Stranded in the Present : Modern Time and the Melancholy of History

Rating:
Summary: Rethinking history: thoughtful or fashionable?
Review: Peter Fritzche's new book is not so much about the past as about how people viewed it. On the one hand the book is short, on the other hand the argument is somewhat complex and complicated, if not openly pretentious. Basically Fritzsche argues that before the French Revolution many Europeans looked back to the past as a matter of direct relevance to their lives, while the advocates of the Enlightenment viewed the present as merely as the current point of transition in a narrative of inevitable progress. By contrast after the French Revolution people were so shocked by the dramatic changes that a new view of history appeared. Now the present was cut off from the past, so that people looked back to the past in an attempt to retrieve what was now irretrievably lost. Moreover people feared that they were now stranded in the present, hence the title, with no way of moving past to another future. In this world nostalgia took a new and dramatically increased importance. Such subjective formats as autobiographies and diaries increased. Fritzsche starts off by talking about the experience of the French revolutionary émigrés. And so we get a lot of comments from such usual suspects as Chateaubriand, De Stael, Gentz, the Schlegels, and De Tocqueville about the unpleasant sense of vertigo where "the evidence for chastisement without salvation appeared overwhelming." Although at one point Fritzsche says he does not think that such a perspective in history is more valid than any others, he seems to admire it for its melancholy and its implied superior realism over more fatuous, optimistic histories. We also have a chapter on ruins, and how people in the 19th century moved away from the somewhat condescending "progressive" view of them to a richer view of them: "the ruin was transformed from a lifeless artifact of underdevelopment and superannuation into a a haunting relic of historical possibility." Of particular importance is Sulpiz Boisseree and the revival of interest in the ruins of Cologne Cathedral, with its implications for a German national revival. We then look at how people as different as Cobbett, Clare and the Grimm brothers sought to hold on and remember the past in the countryside as it faced urbanization and the growth of capitalism. And finally we look at the "household fairies" as people, particularly in the United States, become interested in the mass production of memories, as New England becomes a tourist trap, Washington Irving tells ghost stories, and attics, letters, antiques, collectibles and quilts take a new prominent place in the psychic memory.

What are we to say about all this? Well it is interesting, but also somewhat subjective. And there are good reasons for feeling a little skeptical. On the one hand this is a study of history which does not discuss any historians (with the exception of De Tocqueville) and does not actually discuss the making of any historical work. Another problem is what we are discussing is not so much history as memory. Looking at the Americans Fritzsche discusses, if we can find the complex melancholic nostalgia we can also find the bland optimism and faith in progress that is present in so much 19th century views of history and religion. Fritzche provides only some, but not enough discussion of the latter. Another matter that arises is the cause of all this. How do we move from the relatively small circles of French revolutionary émigrés to an epic change in the popular understanding of the past? How do we relate it to such different phenomenon as the triumph of agrarian capitalism in Europe and mass migration in the United States, which somehow all provide the same result? And Fritzche fails to note in his discussion of the United States that one reason there was so much meaning provided to material goods was that there were more of them, while another reason there were more diaries and memoirs was because there were more people and more literate people. What people thought about the past before they could write anything down in the 18th century is not so clear. Certainly it is easier to claim that there was a radical change after 1792 if one does not examine the period beforehand. If one is inclined to believe that there was a new "radical nostalgia" in the early 19th century period, one must be skeptical of the intellectual determinism of François Furet that underlies it. At times Fritzche's book appears as an example of postmodern history, with unhelpful prose, poor logical connections and the obligatory quotes from Foucault, Butler and Kristeva. At other times Fritzsche's book has a certain gossamer like quality. We will have to see if it is any less fragile.

Rating:
Summary: Rethinking history: thoughtful or fashionable?
Review: Peter Fritzche's new book is not so much about the past as about how people viewed it. On the one hand the book is short, on the other hand the argument is somewhat complex and complicated, if not openly pretentious. Basically Fritzsche argues that before the French Revolution many Europeans looked back to the past as a matter of direct relevance to their lives, while the advocates of the Enlightenment viewed the present as merely as the current point of transition in a narrative of inevitable progress. By contrast after the French Revolution people were so shocked by the dramatic changes that a new view of history appeared. Now the present was cut off from the past, so that people looked back to the past in an attempt to retrieve what was now irretrievably lost. Moreover people feared that they were now stranded in the present, hence the title, with no way of moving past to another future. In this world nostalgia took a new and dramatically increased importance. Such subjective formats as autobiographies and diaries increased. Fritzsche starts off by talking about the experience of the French revolutionary émigrés. And so we get a lot of comments from such usual suspects as Chateaubriand, De Stael, Gentz, the Schlegels, and De Tocqueville about the unpleasant sense of vertigo where "the evidence for chastisement without salvation appeared overwhelming." Although at one point Fritzsche says he does not think that such a perspective in history is more valid than any others, he seems to admire it for its melancholy and its implied superior realism over more fatuous, optimistic histories. We also have a chapter on ruins, and how people in the 19th century moved away from the somewhat condescending "progressive" view of them to a richer view of them: "the ruin was transformed from a lifeless artifact of underdevelopment and superannuation into a a haunting relic of historical possibility." Of particular importance is Sulpiz Boisseree and the revival of interest in the ruins of Cologne Cathedral, with its implications for a German national revival. We then look at how people as different as Cobbett, Clare and the Grimm brothers sought to hold on and remember the past in the countryside as it faced urbanization and the growth of capitalism. And finally we look at the "household fairies" as people, particularly in the United States, become interested in the mass production of memories, as New England becomes a tourist trap, Washington Irving tells ghost stories, and attics, letters, antiques, collectibles and quilts take a new prominent place in the psychic memory.

What are we to say about all this? Well it is interesting, but also somewhat subjective. And there are good reasons for feeling a little skeptical. On the one hand this is a study of history which does not discuss any historians (with the exception of De Tocqueville) and does not actually discuss the making of any historical work. Another problem is what we are discussing is not so much history as memory. Looking at the Americans Fritzsche discusses, if we can find the complex melancholic nostalgia we can also find the bland optimism and faith in progress that is present in so much 19th century views of history and religion. Fritzche provides only some, but not enough discussion of the latter. Another matter that arises is the cause of all this. How do we move from the relatively small circles of French revolutionary émigrés to an epic change in the popular understanding of the past? How do we relate it to such different phenomenon as the triumph of agrarian capitalism in Europe and mass migration in the United States, which somehow all provide the same result? And Fritzche fails to note in his discussion of the United States that one reason there was so much meaning provided to material goods was that there were more of them, while another reason there were more diaries and memoirs was because there were more people and more literate people. What people thought about the past before they could write anything down in the 18th century is not so clear. Certainly it is easier to claim that there was a radical change after 1792 if one does not examine the period beforehand. If one is inclined to believe that there was a new "radical nostalgia" in the early 19th century period, one must be skeptical of the intellectual determinism of François Furet that underlies it. At times Fritzche's book appears as an example of postmodern history, with unhelpful prose, poor logical connections and the obligatory quotes from Foucault, Butler and Kristeva. At other times Fritzsche's book has a certain gossamer like quality. We will have to see if it is any less fragile.