Holy Madness - Romantics, Patriots and Revolutionaries, 1776-1876 (Adam Zamoyski, 1999)

I was reading this at the gym while simultaneously working through the Barzun book. They overlapped in interesting ways. I had never heard of the author until reading his biography of Napoleon earlier this year - his stuff makes for good reading.

And this book gives some highly useful insights into all the blather and phoniness surrounding what our politicians would pass off as "patriotism" or "nationalism." Like identity politics, celebrating and emphasizing differences just doesn't make much sense.

In this book he examines a century of high-minded efforts (or at least involving high-flown rhetoric) to throw off kings, emperors, church leaders, whoever - often in the name of some would-be national group or the other.

He discusses the American Revolution at the outset - essentially a transition from one leadership structure to another without much disturbance of the society. But as we saw in the last presidential election, when words like "freedom" and "change" and the like start getting thrown around by skilled orators, folks around the world can fill in the blanks however they like - and find inspiration and justification to proceed.

Lots of details about revolutionaries in France, Italy, Poland; Russia; Belgium; etc. The French experience was the key - they marketed the ideals of the revolution all across Europe. Their huge armies picked up conscripts from all over, and traveled all over. This altered the outlook of some many folks so dramatically that all sorts of change happened.

The author discusses how a small group of revolutionaries would show up in disturbance after revolt after war all around Europe and South America. Only to typically find that the group of people ("nation") or whatever that they intended to lead to "freedom" wasn't even interested in the disturbance.

Metternich's "system" after Waterloo to preserve order. Russian "Decembrists" in 1825. Outbreaks in 1830 in various locales. Another round of outbreaks in 1848 - starting with high hopes, ending with minimal change. France increasingly conservative under Louis Philippe and Napoleon III. The "commune" following the defeat by Prussia.

Interesting to observe the scramble of the "nations" to discover - or more typically invent - their national heritage and customs. Then members of sub-groups intended to comprise so-called "nations" found out they had significant differences and aims - oops.

Scotland adopts the "kilt" in 18th century - named and sold by English. Germany reaching back to Tacitus, seeking martial honor in the deep forest tradition (rather than per the decadent French). Almost every group designated someone as its "Washington" or "Lafayette."

Famous artists showing up here and there - Wagner, Liszt, Stendhal, Hugo. Beethoven ("Eroica" for Napoleon).

How all things Greek became wildly popular around 1830 or so - Europeans rush to liberate Greeks from the Turks, only to find that the classical imagery (Achilles et al) didn't quite match the locals. Lord Byron. Now everyone needed to learn Greek in school.

Louis Kossuth in Hungary (very popular in US at time Kossuth County, Iowa was named).

Behaviors and symbols borrowed liberally from the religions it was fashionable to despise.

At the end of the book, the author notes the disillusionment of these high-minded revolutionaries, and states that this led to the cold-blooded approach of Lenin and his ilk - if the people didn't want regime change, they would be taught to want it (or else).

From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present : 500 Years of Western Cultural Life (Jacques Barzun, 2000)

How useful did I find this book? I actually went out and bought a hardcover copy for myself. (My usual approach is to borrow books from the library; I have a list of those I want to own, but too seldom find the motivation to start purchasing. Not the case here.)

The value proposition for Barzun's work is simple in my case. I read as much as I can; I also try to learn about as much classical music as possible, and (to a much lesser extent) art (typically meaning paintings). Opera and "plays" remain mostly mysteries to me. On all fronts, I don't have a very organized way of identifying items I'll read or view. On top of that, I have trouble remembering what I've read or seen.

Enter Barzun.

He is a fascinating character in his own right. He was class valedictorian at Columbia in 1927 (born in France, the book includes his recollection of Paris being shelled by "Big Bertha" German gunnery). He finished this book when he was well over 90 years old. By that time, he had spent what - seven decades? - learning, teaching, writing at a very high level. It's hard to imagine the insights that would accumulate in that setting over that extended period of time - and that he would have the energy so late in life to put together a volume like this.


The book is a delight. Incredibly economical with the language - how else could one even try to take on a 500-year period across multiple disciplines in one book of manageable size? I slowed down and read pretty much every word, often working backward in the book. (This approach (along with a too-busy work schedule for the first half of 2010) is reflected in the slowed pace of my reading recently.)

Just an example - he spent about six pages working around World War I - and left me with an entirely different sense of how the world was affected (i.e. the changed outlook for those who survived). Most of my WWI reading has focused on particular battles, the experience of the soldiers, how the war started, etc. This was different.

He uses the term "decadence" to describe the current state of affairs - but not in as gloomy a sense as the word might suggest. Very cogent observations about the effect of the welfare state (which he (like many others) traces to 1870s Prussia), the media, etc.

I will refer to this regularly. I need to read more of his stuff.