The Crisis in the Arts of the Seventeenth Century: a Crisis Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. He is the author of Languages and Communities in Early Modern Eu- rope (New York, 2004); Eyewitnessing (Ithaca, 2001). The author thanks Theodore K. Rabb and Edward Bever for their comments on the ªrst draft of this paper. © 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc. 1 Randolph Starn, “Historians and Crisis,” Past & Present, 52 (1971), 3–22; John H. Elliott, “Revolution and Continuity in Early Modern Europe,” ibid., 42 (1969), 35–56; rpr. in Geoffrey Parker and Lesley M. Smith (eds.), The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century (Lon- don, 1978), 110–133; J. B. Shank, “Crisis: A Useful Category of Post-Social Scientiªc Histori- cal Analysis?” American Historical Review, CXIII (2008), 1090–1099. Rudyerd quoted in Reinhard Koselleck, “Krise,” in Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, and idem (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1972– 1997), III, 620; Jacob Burckhardt, “Die geschichtlichen Krisen,” in Weltgeschichtliche Betrach- tungen (Leipzig, 1938; orig. pub. 1905), 157–205. For Burckhardt, see Theodor Schieder, “Die historischen Krisen im Geschichtsdenken Jacob Burckhardts,” in Begegnungen mit der Geschichte (Göttingen, 1962), 129–162. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jinh.2009.40.2.239 by guest on 28 September 2021 240 | PETER BURKE made to avoid them. In this article, the term will be used in a neu- tral manner to refer to a relatively short period of turbulence (a few decades at most) that is followed by structural changes that last for a relatively long time (a century or more). This deªnition is not so different from that employed by Clark in the introduction to his classic work The Seventeenth Century, when he spoke of a major “watershed” in European history in the middle of the sev- enteenth century, “a change accompanied by storms.” This idea implies a clear contrast between periods of crisis and periods of non-crisis, thereby helping to prevent the devaluation of our con- ceptual currency by ªnding crises everywhere. It also implies studying a crisis or crises in the seventeenth century rather than a crisis of the seventeenth century, giving particular attention to the years between 1640 and 1660 in order to test the notion that the century was “broken in the middle, irreparably broken.”2 As for the “arts,” the word will be employed herein to refer to the visual arts, literature, and music, focusing on cultural history in the traditional narrow or precise sense, distinguished from intel- lectual history (including the history of science), from the history of popular culture, and from the history of culture in the wide an- thropological sense of the term. Although it would be unwise to assume that developments in all of these arts followed the same chronology, we can at least point to some themes that were not conªned to one medium. The so-called “transverberation” of St. Teresa, for instance, appealed to the English poet Richard Crashaw as well as to the Italian sculptor Gianlorenzo Bernini, and another of Bernini’s works, the transformation of Daphne into a laurel tree, was also the subject of poems by the Italian Giambat- tista Marino and the Pole Samuel Twardowski. the historiography of crisis The idea of a seventeenth- century crisis is old enough, and controversial enough, to allow us to speak of an “Eighty Years’ War” fought over it. In 1929, Clark organized his study of the seventeenth century around the idea of a structural change in the middle of the period, even if he did not employ the term “crisis.” In the same year, Croce’s History of the 2 George N. Clark, The Seventeenth Century (New York, 1929), ix; Hugh R. Trevor- Roper, “The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” Past & Present, 16 (1959), 20. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jinh.2009.40.2.239 by guest on 28 September 2021 CRISIS IN THE ARTS | 241 Baroque Age in Italy, which concentrated on literature, described the baroque as the art of “decadence,” “perversion,” or “corrup- tion.” He occasionally used the term crisis, but only to refer to the invasion of Italy in 1494, not the seventeenth century. Clark and Croce were followed in the 1930s by Borkenau, Willey, and Haz- ard. The Austrian Marxist Borkenau studied a transition between two worldviews—one traditional and “feudal” and the other me- chanical, mathematical, and “bourgeois”—during the age of René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes, while the other two scholars dis- cussed both literature and ideas. Willey discussed what he called the increasingly “precarious” position of poetry in a scientiªc age, exposed to what John Keats famously dubbed “the touch of cold philosophy,” whereas Hazard identiªed what he called a European “crisis of consciousness” in the 1680s and 1690s.3 All the same, it was not until the 1950s that the idea of a sev- enteenth-century crisis became a serious object of debate among academic historians. In Britain, Hobsbawm’s’s emphasis was pri- marily economic, and that of Trevor-Roper sociopolitical. In France, however, Mousnier, writing a general history of Europe over two centuries (from 1500 to 1700), took a more holistic ap- proach. Mousnier gave culture a major role in his interpretation of the crisis, distinguishing a “crise de la sensibilité morale et religieuse” from a “crise de la science”; discussing Augustinianism, classicism, and Cartesianism in his section on “la lutte contre la crise” (the ªght against crisis); and returning to ideas and feelings in his analysis of the “renewed crisis” at the end of the century.4 Clark had already devoted a chapter to literature and another to painting and architecture, but Mousnier, in his pages about the baroque, was the ªrst historian to make the arts central to the in- terpretation of the crisis. Indeed, he claimed that the crisis was ªrst revealed in art (une crise...quiaétédécelée d’abord dans l’art), com- paring it to a psychological depression in an individual. Juxta- posing the visual arts to literature (Peter Paul Rubens to Pierre 3 Benedetto Croce, Storia dell’età barocca in Italia (Bari, 1929), 3; Franz Borkenau, Die Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild (Darmstadt, 1971; orig. pub. 1934); Basil Willey, The Seventeenth-Century Background (London, 1934); Paul Hazard, Crise de la conscience européenne 1680–1720 (Paris, 1935). 4 Eric Hobsbawm, “The Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” Past & Present, 5 (1954), 33– 53; ibid., 6 (1954), 44–65; Trevor-Roper, “The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” ibid., 16 (1959), 8–42; Roland Mousnier, Les 16e et 17e siècles (Paris, 1954). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jinh.2009.40.2.239 by guest on 28 September 2021 242 | PETER BURKE Corneille), Mousnier emphasized what he called “internal disor- der” (désordre intérieur), asserting that the baroque lacked the sym- metry and the equilibrium of the Renaissance, that it sacriªced or- der to sensation, and that it “probably encouraged a general crisis of reason that showed itself ªrst in morality.” In the case of the late seventeenth century, a time of “renewed crisis” (une crise renou- velée), Mousnier’s emphasis fell on what he called, not unlike Willey, the “drying up” (dessèchement) of literature and the expul- sion of poetry.5 This bold attempt at a general synthesis owed a good deal to more limited studies by earlier scholars. Mousnier’s interpretation of the late seventeenth century followed Hazard, and his pages on the baroque drew from earlier French studies of art and literature by Lebègue, for instance, and by Mâle, whose famous book Reli- gious Art after the Council of Trent had appeared in 1932. Mousnier did not refer to the German art historian Weisbach, whose his pioneering work on the baroque, published in 1921, had linked the new style to a pessimistic view of life, associated with the Counter-Reformation, contrasting it with the optimism of the Renaissance.6 Mousnier’s view of baroque art was contradicted in the study of the baroque and classicism published by Victor Tapié in 1957: For his part, Tapié stressed magniªcence and triumphalism.