Talk:Cosimo de' Medici

Untitled

The medici family was very intersted in the rebirth of learning in europe.

Inner conflict

The article says Cosimo never married, at the end the part about issue says "Cosimo married Contessina de' Bardi (the daughter of Giovanni, count of Vernio, and Emilia Pannocchieschi)." Which one is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.138.254 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Connection with Hermeticism

Hello! I wonder why it isn't even mentioned that this man founded the "Platonic Academy", where Leonardo of Pistoia brought some Greek handwritings which were translated by Marsilio Ficino there and which were believed to be written by Hermes Trismegistos. (: Myrmeleon formicarius 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He was an powerful ruler of Florence,Italy,who valued education and culture is a more simple explaination for him...

There was no "Platonic Academy" as posited by Della Torre in his famous, but now-outdated 1902 monograph Vita di Lorenzo il Magnifico: uomo, poeta, politico. The Platonic Academy has been the subject of much discussion over the past twenty years. It seems unlikely that Ficino ever taught in a school-like environment, but rather used the term “Academia” to describe his teaching methods. Neverthless, the Platonic Academy has become the emblematic for discussion groups among humanists concerned with philosophy and classical learning. See James Hankins, "Cosimo de’ Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’, The Myth of the Platonic Academy of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici as a Patron of Philosophy, and The Invention of the Platonic Academy of Florence," in Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vol., (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003-4) 2: 187-217, 219-72, 273-316, 351-95; Robert Black, “The philosopher and Renaissance culture,” in Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2007), 21-23; Christopher S. Celenza, “The revival of Platonic philosophy,” in Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), 83. Hfeatherina (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong birth date?

The "article" page says that Cosimo de' Medici was born September 7th 1389, but I think that is dubious. According to http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9740780 he was born April 10th 1389. According to a Danish biography, he was born March 31th 1389. So what is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.235.213 (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-I found 3 or 4 websites where he was born in September, but they all had different dates, I don't think anyone's actually sure of his birth date.

The April 10 "On This Day" list of births also links here, with seems a bit contradicting considering his birth date on this page is September 27th! Considering that sources seem to change in regards to September, im going to change this to the 10th April until it gets confirmed either way and removed from the Birth list on the April 10 page. Silica-gel (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually im editing this page and all the websites say he was born on april 10th...ive view 7 or 8 of them for my school project and im positive it was april 10!

so ur welcome for my geniusity...thats just me!

Is that portrait the wrong Cosimo?? - if the artist painted it from life, that is the second Cosimo di Medici, not the fifteenth century Cosimo di Medici.

• I removed this message from the top of the page. Yes indeed it is the wrong Cosimo. I have transferred it to the correct page. Amandajm (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I jut read a new book about a PhD that as a decedent of this complex intermingling indicates another possibility of the generational squabble that resulted in the Sforza attack. He has several pictures of prominent figures and in one image the individual who is sitting in profile holding a large book open propped on a shelf that to me seems to be the point of the picture, not as the author describes, the book itself. The shelf is an adaptation of the Tao symbol of two teardrops adapted to reflect its propagation by the Catholic church; instead of two teardrops there is 3, one for each of the Trinity. The gentleman's son is aglow under this shelf support. It is an obvious reference to information, secret important information, that was held by the church and its Popes. Another picture uses in the background a wooden decor that consists of a screen using wooden circles of with the Tao symbol of two intermingles tears unchanged. I infer that Cosimo's return from exile was connected to the visit from the Chinese world exploration fleet under Zweng He. Additional support for this is that one page of this book describes meeting in Cosimo's castle where rare animals, live and stuffed, were displayed. That this visit resulted in information given to the Medici at Florence was 'confiscated' when Zweng He failed to return. After years, this information was diffused outward and was seen as what it clearly was not, an European idea. More clearly, had Zweng He returned, this wondrous information would have been the basis of trade. How much must have been know to disseminate so much freely.

When he failed to return the church gained the power to claim supremacy but the knowledge came from China, where, as the Emperor told the powers who centuries later wanted to open trade routes; "We know all things, we have no need of your wares." Gavin Mendez's 1421 and the subsequent book 1434 are important in reconstructing our history. What if without this special knowledge Europe's city states had led to one winner--a united Europe. This leads to all sorts of speculation as to what the world would look like uncolonized. 71.83.37.110 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That first portrait is not by Bronzino, who was not even born when this Cosimo died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35F8:1730:AC9E:3B77:CCB1:7673 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It's entirely possible to paint a posthumous portrait. Bronzino also painted Dante when this person was well and truly dead. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Britannica gives his birth date as Sept 27, as does several other reputable websites. Findagrave is not a reputable source - it is a user generated site. It is now also saying Sept 27 anyway. NorthWildwood (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@NorthWildwood In the first paragraph of "Early life and family business", it's stated that Cosimo was born on 27 September, was named after Saint Cosmas whose feast day was celebrated on 27 September, and that he would later celebrate his own birthday on that day rather than on the actual date of his birth. The correction of his birthdate has now made a nonsense of the penultimate sentence of that paragraph. Would you like first dibs at rewording it? R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK) (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Disgraceful brevity

The brevity of this article is disgraceful. I intend on turning this into a top-notch, "very good" article. I own a wealth of books on the period, and shall be translating the "exzellent" German article. Some day soon I hope Cosimo will have a wikipedia page befitting such an important figure. Philologick (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Good! I look forward to the results! AWhiteC (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Funding of Brunelleschi's Dome

I recently restored a claim that "Cosimo's patronage enabled the eccentric and bankrupt architect Brunelleschi to complete the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore (the "Duomo") which was perhaps his crowning achievement as sponsor." The claim had been deleted with the comment "This is a completely fictional fabrication coming from the shameful MEDICI: MASTERS OF FLORENCE tv series."

I feel that the claim is true and ought to remain in place. I offer as evidence chapter 9 of P. Strathern's "The Medici: Masters of the Renaissance" – for example p. 106.

Please debate this matter here rather than starting a revert war. AWhiteC (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

contradictories

some of the parts contradicts with the rest of the article, this might be due to the lack of encyclopedia tone 2404:7AC0:46C3:1DAE:C7A0:6118:C969:131A (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)