A number of my medievalist friends have written more or less
extensive reviews of their problems with Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve: How the World Became Modern.
For the most part, their comments decry how Greenblatt, perhaps the most widely
known historicist critic, deploys almost the full barrage of over-simplistic
caricatures of the Middle Ages that have been in circulation since Poggio
Bracciolini’s day in the fifteenth century.
And it is certainly true the Greenblatt offers only a
one-trick middle ages for our view: he, like the humanists the book is
primarily about, unsubtly presents the middle ages as the dark ages, no matter
how clear the evidence is that the ninth-century Carolingian copies of
Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura were as
crucial to the ultimate re-discovery of the poem as was Poggio’s 1417 copy.
But Greenblatt is, after all, telling a story: and nuance in
discussing what happens off-stage in Greenblatt’s story isn’t really useful to
him. For the most part, Greenblatt wants his story to say that from the end of
the Roman empire to 1417, Lucretius’s poem was unread, unknown, and essentially
lost: the effect is to make Poggio’s discovery all the more important. To get
there, he pretty much has to say that the Carolingian scribes who copied the
poem were careful not to read it: nor does he really ask why they would have
invested their precious time and vellum in the work, if it weren’t important to
them. The Carolingian Renaissance, after all, is not the one Greenblatt is
writing about.
But then again, neither does Greenblatt ever say clearly
what he means by the term “modern.” Instead, he hopes that his readers will
recognize something of themselves in the things he believes are “modern” (which
boils down, more or less, to a scientific worldview, untroubled by Christian
orthodoxy; what many “modern” Christians might think isn’t really in Greenblatt’s
sights at all: one suspects that he sees them as medieval, too, and thus worthy
of caricature).
In the end, the book was not at all what I had expected. I
had expected a tale of the recovery of a lost Latin poem, and an account of how
that poem had changed the world: made it “swerve” into a new path. But the book
is mostly a kind of focused biography of Poggio Bracciolini, which gives
Greenblatt a lot of room to tell various compelling stories: of Jan Huss, the
Great Schism, and of political and literary wranglings in and around the papal
court . The book’s thesis is about the “swerve” into modernity, but only one or
two of the chapters really address it.
And maybe it is too much for me to quibble about what I’d
have done differently, but Greenblatt repeatedly describes Poggio as a “book
hunter,” and one whose efforts preserved more than Lucretius. So Greenblatt
gives us a fine recreation of the scene when Poggio finally finds the book of Lucretius's poem in
an unnamed German monastery (imagined as Fulda), and pays to have a copy made.
From that copy, another copy is made by Niccolo Niccoli.
Greenblatt acknowledges, at one point, that both the
Carolingian copy Poggio found and the first scribal copy he had made from it have
now both disappeared from view. Poggio, I would say, is a text hunter, not a
book hunter, and it might be just as useful to conclude that his concern with
preserving the poem seems to have involved no equivalent concern to preserve
the older manuscripts. The destruction of the merely “medieval” copy, after
all, is of a piece with a fifteenth-century worldview that would soon result in
the phenomenon of printed books: the poem lives not in its physical copies, but
in an ideal realm, and our job (especially as Renaissance editors) is to
restore it to its most correct and proper form. With its beautiful letters, Niccoli’s
copy was certainly superior, in Poggio’s eyes, to any medieval copy: Greenblatt
seems to accept such a view without demur. The destruction of the “medieval”
copy is of a piece, too, with Greenblatt’s unnuanced (though modern!) treatment
of the middle ages as a time of unrelieved darkness.
The disappearance from our view of men like Poggio Bracciolini
is, of course, as potentially distressing as the disappearance, for a time, of
Lucretius’s poem. In that sense, Greenblatt, too, is reviving for us an
unremembered tale from the past. But the chance survival of Lucretius’s poem
tells us that we build our stories of the past out of chance survivals, with no
hope of completeness or even accuracy—and I am not sure it does us any favors
to suggest that this one chance survival has, in fact, made us what we are today. To
tell a story as if it were so may well be a feature of modernity: but I’m not
at all sure it’s Lucretian.