The Crisis in the Arts of the Seventeenth Century: a Crisis Of
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xl:2 (Autumn, 2009), 239–261. CRISIS IN THE ARTS Peter Burke The Crisis in the Arts of the Seventeenth Century: A Crisis of Representation? Because the term crisis in general and the idea of a seventeenth-century crisis in particular have been the objects of acute criticism, a formal deªnition is in order. One might speak, for instance, of a “crisis of conªdence”— in other words, a decline. However, conªdence is not easy to measure, and, in any case, it is necessary to ask, “Conªdence in what” (church, state, or humanity)? In the context of witch trials, discussed in this issue by Edward Bever, the phrase “crisis of con- ªdence” is a precise one, but it becomes vaguer when it is used about the arts. To avoid such a problem, the deªnition of crisis employed herein is a fairly precise one, close to the medical origins of the term in ancient Greece, where it referred to the moment in an illness when a patient was poised between death and recovery, or to seventeenth-century usage, exempliªed by a speech in the House of Commons in 1627 by Sir Benjamin Rudyerd about the “crisis of parliaments” that would determine whether the Parlia- ment would “live or die.” Burckhardt, perhaps the ªrst historian to make a serious use of the term, also used the metaphor of a fever.1 The pathological overtones of this metaphor, however, are an obstacle to understanding, and in what follows an attempt will be Peter Burke is Emeritus Professor of Cultural History and Life Fellow of Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge.
[Show full text]