renaissance?! But in this case, this is not enough. In order to fully understand N. Berdyaev's motives, which prompted him to make Florence not only the main, but also the only goal of his first trip, it seems advisable to dwell on this issue in more detail and form a more complete picture of what Florence was, and what role it played in the development of this cultural movement, the results of which turned out to be an inspiring creative the incentive to prefer the Florentine direction.

To begin with, it is enough to recall that in a number of important undertakings and achievements, Florence, represented by its outstanding representatives (poets, writers, chroniclers, artists, sculptors and architects) was the first, paving the way and creating prerequisites for the formation and spread of a new type of culture throughout Italy, and then Europe!

Tres coronae. The Italians themselves associated the beginning of the Renaissance with the names of the "triumvirate" – Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, the great "crowned kings" of Italian classical literature. It is significant that they were all Florentines, as well as the fact that they already fully – and not without pride – realized themselves as carriers of the "new spirit", the "spirit of modernity" ^{[8, p. 17]}, which began to form in Florence.       

Dante (1265-1321) stood at the turn of the epochs and therefore was not accidentally called "the last poet of the Middle Ages" and "the first poet of modern times" ^{[9, p. 382]}. He was the "first" who, according to his first biographer and "professional interpreter" Boccaccio, "opened the way to the return of the muses expelled from Italy" and "brought dead poetry back to life" ^{[10, pp. 525-526]}. His voice from "the first day sounded in a new way", and it was the voice of returning poetry, and of such strength and completeness that none of his contemporaries "could compare with him in the power of the impression made" ^{[11, p. 34]}. His "Divine Comedy", which gained extraordinary popularity and fame during the poet's lifetime, played a very important role in the formation of the Italian literary language, thanks to which Dante is considered its founder ^{[12, p. 51]}. It is significant that these norms were formed on the basis of the Florentine dialect, so from this point of view, we can say that Florence turned out to be, among other things, the birthplace of the Italian literary language. 

As the same Boccaccio wrote about this: it was Dante who "showed the whole world the splendor of the Florentine dialect; he discovered the beauty of the national language, laying it in slender feet" ^{[10, pp. 525-526]}, he "glorified it and ennobled it in the eyes of his compatriots no less than Homer did his language in the eyes of the Greeks, and Virgil – among the Latins... Dante irrefutably proved that it is possible to talk about the most profound subjects in the vernacular, and exalted it above all other languages" [ibid., p. 540]. And without taking into account Dante's experience in developing the national language, a new poetic culture, the culture of the Renaissance, according to Boccaccio, could not be built ^{[13, p. 497]}. It is this language that will dominate as a literary language throughout Italy already in the XVI century and will retain its importance – without any significant changes - up to the present day ^{[14, p. 56]}. And although the poet was in exile, but, in the words of the head of the Florentine Neoplatonists M. Ficino, he "glorified the city of Florence so highly" that Florence itself "can be called Dante", and Dante is called "Dante of Florence" [Cit. according to: 15, p. 97].

"The first conscious humanist" and "the father of Rebirth." The founder of the new humanistic Renaissance culture is considered to be Dante's younger contemporary, Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374). He was the first person and thinker of the Renaissance, standing at the origins of a new worldview, which for the first time faced the fundamental question of attitude to the "old" and which had to answer it. And Petrarch answered him. On April 8, 1341, he ascended the Roman Capitol and in the Senate Palace pronounced his famous "Word" about the meaning and purpose of poetry, and about the high mission of the poet ^{[16, pp. 13-14; 17]}! And indicative in this "Word" was that although (with formal It was based on medieval sermons, speeches, but he quoted exclusively ancient authors, thereby violating the centuries-old tradition of arguing speech with texts of Holy Scripture. There turned out to be so many cited classics that Petrarch's Capitoline speech turned, in essence, into "the first manifesto of Renaissance humanism", and the event itself marked "the beginning of a new era – the Renaissance" ^{[16, pp. 14-15; 18, p. 227]}. After the end of the "Word", to the applause of the senators, Petrarch was crowned with a laurel wreath. Then a speech in praise of Petrarch was delivered by Stefano Colonna, the de facto ruler of Rome and one of the most influential people in Italy at that time. After that, a special law was approved called "Privilege Francisci Petrarche", in which he was officially declared a "great poet and historian", was titled "magister" with full approval of all his literary works. In addition, Petrarch was granted Roman citizenship and a number of rights and privileges were recognized for him (in particular, the right to crown other applicants for literary fame with laurels) ^{[16, pp. 18-19]}. So far, no poet has been awarded such honors. "For the first time in the history of Europe, the poet was told: "you are the king"" ^{[19, p. 10]}. It is not by chance that special attention is paid to this event. For Petrarch's "Word" and his wedding on the Roman Capitol turned out to be an unprecedented event. In fact, it marked the watershed between the old and the new and opened a renaissance page in the development of Italian culture. Petrarch himself was fully aware of the significance of this grandiose "coup" – (Cf.: "I stand at the turn of two epochs and look simultaneously into the past and into the future") [Cit. according to: 16, p. 132; or according to: 13, p. 420] – and he was sure that it was his coronation at the Capitol that marked the beginning of a new era in the life of Italy. He even guessed what her name would be. "The word was already in the air. In less than ten years, another Florentine, Giovanni Boccaccio, will pronounce it clearly and clearly" ^{[16, p. 20]}.

The fact is that Boccaccio developed a similar concept of the new era and also tended to associate it with the ceremony at the Capitol. It is significant that not only Petrarch and his passionate admirer and pupil Boccaccio thought so, but also their contemporaries and followers, the Renaissance humanists. In Petrarch, they saw not only their spiritual father, but also the founder of a new era [ibid., p. 26]. According to Leonardo Bruni, Petrarch was "precisely the man who resurrected the forgotten studia humanitatis and opened the way to the renewal of our culture..." [Cit. according to: ibid., p. 26; 21, p. 76]. He will be called: "the first humanist" ^{[21, p. 16; 22, p. 5]} - (and P. M. Bicilli will add: "the first conscious humanist" ^{[23, p. 24. My italics. – A. K.]}) – and as such he will be called the "father of humanism" ^{[24, p. 238]} and besides – "the first professional writer" in the New European meaning of the word ^{[25, p. 236; 40, p. 422]}. And if Dante was the "forerunner" of the new culture, then Petrarch is already considered the "first man" ^{[14, pp. 66, 88]} and the "father of the Renaissance" ^{[24, p. 237]}. For the main idea of the renaissance was first formulated by Petrarch, which, as noted above, was also recognized by his contemporaries ^{[26, p. 13]}. And although the concept of "Rebirth" did not yet exist, but his premonition was already in the air…

A new attitude to the book. However, speaking of Petrarch, one cannot ignore another new phenomenon that originated on the basis of Florentine culture – a special attitude towards the book, which quickly grew into a real "cult of the book" and "book boom" (Petrarch). Already in Petrarch's house there was a real "cult of the book", an understanding of its importance and general cultural significance, quite comparable with traditional material values. As the poet testifies (in the dialogue "On the multitude of books"), the desire to have books has ceased to be the lot of only learned sages, university professors and schoolteachers. The book becomes one of the important attributes of the life of Florentine society, determining even the status of a person within her social environment. And this is undoubtedly a sign of a new era and a completely different – already Renaissance – attitude towards the book. It is significant that not only a special kind of people – bibliophiles - appears, but books are also acquired for the sake of striving to become famous and assert their position in society. The book begins to compete even with traditional chivalrous courage, social status, as if casting a shadow of its inner content and nobility on its owner ^{[27, pp. 24-33]}.  

Petrarch's efforts also initiated the process of reviving continuity with antiquity, which is characteristic of the formation of a new Florentine culture, incomparably broader and deeper than it was observed in the Middle Ages. Being an avid collector of ancient manuscripts (and he was "the first to compile a decent collection of classics" ^{[28, book 1, p. 74]}), Petrarch turned out to be their first textual critic and commentator, thereby laying the foundations of Renaissance classical philology ^{[29, p. 22]}, which, therefore, also arises it is formed on Florentine soil.

Systematic work on the scientific identification of the text also begins with Petrarch: the establishment of authorship, the correct title of the book, the restoration of the original structure of a work, the time of its creation, the preparation of comments, in-text corrections, etc. And as a result, in addition to the cult of the book, the "Petrarch era" marked the beginning of a real "cult of book authors" (as well as their heroes), as well as the tradition of publishing portraits of their authors in books. And these portraits turned out to be a very important addition to the book, a kind of anthropomorphic "business card", making it more individual. 

Another new feature of Florentine culture in relation to books is the desire to popularize and distribute them more widely. It is significant that some Latin works by both Petrarch and Boccaccio are already beginning to be translated into Italian during their lifetime, so that their compatriots who do not speak learned Latin can join the knowledge in their native language. An equally interesting Florentine innovation and a special sign of the humanistic attitude towards the book, the understanding of its cultural role as a link between different eras, was the author's dedication. It is significant that almost all of Petrarch's significant works, including individual letters, treatises and even collections of letters, were dedicated to one or another specific person. And at the same time, Petrarch himself was clearly aware that the dedication glorifies, among other things, the recipient of the dedication, and also gives him immortality ^{[27, p. 31]}.

The sharply increased interest and demand for books inevitably had to lead to the need to create public libraries. Petrarch was also one of the first (if not the first) to come up with the idea of creating the first public library. He even managed to conclude an agreement with the Venetian government, according to which his books (and his personal library, as we already know, was at that time the largest in Europe) were (after his death) to become the property of the republic and thus make up the first public library. And although the Venetians reacted to this idea of Petrarch with great enthusiasm and understanding of the significance of such an event, nevertheless, such an important event for cultural life did not take place, since Petrarch was forced to leave Venice [ibid.]. Obviously, fate willed that the first public library should also appear in Florence. And it will indeed appear there, moreover, it will also be initiated by a Florentine citizen and a humanist, but we will talk about this ahead.       

The second founder of humanistic literature. A close associate and follower of the undertakings of Dante and Petrarch was Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), who was destined to become the second founder of the humanistic literature of the European Renaissance ^{[13, p. 450]}. Boccaccio's interest in the work of Dante, who was a true idol for him, manifested itself in his university years and did not weaken until the end of his life. Boccaccio's last years were also devoted to Dante. When the first ever Dante chair was established in Florence in 1373 to study the work of the great poet, it was Boccaccio who was the first to be invited to it ^{[30, p. 8]}. In October 1373, the Council of the Florentine Commune asked him to give an annual course of public lectures on the "Divine Comedy". Addressing such an assignment to Boccaccio, among other things (and he was already a famous man in Florence and was very popular in the city) ^{[31, p. 159]}, was also due to the fact that back in the early 50s he wrote a work on Dante's work ("A small treatise on the glory of Dante", 1352), the third edition of which was prepared by him just before the lecture course. And the importance of this treatise also lies in the fact that it was both the first biography of the poet and the first defense of poetry in Italian ^{[32, p. 208]}. According to Burckhardt, it was "the first significant biography" and in the sense that it was written "freely and independently", "easily, as if with a single impulse", it leaves "a vivid sense of Dante's exclusivity" ^{[33, pp. 286-287. Thus, Boccaccio stood at the origins of the centuries–old study of Dante's work, being essentially the founder of dantology [34, p. 100]}, which, therefore, also began to form within the framework of Florentine culture. In addition, Boccaccio turned out to be the first humanist to teach at the University of Florence, and the University of Florence itself was the first educational institution to invite humanists to lecture, thereby contributing to the wider dissemination of humanistic ideas and their affirmation in Florentine society, and then in other cities of Italy ^{[31, p. 159; 29, p. 32]}.

For the sake of historical truth, it should be noted that the first humanist who was invited to the University of Florence back in 1351, i.e. more than twenty years earlier than Boccaccio, was still Francesco Petrarch. And although Petrarch politely refused, and did not become the first university lecturer, the very fact of attracting the "father" of humanism to the university back in the middle of the XIV century, when the humanist movement itself was just gaining strength, testifies, on the one hand, to the openness of the University of Florence to new trends, and on the other, to progressivity his position in the new education known as studia humanitatis, which was also just gaining strength, but very quickly turned into the exclusive prerogative of humanist teaching. Therefore, already in the XV century, when the humanist movement will receive significant development, the University of Florence will become one of the most important centers for the dissemination of new education of general Italian importance. The disciplines of studia humanitatis will be included in the university curriculum, and their teaching will be entrusted to prominent humanists ^{[31, pp. 138, 173, 159, 164]}.

However, speaking about the University of Florence, it is necessary to note another new and, in its own way, unique phenomenon, which will also distinguish the "cradle" of the Renaissance among other Italian cities. For the first time, the Chancellor of the Florentine Republic will be the humanist Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406), who held this high post for more than thirty years (until his death), contributing to the influence of humanistic ideas not only on the worldview of university youth, but also their penetration into the wider environment of Florentine citizens. A younger contemporary and friend of Petrarch and Boccaccio, a devoted follower of their ideas, he became a significant figure in the humanistic culture of this period. His Florentine house, where students (including guests) had fascinating conversations about poetry, literature, history and philosophy (as well as a magnificent collection of ancient and modern literature, numbering hundreds of books from his personal library, rich in rare manuscripts by Latin and Greek authors), will essentially turn into one of the first humanistic centers Florence, in which he sought to instill in his students an interest in the study of classical heritage and a critical understanding of the historical experience of mankind (from which the greatest humanists of the next generation, such as L. Bruni, P. Bracciolini, P. Vergerio, N. Niccoli emerged). Therefore, the Florentines considered him, not without reason, the head of all humanists in Italy ^{[14, p. 113]}. Many important changes, including at the University of Florence, took place during his reign, which made the university – and from this side – closely connected with the spiritual life of the humanist movement. In an effort to raise the prestige of this educational institution so that it would correspond to the leading position of Florence, Salutati demanded that the government pay as much attention to it as possible, including the allocated funds.

The first public library and the first public art museum. For the same purpose, continuing the failed Petrarch library project mentioned above, Salutati – already as Chancellor of the Florentine Republic – again puts forward the idea of creating the first public library ^{[27, p. 139]}. He also dreamed of creating a "book house for everyone", which, according to his ideas, was supposed to become a school of life, arouse interest in knowledge and serve moral civic education. He, in fact, initiated the implementation of this idea by making his own library publicly available, part of which will later become part of the library of the Monastery of San Marco in Florence. It is this library that is destined to become the first public library, not only in Florence, but throughout Europe [ibid., p. 138]. And although Salutati himself did not live to see its opening, his humanistic and educational idea of a "book house for all" was enthusiastically received and implemented by his students and followers (with the most active financial and organizational support of Cosimo de' Medici and his grandson Lorenzo, who were destined to materialize this idea). 

The premises of the San Marco Library were built in 1444. And although in 1453, due to a strong earthquake in Florence, the library was significantly damaged, but a few years later (in 1457), it was rebuilt again and from that time began to fully function as the first public library open to all comers, besides being rich not only in traditional religious literature, but also works of a secular nature, including natural science works. Moreover, its funds were constantly replenished, starting with literature from the private collections of Florentine humanists (such as Salutati, Niccoli, Mirandola, who bequeathed their personal libraries to San Marco), which formed the basis of the first public library, including regular purchases of books from other Florentine humanists, as well as through donations from individual donors, up to the most important acquisition of the personal library of the Medici in 1497 ("Biblioteca privata gentis Mediceae"), after the expulsion of the latter from the city. As a result, according to the catalog of 1500, and this was the period of the library's greatest fame, at that time it contained the maximum number of books, numbering 1,232 storage units ^{[27, p. 143]}. Such rich book collections of the first public library, which amazed contemporaries with their thematic and genre diversity, began to attract the attention of not only humanists, but also scientists engaged in natural sciences, as well as people of art and many other representatives of the educated part of Florentine society. There is reason to assume that Leonardo da Vinci, Luca Pacioli, and Michelangelo used the funds of this library [ibid., p. 142]. In any case, in Leonardo's notes there is indeed an entry: "Vitalon in San Marco" ^{[35, vol. I, p. 47]}, indicating the essay on optics "Perspective" by the thinker and scientist of the second half of the XIII century – Erasmus Vitelo (Vitelon, Vitellio) [see: 36, pp. 297-303; 37, p. 302; more details: 38]. Of course, even before this library, there were traditional monastic and university book depositories, which often had quite representative book collections, but they were not public in the truest sense of the word.

Here in Florence, thanks again to Cosimo de' Medici, the first public art museum will also appear, since he made the gardens of his villa accessible to all citizens, in which magnificent collections of sculptural works were collected: statues, busts and bas-reliefs ^{[39, p. 10]}.

The first chair of Greek language and Literature, and the "first Hellenist" of Europe. Returning to Boccaccio, it should also be noted that he was the first in the matter of mastering the Greek language by humanists, which is so important and necessary for the development of a new culture. For humanists, the Greek language was not the subject of intellectual "gourmandism" or a pleasant pastime at leisure. By the time Boccaccio appeared in the literary field, he had become an urgent necessity. To substantiate his moral and philosophical ideas, Boccaccio needed facts and examples, but Latin literature alone could no longer satisfy this need ^{[28, book 1, p. 56]}. Petrarch also tried to learn Greek, but he never managed to master it. Homer has always remained a "closed" book for him. "Your Homer is mute with me," he lamented in a letter to the addressee, who sent him the manuscript of the great Greek, "or rather, I am deaf next to him" [cit. according to: 40, p. 429]. Therefore, he strongly recommended that Boccaccio definitely learn Greek: "It is necessary… Without him, we both limp on one leg" [cit. according to: ibid., p. 391]. Moreover, Petrarch could not imagine a new era without the revival of the Greek language ^{[26, p. 14]}. And Boccaccio, of course, could not ignore such a wish of his idol. Thanks to his mastery of this language, on the one hand, he expanded the field of knowledge available to Petrarch, including Greek literature (which he could now read in the original), and on the other, Boccaccio thus became "the first Hellenist not only in Florence, but throughout Europe" ^{[28, Book 1, p. 56. My italics. – A. K.]}.

And very quickly the importance of the Greek language increases so much that already at the end of the XIV century (and what is very significant: at the insistence of the Florentine citizens themselves, who showed increased interest in the new education), the first department of Greek language and literature was opened at the university ^{[31, p. 160]}, to which a well-known Greek scientist was officially invited Manuel Chrysolor, whose activity was extremely important and caused a great public outcry ^{[41, pp. 69, 11-12]}. For the first time, the teaching of Greek language and literature was started not only at the University of Florence, but also at the European University ^{[31, p. 160]}. And despite the fact that his teaching in Florence was short-lived, nevertheless, it left a deep mark. He managed to teach Greek language and literature to many humanists (such as L. Bruni, G. Verona, A. Traversari, A. Corbinelli, R. Rossi, etc.), who then continued their active activities to spread the ideas of a new culture, developing and enriching the views of their predecessors – humanists of the first generation [ibid. pp. 160-161]. Moreover, Chrysolor's teaching activity was associated with the emergence of a real fashion for the Greek language and Greek literature, which was characteristic of Italy at that time. As a result, knowledge of the Greek language and culture becomes an obligatory element not only of education, but also a sign of "good upbringing" ^{[42, p. 259]}. And as a result, a deeper understanding of its significance for the entire Italian culture comes. It is no coincidence that the poet and humanist Codro Urceo (1446-1500) will note on this occasion: "If there were no Greek literature, the Latins would have no education" [cit. according to: 42, pp. 259-260]. And although the Latin language "has always remained in high esteem," but now the Greek language is even higher than Latin, as a subject not only "dominant in general education", but also "representing higher culture" [ibid., p. 268].

The formation of new genres of literature and bringing existing ones to classical models. But Boccaccio's achievements–and with them the emerging new literature–were not limited to this. The desire to search for new literary forms to express relevant content leads him to create new genres or to bring existing ones to classical models. From his pen comes the first adventure novel in Italian literature (Filocolo, 1336), which was destined to become the first anticipation of Italian national prose ^{[13, p. 456]}. With his poems ("Philostrato" and "Theseid"), he largely determines the further evolution of the Renaissance chivalric poem [ibid.]. He also became the author of the first pastoral novel in modern literature ("Ameto", 1342), which marked the beginning of Renaissance pastoral, largely determining the further development of the pastoral genre in Western literature, and for the first time putting forward the ideal of a harmoniously developed person. In his first psychological novel in the history of European literature (Fiammetta, 1344), Boccaccio not only told the world for the first time about the experiences of the female soul, but also made a woman the main character of the novel, which in itself was an unprecedented, innovative phenomenon, thanks to which the novel had a huge impact on the subsequent literature of the Italian Renaissance, anticipating and outlining the ways of the later psychological novel ^{[13, pp. 460, 461]}. Therefore, it is not without reason that he will later be compared with Rousseau's "New Heloise" and Goethe's "The Sufferings of the Young Werther". Obviously, this topic does not appear in Italian literature by chance, since here, in Florence, another humanist, the Chancellor of the Florentine Republic Leonardo Bruni (1374-1444), for the first time puts forward the demand for the widest possible education for women ^{[14, p. 119; see: 43]}. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was in Florence, which was considered "the center of science, and the townspeople were reading people", that not only young people who studied philosophy, mathematics and rhetoric received education, but "even girls were taught to read and write" ^{[44, p. 35]}.

Due to his outstanding work "Decameron" (1353), Boccaccio is also considered the "father of the Italian short story" ^{[45, p. 7; 34, p. 101, 108]}. This, of course, does not mean that it was he who created its first samples. The first collection of short stories called "One Hundred ancient short stories", or "Novellino" (i.e. the book of short stories) appeared at the turn of the XIII–XIV centuries. However, it was Boccaccio who managed to bring this genre to perfection, to give the novel its classic look, which will determine the development of this genre for a long time, turning the novel into a universal tool for reflecting the life of Italian society. He was the first to introduce dialogues into the novel, reflecting all the features of the lively colloquial Italian speech, which had hitherto sounded only orally. And in this sense, he turned out to be one of the first Florentine writers standing closest to popular culture. After Boccaccio, Italian novelists could no longer do without bright, colorful and lively colloquial speech. This was all the more important because many of his contemporaries disdained the novel as a "low" genre, since modern reality served as the material for it, and in its everyday life with the oral vernacular speech characteristic of its expression. Boccaccio enriched this genre and confirmed its positions, not only with his highly artistic short stories, his writing skills, but also with his direct defense. He was sure that a short story, like works of "high" genres, requires creative inspiration and no less writing skills, and is an equal genre of fiction. And this was of great importance for the future development of the novel ^{[45, pp. 8-9; 34, pp. 107-109]}. In addition, Boccaccia's Decameron "republic of poets" turned out to be the first humanistic utopia of the European Renaissance ^{[13, p. 476]}, more than a century and a half ahead of the founder of this genre and the "first utopian Renaissance" Thomas More, essentially anticipating his "Utopia" (1516).

The first biographies about the life and work of poets and writers, and their autobiographies. But what was perhaps even more important for the emerging new Florentine – and Renaissance – culture in general (from the point of view of the formation of its self-awareness) was the appearance of the first biographies about the life and work of people of art, in particular, poets and writers. In the 40s of the XIV century, Boccaccio wrote "On the life and morals of Mr. Francesco Petrarch of Florence" (1347) [see: 46], and in the 50s – a small treatise on the work of Dante (1352) ^{[13, p. 497; see: 10]}, and in three editions. In other words, Boccaccio was the first of the writers who started writing about writers. And the value of these first biographies also lay in the fact that, on the one hand, they marked the beginning of biographical literature about people of art (which would later be defined and go down in art history under the world-famous name as "Biographies..." by Vasari), but so far only about writers, which testified to the awakening self-awareness of people on the other hand, they set the appropriate bar as a kind of "model" when one outstanding poet, writer and thinker speaks about his other older Florentine contemporaries, whose images have not yet had time to bring a textbook gloss or approach the great representatives of the emerging new renaissance literature with "school"by standards that do not correspond to the scale of their talent. It is well known: "like is comprehended by like." And at the same time, the significance of these works is determined not only by biographical data about the first great Florentine writers who paved new ways for the development of Italian literature, but, perhaps even more importantly, by a humanistic interpretation of the social role of poetry and the poet, and more broadly, literature and literary creativity. 

However, Boccaccio's name is associated with another new genre of similar literature, but already called autobiography. He was the first one here, too. His extensive treatise on ancient mythology, The Origin of Pagan Gods (1360), he later revised and completed two more books (XIV and XV), in which he outlined his defense of poetry and created a kind of spiritual autobiography with an apology for his own work ^{[13, p. 496]}. And this was the first renaissance autobiography of the poet and writer, thus laying the foundations for this genre.

Thus, Florentine literature, through the creative efforts of this triumvirate of "crowned kings", was the first to open a new page in Italian culture and the dawn of a new era – the Renaissance – began to study here in Florence.

Giotto and the renaissance of Florentine painting. But Florentine literature has done more, it has pointed to the emerging shoots of new elements in painting, and in Florentine painting as well. It was the Florentine triumvirate in the person of Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio that counted artists among the movement they started. Therefore, the narrow understanding of the Renaissance, which at first was limited only to literature, almost immediately began to absorb the sphere of fine arts, starting, of course, with painting. Horace's famous expression "ut pictura roysis" ("poetry as painting") ^{[47, p. 350; cf. also: p. 341]}, reflecting the ancient idea of the natural relationship between poetry and painting, was not only revived, but concretized and reflected already in the works of Dante, in particular, in his famous lines about the fragility of earthly human glory. And it is significant here that he puts these words into the mouth of the artist: "Oh, the vain forces of human deception are great, // How short a time the peak is green, / / When the century is not wild! // Cimabue's brush was famous alone, // And now Giotto is honored without flattery, // And the painting of that is obscured <...> // In the millennium, glory will also disappear // And those who took off the old body, // And those who fell silent, saying "yum-yum" and "wawa"" ^{[48, p. 203. The italics are mine. – A. K.]}.

Thus, Dante, on the one hand, actualized the ancient idea of the kinship of poetry and painting, and on the other, singled out and exalted Giotto (which Petrarch will do after him) as the successor of Cimabue and the reformer who revived painting after the rough "dark ages", emphasizing that he is "the best of artists who have ever been on our land, in our time – the first" [cit. according to: 26, p. 193]. Boccaccio, adhering to a similar view, will develop this idea of his predecessors in more detail and add: "He revived art, which for centuries was trampled down by those who tried not so much to please the taste of connoisseurs as to amuse the eyes of the ignorant, and for this can rightfully be called the beauty and pride of Florence" ^{[49, p. 391. My italics. – A. K.]}. 

The brilliant Florentine painter Giotto di Bondone (c. 1267-1337) really turned out to be the first master who managed to overcome the "spell of Byzantine immobility" and rediscover the ways of illusory transmission of depth on a plane. Thanks to the exaltation of his work by the aforementioned triumvirate, the idea began to assert itself in Italy that it was with Giotto that a new era in the history of pictorial art began. This discovery served as an impetus for the revision of the entire theory of painting ^{[50, pp. 201, 212]}. It is no coincidence that he will be called "the great founder of new art" ^{[51, p. 25]}. It was from Giotto's activity that the idea of the renaissance of painting began to assert itself on Italian soil ^{[50, pp. 223-224]}.

Moreover, Giotto was associated with another unprecedented phenomenon in the history of fine art. Since his fame spread very quickly throughout Italy, the Florentines, for whom he became "one of the lights of Florentine glory", "the beauty and pride of Florence" [see also: 52, p. 101], they were immensely proud of him as a native of their city. As a result, they became interested in his life, telling and retelling various stories and rumors about him, about his extraordinary abilities both as an artist and as a person ^{[53, p. 153; 54, p. 53]}. As E. Gombrich emphasizes, this was a completely new phenomenon. "Nothing like this has ever happened before" ^{[50, p. 202]}. However, as we already know, this phenomenon was new for painting. So in this regard, the Florentine artist Giotto opens a new chapter in the history of fine art, in particular, Florentine painting. Of course, this is not yet the history of art in the proper sense of the word, but only the prerequisites (origins) of its formation, but even in this capacity it begins its formation as the history of the great Florentine painters and their outstanding works [ibid., p. 205]. Here lie the origins of Vasari's "Biographies...", dedicated mainly to Florentine masters...

The beginning of the emancipation and rehabilitation of fine arts. The Florentine historian and politician, and at the same time the first Florentine biographer, Filippo Villani (c. 1274-1348), who was also the first author, whose work begins a very important and difficult process of emancipation and rehabilitation of fine arts (although for now he will be talking only about painting), because he was the first to try to free them from the status – and label – of the ignoble and unworthy "mechanical arts" to which they had belonged since the time of the medieval tradition. It is known that the social status of the painters was extremely low (if compared even with their "colleagues" in the workshop – architects and sculptors), not to say offensive. Suffice it to recall that the painters were called "monkeys of God" and attributed to them a lifestyle and thinking that did not deserve respect ^{[52, pp. 21-22; see also: 8, pp. 9-14, etc.; and especially: 55, ch. 1-2]}. And against a similar socio-historical and emotional-psychological background, Villani, in his "Book on the Emergence of the City of Florence and its famous Citizens" (1404), was the first to include information about artists in the list of the most famous citizens of Florence who glorified their city, which had not happened before, thereby placing representatives of this plebeian (according to the ideas of the time), the profession was on a par with the most famous statesmen, military leaders, politicians, lawyers and doctors (and biographies of some masters were written during their lifetime). At that time, he expressed a rather bold (essentially revolutionary) idea that artists were "in no way inferior" to other masters in the field of "liberal arts" and even preferred painting over literature! At that time, it was a very strong gesture. He praises the "magnificent Florentine artists" for the fact that it was they who "revived" and "restored greatness to the bloodless and almost extinct arts." And although he did not have a long list of these masters, but the main thing was different – the beginning was laid. Villani names only five Florentine artists: Cimabue, Giotto, Maso, Fiorentino and Gaddi (and the last three are Giotto's students), but he already dedicates at least a few lines to each of them. These are still very brief descriptions that do not pretend to be full-fledged characteristics of their work. And at the same time, it is impossible not to note an important feature of his approach to his characters: the determining criterion for their selection is not the social status of the artist (which was not necessary to talk about at that time), but only the talent of the master, and with the brevity of his biographical sketches, he nevertheless tried to identify the uniqueness of each person ^{[56, p. 85, etc.]}. And this was also a new phenomenon. In addition, Villani puts forward another new idea for his time – about continuous progress in the development of art (which later again would become fundamental for Vasari) ^{[8, p. 18]}.

The first autobiographies of artists. Here, in Florence, the first autobiography of the artist appears, in particular, the Florentine painter and sculptor L. Ghiberti (1378-1455). Ghiberti's "Comments" were written in the form of biographies of the most outstanding artists, from his point of view, and they are also indicative in the sense that this feature will become mandatory for all subsequent Florentine art historians, and for a long period. It was "from then on," as Burckhardt emphasizes, "that the Toscans constantly treated biography as their specialty" ^{[33, p. 287]}. All of them, including Vasari, wrote their art histories in the form of biographies of artists, and for all of them Ghiberti's "Comments" served as the primary source from which they also drew all their knowledge about trecento ^{[57, p. 12]}. But what is even more important for us in this case: in the second part of the "Comments" Ghiberti talks about his life and his own works [see: 58, pp. 29-36]. And this is nothing more than "the first autobiography of the artist in history" ^{[8, p. 21. My italics. – A. K.]}.

However, it must be borne in mind that another work of this kind appeared a little earlier – the autobiography of Alberti [see: 59], also a Florentine master, which dates back to 1438 ^{[60, p. 401]}. And although there have been questions about its true authorship, however, recently few experts doubt that the author of this "biography" – i.e., autobiography – was still Alberti himself [see: ibid., pp. 438-439; 61, p. 181; 62, p. 151]. Given this circumstance, we have to admit that the first-ever autobiography of the artist belonged to Alberti after all. However, from the point of view of our topic, this issue is not fundamental. On the contrary, it seems more important that both of them were Florentines, and that, consequently, the artist's first autobiography also appears in the context of the development of Florentine culture.

No less revealing in this regard is the preserved legend that Giotto already "tried to paint his self-portrait looking at himself in the mirror" ^{[63, p. 18]}, i.e. also a kind of "autobiography", only created by means of painting. And although this news is considered one of the legends that surrounded the brilliant master in subsequent years, however, this legend itself seems no less revealing. Together with the autobiographies of Alberti and Ghiberti, it testifies to the growth of self-awareness of representatives of the fine arts, which reflected a very complex and important process of rehabilitation of the latter as an independent type of free and noble activity, fundamentally different from craft.

The first concept of "uomo universale" and its first representative. Here, in the context of Florentine culture, one of the most influential concepts of man in the Renaissance also appears – the idea of him as a "uomo universale", i.e. as a multifaceted and perfect personality. According to this view, the Renaissance man was extraordinarily gifted in a wide variety of fields of activity and knowledge. He simultaneously excelled in many fields of literature, art and science. And this concept – "uomo universale" – originates precisely in the above-mentioned autobiography of Alberti ^{[64, p. 79]}. This means that on Florentine soil, through the mouth of Alberti, one of the most important principles of the Renaissance was proclaimed, which for Alberti himself acted as an ideal: the duty of everyone, according to his conviction, is to become a "universal person" who owns all the arts and sciences, striving to realize the principle in his development harmony, which should make a person happy ^{[65, pp. 64-68, etc.]}.

Moreover, – and this is no less significant! – Alberti himself is unanimously recognized as the "first" uomo universale of the "new era" p. 15^{[66, p. 176; 62, p. 3, 150; 33, p. 128-131; 67, p. 251-252]}, who already amazed his contemporaries with his versatility. Thus, Alberti turned out to be the first representative of a new type of artist, characterized by the universality of spiritual aspirations, an artist-thinker who transcended the limits of a limited area of his artistic activity and became an authority in various fields of art and science of his time ^{[68, p. 109]}. So not only the idea of “uomo universale”, but, perhaps more importantly, the real “uomo universale” itself was the result of the development of the Florentine Renaissance.

"The first theorist of the new Italian art." Speaking of Alberti, it is impossible not to touch on at least his main achievements, at least those where he was the first, which thereby also were "beginnings" marked by the seal of the Florentine spirit, had Florentine roots. First of all, it is necessary to note his importance as the first theorist of the new Italian art ^{[69, p. 16; 70, p. 222]}. Alberti was the first, following the example of Vitruvius (whose writings were discovered at the beginning of the XV century), to create a widely conceived theory of art in his treatises on the visual arts ("On Painting", "Ten Books on Architecture" and "On the Statue"), thereby laying solid foundations for the artistic theory and aesthetics of the Renaissance, which will be fundamentally different from the literature that preceded it. Before Alberti, the latter was mostly limited to collections of professional recipes, representing, in essence, technical manuals. Even the "Comments" mentioned above by his elder contemporary Ghiberti, basically retain the character of a technical treatise ^{[68, p. 107; 62, p. 151; 71, vol. 2, p. 19; 72, p. 105]}.

In addition, Alberti was the first to combine the emerging new art with all the education developed by humanistic culture, combining practical advice with observations of the broadest plan and theoretical generalizations ^{[68, p. 107]}. As for painting, Alberti is recognized as the creator of a new genre of scientific literature – a theoretical treatise. And although Renaissance artists constantly turned to ancient writings about art, Alberti refuses the ecphrasis characteristic of antiquity (Callimachus, Philostratus the Elder and Younger, Pliny, etc.), which boils down to describing works of art, and even more so from medieval – purely practical – instructions to artists and artisans (with their examples of drawings to follow) having a purely utilitarian educational character, and proceeds to a theoretical understanding of art, laying down a new method of understanding and interpreting it, and combining in his person at the same time a theorist, a practitioner, an art critic, an aesthetician and a teacher ^{[73, pp. 172-175]}. At the same time, fully aware of the innovative nature of his works, "because," Alberti emphasizes, "we are not engaged in retelling all sorts of stories, as Pliny did, but we are rebuilding the art of painting, about which, as far as I know, nothing can be found written in our century" ^{[74, p. 40. My italics. – A. K.]}. And he really "re-built" the theory of painting. As a result, with his treatises, which were "manifestos of a new style", paving new paths in art, he had a decisive influence on the further development of Italian culture. All subsequent art theorists quoted Alberti, based on his basic principles, sought to use his recommendations in practice, and obvious traces of his influences can be found in all of them.

            The first pictorial portraits and self-portraits as independent genres. Alberti also made an important contribution to the development of portrait sculpture of the early Renaissance, acting as a true innovator in the field of portrait art. However, this innovation has so far applied only to the bas-relief. In the 1430s, he created his first bas-relief self-portrait (cast in bronze in the form of a one-sided oval medallion). It is possible that to a certain extent he repeated the lost pictorial self-portrait mentioned by Vasari ^{[75, vol. II, pp. 234, 236]}. But the bronze bas-relief self-portrait of Alberti that has come down to us also had the significance of a programmatic work. On the one hand, it turned out to be the first work of its kind in Renaissance art ^{[71, vol. 2, p. 19]}, representing an "original type of Renaissance profile portrait" imbued with a new, humanistic spirit, and on the other hand, it was a turning point in the development of the entire early renaissance portrait and played a decisive role in the final formation the figurative structure of medal art as a new branch of Renaissance art culture, becoming a model and inspiring example for Florentine portrait painters of the XV century ^{[62, pp. 151-152]}.

Since we are talking about the portrait, it is necessary to note here another new phenomenon, which also began to form within the framework of Florentine culture. Although the portrait developed everywhere during the Quattrocento period, but again it is the Florentines who, along with a special interest in it, have increased demands. And if at first the portrait remained faithful to the profile image, the type of which, perhaps, goes back to the self-portrait of Giotto mentioned ^{[15, p. 296]}, reflecting the traditions of ancient bas-relief medallions, then in the last quarter of the quattrocento, a decisive turn of the person being portrayed to the viewer is made, with the gaze directed straight ahead. In these facet portraits, and, above all, in Botticelli, one feels "the almost defiant independence of the Self-portrait that has realized itself for the first time." And the portrait already appears not only as an "act of self–affirmation of personality", but, what may be no less important – from the point of view of the development of painting proper - the assertion of the genre of portrait itself in the art of modern times ^{[63, p. 15]}. And the Florentine master Botticelli was, in fact, the first artist who began to create "independent portraits", or, in the words of one author, "portraits by a separate painting" ^{[39, p. 320]}. Thus, the development of the portrait as an independent genre is also being formed within the framework of the Florentine art school.

The first theory of linear perspective. Returning to Alberti, it should also be noted that he was also the creator of the theory of linear perspective, which opened new horizons for painting, in particular, new principles of constructing a picture composition ^{[62, p. 157; podr. For this, see: 76, pp. 95-111]}. For Renaissance figures, it was very characteristic – and symbolic – to turn to the concept of perspective, the art of conveying the volume and depth of the visible world, in all its chiaroscuro and color palette. It replaced the usual vision of reality for the Middle Ages as a theatrical mystery, where all events unfold in one plane ^{[8, p. 20]}.

Of course, he was far from the first one here. Already Giotto, working on the frescoes of the Capella del Arena (1305-1306), for the first time took the observer's point of view beyond the limits of the visual space, which prepared the opening of the central "Renaissance" perspective ^{[77, vol. VII, p. 330]}. Here we can also recall Masaccio (1401-1428), who was the first after Giotto to strive to convey the depth of space and simulate the volume of figures with light ^{[71, vol. 3, p. 5]}, about whom contemporaries said that he already "skillfully mastered perspective" [cit. according to: 55, p. 190] and knew her "better than anyone else at that time" [cit. according to: 78, p. 214]. Moreover, after the appearance of A. Filaret's treatise "On Architecture" (1461), where Brunelleschi was first called the "discoverer of perspective" ^{[79, pp. 408, 411]}, and then A. Manetti's work "The Life of Filippo Brunelleschi" (1480s), in which he consolidated this idea ^{[76, p. 96, 98, 104, 106]}, for a long time it was believed that Brunelleschi was the author of the theoretical development of perspective. And in this regard, he was even opposed to Alberti as his predecessor. However, as I. Danilova showed, the term "perspective" during the Quattrocento period "did not have a strictly fixed meaning" [ibid., p. 98] and its meaning was constantly changing. Moreover, such terminological freedom in the use of this term remained until the very end of the XV century. As a result, there was a substitution of concepts, because both Filarete and Manetti used the term in a new meaning of the word, which differed from its use in the time of Brunelleschi, and the latter retrospectively began to attribute something that he did not actually invent. Moreover, as the author rightly notes, in the first half of the quattrocento, no one "invented" or "discovered" perspective at all, it was already used, improving only the techniques of depicting three-dimensional space that were in use by the masters of the previous century ^{[76, p. 104; 80, p. 303-304;]}. By this time, perspective construction had already firmly entered the creative arsenal of Florentine masters, who comprehended this method of spatial construction in the learning process, purely practically, "copying the works of older, more experienced artists" ^{[60, p. 412]}. Alberti's merit lay in the fact that he managed to theoretically generalize intuitively the individual compositional techniques found by the Florentine masters and derive the "laws of centric perspective" that determined the fate of European art for centuries. In addition, Brunelleschi's promising method of construction remained a technical device, especially since he did not leave a theoretical presentation of his method. Therefore, Alberti's treatise on painting was the first theoretical exposition – correct from the point of view of the laws of geometry – of the principles of linear perspective ^{[73, p. 182]}. However, leaving aside the question of the primacy of one or the other in this subject, here (from the point of view of our topic) it is more important to emphasize that this problem was also formed, both on a practical and theoretical level, by the Florentine masters.

         Painting is a science and a "relative of God," and the artist is a scientist and "like a second god." But here another extremely important element opens up, related to perspective and reflected in the formation of a new understanding of painting as a science. Alberti, in his words, did not just "rebuild the art of painting", he laid the foundations for understanding painting as a field of scientific knowledge, he created the "science of painting" ^{[60, p. 413]}. Since mathematics and geometry were the only way to master the laws of perspective (perspective itself was understood as a field of scientific knowledge), thereby scientific foundations were brought under the art of painting, and this, in turn, created prerequisites for its separation from the "mechanical arts" and classification as "liberal arts". For geometry and arithmetic were part of the quadrivium, the highest part of the "liberal arts." As a result, this created at the same time conditions for her "rehabilitation" in the eyes of not only the artists themselves, but also, more importantly, the Florentine society.

Sharing the well-known position of the ancient Greek artist and the main theorist of the first The "Academy of Art" of Antiquity Pamphilus wrote that "no painter can paint well without knowing geometry well" ^{[74, p. 57]}, Alberti was also convinced that "an ignoramus in geometry" would not only understand nothing about the science of painting, but because of this would not be able to become a genuine artist. "That's why I say," Alberti insists, "that a painter needs to learn geometry" [ibid., p. 57]. And since painting, having scientific foundations, claims the status of "free art", by definition it appears to be "the noblest art", "worthy of a free person". Alberti believed in the "divine power" of painting: it is no coincidence, as he believed, that "the works of the painter are worshipped", and the artist himself is "revered as if for a second god" (!) [ibid., p. 39. My italics. – A. K.]. And painting, according to his firm conviction, has already "appropriated to itself the most honorable place in all fields – public and private, secular and spiritual – so much so that nothing, it seems to me, has ever been so appreciated by mortals as it is" [ibid., p. 40. My italics. – A. K.].

The same thoughts will be picked up and finally confirmed by another Florentine master, Leonardo da Vinci. He was even more convinced that painting must necessarily be ranked among the liberal arts, since of all the imitative arts it has "more rights" to this, because "among them painting is the first" ^{[35, vol. II, p. 55]}. Since it goes through mathematical proofs, it not only can, but must be recognized as "true science". Therefore, an artist should be, first of all, a scientist ("Do not strive to become a practitioner earlier than a scientist...") [ibid., p. 192]. "Practice," Leonardo continues, "should always be based on a good theory, for which perspective is the guide and the entrance, and without it nothing can be done well in cases of painting" ^{[81, p. 105. The italics are mine. - A. K.]}. He calls painting a "relative of God", and the artist – "equal to the creator" and directly "god" (!), because he has the "power to generate" everything he wants ^{[35, vol. II, pp. 57, 61]}. As a result, under Leonardo's pen, painting will turn not only into free, noble and worthy, but, due to the latter, into the highest ("most excellent") the field of activity. "So, painting should be placed above all activity (!), because it contains all forms of both existing and non-existent in nature" [ibid. The italics are mine. – A. K.].

Comprehension of the "kinship" of fine arts. But if Leonardo is instructed on the undeniable superiority of painting over other arts, then Alberti will have another very important idea, anticipating the future unification of fine arts. And although he will still talk about the relationship between painting and sculpture ^{[74, p. 41]}) and in the "first place" – in the spirit of his time – he will also put painting ("I have always put the gift of the painter in the first place, because he applies it to more difficult things" [ibid.]), however, the fruitful idea of the kinship of the fine arts will also begin to make its way within the framework of Florentine culture. This idea was already in the air, and the issue of combining these arts was only a matter of time. Moreover, the vast majority of Florentine craftsmen professionally represented people who united both the artist, the sculptor, and the architect in one person. It is no accident – and not without reason – that B. Bernson will say about them: "Forget that they were great painters – they are, moreover, great sculptors; forget that they are sculptors – they still remain architects, poets, people of science. All possible forms of artistic expression were used by them, and they could not say about any of them: “This one completely exhausts my essence.” Painting was only one and not always the most adequate expression of their personality..." ^{[53, pp. 151-152]}. Therefore, sooner or later, the idea of the kinship of these arts (and hence their equal nobility and value) will become obvious not only to the masters themselves, but also to society as a whole. It is significant that in many statements, both by people of art and humanists, already in the XV century, painting, sculpture, and architecture were increasingly mentioned in the list of liberal arts, along with traditional ones.

The same Alberti, already at the beginning of the century, begins his treatise on painting with a list of "such excellent and divine arts and sciences", among which he names architecture along with painting ^{[74, p. 25]}. It is significant that he will devote a separate treatise to each of these arts, thereby emphasizing their equality and equivalence. It is clear that "such excellent and divine" arts, by definition, can only be free, noble and worthy. We have seen above about the direct "kinship" of painting and sculpture of his recognition. Thus, Alberti, despite his time–determined sympathies for painting, nevertheless speaks of all three arts as related and calls them not only free and noble, but also directly "divine", classifying them as "higher arts" [ibid.]! At the end of the XV century, as if summing up the preliminary result of this problem, another Florentine, M. Ficino, will classify a number of arts as free, including the fine arts that interest us: "This century of ours, as a golden age, brought back to life the almost extinct liberal arts, that is, grammar, poetry, oratory, painting, sculpture, architecture, music ... and all this ... in Florence (!)" ^{[82, p. 268. My italics. – A. K.]}. The last clarification is no less important here, from which it follows that the idea of kinship of almost all major types of fine art and their classification as free was also formed in the bosom of Florentine culture. Nevertheless, their real unification into a single group will happen later, only in the middle of the XVI century, but it will also happen in Florence, as discussed below.

Marsilio Ficino,The Florentine Platonic Academy and Neoplatonism. Since we have remembered Ficino here, it is impossible to ignore another equally important and significant event of Florentine spiritual life. We are talking about both the activities of Ficino himself (1433-1499), with whom a new stage begins in the assimilation of Plato's legacy and ancient Neoplatonism by humanists, and the Florentine Platonic Academy (1462), headed by him for more than thirty years. Having received a villa in Careggi as a gift from Cosimo de' Medici and an equally significant gift – the Greek codex containing Plato's writings, starting next year Ficino begins to study Plato's heritage and translates all his dialogues into Latin ^{[83, p. 114; 15, p. 76]}, thereby accomplishing a real cultural feat that He will make him famous all over Europe. To this he will add the translation of the Neoplatonists: Plotinus in all, as well as Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus, accompanying his translations with extensive comments. He will not leave without his attention (including as a translator) both ancient hermetic literature and Areopagitics. It is with the activity of Ficino that the real cult of Plato begins. As A. F. Losev noted in this regard, "nowhere was Plato's name extolled as much as in Florence in the second half of the XV century. The veneration of Plato was turned almost into a religious cult here. Lamps were placed in front of his bust, and ... he was revered along with Christ" ^{[83, p. 322]}. It is no coincidence that Ficino himself will be called by his contemporaries "the second father of Platonic philosophy" (Machiavelli) or simply declared "the second Plato" [ibid.]. So the true renaissance of Plato and ancient Neoplatonism also begins within the framework of Florentine culture. Which Ficino himself will confirm: "In Florence, Plato's teaching was brought to light out of the darkness" ^{[82, p. 268]}. And although the Florentine Academy did not last long, nevertheless, this teaching became not only a notable event in the spiritual life of Florence, but also one of the dominant trends in Italian culture ^{[15, p. 6]}. Moreover, after Ficino's death, this movement very quickly managed to conquer the whole of Europe and remained for many centuries the most important spiritual force in Western culture ^{[26, p. 161]}.

But here again it is important to note: Florentine Neoplatonism had a decisive influence not only on the development of philosophical and aesthetic thought, but also on art. And although, perhaps, poetry experienced its most profound and productive impact, followed by literature [see: 84, vol. 1, p. 453; 26, p. 166; 83, p. 329], however, the visual arts did not stand aside either. The influence of Ficino's ideas can be traced in the work of a whole galaxy of such masters as: S. Botticelli, S. Raphael, B. Michelangelo, Giorgione, V. Titian, P. Veronese and many others [on the influence of Neoplatonism on the invention. art, see: 85, pp. 22-29, or according to: 73, pp. 102-111; 26, pp. 167-181]. And as for personally such figures as Botticelli, Raphael and Giorgione, according to some researchers, their work is a direct projection of the main theme of the philosophy of Neoplatonism – the theme of love and beauty, up to the embodiment – especially in the work of Raphael – "the full scope of Neoplatonic ideas" ^{[86, pp. 496-511, 514-515 590-594, etc.]}. Ficino's influence was no less impressive outside Italy: in Germany, France and England ^{[87, p. 142]}.

And at the same time, Ficino and the Platonic Academy have done a lot to glorify and widely disseminate Florentine art, among other things. In this regard, the episode when two great Quattrocento architects – Brunelleschi and Alberti – were supported by the academy at a time when they were not yet widely known and their fame was disputed is very significant. And Landino created a whole historiography of new Florentine art, starting with the poets (G. Cavalcanti and A. Dante) and presenting a whole list of outstanding Florentine artists: from Cimabue and Giotto and ending with the Rossellini brothers, i.e. up to his time. In addition, Florence itself acted for him already as the capital of "modern" art, quite comparable with the highest examples of the art of ancient masters ^{[83, p. 334; 8, p. 22]}.

The difficult times of Florence. However, despite all the achievements and successes, as well as the leading role of Florence in Italian culture, which it occupied until the beginning of the XVI century, difficult times awaited the cradle of the Renaissance. Florence was about to experience upheavals unprecedented even in its turbulent and turbulent history. "The crisis of the Renaissance was revealed, first of all, here and it was here that it took on such a violent and tragic character" ^{[60, p. 491]}. The turning decades of the late XV – early XVI centuries are essentially a period of gradual agony and death of the republic, but also heroic, albeit unsuccessful, attempts to restore it: the Pazzi conspiracy (1478), the collapse of republican illusions; social and religious unrest of the 80s – early 90s; the death of Lorenz the Magnificent (1492), and with his death – the completion of the "magnificent and serene prosperity of Florence" ^{[28, book 2, p. 265]}; the invasion of French troops led by Charles VIII; the uprising of the people, the expulsion of the Medici from Florence; the looting of the Medici Palace and the library of San Marco (1494); the theocracy of Savonarola (1494-1498), who declared Florence the "Republic of Christ" (!) – (and even in this regard, Florence was the first) – and thereby created the first prototype of a new society, whose influence on the radical Florentines and especially on the artistic environment of the city was very significant ^{[88, pp. 35, 40]}; the adoption of a democratic constitution. Savonarola's "burning of vanity" (1497), Savonarola's excommunication from the church (1497), his murder and burning (1498). With the execution of Savonarola, Florence finally entered a crisis that lasted for decades. She is increasingly losing her leading position. The creative initiative passes to Rome, which already in the second half of the 10s of the XVI century acquired a solid authority, and the center for the development of art from Florence moved to the "Eternal City". From now on, Rome, competing with Florence, asserts its right to the title and role of the artistic capital ^{[15, p. 527; 61, p. 293]}. Now, here, in the new center, thanks to the activities of the pictorial triumvirate – D. Bramante, S. Raphael and B. Michelangelo, the principles of classical art of the High Renaissance are being finalized ^{[8, p. 25]}. Although in the same years S. Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci continue to create. In Florence, events are taking their course. In 1512, the Medici returned to Florence. The republican order and all democratic innovations are being eliminated and the darkest period of the media reaction begins. But here the general Italian shocks are added to the Florentine ones. On May 6, 1527, the imperial army led by Charles V broke into Rome and for three months murders, violence, widespread looting, fires, and the barbaric destruction of monuments continued in the "Eternal City". The city and the surrounding area were devastated, and famine began. The brutal looting of Rome shocked all Italians, not excluding the residents of Florence. But in Florence, as E. Blunt emphasizes, this event led only to a "new rise in the self-awareness of the inhabitants" ^{[89, p. 74]}. Taking advantage of the approach of the imperial troops to the city, as well as the enmity among the Medici themselves, in an atmosphere of general chaos and a plague epidemic, all the discontented forces of the city unite and in the spring of the same year again expel the Medici from Florence. The republican order, which Florence defended during three years of heroic but unequal struggle against the combined forces of the emperor and the pope, is being restored again. In response to the next establishment of Republican rule, Charles V decides to restore the rule of the Medici, and his troops besiege Florence (by the way, Michelangelo, a staunch Republican, will play a key role in organizing the defense). However, despite the heroic defense of the city from superior enemy forces, and the unprecedented courage and perseverance shown at the same time, exhausted by hunger and heavy losses, Florence surrendered to the emperor's troops on August 12, 1530. The Republic was liquidated. The tyranny of the Medici was restored. The heroic time of Florence was over, and with it the brightest page of the Florentine Quattrocento, which ceased to exist around 1530 ^{[8, p. 24]}, the year of the tragic death of the Florentine Republic, was coming to an end. From this period, a new era begins, which some call the "era of Mannerism", others – "Anti-renaissance" or "Counter-Renaissance" ^{[90, p. 124]}.

The creation of political and historical science. However, despite all the upheavals, Florence will not lose its creative spirit. As if nostalgic for the lost mission of the mentor of the whole of Italy, she seeks to prove that it was not by chance that she acted in this role. Indeed, in terms of a number of achievements, it continues to be the first among Italian cities, ahead of the papal capital, among others. In the XVI century, during the "sunset of the Renaissance", Florence puts forward from its ranks two of the most brilliant thinkers not only of Italy, but of the whole of Europe – Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Guicciardini (1483-1540), who turned out to be the creators of political and historical doctrines, each of which marks a new stage in the evolution of the entire Renaissance culture ^{[28, Book 2, p. 290]}.

Machiavelli's main work "The Sovereign" (1513), which brought him worldwide fame, will be appreciated as "a truly great creation of a genuine political mind", and he himself is recognized as "the greatest politician of the XVI century", "a thinker of the first magnitude" and "the first military writer of modern times worthy of mention" [see: 91, p. 152; 92, p. 346; 93, p. 352; 94, p. 346], and as a result – will be defined as "one of the first political scientists" and "the founder of political science" ^{[95, p. 276; 96, p. 53, 126; 32, vol. 2, book 1, p. 171]} At the same time, emphasizing that his theoretical provisions and practical recommendations "have not lost their relevance in the 21st century" ^{[97, p. 276]}. No less recognition will be given to his "History of Florence" (published in 1532), called a "brilliant monument" of human thought of the late Renaissance ^{[93, p. 389]} and directly a "masterpiece" ^{[98, p. 154]}, representing an outstanding phenomenon in the new historiography. It is no coincidence that already in the 60s of the XVI century, his "History of Florence" crossed the borders not only of his native Florence, but also of Italy and was published in almost all the largest cities of Europe ^{[93, pp. 389-390]}.

No less fame fell to the lot of his younger contemporary, Guicciardini.  Thanks to his multi-volume "History of Italy" (published in 1561-1564), which laid the foundations for the perception of Italian history and served as a starting point for subsequent researchers, he became famous among descendants as an outstanding historian.  Guicciardini was the first to describe the history not of individual Italian states, but of the whole country, and his monumental work became the first work of Modern Times devoted to the fate of the entire Apennine Peninsula as a whole ^{[99, pp. 580, 584-585]}. And if Machiavelli was destined to become the founder of modern political philosophy and political science, then Guicciardini was recognized as the author of the critical method ^{[100, p. 101]} in historical research and the "father of historical science" ^{[61, p. 351; 101, p. 488]}. And since the works of both were written and published in the XVI century, then, obviously, not without reason, this century will be called the era "when history is born" ^{[102, p. 117]}. So it can be said that the latter as a scientific discipline – again – is "born" in the context of Florentine culture.

The birth of Mannerism and a new aesthetic. Here, in Florence, the above–mentioned new trend in art is also emerging - Mannerism, the beginning of which dates back to the 20s of the XVI century ^{[8, p. 25; 83, p. 467; 103, p. 154]}. It is significant that the very concept of "manner" will first appear in the Florentine artist Ch. Chenini ^{[71, vol. 3, p. 494]}, – as, by the way, the concepts of "external" and "internal" drawing, the most important for mannerism and extremely widespread in the XVI century ^{[8, p. 15]}, – and will be reflected in the famous book by Vasari, who will finally give this concept an aesthetic dimension. Mannerism fundamentally changes its aesthetic priorities. The ideal of attic clarity, balance and harmony loses its appeal as a result of the emergence of a new model and authority – the authority of "teachers" – who are considered as artists who have realized the ideal proposed by the theorists of the Quattrocento. Imitation of nature will be replaced by the principle of imitation of a "beautiful learned manner", "ideal" examples of the art of the great masters of the Renaissance [ibid., p. 25], accompanied by an indispensable desire to surpass them ^{[104, p. 290]}. But the one who imitates art, not nature, according to Vasari, is a mannerist. It is no coincidence that Mannerism will be defined as a "secondary" art ^{[32, p. 196; 105, p. 209; 90, p. 126]}. However, the early Mannerists themselves were confident that they were continuing the work of their great predecessors and only "perfecting the former ideal" ^{[106, p. 6; 107, vol. 2, p. 9; 77, vol. 4, p. 341]}.

Along with mannerism, a new aesthetic is born, a new understanding of artistic creativity. Imitation of nature – as a principle – is preserved, but is reinterpreted and acquires new meanings; on the one hand, it should be strictly selective ^{[108, pp. 320, 326]}, when it is recommended to choose objects either objectively beautiful (and preferably "the most beautiful and most elegant", as stated Zuccaro) ^{[109, p. 533]}, – either causing the maximum number of associations, emotions, affects, when the theory of "imitation" is replaced by the theory of "expression", and, on the other hand, the purpose of such imitation is, as a result of constant exercises, "to learn to depict from memory all natural things" in order to be able to reproduce them independently ("even without having them in front of my eyes"), and with the help of my creative imagination to give images "the perfection that, according to Vasari, is bestowed by art in addition to the order of things in nature, which creates some parts incorrectly" ^{[75, vol. V, p. 366]}. From this it follows that art not only can, but must "surpass nature" ^{[89, p. 76; 32, vol. 2, book 1, p. 197]}. For art is able to achieve what nature only aspires to, especially since the latter, as we have seen, can create "some parts incorrectly." Therefore, it is not surprising that in nature there are things not only beautiful, but also ugly. But that is why the artist must learn to choose some of the natural phenomena and discard others, i.e. his imitation must be creative. As a result, the individual creative initiative of the artist, his subjective fantasy, the search and definition of the "inner idea" of the pictorial image, as well as attempts to comprehend it, come to the fore. And if at the time of the Quattrocento the art of painting and the artist were declaratively declared divine, now the theoretical development of these ideas begins, bringing a theoretical basis for them ^{[83, p. 466]}.

The representatives of Mannerism focused the main focus of their theoretical reflections on identifying the essence of art, in particular, on determining the relationship between the creative subject (artist, genius) and the created object (work of art). The source of everything is God, including ideas. The deity thinks and therefore creates ideas. In their purest form, these ideas are reflected in angels; in a more indirect form (through reason or knowledge) they manifest themselves in humans (in the form of ideas, forms, representations), in order to then acquire a visible ("external") form in material objects ^{[83, p. 465; 32, vol. 2, Book 1, p. 109]}.  A person thinks and creates on the basis of these ideas. Consequently, the source of creativity and inspiration is no longer in nature, but in the soul of the artist. Since these ideas have a divine origin, they are the source of beauty, and the artist in his work materializes them, creating beautiful works of art. To concretize these ideas, the idea of drawing was in demand, which, as noted above, was already divided by C. Cennino into "internal" (existing in the artist's imagination) and "external" (which is taught through exercises and practical exercises). Since the theory and principles of the art of Mannerism will be implemented in the most complete – essentially final – form in the work of F. Zuccaro, we will turn to his version of the explanation of the creative process.

Pictorial creativity, according to Zuccaro, begins with an imaginary "inner drawing" in which he emphasized its immaterial, spiritually ideal nature ^{[109, p. 531]}. This "inner drawing" (design, idea) is the foundation of art and the source of creativity, since it initially sets the artistic form of the future work ("external drawing"), which is determined by the individuality of the artist, his subjective imagination, diligence, observation, representing nothing more than the material embodiment of the "inner drawing". But since the "inner drawing" that arises in the artist's mind is the result of a Divine plan (and at the same time a reflection of his ideas), this is nothing more than direct evidence of the presence of the divine principle in the artist himself, which found expression in the famous definition of Zuccaro: "Drawing is a sign of God in us", "divine iskra" [cit. according to: 77, vol. 4, p. 345; 110, p. 529; 71, vol. 3, p. 491]. It is in the latter that the divine principle in the artist manifests itself. Thanks to them, he gets the ability to "form a new world in himself" and "create a new intelligible cosmos", offering it to our attention (contemplation) "a new paradise on earth" [cit. according to: 111, p. 72]. Thus, the idea of the divinity of the artist, the genius, was justified, thanks to which he is able to create with the help of imagination alone, without directly referring to nature as an object of imitation. It was precisely in this desire to get away from direct copying of natural objects (nature) and the desire to bring to the fore an internal subjective way of forming a creative idea (and therefore to put art above nature) that the main pathos of mannerist aesthetics consisted, asserting the originality of the artist, his subjective imagination, free will and creative imagination. And although Zuccaro was not a Florentine (but at the same time, like many other masters, he was closely associated with Florence: suffice it to say that since 1565 he was a member of the Florentine Academy of Drawing, in the 70s he worked in Florence; and in 1593 he created the Academy of St. Luke in Rome, following the example and model of the Florentine Academy, ^{[32, vol. 2, Book 2, p. 565; 71, vol. 3, p. 491]}), nevertheless, as a theorist of mannerism, he completes exactly what arose again in the cradle of the Renaissance as a phenomenon of Florentine artistic and aesthetic culture.

Bendetto Varki and the Association of Fine Arts. However, in the middle of the same century, when Mannerism was gaining strength, another truly epoch–making event – both in the history and theory of art - will take place in Florence, which deserves special attention. We are talking about the rehabilitation of sculpture, equalizing its rights with painting (architecture was isolated from mechanical arts back in the late Middle Ages [see about this podr.: 112, pp. 55-82]) and combining them into a single group called "the art of drawing". The origins of this event were connected with the opposition of painting, characteristic of the Renaissance, as the main type of visual activity, the only noble and worthy, to all other arts. And although this was a common phenomenon for this era (we observed a similar preference among the architect Alberti), however, Leonardo probably distinguished himself most of all here, entire pages of whose notebooks are devoted to descriptions of the superiority of painting over other arts [see e.g.: 35, vol. II, pp. 53-84 and many others]. However, by the middle of the XVI century, this opposition (although not immediately and not by all), nevertheless, began to be perceived as an anachronism. And then the famous Florentine historian, philosopher, philologist and encyclopedist Benedetto Varchi (1502-1565), driven by the desire to overcome this, from his point of view, misunderstanding, decided to organize a correspondence discussion on this "dubious and controversial issue" with leading Florentine masters. In 1546, he sent letters to "almost all the most brilliant sculptors and painters who currently lived in Florence" ^{[113, p. 394]} with the same questions: 1) which of the arts – painting or sculpture – do they consider more perfect and 2) why? According to the results of the answers of his correspondents, the following year Varkey gave a public lecture to the members of the Florentine Accademia della Crusca, and in 1549 he published this text in the form of two "debates", thereby publishing the results of the correspondence discussion organized by him [see: 113].

After analyzing all the arguments of his correspondents in favor of one art or another, he comes to the conclusion that "in essence sculpture and painting are one art, and therefore they are equal in their nobility" ^{[113, p. 401. My italics – A. K.]}, because, as Varkey found out, the main (basic) their characteristics are common. Firstly, they have the same (common) goal – beauty (and "the arts ... which have one goal are one art"); secondly, they have a common nature – they are "imitation of reality"; thirdly, they are the arts of vision, and "vision of the five senses, the most noble" (!); and, finally, they have a common ontological basis – drawing, they all begin with drawing (including architecture), and this is "the basis, source and progenitor of these arts" [ibid. The italics are mine everywhere. – A. K.]. As a result of understanding their commonality, all three arts – painting, sculpture and architecture – are combined into one group called the "art of drawing", known today as the visual arts. And due to their connection with geometry and arithmetic (the "quadrivia" liberal arts), they accordingly acquire the status of liberal arts. As a result, the artist, sculptor and architect were recognized as belonging to educated representatives of society, and their activities began to be considered as fundamentally different from the craft.

In addition, at this time, another new and very important idea began to form about a work of art as having no obvious practical, utilitarian use, but having value only because of its beauty, i.e. being primarily an aesthetic object ^{[89, p. 51]}. It was realized that the artist's activity differs from the craft not only in its intellectual character, but also the result of his activity – a work of art – has very special qualities: it is valued not as a means "for" (something or someone), which takes place when evaluating the results of handicraft work, but as a self-sufficient, self-valuable object with a purpose in itself, and this fundamentally distinguishes it from all other objects of the material world. And this was also an achievement of the Florentines.

            Vasari's "Biography" and the first official Florentine "Academy of Drawing". But Florence's reminder of its former glory did not end there either. She also loudly declared herself an equally important event of the XVI century – Vasari's fundamental work "The Biography of famous painters, sculptors and architects", which opens a new era in art history. Although Vasari was not a Florentine by birth, but when he found himself in Florence as a 10-year-old child, he formed as an artist of the Florentine school. He studied sculpture and painting with such Florentine masters as B. Bandinelli, A. Sarto and B. Michelangelo, belonged to the second generation of Florentine Mannerists ^{[107, vol. 2, p. 117; 114, p. 61]} and entered the annals of world art history as a Florentine art connoisseur ^{[50, p. 371]} and the Florentine father of art history ^{[52, p. 6]}. Thus, Florence once again reminded itself (and not only the rest of Italy, but also the whole of Europe) that it is also the birthplace of a new scientific discipline – the history of art.

 However, the "patriarch of art studies", as he will be called by J. Bazin would not only create a new branch of science, but would also become the founder of the first official Academy in Florence, the Academy of Drawing, which was destined to be not only the first art academy of a new type, but the prototype and model of all modern art Academies ^{[115, p. 41; 32, vol. 1, p. 28]}.

And although, from a formal point of view, this academy was, it would seem, far from the first ^{[8, p. 26; cf. also: 115, pp. 61-62]}, nevertheless, the associations that still exist were not academies in the modern sense of the word. From a strictly terminological point of view, the word "academy" during this period did not have a firmly fixed meaning: it was used to refer to various meetings, circles, partnerships, communities, free scientific fraternities of humanistically oriented cultural representatives. According to, for example, A. Shastel, "academy" was then called essentially "any gathering of intelligent people" ^{[15, p. 528]}. Even places of such meetings and academic studies could be called "Academy" ^{[32, vol. 1, p. 25]}. However, they were not official institutions, they did not have governing bodies, statutes, fixed membership, etc., their activities were determined rather by the established tradition of erudite meetings and concentrated, as a rule, around one person who stood at the head of such a community and its interests, which was often one of the main reasons for their short-lived nature. However, the transitional nature of the first third of the 16th century affected all forms of Italian cultural life, including the organization and form of activity of academies. Gradually, charters regulating their activities, fixed membership, an orderly structure of officials, and the frequency of meetings or public meetings began to appear in some of them. Academies have begun to ensure the publication of the works of their members. Some of them continued to remain private, while others received recognition and support from the authorities, becoming official institutions ^{[116, p. 184]}. And the first such institution was destined to be the Florentine "Academy of Drawing", which turned out to be "the first truly clearly structured art academy to receive official status" ^{[8, p. 26; 89, p. 52; 115, p. 41; 117, p. 29]}.

The main task of the academy was to unite the best masters and organize professional training for young people in painting, sculpture and architecture, and thereby maintain the high level of fine art that it had achieved in previous periods. The Academy enjoyed the serious organizational, financial and political patronage of Cosimo de' Medici, who headed this institution, which allowed the Academy to become completely independent from the guilds. In the year following its formation (1563), the Charter of the Academy was written and officially presented, which determined its status and finally consolidated the gap between artists and the guild organization. According to the Charter, the Academy introduced compulsory training of young artists in a number of theoretical disciplines such as arithmetic, geometry, perspective, anatomy, and many others, on which lectures were given. Discussions about the superiority of the intellectual principle of the artist's work over a simple craft played an equally important role in the activities of the Academy. As a result, the "drawing", which was recognized as the foundation of any art, began to be unconditionally identified with the "idea", and this, in turn, emphasized and affirmed the "mental" character, and hence the special value and status of artistic activity ^{[15, p. 531]}. Therefore, it is far from accidental that the problems of theory will increasingly come to the fore in the activities of the Academy. And the most significant achievement of the Academy in art studies in these years – and a bright event in Italian cultural life – was the publication of the second – and significantly expanded – edition of Vasari's history of Italian art (under the name "Biographies" already known to us), published just a few years after the establishment of the Academy (1568).  The Biographies were translated into all European languages, including Russian, and served as the basis and model for creating their own national art histories [ibid., p. 46]. As J. Burckhardt notes, without Vasari and his "immeasurable work of importance, there would be no art history of the North and the whole of new Europe in general" ^{[33, p. 287]}.

The "Academy of Drawing" was followed by a number of similar new institutions (in Perugia, Bologna, Rome, and then in other cities ^{[89, p. 52; 115, p. 54-63]}), in the depths of which a new system of professional education was formed, thereby completing a very important process, as a result of which artists received official the status that finally freed them from guild dependence and brought the fine arts beyond the sphere of "mechanical arts".

And finally, this process will be completed at the legal and legal level. And it will also happen in Florence! In 1571, the first official document appeared – the Decree of the Duke of Florence concerning the representatives of the Academy of Drawing, which exempted them from the duties of members of the corresponding guilds in which they belonged. From that moment on, the Academy becomes the only officially recognized professional educational institution representing Florentine art. Thus, the shop structure was overcome ^{[89, p. 52]}. Artists were finally freed from guild dependence (from now on they should no longer consider themselves artisans). Now they were becoming a privileged part of society, filled with a high sense of self-worth. This further contributed to the professional self–affirmation of people of art, among whom ideas were widely spread not just about being chosen, but about the God-chosen artist, his vocation and high social purpose, and Florentine art embarked on a path of relatively autonomous development ^{[8, pp. 26-27; 89, pp. 52; 115, pp. 43; 116, p. 189; 117, p. 27]}.

These are the main (and far from fully enumerated) achievements of Florence and the Florentines, whose creative efforts, daring and talents created a unique phenomenon called the Renaissance. But the above, I think, is more than enough to get an idea of what Florence was not only for Italy itself, but for the whole of Europe, including, of course, Russia. Nevertheless, it is rightly noted that in order to fully appreciate the significance of Florence, "no imagination is enough, none of our wildest ideas about this time, when a small city was boiling with genius, because there was no poet, there was no writer, there was no Renaissance artist ... who would not have passed through the Florentine school" ^{[86, pp. 497-498]}. For all of them "were either born in Florence or studied there," representing Florentine culture with their work. And Florence thus turned into the "artistic capital of the Renaissance" not only of Italy itself, but of the whole of Europe. For essentially a century and a half, it has been the "artistic heart of European culture" [ibid., p. 560]. Therefore, it is not by chance that the spiritual development of Florence during the Quattrocento period is compared with the state of Athens in the 5th century BC – with the era of the highest prosperity of the Greek capital. And Professor A. I. Zaitsev, the author of the famous book about the cultural revolution in Ancient Greece, according to the memoirs of A. Ya. Tyzhov, both in his lectures and in private conversations expressed the idea that the Florentine Renaissance represents an unprecedented "leap forward" of the entire human culture, comparable in its significance and consequences only with the two preceding ones to him, "cultural leaps" in the development of world civilization – the "Neolithic revolution" and the "cultural revolution of the ancient Greeks" ^{[118, p. 5]}.

Berdyaev and Florence. Such achievements of the artistic capital of the Renaissance attracted – and could not but attract – the attention of N. Berdyaev, being the defining argument in choosing Florence as the main goal of his first trip. Here, of course, a quite natural question may arise whether N. Berdyaev was familiar with all the achievements of the cradle of the Renaissance in order to make a conscious choice in favor of this great city. There is no doubt, if not with all the details, that he was well aware of the main achievements of Florentine culture. As already noted [see 119, pp. 57-59], he not only knew the basic literature on the Italian Renaissance perfectly well (both translated and in foreign languages, which he knew perfectly well), but also regularly followed the periodical press and reacted with separate reviews to books that were at the epicenter of the then reader's interest. So from this point of view, he was perfectly prepared and his choice of Florence was, of course, not accidental.             

But to this is added another very important circumstance, outside the context of which all these achievements could have passed by the attention of not only N. Berdyaev. The fact is that it was in the years preceding the philosopher's first Italian journey that the Silver Age rediscovered Italy. And the importance of this discovery was also in the fact that this new appeal and a new rise in increased interest in the Renaissance opened to the Silver Age not the "old Russian Italy" of travelers of the XIX century, the country of Naples, Rome and the Forum, but a new Italy! Now it appeared to the reader at the turn of the century as the birthplace of the Renaissance, represented by its great city – Florence, from which everything began. Florence of the time of Cosimo de' Medici, nicknamed by descendants "Pater Patriae" ("Father of the Fatherland"), during whose reign Florence turned into the capital of the arts, and his grandson Lorenzo the Magnificent, with whom, in turn, the highest rise and flourishing of Florentine culture and art, i.e., like Dante's Italy, will be associated Botticelli, Leonardo and Michelangelo. Therefore, of course, it is no coincidence that the beginning of the discovery of new Italy was marked by the appearance of the then sensational novels by A. L. Volynsky ("The Life of Leonardo da Vinci", 1899) and D. S. Merezhkovsky ("Renaissance" // Beginning, 1899. No. 1-2, 4; fully published in the magazine "The World of God", 1900. No. 1-12; later published under the title: "The resurrected gods.  Leonardo yes  Russian Russian literature opened a new period of appeal to Italy (and at the same time – a period of new discoveries), and these novels, according to him, played an extremely important role in "a new connection of Russian literature with Italian themes" .^{[120, p. 11. Italics are mine. – A. K.]} (along the way, it should be recalled here that N. Berdyaev was perfectly familiar not only with the works of both authors, but also knew them personally, therefore, such literature could not pass by his interested attention; moreover, what is no less important in this case, he believed that they were Through their work, they contributed to the "reassessment of aesthetic values", which eventually led to a "change in the aesthetic consciousness" of the epoch ^{[121, p. 306]}, thanks to which Florence itself was discovered, among other things, as the birthplace of the Renaissance). P. Muratov, for example, was sure that it was D. Merezhkovsky who not only managed to convey in its entirety "a surprisingly vivid ... feeling of Italian Renaissance life", but in essence "discovered" Florence, since it was he who found its "first images" ^{[120, pp. 11, 13]}. And here it is impossible not to recall the amazing power of penetration into the very spirit of the Renaissance – and the awareness of the importance for the last Florence – of the words of D. Merezhkovsky, who wrote literally the following: "I can't think of anything like Florence.… Venice might not have existed. And what would have happened to us if there had been no Florence?" [cit. according to: 122, p. 9. My italics. – A. K.].

If we try to continue these fears of D. Merezhkovsky ("what would happen to us..."), emphasizing the importance of the cradle of the Renaissance, including for Russia, then they may follow: that "if there had been no Florence," there would have been no Renaissance. But if there had been no Italian Renaissance, there would have been no Russian Silver Age!.. It is no coincidence that the latter felt his inner – almost kindred – connection with the Italian Renaissance. And in this, in the words of a contemporary, the "spirit of the era" was also reflected ^{[120, p. 2]}. It is not for nothing that the name "Russian cultural renaissance" was fixed for her, which, by the way, came into use in philosophical, aesthetic and literary-critical thought thanks to N. Berdyaev. A little later, Greaves, the largest Italian scholar and author of several books and articles about Florence (who, according to P. Muratov, "revived the "feeling of Italy" in Russian culture of the late XIX – early XX century"), would confirm this attitude to Florence. But he went even further, arguing that Florence is – no more, no less – the key (!) to understanding the whole of Italy. Hence his recommendations for those who are just starting to get to know the outstanding monuments of Italian art and aspired to a deeper understanding of the culture of this country. "The most convenient place to start your travels is Florence... – the historian advises. – This is one of the most excellent sources of "self–education on monuments" and perhaps the best field for the first acquaintance with everything that Italy gives" ^{[123, p. 55. My italics. – A. K.]}. As a result, every traveler, I. Greves is sure, will be rewarded and "will receive something from Florence the only and irreplaceable thing, without which the personality will remain unfinished in some respects" [ibid., pp. 59-60].

It is clear that such words could have sounded for N. Berdyaev (and not only for him) as a direct recommendation when choosing the main city of the first Italian trip. Moreover, Florence during this period becomes not only the object of increased attention and very special interest, but also the object of universal love. P. Muratov, who does not miss anything, will rightly note in this regard: if we try to find the common thing that united all those who wrote about Italy during this period, then such a sign was undoubtedly "love for Florence" ^{[120, p. 13. My italics. – A. K.]}. Everyone was in love with this "amazing unique" and "the most beautiful city" on earth... and everyone wanted to see the cradle of Rebirth with their own eyes. But perhaps the most revealing in this regard are the confessions of B. Zaitsev, who not only fell in love with this city, but from the very first meeting accepted it as his "native" ... Seeing Florence for the first time, he describes his impressions as follows: "From the very first day, at first glance it turned out – "this is my city." Why? I couldn't explain it. I have no Italian blood in me, I had almost no mental and spiritual training. But ”my city" remains for life... It is enough to see the Palazzo Vecchio tower or the dome of the Cathedral on a postcard to shudder with joy: "ours"" ^{[124, p. 194]}. As a result, Florence not only awakened in him a "high order of thought", forcing him to call it nothing other than "wonderful", "shining and luminous", "divine Florence" ^{[125, pp. 439, 440]}, arousing in him such a strong and "passionate love for Italian art, nature and the city Florence", which made him recognize it as a "second homeland"! ^{[126, p. 90]}. And he had to choose between "Moscow and Florence" ^{[127, p. 195]}. But an equally interesting confession was made later: "... Again about Italy, I can't do without it... if I believed in reincarnation, I would claim that I once lived in Florence, and Dante was almost my neighbor" [ibid., p. 221]. And shortly before death, it will be definitively determined and there will be no "two homelands": "My" city has always been Florence..." [cit. according to: 122, p. 196]. Moreover, this love was so all-consuming that he would like not only to live in "divine Florence", but also to rest in its sacred land: "It is good to die in Florence, because he loved her most during his lifetime" ^{[125, p. 444]}. And almost every representative of the Silver Age, who had visited Florence at least once, could subscribe to many such confessions.

It was this feature – an exceptional love for the cradle of the Renaissance – that fundamentally distinguished all those writing about Italy during this period from their predecessors. And if Florence has not attracted the attention of Russian thought until now, and as an object of interest practically "did not exist for our literature" at all, neither in Pushkin's nor even in Gogol's periods, now, at the turn of the century, Florence has not only attracted universal attention, but also "has become an artistic shrine for us, – the same P. Muratov states, – and above all, as the birthplace of Leonardo" ^{[120, p. 13. My italics. – A. K.]}. However, it was also the birthplace of Dante, Botticelli, and Michelangelo, who will also be – not by chance – in the center of attention of the Silver Age. Therefore, for the vast majority of representatives of this period, there was no question: "where to go?" on my first Italian trip. The very "spirit of the epoch" imperiously pointed to the "artistic shrine"! That's where Berdyaev's passionate desire to go to Florence comes from! And only to Florence! Moreover, the above-mentioned confessions of the philosopher's contemporaries regarding Florence will be no less characteristic of him. He will also be "passionately in love" with his "divine Florence", which he "loved with exceptional love" ^{[4, p. 19]}, he was also "always very worried" about Leonardo, and no less reverently he treated Botticelli, "very beloved" and revered by him, whom he literally "became obsessed with", and also being a creature of the Silver Age, which had a decisive aesthetic influence on the very spirit of this era, as evidenced by the words of the same B. Zaitsev: "There was a time when Botticelli didn't tell people anything… but here we are, nurtured on him, pierced by his tenderness, light, sadness, so we will leave with him..." ^{[124, p. 196. My italics. – A. K.]}. There is no doubt that the spirit of the era really manifested itself in this, which objectively contributed to the increased interest both, in fact, in Florence and its brilliant representatives. Therefore, N. Berdyaev's choice of Florence as the main goal of his first trip, as we now see, was not only far from accidental, but in a certain sense predetermined! And to paraphrase the famous saying about Rome ("tutte le strade conducono a Roma"), he could just as well say: "All roads lead to Florence"! In any case, there was no choice for him in this matter!..

And on August 28, 1904, he finally entered his much-adored Florence. And the cradle of Rebirth did not disappoint his expectations. On the same day, being under the greatest impression of everything he saw, he writes his future wife a whole message. And the first words immediately sound on the highest note: "Today I arrived in divine Florence… This is an absolutely extraordinary city, everything is extraordinary here..." ^{[5, p. 233. The italics are mine. – A. K.]}. Even the hotel room in which he stayed seems extraordinary to him. He is struck by its unusual size, it is too "tall and long", and in addition – with a strange, "bizarre ceiling". Its windows are also unusual: "long and narrow" and are located so high that they "need to be reached by stairs." The window also offers an "extraordinary view" of a very narrow street, giving the impression that you can even touch the windows of the opposite side with your hand. Both this extraordinary setting and the view from the window take him back to the Middle Ages for a moment. "I look out the window and feel medieval life, it was on such a street that the Montagues and Capulets were supposed to collide. The famous struggle of the Guelphs and Ghibellines took place here… Dante lived here and his house has been preserved. Savonarola preached here and was burned in the famous piazza della Signoria. There is now an eternal fountain in this place, with which posterity wanted to pour the fire of the bonfire on which one of the greatest people of Florence burned down" [ibid., pp. 233-234]. He immerses himself in the spirit of a distant era and strives to feel the cultural and artistic-aesthetic atmosphere that contributed to the disclosure of so many talents and the creation of so many artistic masterpieces. And wherever he turned out to be, and whatever he saw, from "every corner" of Florence, according to him, there was a sense of centuries-old history and, of course, "the greatest beauty" that would accompany him literally at every step (for which, as we remember, he actually came here: "...I want to return to my homeland under the impression of the greatest beauty" [ibid., p. 231. My italics. – A. K.]). Botticelli, Leonardo, Michelangelo worked here... And as if to confirm the above parting words of I. Greves regarding Florence, he recognizes their justice and confirms: "There is no city in the world in which so many great monuments of architecture, sculpture and painting have accumulated, here you can see the Renaissance in the works of first–class masters" [ibid., p. 234. My italics. - However, Botticelli makes the strongest impression on him. And, apparently, not by chance. Because, as it turns out, he was imbued with a very special attitude to his work – and tragic fate – even before his first Italian trip, under the impression of the literature he had read ("I always had a predilection for Botticelli...") [ibid., p. 234]. And the meeting with the original work of the artist only confirmed his preferences. And at the end of the letter – again about the "greatest beauty"! Overwhelmed with impressions of its diversity and diversity, he burns with one desire: "I would so like to transfer all this beauty to you" [ibid., p. 234. My italics. – A. K.].

Unfortunately, there are too few specifics in this letter. From it, we will never know where and in what places N. Berdyaev visited that day (except for a brief mention of Dante's "house" and the place of the burning of Savonarola), what else he saw from the works of art and which masters (except Botticelli). And as if apologizing to his addressee for the too general nature of the letter, he admits that he has seen "little and too superficially" so far, hoping, apparently, to share his impressions of his stay in "divine Florence" in more detail in the following letters.   

However, we know only one more of his messages from Florence, written "a few days" (dated 08/31/13/09 A.D. / 1904) after the first, which reflected direct impressions of the cradle of the Renaissance and its monuments. It is not yet possible to say definitively whether it was really the last one, or whether only two (mentioned here) really reached us his Florentine epistles (although, returning from Florence via Vienna, in a letter from the latter he dropped a very important phrase from this point of view: "I wrote to you very often" ^{[5, p. 235. The italics are mine. – A. K.]}, and already in the first Kiev letter he will clarify: "I wrote almost every day" [ibid., p. 237. My italics. – A. K.], which gives reason to assume that there were significantly more letters, including from Florence, and that, consequently, most of his Florentine impressions may simply have not reached us or have not yet been discovered). But this "last" Florentine letter (in terms of the generality of impressions) is actually similar to the first one. However, this does not detract from its importance. For his very first lines indicate that he was not just under the greatest impression of everything he saw, but experienced a real shock these days, and an aesthetic shock at that. "For several days now I have been out of life, out of modernity, out of people. It is as if I was transported to the distant past and I live by its beauty" [ibid., p. 234. My italics. – A. K.]. It is obvious that during these days he finally managed to immerse himself in the very spirit of the "far past" and feel its special atmosphere, because, according to him, all these days he It was as if he was in some other-a completely different, special–world. "I will long remember these days when I came into contact with "other worlds", when the hustle and bustle of life was so infinitely far from me and the shadows of Dante, Savonarola, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo were so close" [ibid. My italics. – A. K.]. One can only guess what (and how strong and unusual) impressions and experiences a person had to experience in order to write such words ("touched the worlds of "other"..."). It can also be assumed that the word "shadows" is used here not only figuratively, but also as a result of his direct acquaintance (except Botticelli, which is not necessary to talk about due to his "predilection" for this master), including with the original works of Leonardo and Michelangelo, whose work he, of course, he could not leave without his attention. It is all the more significant that here he mentions exactly those masters who were discovered – and who were mostly talked about – by representatives of the Silver Age! And this undoubtedly reflected the epoch-making preferences. Of course, he couldn't help but say at least a few words about his "most beloved" Botticelli. And although these words will fit into just one sentence, nevertheless, they clearly indicate that this master has entered his creative life forever: "But I am really obsessed with Botticelli, I can't even talk about him and I can't think..." [ibid., p. 235. My italics. – A. K.]. Therefore, it is far from accidental that this artist will be one of the main characters in his "Sense of Creativity" (and above all, the section in which he will comprehend the creative tragedy of the Renaissance). Of course, he could not help but touch on the beauty he extolled, without mentioning which none of his messages could do: "here (i.e. in Florence. – A. K.) timeless beauty" [ibid. My italics. – A. K.], completely far from everything earthly, utilitarian and transitory, which took him to "other worlds". As a result, Florence not only did not disappoint his aesthetic expectations, but also appeared to him as a "place of the greatest beauty" [ibid., p. 238. Italics are mine. – A. K.] (he will add these words already in one of the first letters, having returned to his homeland, but being still under the strongest impression from the first meeting with the capital of the Renaissance).

And there is another important aspect that Florence inspired for him during this visit: she "reconciled" him with Western Europe. And this reconciliation happened again thanks to beauty! It happened in one of the temples of Florence – S. Annunziata, decorated with wonderful frescoes, representing, in his words, "a miracle of art", in which he attended the divine service. And all this situation, accompanied by the sounds of the organ, for the first time suddenly made him feel and understand "the great power of Catholicism over human souls, from which it [i.e. humanity. – A. K.] still cannot free itself" ^{[5, p. 234]}. And the beauty of the whole setting suddenly shifted his mind to social issues that had always been at the center of his attention. "Never, never will rationalistic socialism be so powerful and beautiful. Rationalism leads us into the realm of reason, clear, organized, which killed the “fairy tale”, and in the “fairy tale” all the beauty of life. In Florence, I reconciled myself to Western Europe, there is no place for hatred of petty-bourgeois positivism" [ibid., pp. 234-235].

            And as a kind of conclusion to the Florentine impressions, it remains here to cite excerpts from his already quoted first Kiev letter, written immediately after his return to his homeland, which – in this context – can be considered as a preliminary result (although very brief, but very indicative), since it is obvious that he was still under direct influence the impression of an Italian trip. "I feel like I'm moving forward internally... I am now trying to comprehend a lot of foreign impressions, because I have seen so many people, so many places" ^{[5, p. 238. My italics. – A. K.]}. By the last words, he means at the same time meetings that took place primarily in a number of European cities, in which he briefly stayed even before trips to Florence. And although he also returned from the capital of the Renaissance through Europe, in particular, through Vienna, but this stay was along the way (he intended to stay here for only 1-2 days [ibid., p. 235], therefore, meetings with "many people" – and even more so in "many places" – could not be speech; a letter from Vienna dated about 02.09.1904 [ibid., p. 235], and on September 5 he was already in Kiev [ibid., p. 236]). Nevertheless, his final conclusions are as follows.

          There is no doubt that Florence made the "strongest impression" on him, and could have made it, of course! [ibid., p. 238]. The cradle of the Renaissance could not have "rival" cities by definition. And his enthusiastic expression – "divine Florence", which he wrote out with inspiration already in his first Florentine letter, speaks for itself. Therefore, he was "very pleased" with his journey, as he took out of it a whole "lot of impressions" [ibid., p. 236]. He will live with these impressions until his second Italian trip. And he had no doubt that it would take place–in any case, it certainly must take place. After all, this first trip lasted only 4-5 days. The "timeless", "greatest beauty" – which he wrote about and which he dreamed of being impressed with – in such a short time will not only not be comprehended, but you will not even have time to physically observe. And we remember what N. Berdyaev said about the necessary prerequisites for such comprehension. "One must live in beauty in order to know it" ^{[3, p. 235. My italics. – A. K.]}. Hence it becomes clear that the return to Florence was only a matter of time. It was necessary to live in this cradle of Rebirth and its eternal, timeless beauty... And it would be "the greatest bliss," N. Berdyaev admits, to return to "places of the greatest beauty" (and moreover with his future wife) ^{[5, p. 238]}, but not for a few days, but at least (given a number of circumstances limiting these terms) for a few months. He will do this in the near future, though not as soon as he would like. In the winter of 1912, he would indeed return to his divine Florence, but now not alone, but with his regular correspondent (who would become his wife almost immediately after the first Florentine trip; one can even assume that Florence played a role in this regard...). But this is a topic for another conversation.