Worldly Goods promises a new look at the European Renaissance from a different point of view. Lisa Jardine, a professor of English at the University of London, proposes an interpretation of the period in terms of the growth of commerce and a new consumerism and multiculturalism.
However, the information offered does not seem new. Rulers and wealthy men have always been conspicuous consumers. Jardine attempts, for example, to turn around our view of the flowering of art as merely a series of demonstrations of the wealth of patrons who commissioned the works, a sort of competition to show who is most wealthy or powerful. But simply providing examples of patrons who specified expensive materials or the inclusion of their goods in pictures doesn’t prove this point.
Jardine does a better job of showing how the development of printing made the exchange of ideas easier, thus affecting the advances in many different fields, including the arts and the sciences. However, her argument that the policy decisions of the period were all driven by the dictates of commerce is taking things too far, I think.
The book is well written and lively. It does not back up its assertions with footnotes or a bibliography, however, indicating that it is written for the general public but frustrating those who would like to look further. At some point, I felt that the examples were becoming too repetitive and no new points were being made. For example, Chapter Three is about the proliferation of books and printing, but Jardine continues to make the same points about printing and the sharing of scientific and technical information repeatedly throughout the rest of the book.
Although the history provides an interesting discussion of commerce during the Renaissance, it is oversold as a complete history of the period.
What? Me Read? 
It is the marxist virus of John Berger that Ms Jardine must have caught. This theory could be funny were it not based on ignorance.
OK, now I have to look up John Berger! It didn’t seem very Marxist in tone, however. The idea was that the desire to show off their wealth and possessions spawned orders for costly works of art, thus causing the flowering of art. And when books were originally printed, they were still hand ornamented but printers soon produced many less expensive manuscripts that proliferated, thereby spreading the news of advances in science and technology, as well as prints of artworks.
This is not just marxist, it seems – from your description – to be what is known as vulgar marxist. The simple idea that arts were serving the ruling classes and that spiritual development was following economic advancement becomes logical and attractive if at least 50% of influences on art and artists are discarded (or not “noticed”). St.Francis and his teachings? Forget it as superstition. What’s left then? Oh, the surge in immigrant artsts from Constantinople caused by the need to have more land. Easy. Alas, not true ) I love crossing swords with marxists. Ever since I had to study marxism at uni.
Well, I didn’t think she did a good job of supporting her position. I agree that there was a lot more to the flowering of art than the commissions.