Classic, Romantic, and Modern (Phoenix Books) [Paperback]

Jacques Barzun (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press (August 15, 1975)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226038521
• ISBN-13: 978-0226038520
• Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.4 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,378,972 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

25 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The bredth of intellect here is astounding!, June 24, 2002

By 

Edward A. Waterman (Long Beach, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Classic, Romantic, and Modern (Phoenix Books) (Paperback)

EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! Three enthusiastic cheers for the wisdom contained in this book, and of course its author, Jacques Barzun. Coming from the point of view of a thoughtful newcomer to the discourse of culture and society, this book is an eye-opening, and incredibly useful find. I must also acknowledge my gratfulness to the unknown reviewer from Dallas, Texas who recommended this book as further reading for those who had read THE ROOTS OF ROMANTICISM by Isaiah Berlin.

CLASSIC, ROMANTIC, AND MODERN grapples with the questions concerning Western Culture: "Who were we, who are we, and who will we be?," not only in the arts, but in history, politics, economics, science and society in general. The last chapter seems to predict the current post-modern culturual revolution, and not only identifies its impetus, but puts it in a context that is intelligible and sensible. Nihlism has a point. It has a motivation. And with this, Mr. Barzun gives us hope, with much evidence, that because we are human and carry with us the impulse to create, culture and civilization can never die. Out of the nothing will come something... new.

In order to illustrate to the reader the cycle of Western culture and history, Mr. Barzun first addresses the ill-labeled and misinformed opinions and meanings upon the term "romanticism." He shows in great detail how the word came to be used synonymously with the word "unreal," and goes on to demonstrate how romanticism, and its aims, is anything but un-real. He writes in eloquent detail how the Classicists and Rationalists of the Enlightenment were far more unrealistic and dreamy-eyed than the later Romanticists. Barzun shows how the Enlightenment was in fact the cause of Romanticism, and how Romanticism utilized and expanded upon the notions of the Enlightenment. The Romanticists did this not by rejecting reason, as some would lead us to believe, but by expanding the over-generalized and reductionistic definition of mankind and life from merely reason and ideas to also include emotion, instinct, faith, will, and all of the other aspects of reality (for the idividual and society) that the rationalists ignored. In short, Mr. Barzun shows us the bredth of history and attempts to correct our common misapprehensions. He seems to admire both the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Romanticism, while at the same time recognizing their weaknesses. And lastly, he shows how the modern period direclty flowed and was influenced by both of the preceeding Ages. We are a product of history.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a comprehensive view of cultural history and philosophy, or to anyone who simpy wanted to know what "Romanticism" meant and how that age relates to ours. The book is especially useful for combating anti-romantic sentiment, and for putting so called "irrational" philosophies in a context that allows the reader to appreciate them and their alleged antithesis, the philosophies of Reason.

Well written and excellent. I can't parise this book enough.

9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The bredth of intellect here is astounding!, June 24, 2002

By 

Edward A. Waterman (Long Beach, CA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Classic, Romantic, and Modern (Phoenix Books) (Paperback)

EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! EXCELLENT! Three enthusiastic cheers for the wisdom contained in this book, and of course its author, Jacques Barzun. Coming from the point of view of a thoughtful newcomer to the discourse of culture and society, this book is an eye-opening, and incredibly useful find. I must also acknowledge my gratfulness to the unknown reviewer from Dallas, Texas who recommended this book as further reading for those who had read THE ROOTS OF ROMANTICISM by Isaiah Berlin.

CLASSIC, ROMANTIC, AND MODERN grapples with the questions concerning Western Culture: "Who were we, who are we, and who will we be?," not only in the arts, but in history, politics, economics, science and society in general. The last chapter seems to predict the current post-modern culturual revolution, and not only identifies its impetus, but puts it in a context that is intelligible and sensible. Nihlism has a point. It has a motivation. And with this, Mr. Barzun gives us hope, with much evidence, that because we are human and carry with us the impulse to create, culture and civilization can never die. Out of the nothing will come something... new.

In order to illustrate to the reader the cycle of Western culture and history, Mr. Barzun first addresses the ill-labeled and misinformed opinions and meanings upon the term "romanticism." He shows in great detail how the word came to be used synonymously with the word "unreal," and goes on to demonstrate how romanticism, and its aims, is anything but un-real. He writes in eloquent detail how the Classicists and Rationalists of the Enlightenment were far more unrealistic and dreamy-eyed than the later Romanticists. Barzun shows how the Enlightenment was in fact the cause of Romanticism, and how Romanticism utilized and expanded upon the notions of the Enlightenment. The Romanticists did this not by rejecting reason, as some would lead us to believe, but by expanding the over-generalized and reductionistic definition of mankind and life from merely reason and ideas to also include emotion, instinct, faith, will, and all of the other aspects of reality (for the idividual and society) that the rationalists ignored. In short, Mr. Barzun shows us the bredth of history and attempts to correct our common misapprehensions. He seems to admire both the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Romanticism, while at the same time recognizing their weaknesses. And lastly, he shows how the modern period direclty flowed and was influenced by both of the preceeding Ages. We are a product of history.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a comprehensive view of cultural history and philosophy, or to anyone who simpy wanted to know what "Romanticism" meant and how that age relates to ours. The book is especially useful for combating anti-romantic sentiment, and for putting so called "irrational" philosophies in a context that allows the reader to appreciate them and their alleged antithesis, the philosophies of Reason.

Well written and excellent. I can't praise this book enough.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Disappointing, June 26, 2009

By 

cxlxmx - See all my reviews

This review is from: Classic, Romantic, and Modern (Phoenix Books) (Paperback)

With the arrival of Dawn to Decadence, I became aware of Jacques Barzun and wanted to become acquainted with some of his work. However, the large D2D was daunting and I have time constraints. So, when I found a used Classic, Romantic, and Modern for 25 cents, I was delighted. With the current political climate, I was especially interested in Barzun's claim that he will address the question of the relations between modern tyranny and the Romantics. However, I was disappointed. The essential point that readers need to know about this work is that Barzun is more or less a Romantic partisan who poses as an objective intellectual historian. The fact that he admires Classic works of art and music is of little importance. Readers will find such time-honored modes of argument as bait-and-switch, straw man, and double standard.

The book is not without merit, and Barzun does a good job of identifying what Romanticism is--an intellectual exploration of man's combined traits of weakness and power--in the face of the disparate religious, philosophical, and political outlooks of Romanticists. The Classicism he refers to is a focus on generalization and abstraction at the expense of particularity, and he identifies the period in arts, music, and letters that just preceded the Romantic as the quintessential period of Classicism.

What makes his analysis of Romanticism interesting is his identification of differences in those lumped together as Romantics. But when it comes to Classicism, he generalizes and ignores cases that would argue against his position. I suspect this was done on purpose and that Barzun thought it was clever to critique Romantics with "Romantic" standards and Classicists with "Classical" standards. It ends up amounting to caricaturing the Classicists. Barzun relies on Freud and essentially dismisses Classicism as a system of repressed lust and envy. Modern critiques of Freud aside, what are we to make then when he gives anecdotes of Classicists who recognized conflict and negativity within themselves?

One of Barzun's techniques is to claim that the flaws attributed to Romantics are often more applicable to Classicists. Take sentimentality. Rather than an overabundance of emotion, sentimentality must be the failure to connect action with emotion, says Barzun. The Classicists' obsession with love, you see, was sentimental because they weren't rakes to boot. Mozart is a transitional composer, says Barzun, and what Barzun means about sentimentality can be seen in Mozart's Cosi fan tutte, I believe. The two soldiers are at first upset that their fiances would betray them (a "Classical sentimental" response to the failure of the world to live up to their idealization) but then decide to make things well by simply switching fiances (a "Romantic non-sentimentality" that makes action a resolution to emotion).

Is Barzun right? Only by measuring the Classicist by Romantic standards. If the Classicist is emotional about love to the point of breaking down in tears at the opera but will not pursue a lover out of a belief about its place in the natural and metaphysical hierarchy, this is very different from not pursuing a lover out of cowardice or some such. Barzun the Romantic judges the Classicist for failing to meet the Romantics' notions of fulfillment.

Barzun complains about the personal criticisms to which the Romantics have been subjected, but these are fair. Part of the appeal of Romantic works is their apparent authenticity and appeal to goodness. If Rousseau or Victor Hugo were social predators in their private lives, that really does call their work into question. It is in this sense that the Romantics can really be criticized for sentimentalism, even--or especially--on the grounds proposed by Barzun. Take Javert's death in Les Miserables. What if there were an epilogue that revealed that Jean Valjean had been, like Rousseau and Hugo were, a womanizer who split up marriages and left fatherless children throughout France? How would we feel about Javert's suicide then? The whole structure of Les Mis is dependent on Valjean being bad or good only in very specific and contextualized ways. Action does not resolve emotion in Romanticism but managed emotion. In the grand scheme, life is complex and integrated and action that can resolve only managed, isolated, unchanging circumstances is sentimental.

In politics, Barzun says he is going to address criticisms of the totalitarian quality of Rousseau's concept of the "General Will," but in fact he does not. Any political dimension to this book is a complete failure.

Barzun is obviously well-read, and Classic, Romantic, and Modern is interesting and thought-provoking but ultimately disappointing.