FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285  
286   287   288   289   >>  
Carducci, the author of the phrase about the _contorcimenti dell'affannosa grandiosita spagnola_, has written (in _Mosche Cochiere_) that "even Spain, which never attained the hegemony of the world of thought, had her Cervantes." But was Cervantes a solitary and isolated phenomenon, without roots, without ancestry, without a foundation? That an Italian rationalist, remembering that it was Spain that reacted against the Renaissance in his country, should say that Spain _non ebbe egemonia mai di pensiero_ is, however, readily comprehended. Was there no importance, was there nothing akin to cultural hegemony, in the Counter-Reformation, of which Spain was the champion, and which in point of fact began with the sack of Rome by the Spaniards, a providential chastisement of the city of the pagan popes of the pagan Renaissance? Apart from the question as to whether the Counter-Reformation was good or bad, was there nothing akin to hegemony in Loyola or the Council of Trent? Previous to this Council, Italy witnessed a nefarious and unnatural union between Christianity and Paganism, or rather, between immortalism and mortalism, a union to which even some of the Popes themselves consented in their souls; theological error was philosophical truth, and all difficulties were solved by the accommodating formula _salva fide_. But it was otherwise after the Council; after the Council came the open and avowed struggle between reason and faith, science and religion. And does not the fact that this change was brought about, thanks principally to Spanish obstinacy, point to something akin to hegemony? Without the Counter-Reformation, would the Reformation have followed the course that it did actually follow? Without the Counter-Reformation might not the Reformation, deprived of the support of pietism, have perished in the gross rationalism of the _Aufklaerung_, of the age of Enlightenment? Would nothing have been changed had there been no Charles I., no Philip II., our great Philip? A negative achievement, it will be said. But what is that? What is negative? what is positive? At what point in time--a line always continuing in the same direction, from the past to the future--does the zero occur which denotes the boundary between the positive and the negative? Spain, which is said to be the land of knights and rogues--and all of them rogues--has been the country most slandered by history precisely because it championed the Counter-Reforma
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285  
286   287   288   289   >>  



Top keywords:

Reformation

 

Counter

 

Council

 

hegemony

 
negative
 

positive

 

Without

 

Philip

 
country
 

Renaissance


Cervantes
 
rogues
 

follow

 

change

 

avowed

 

struggle

 

accommodating

 

formula

 

reason

 

principally


Spanish
 

obstinacy

 

brought

 

deprived

 

science

 

religion

 
changed
 
future
 

denotes

 
direction

continuing

 

boundary

 
precisely
 

championed

 

Reforma

 
history
 
slandered
 

knights

 

Enlightenment

 

solved


Aufklaerung

 

rationalism

 

pietism

 
perished
 

Charles

 
achievement
 

support

 

unnatural

 

remembering

 
reacted