Antonio Canaletto, a rare full-size sketch of a gentleman and lady (usually these are tiny figures inside a large varied landscape)
Dear friends and readers,
Has anyone else read the latest issue of PMLA where Joan DeJean said she went looking for an explanation for the success of the new “long 18th century” in various colleges and found that in fact the era has been eliminated altogether, erased, abolished in many non-English language departments around the US: Joan DeJean, “A Long Eighteenth Century: What Eighteenth Century?” PMLA 127:2 (2012):317-20.
It may be that this abolition is not true of English departments, but there I’ve seen the department itself begin to be abolished. Where I teach nowadays there is only 1 course of general education literature required across the college (when there was once 2-3) and that can be fulfilled by courses from other departments (where that could only be fulfilled by genuine period and serious theme courses given by the English department.
Her article confirms what I’ve seen in general: the abolition of humanities courses of all sorts. It also coheres with what I’ve seen others teach in the general education introductory literature courses. I used to teach one — I did it for about 10 years on and off. It’s now abolished: I did the two parter I’ll call the first half of British literature and the second half. There was also a one term version; I did notice other colleagues who did the one term version especially would do a couple of famous medieval, and Renaissance works and then basically leap to the 19th century. One reason towards the end I did separate books (I did not order the Norton) was it enabled me to chose what I thought would be more popular (Fielding’s Joseph Andrews, Gay’s Beggar’s Opera), work I simply liked better (I’d use Cruttwell’s Penguin of Johnson), ” to go outside English (I’d assign Lafayette’s La Princesse de Cleves in English) …
A great loss.
Another favorite picture:
Ducrois and Valpato, View of Temple of Sibyl at Tivoli
I have it as the wallpaper on my laptop
The picture combines elements of the drawing and watercolor art of
Piranesi (dream fantasias) and Wilson (idealized but apparently real)
with a real penchant for unidealized figures and places:
Just this sort of vision lies behind the novels of Radcliffe (and her gothic school) as well as Goethe (who didn’t have a school of followers, but can be likened to the Johnson of Rasselas here). It was disseminated through prints.
Of this lovely scene Kathleen Stuart (Tales and Travels, the book of prints of watercolors from the recent exhibition at the Pierpont Morgan I’ve been drawing on for a number of weeks now) writes:
“The work seen here depicts a view of the ancient city of Tivoli, on the Aniene River about twenty miles east of Rome. Famed for its picturesque terrain and dramatic waterfall, Tivoli was one of the most popular destinations for travelers on the Grand Tour. It was also the site of the first-century B.C. Temple of the Sybil, seen here in the center of the composition. The temple was a frequent subject for artists of the day, who commonly focused on it as an architectural ruin: for example, the engraving by Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) in which the temple is isolated and seen in foreshortened view from below –or as an emblem of classical
antiquity set in an ideal landscape; as in Richatd Wilson’s painting of about 1754, Landscape Capriccio on the Via Aemilia, with the Temple of the Sybil at Tivoli and the Broken Bridge at NarniBy contrast, Ducros represented the temple as unidealized, viewed from the side instead of head-on, and blending into the neighboring buildings and verrdant surroundings, with a group of figures in the foreground engaged in the activities of daily life. Ducros depicted the temple in at least two other finished watercolors, both viewed from the river upstream from the falls (Musee cantonal des Beaux-Arts, Lausanne; Kenwood and elsewhere
Of the artists she tells us:
“Born in Switzerland, Ducros trained in Geneva before traveling to Rome in 1776. There he quickly established himself as a specialist in large, highly finished topographical landscapes in watercolor, which were prized for their realism by visitors on the Grand Tour. In 1779 Ducros entered into a partnership with the printmaker Giovanni Volpato to produce engraved souvenir views of Rome. Volpato, who had settled in Rome in 1771, was famous for his engravings after Raphael’s frescoes in the Vatican logge. The partnership of Ducros and Volparo flourished, and in 1780 they issued their first series of prints, Vues de Rome et des ses environs, which was published in Rome to great commercial success.”
For that matter what humanities? In the latest move to destroy libraries, the NYPL is dismantling its serious research capacities which have served the ordinary person (with no connections, who merely needed to reside in the city): See reproduced letter in comments.
A tragic loss.
Ellen
From: *Joan Scott*
Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM
Subject: A letter to the NYPL
Dear Colleagues,
Several of us, concerned about the direction being taken by the plan to restructure the New York Public Library, have written the attached letter to Anthony Marx. We hope you will be willing to sign it and to send it to others who may wish to sign as well.
If you wish to sign, simply send me an email–I’m collecting signatures.
Many thanks
Joan W. Scott
Harold F. Linder Professor
School of Social Science
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, NJ 08540
===========================================
Anthony Marx
New York Public Library
Dear Dr. Marx,
We write, as scholars, writers, researchers and teachers, who have long benefitted from the services and collections available to us at the four research facilities of the New York Public Library. We are alarmed by the Central Library Plan, which seems to us to be a misplaced use of funds in a time of great scarcity. The budget cutbacks of the past five years have had disastrous effects for the NYPL’S research libraries, and especially 42nd Street:
*the skilled staff vital to supporting our research activities—curators, archivists, bibliographers and librarians—have been drastically reduced in number;
*the Slavic and Baltic division and the Asian and Middle Eastern division have been entirely eliminated; and there is no full-time curator for the Slavic collection.
*the Schomburg Library in Harlem—THE place to do research on African-American history– has been allowed to deteriorate through the postponement both of capital improvements and of computer upgrading;
*The Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center is no longer a haven for scholars and critics. Many of the reference librarians who specialized in dance, music, recorded sound, and theater wre eliminated, moved off the reference desks or offered buyouts.
Instead of addressing these issues, the CLP will spend over $300 million on a restructuring of the 42nd Street building which includes a huge expansion of public space, the removal of stacks (and and the 3 million books in them), and the creation of a circulating library in the building. While we understand that it may be necessary to store some books in order to make room for others and that more computer access may be necessary for users of the library, the changes planned envision a much more radical transformation.
NYPL will lose its standing as a premier research institution (second only to the Library of Congress in the US),–a destination for international as well as American scholars– and become a busy social center where focused research is no longer the primary goal. Books will be harder to get when they’re needed either because of delays in locating them in the storage facility or because they have been checked out to borrowers. Those of us who also use university libraries know how frustrating it is to discover that the book we need immediately is checked out or lost. And we worry about the effects of removing the stacks that now support the glorious Rose Reading Room. More important, perhaps, is that the CLP seems to make no mention of restoring the staff positions that have been lost and that are critical for the functioning of a major research institution.
One of the claims made about the CLP is that it will “democratize” the NYPL, but that seems to be a misunderstanding of what that word means. The NYPL is already among the most democratic institutions of its kind. Anyone can use it; no credentials are needed to gain entry. More space, more computers, a café, and a lending library will not improve an already democratic institution. In fact, the absence of expert staff will diminish the accessibility of the collections to those who aren’t already experienced researchers, narrowing the constituency who can profitably use the library. They will be able to borrow books, to be sure, but they won’t be inducted into the world of archives and collections if staff aren’t there to guide them. Also, in the age of the web, we need, more than ever, skilled, expert librarians who can assist us in navigating the new databases and the back alleys of cyberspace. We understand that it is often easier to raise money by attending to buildings (and naming them), but the real need at the NYPL is for the preservation of a great library and the support of its staff.
We appreciate the fact that you have established a committee consisting of some critics of the CLP to advise you. We hope you will take a hard look at the plan you’ve been given and revise it so that the splendid culture of research embodied by the NYPL can be maintained. We think the money raised can be better used to preserve and extend what already exists at 42ND street. Change is always necessary, but not of the kind envisioned by the CLP.
Signed:
The whole idea of an educated public is what a segment of the ruthless and powerful want to get rid of — in the US now running the Republican party. Anyone who votes Republican must be for the kind of (self-)destructive selfishness that at heart they advocate … Eighteenth century folks were the first to teach us that social and self good (love) are often coterminous. E.M.
I had to fight to get the 18th c texts put back into the Brit Lit I and II surveys. Brit Lit I covers “the beginning through the 18th C” and Brit Lit II covers “Romantics through today.” The first course usually ended with Milton, and then the second started with Wordsworth. The 18th c had basically vanished! I have added many works. I also pushed to get an entire 18th c course put back in the rotation, but, alas, it will only run every four years.
Sharon Decker
This is a hot spot for me. My colleagues, if they say anything at all about the Restoration and eighteenth century in their Brit surveys, blurt out “Age of Reason” and be done. I think this is criminal, and does not help me to fill my upper div and grad courses in the area (though I do anyhow). My colleagues simply will not put in the work to understand and appreciate, say, Dryden, when they (and their students) can do “We Are Seven” without breaking a sweat. Grrrrrr
cbbks