 | |
| Author | Stephen Greenblatt |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Genre | Nonfiction |
| Publisher | W. W. Norton & Company (hardcover) The Bodley Head (UK) |
Publication date | September 2011 (hardcover)ISBN 9780393064476 ASIN: B005LW5J9O (kindle US) (mobipocket UK)ISBN 9781446499290 (epub)ISBN 9780393083385 September 2012 (paperback)ISBN 9780099572442 June 2015 (audiobook)ISBN 9781501260506 |
| Publication place | United States, UK |
| Pages | 368 (hardcover) |
The Swerve: How the World Became Modern[a] is a 2011 book byStephen Greenblatt and winner of the 2012Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction and 2011National Book Award for Nonfiction.[2][3]
Greenblatt tells the story of howPoggio Bracciolini, a 15th-century papal emissary and obsessive book hunter, saved the last copy of theRoman poetLucretius'sDe rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) from near-terminal neglect in a German monastery, thus reintroducing important ideas that sparked themodern age.[4][5][6]
The title and the subtitle of the book are explained in the author's preface. "The Swerve" refers to a key conception inEpicureanatomism which holds that atoms moving through the void are subject toclinamen: while falling straight through the void, they are sometimes subject to a slight, unpredictable swerve. Greenblatt uses it to describe the history of Lucretius' own book: "The reappearance of his poem was such a swerve, an unforeseen deviation from the direct trajectory—in this case, toward oblivion—on which that poem and its philosophy seemed to be traveling."[7] The recovery of the ancient text is seen as its rebirth, i.e. a "renaissance". Greenblatt's claim is that it was a 'key moment' in a larger "story ... of how the world swerved in a new direction".[7]
The book attracted considerable critical attention, some positive and some negative. In addition to winning both the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award, it also won theModern Language Association James Russell Lowell Prize.[8]
Publishers Weekly called it a "gloriously learned page-turner", andNewsweek called it "mesmerizing" and "richly entertaining".[citation needed]Maureen Corrigan, in her review forNPR, praised the work as brilliant and brimming with ideas and stories.[9] It was included in the 2011 year-end lists ofPublishers Weekly,[10]The New York Times,[10]Kirkus Reviews,[11]NPR,[12]The Chicago Tribune,[13]Bloomberg,[14]SFGate,[15] theAmerican Library Association[16] andThe Globe and Mail.[17]
Writing inThe New Republic, David Quint saw the book as situated in a controversial tradition that views the Renaissance as a victory of reason over medieval religiosity, followingJohn Addington Symonds,Voltaire andDavid Hume.[18] TheologianR. R. Reno harshly criticized the book for "blustering again and again about the beauty-loathing, eros-denying evils of Christianity ... sighing in the usual postmodern way about pleasure and desire."[19]
Historian John Monfasani credited the book with "grace and learning" but found Greenblatt's Voltairean andBurckhardtian interpretation ofDe Rerum Natura and the Renaissance as "eccentric", "questionable" and "unwarranted".[20] Greenblatt responded to this critique by reiterating his view of the importance of the Renaissance in history.[21] Several other reviewers criticized Greenblatt's lack of historical rigor and depth while acknowledging some praiseworthy elements. In theLos Angeles Review of Books Jim Hinch saw within the book "two books... one deserving of an award, the other not". He described the first "book" as an "engaging" and "wonderful" exploration of the Renaissance rediscovery ofDe Rerum Natura, while describing the second book as a far less deserving "anti-religious polemic."[22]
Michael Dirda, ofThe Washington Post, wrote that "by no means a bad book,The Swerve simply sets its intellectual bar too low, complacently relying on commonplaces in its historical sections and never engaging in an imaginative or idiosyncratic way". Disappointed with the book's simplistic and clichéd conclusions, he nonetheless saw Greenblatt's "excellent notes and bibliography" as a reliable reference for those seeking a more in-depth and serious treatment.[23]
In 2013, William Caferro ofVanderbilt University foundThe Swerve "an engaging portrait of the Renaissance sense of wonder and discovery" but was disquieted by the "firm distinction Greenblatt makes between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages" and the lack of reference to current scholarship.[24] Nevertheless, he conceded that "if Greenblatt leaves us with more questions than answers, it is ultimately not a grave flaw."[24]
In 2016, Laura Saetveit Miles, of theUniversity of Bergen, criticized the book in explicitly ethical terms, writing that its scholarly and historiographical failings "represent an abuse of power" that "precipitate the decline of the humanities" by lending scholarly authority to the "dire trend of 'truthy' nonfiction books that present One Theory to Explain Everything." She argued that the book is an "injustice to the past" and "the mythical invention of modernity is an ethical issue, because it sets a precedent for history that ignores complexity in favor ofoversimplification."[25]
