Jacob Burckhardt Compare Contrast

In our modern lives today we live in a world of malls, fashion, cellphone, sports cars and drones. Everyday there is something new to add to what we define as modern. Whether it’s a new television show, new brand of shoe or some accessory for our pets what we define as modern is ever changing. R. W. Southern and Jacob Burckhardt have both made valid points about the making of the Modern Ages; however, they both are very subjective in their viewpoints. Burckhardt insists the idea of modernity came from the Renaissance in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. But R.W. Southern suggests that the Renaissance in Northern France during the eleventh and twelfth century was the beginning for the modern mindset.* Each has also described how

the start of individuality came about between the two regions of Italy and Northern France. But again, their approaches with modernity had some flaws. Each author made points about unlocking the start of modernity; however, Burckhardt would be the most believable in his opinion. In The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy Burckhardt says “at the close of the thirteenth century Italy began to swarm with individuality; the ban laid upon human personality was dissolved; and a thousand figures meet us each in its own special shape and dress.”
It is almost impossible to imagine a world where everyone was the same; our individuality is what creates our modern way of life. Burckhardt seemed to believe that individuality was a huge part in the modernization of thirteenth century Italy. His arguments seem to make more sense; whereas, R. W. Southern who spoke of western Europe’s obedience to Rome and described thirteenth century Europeans as overwhelmingly peasant societies. Southern states in his book The Making of the Middle Ages; “More clearly we can see that village churches, which were rare at the beginning of our period, are common by its end. Yet it was not until the thirteenth century that village life, both in its material and spiritual aspects, is illuminated by any large mass of documents.” It seems that southern is equating the modernization to the growth of the church in spirituality. Although southern makes a valid point that religion modernized thirteenth century Europe it doesn’t dissect the fact that religion has been studied and changed for hundreds of years. So as a reader it is hard to agree that religion helped to modernize that particular period in time. Whereas Burckhardt’s argument of peoples individuality made for a shift in what was known as modern seems to speak more towards how we live today.
To add to his argument Burckhardt discusses how Italy was the first country to shake off the feudal system and uses what is now known as the political and government system.

When southern speaks of the growth of government he speaks of a system which advantages were based on geography. “It was no accident that after the confusion of the 10th century the strongest governmental units appeared where there was least in the way of marsh, mountain or forest to separate one community from another – … which added to his misery in one way – saved him from the misery of organized tyranny.” The governmental set up of early Italy although run by tyrants like Frederick II seemed to be set up as our modern government is today. The tendency to encourage an individualistic personality and break off one’s self as an individual resulted in many kinds of self-expression some of them even aggressive. In these times it was obvious that the Italian peninsula had a great deal of tyrant rulers. Burckhardt adds a quote that “Absolute power, with its temptations to luxury and unbridled selfishness, and the perils to which he was exposed from enemies and conspirators, turned him almost inevitably into a tyrant”. The despots Burckhardt speaks about were not granted the freedom of individuality. Starting in the fifteenth century however the character of the despot began to be

altered.
Since the rulers of that time set the standards for antiquity and influence on moral and political questions; most of the followers happened to be middle class citizens. This led to Burckhardt implying that the middle class and church have been hindering the progress of modernity. Burckhardt then addresses the church as a veil over the eyes of the citizens insisting that the church has hindered the idea of modernity and also individualism with the rules and regulations imposed. The chapter, The State As a Work of Art has also brought about Burckhardt’s obvious bias for the Italians over the rest of the world during this time. This is where Burckhardt’s ideas of where modernity came from became a matter of opinion over facts. For instance, Burckhardt states “the most elevated political thought and the most varied forms of human development are found united in the history of Florence, which in this sense deserves the name of the most modern state in the world.” Although Burckhardt might be close to uncracking the state of most modern; to just assume the city must be in Italy is not fully backed up with evidence from other cities. Burckhardt has a regional bias with the Italians so he insists that they have created the modern age. From Southern’s point of view he insist that not art, but reason and intellectual development was the start of the modern world in northern France. With Southern stating there was an increase in Europe’s productivity and industrial life picking up that is what Southern must see as art because it was made by man. “In the first place, there was an increase in Europe’s productivity. In all probability this increase was taking place in every branch of production between the tenth and thirteenth centuries: new land was being taken into cultivation; there were improvements in agriculture; and great landholders developed the art of estate management.” R. W. Southern also addresses the violence and unsafe environment in thirteenth century France. Instead of pushing out the church during this time of despair; R. W. Southern talks about how helpful the church was in aiding the idea of logic and learning throughout the region of Northern France during that time.
It seems that both authors were influenced by their interest in the regions of their studies. R. W. Southern says “In the third quarter of the tenth century when our story begins, the outlook was not encouraging. Although some parts of Europe, notably Germany and southern England, exhibited a high degree of governmental skill and authority, yet over a great part of Europe there was no regime which promised a settled political order.” Like Burckhardt; R. W. Southern also has a regional bias, Southerns’ bias happens to be pertaining to the region of northern France. He is very clear about his dislike for the Germans and his “admiration” for the region of Northern France. R. W. Southern states “to the west and south of this line the romance languages were by the end of the eleventh century, everywhere dominant.” This is where he starts his “distaste for the Germans by saying “religious unity and family and political ties provide common ground with the German world, but the language boundary formed a dividing line in many activities which might at first sight appeared to be unrelated to it.” These authors have expressed some points that are just their opinions however they both have provided great clues for what was the start of modernity.
In Burckhardt’s book the chapter, The Development of the Individual goes into detail about how once the church is pushed out this creates an outlook towards “selfishness and individuality”.

Burckhardt discusses the changes in identity from “some general category” to “the subjective side at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis; man became a spiritual individual” . Banishment and solidarity also played a role in individualism because the separation from the state and church lead to cosmopolitanism; men of the world. Burckhardt discusses the development of free personality in northern Europe. This is where Burckhardt adds in how writers and poets showcase the accomplishments of individuals in the subsection Glory. In the next subsection Ridicule and Wit. Burckhardt captures the satire/wit of an individual along with the intellectual dexterity. Southern however believes that the authority of logic is what happened to bring out change in personalities and attitudes. Southern also adds with the idea that with solitude the individual has the right mindset to actually become an individual in northern France. He argues, once the church has been separated from secular life it made religious life a spiritually mature and sophisticated matter. This gives off the idea that the church is the reason behind individualistic attitudes; with a new way of thought and feelings. This is not to be confused with Burckhardt’s way of thinking about the church because

unlike Burckhardt Southern didn’t feel as though the church was hindering the process of individualism but instead enabled the individual.
In the case of who is more believable on the start of modernity? Both men have made strong arguments that point to the beginning of modernity. What we consider modern has not always been what is considered popular. It’s the people that create our modern world whether we are discussing a game of football, or a fourth edition to the Matrix Trilogy our modern taste are in a state of continuous change. Jacob Burckhardt and R. W. Southern lived in a time that none of us today would have considered modern but they both understood the impact of what it meant to be innovators and authors of change. I have come to realize that we are all the cause of modernity and because of each other we no longer live in a world without change.