Preface to 2nd Edition
C = Classicism, R = Romanticism, M = Modernism
Originally published 1943 as R and the Modern Ego. In 1943 it seemed to Barzun that the 20C was the enemy of R. "The 19C was considered a regrettable interlude ... Professor Irving Babbitt of Harvard was only one of numerous publicists who demonstrated the folly of R thought in art and life. Rousseau, being well known by name as well as a central influence upon the Rs, was the chief scapegoat" (xv-i). Others were Coleridge, Shelley, Byron, Hugo, Keats, Leopardi, Chateaubriand, Berlioz, Schlegel, Newman, even Goethe. Though aware of the weaknesses [of R], Barzun "could not concur in this orgy of denunciation ... As for a change of direction in our culture, I would have welcomed it, whatever its form - classical, primitive, or archaic" (xvii). But he felt a true change would mean a break not from the R of a century before, but from the Realism (Impressionism, Sybolism) of 30 yrs before. In 1939 he wrote the dissenting essay "To the Rescue of R" for TAE, which struck a nerve (mostly protest). His Darwin, Marx, Wagner looked at these, his "three titular [Realist] heroes", and their debt to R. This book is his fuller explanation of his dissent from the conventional anti-R view (dedicated to fellow Columbia prof Lionel Trilling), and was often assigned to students, "sometimes in conjunction with one of Irving Babbitt's ... so that the R mind and the rectangular [mind] may be seen side by side" (xix). By 1961, R had "become respectable again and most attacks [dealt] legitimately w/its substance and not a phantom" (xix). He sees these CRM -isms as "fundamentally social and political [v. esthetic] ... R in politics is variously taken to mean the excessive individualism that leads to anarchy and the excessive authority that leads to tyranny. Rousseau is made to bear the guilt for both. When originally published, my thesis had to meet the plausible arguments of those who believed that German and Italian fascism were R resurgent. Others thought that Russian communism was the logical consequence of R socialism and nationalism. Today, when threats to a passable life are found severally in mass culture, in the conservative revolution, and in the revolt of the beat generation, the temptation is strong to explain and damn them all by reference to a new wave of R ... But if we distinguish between historical and perennial R as I try to do in Ch 1, it becomes clear that the tendency of historic R is away from authority and toward liberty, away from the acceptance of caked wisdom and toward the exploratory development of the individual, away from the secure fixities and toward the sovereignty of the people" (xx-i). He accuses C of aristocratic tendencies and R of populist ones. "R diversity ends by making men desire C order, just as in the beginning R showed that the only possible life lay outside the C trammels" (xxii). So, they react to one another's excesses or inherent negatives.
Hmmm, I'm afraid Barzun has bought into the Liberal History Lesson (see br-ttif), and takes R's aspirations at face value, not recognizing that they talk about liberty, but actually deliver tyranny (e.g. French Rev, modern welfare state). Conversely, C's may sometimes sound authoritarian, but actually deliver a workable liberty (via e.g. limited govt, individual liberty AND responsibility [encourage virtue, discourage vice], balance of powers [checks and balances], rule of law, property rights, low regs/taxes, free trade, stable money, civil society, free enterprise/mkts, traditional [Christian] values, strong natl defense).
1: Romanticism - Dead or Alive?
I: p/u @p1
II:
III:
2: Rousseau and Modern Tyranny
I:
II:
III:
3: The Classic Objection
I:
II:
III:
4: Romantic Art
I:
II:
(I've read to here, p71) III:
5: Romantic Life
6: The Four Phases of Romanticism
7: The Modern Ego
8: The Three Revolutions
9: Epilogue: Romanticism in 1960
10: "Romantic" - A Sampling of Modern Usage
Other books by Barzun include:
- From Dawn to Decadence 2000
- The House of Intellect 1959
- The Modern Researcher 1957
- God's Country and Mine 1954
- Teacher in America 1945
- Darwin, Marx, Wagner 1941
Hmmm, in The Law (see br-tLaw), Frederic Bastiat belives classical education promotes the pernicious idea of the masses as 'clay' and elite leaders as 'potters,' citing Montesquieu, Rousseau, Fenelon, ... leads to the desire to push The Law beyond its proper role of merely preventing injustice (negative liberty) to promoting whatever the elites want more of (but thereby provoking a rush by all for the levers of power, a 'war of all against all' to live at others' expense (i.e. plunder). Interesting!
Intro: Perspectives on the Medieval World (pp. 9-28)
- Renaissance to Enlightenment
The theme here is 'Middle Ages, 'Gothic' style bad; classicism, good.' Exemplars include humanists (Petrarch, Erasmus, Dante, Boccaccio, see Paul Johnson's Renaissance), 17C dramatist Moliere, architect Sir Christopher Wren. Rounded 'romanesque' arches. Bartlett says each age 'creates' its own version of the 'Middle Ages.' For instance, "the Middle Ages of the 18C Enlightenment - brutal, superstitious, sordid - was utterly different from that of the Romantics - spiritual, chivalrous, beautiful" (portrayed in El Cid and Ivanhoe). This continues to be contentious. Hmmm, does that make Stark a type of neo-Romantic? I'm reminded here of Jacques Barzun's book Classic, Romantic, and Modern (1961, about successive and continuing swing of pendulum back and forth). The original break came with the (first?) humanist Petrarch in 14C. He and his followers (the first 'leftists'? hmmm) rejected the 'dark' ages and harkened back to Greek-Roman times for their model, especially stressing literature (Virgil) and not so much religion. Later, the Reformers agreed w/the humanists about medieval degradation, but focused not on lost literature/learning as their ideal but on the 'purity' of the early church, corrupted over the ages by the RCC. The Romantics rejected classicism and refocused on the Middle Ages. "In contrast to the formalism, classicism, and rationalism of 18C [Enlightenment], 19C Romantics stressed emotion and mystery, local color and popular speech, the simple and the natural ... [they felt that] modern egotism [had sadly] replaced medieval chivalry" (13-4). These questions and struggles are obviously still with us to this day (also see br-rs).
- The Romantic Revolution
Here's the 19C reaction against classicism. Exemplars poet Heinrich Heine, painter Franz Pforr, Sir Walter Scott (invented 'historical novel' genre, e.g. Ivanhoe, ...), composer Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert and Sullivan), Daniel Maclise (Friend of Dickens, Disraeli), novelist Victor Hugo, Thomas Percy, Achim von Arnim, Clemens Brentano (hence bookstore name), Brothers Grimm, Alexandre de Laborde, architect A W N Pugin ("boldly asserted the superiority of Gothic style and its essentially Christian nature, [v. pagan classicism, claiming] the pointed arch was produced by the Catholic faith" p15), Charles Barry, Viollet-le-Duc (Notre Dame, Sainte Chapelle, Carcassonne), pointed 'Gothic' arches. The Romantic Revolution coincided with 2 other revolutions; the 1789 French Revolution (i.e. radical democracy) and the Industrial Revolution [IR]. Its hard to characterize this diverse and complex [Romantic] movement. "It may seem at first that Romantic Medievalism and the democratic revolution were opposites ... e.g. pro-Romantic, chivalric, Gothic values Chateaubriand was a victim of the French Revolution and a supporter of the restored Bourbon monarchy ... If it is the case that Romanticism created the Middle Ages, it is also probable that the IR generated Romanticism. The IR was one of the deepest breaks with the past that Europeans had ever encountered ... far more profound rupture than even ... the fall of the Roman Empire or the Reformation. Some cheered at leaving the Medieval World behind, while others were wistful or frightened" (16-7, mixed reaction continues today).
- The Middle Ages and the Nation
Romanticism, while Europe-wide, was intensely nationalist. "The search for the popular was always the search for one'w own people." The [German] theorist Johann Gottfried von Herder was influential in the Romantic movement. He originated the theory that "nations exist [i.e. are an existential reality] and are communities of common language, each with its own spirit ... even that the favorite national epic stories had created their national spirits [i.e. man-made, hmmm, looking for direction to 'the people' instead of God, objective Truth in the face of faltering faith?]. The leading French nationalist theorist was Jules Michelet (1798-1874). There was a surge of interest in folklore, favorite stories, especially 'national epics' like the [French] Song of Roland, Joan of Arc, [British] Beowulf, [German] Nibelungenlied (hmmm, these of the Matters of Britain, France, etc. discussed in DoKA), even a 'boldly tendentious' Irish version (i.e. of an ancient Irish 'state'). It was axiomatic for the Romantics that [at least] their own nation had had an ancient primordial existence. Hmmm, you can see how this type of nationally competitive thinking could lead to the 'will to power' to dominate all other nations. While this movement did lead to a welcome high level of quality scholarship, it was not without a [nationalist] political edge. There was definitely a German/French rivalry. The French were especially irked by German supremacy in linguistic, philological studies (p18, even in French language development!), and launched their own research efforts to counter this. German, French, and English partisans all claimed the 'Gothic' style for their own!? :-) In 1870-1 came the German [Prussian, i.e. 'Blood and Iron'] military defeat of France (German army surrounded Paris even as scholarly conference took place there). The Germans proclaimed the founding of the 2nd German Empire (i.e. Reich, the 1rst was led by Charlemagne, Barbarossa, the 3rd [later] by Hitler). At this point (late 19C), "post-Romantic nationalist use of the Middle Ages" reached an extreme form, in a time of crisis (p19). The Germans portrayed medieval 'Teutonic Knights' as "military champions of Western Civilization" (19). Mad King Ludwig was entranced by this romantic vision [also promoted by Wagner's operas] and built his Neuschwanstein Castle as a [supposedly, but actually highly imaginative] recreation of that of a Teutonic Knight. This idea was later picked up by Disney. In Britain, the Arthurian legends "mixed with a little Scotch" filled the same purpose. Bishop Stubbs famously wrote of British continuity from Anglo-Saxon times, Gaston Paris for France. What they all sought for their 'national stories' was "unity, identity, continuity" (20). This goes on today. Charlemagne was chosen as symbolic of the EU (i.e. a revived Carolingian Empire, encompassing France and Germany, and ...). Charlemagne has always been problematic for Germans and French, since his empire included both. They both try to claim him exclusively. Bartlett even says a recent book Before France and Germany (which I bought recently at FHL used book sale!) had to be given the title The Birth of France for publication there! Obviously still kind of a sensitive topic.
In America, the founders and founding were/was mostly classicist. Bartlett cites Twain's aCYiKAC as a typically American, dim view of the Middle Ages and their backwardness, injustice (pic of knight, bishop, jester riding on peasant's back). Romanticism was "late and weak" in America. His romantic exemplar here was Henry Adams' Mont St. Michal ..., which praised 'High French Middle Ages" as the "great epoch of Christian Civilization." Fascinatingly, while the Gothic revival was mild in the heartland, it hit hard in academia, with many campus architectural legacies of Gothic style (Princeton's Tower, could I add Wheaton's tower?). Hmmm, linked to academic leftism? He cites here the architect Ralph Adams Cram (1863-1942), a fan of Ruskin, Morris.
Hmmm, Henry Adams is usually thought of as an early American conservative (e.g. by Russell Kirk, "prescription") in his appeal to history, precedent, respect for tradition, etc. See discussion of crucial 1932? election v. Andrew Jackson, considered a loss for conservatism to populism. But here Adams is paired w/romantic movement. Also, remember that even the 'classical' Julius Caesar was a 'man of the left', appealing to the common people against the aristocrats. So, appeals to populism often mask imperial ambitions. Am I a classicist, a romanticist or some mix?
- The Controversial Middle Ages
- The Twentieth Century
In recently reviewing br-pote, it occurs to me that cathedral design involves quite a bit of 'formalism, classicism, rationalism' (its a science itself!). Also, Jedediah Purdy makes the point that many belief systems (he esp. focuses on nationalism, fundamentalism) are based on myths, they're derivative, not real. They reflect people's idealizations or romanticizations, not reality. Hmmm, maybe the left-right divide was started when humanists, then later Reformers, chose to idealize different aspects of the ancient world, when what we SHOULD do is tame our perfectionist expecatations (Dragons of Expectation) and accept people, the world the way it IS (i.e. recognize sinfulness, reject utopianism). Of course, we Christians still harbor God-given, Christ-implementing ideals, but we must recognize that we can't make them happen, and stop trying to 'immanentize the eschaton' (Eric Voegelin's phrase).