The 19th Century Is the Best Century

The 19th Century Is The Best Century

Over the past few years, I've seen a meme that has popped up from time to time. A sentiment of wanting to live like in the Middle Ages or how society will return back to feudalism. A sentiment I assume is coming mostly from people online now, or those around that medium. I think the reason there is this fondness for or a comparison of the Middle Ages and a longing to bring back things from that time like serfdom, Gothic architecture, and increased power of the church is because we have already lived through a century similar to the Middle Ages, the 19th century.

Both the 9th century and the 19th century are what I consider to be childish eras. They were both times of great creativity, innovation, uniqueness, and childlike innocence and curiosity. And since the 9th century was often called “The Carolingian Renaissance”, I will refer to the 19th century as “The Crystal Palace Renaissance”, a reference to the Crystal Palace, a huge building of iron and glass built for the Great Exhibition, which itself is a very childlike wonder. 

The tunic look of the 9th century, which featured women with shorter hair who looked androgynous and tomboy-ish, was echoed in the 19th century, where there were girls with shorter or tied up hair and an androgynous appearance. Women of the time also frequently had what we now refer to as the “Gibson haircut” and were riding bikes and wearing less restrictive corsets. So both mother and daughter alike were engaging in this tomboyish appearance. 

Many architecture and buildings of the 19th century and early 20th century featured a “medieval gothic” aesthetic including the Palace of Westminster in London, St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, and the Votive Church in Vienna. 

The 9th century saw the rise of the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne, who unified Western Europe for the first time since Rome's fall, only for it to fracture into separate kingdoms via the Treaty of Verdun (843). Similarly, the 19th century began with the rise and fall of the Napoleonic Empire, which completely reshaped borders and culminated in the unification of new nation-states like Germany and Italy. Geopolitics in the 9th century was dominated by rivalries between massive entities like the Byzantine Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Tang Dynasty. The 19th century mirrored this macro-political competition through the "Great Game" (the Anglo-Russian rivalry over Central Asia) and the Concert of Europe, where a handful of global powers dictated world affairs. 

As for invasions, and raids you may think something like the Vikings would be gone by the 19th century, but the 19th century saw a massive structural parallel with New Imperialism, driven by European powers expanding deeply into Africa ("The Scramble for Africa") and Asia. The 9th century saw empires prioritizing naval dominance and water trade routing. In the 800s, maritime city-states like Venice began infiltrating wealthy Mediterranean islands. Similarly, in the 1800s, global empires prioritized checkpoints like the Suez Canal to secure intercontinental shipping. 

The 9th century saw scholars collected, translated, and built upon ancient Greek and Persian texts. The 19th century saw a parallel obsession with documenting the past through the birth of modern philology, archaeological excavations (like deciphering cuneiform), and the expansion of university systems. 

The 9th century solidified early feudal structures in Europe, tethering peasants to the land due to unstable outside invasions. The 19th century radically upended this agrarian dominance via the Industrial Revolution, which introduced mass urbanization and shifted laborers from fields to factories. 

Another thing you'll notice about the 19th century is that it often references 9th century fashion and aesthetics as well. Particularly what I have in mind is that lavish court type of scene of lavish decadence and fancy clothes and goblets, a type of scene that seems straight out of either the Holy Roman Empire or Anglo Saxon Britain. And in fact, this is in quite a lot of 19th century media. 

And as I've mentioned before, gothic fiction is very much a trend of this era as well. So, if you want a triple whammy of tropes from this era, Frankenstein is a gothic fiction that effectively uses early Medieval storytelling and aesthetics and it has that deal with the devil vibe as well since it shows the danger of messing with nature if you choose to. 

The dichotomy of good and evil is a very prevalent theme of this phase. Furthermore, a lot of those vampire stories like Dracula and Varney the Vampire also take place in famous locations that would be relevant or more prominent in the 9th century. They even often had flashbacks of the actual 9th century or around that time. Since vampires can live longer than humans, they could set some scenes in the distant past. And these stories are all about lust and addiction, engaging with vices, and making deals with unsavory characters. It is also notable that these vampire stories were at the tail end of the century and go into the 20th century, so the themes overlap with the depression theme of the teenage girl era as well. But I do think the bargaining themes are fairly evident, too.

The 19th century, being the child era, was a playful era. A time where people just wanted to have fun, often being naive and oblivious to consequences. I’d argue that these vampires are symbolically a representation of the idea of eternal youth, the temptation of staying young forever. To some extent, the disdain that this era has gotten has been rightfully earned. That said, I do think that one's inner child is very important and something we should not lose. 

And I do find the criticisms against this rather unconvincing. The denial mindset or dad criticism against this point of view is “Why are you playing games and having fun when you should be working, when you could be doing something more productive and useful with your time?” And the anger mindset or the teenage boy argument is “all these games and pleasures are just distractions, man, that keep you complacent. You need to push these things aside and take up arms and be part of the revolution.” But ironically, the older I get, the less convincing both of these arguments seem to me. To what end are we being productive for?

I see everyone around me hustling and getting squat for doing so. And I also don't think I'll be able to participate in any revolution anytime soon. So, why not just have fun and live in the moment? It could just be that life in the 21st century so far is very different than it was back in the 17th and 18th centuries. But those older mindsets seem rather maladaptive in our current environment, at least for some. And then the later stages, like depression or acceptance, are like the hangover after the party when you, out of necessity, just simply can't play games anymore. These later mindsets don't even really have to make an argument. You can't buy stuff anymore if you run out of money. Sometimes life steps in and ruins your escapism.

The child mindset or the bargaining stage of grief could be thought of as procrastination or delaying the inevitable, a temporary escape from the mundane or dreary aspects of everyday life. Putting off the consequences until tomorrow, just playing around with things and ideas in the here and now.  

The anger era of the 18th century had an interesting contrast where radically different positions were embodiments of the same mindset. The examples I used being liberalism, socialism, fascism, feminism, all being anger mindsets. The bargaining stage of the 19th century had a similar union of opposites, but this time in regards to religion rather than politics. In the 19th century and up to the early 20th century, there was a lot of debate between evolution and creationism, and this topic has lost all relevance in the 2020s. Anyone seriously still talking about either evolution or creationism seems incredibly out of touch with the current zeitgeist. You can come to your own conclusions why this is the case, but broadly speaking, people today do not find this topic or debate interesting anymore. And the only people that seem to discuss these issues today are the same people who were discussing them online prior to 2015. You know the type, that one millennial that's still rambling on about Pascal's wager to an increasingly diminishing audience. I suppose that also might be me since I literally just did that right now.

As I mentioned, good versus evil is a prevalent theme of the 19th century. So, it makes sense that the topic of religion would be popular at the time. However, in the 21st century, we are in a very different paradigm. We are witnessing things that go well beyond the pale, and we are far past any semblance of morality at this point. So, debates around morals and how accurate something is to the Bible seems completely naive and out of touch with reality. 

And since bargaining is about a temporary escape from reality, this not only applies to drugs or games, but religion as well. A cope of this era is hope. Prayer and the idea that things will all work out in the end is just as much of a bargaining mindset as drinking and living it up in the moment. In fact, you can flip the script on the conventional view of this in a Nizetchean sort of way that rather than material pleasures being the dangerous temptations to avoid, it is actually this allure of some ideal other world, a heaven or utopia, the type of salvation offered by religion that is truly the dangerous temptation and a far worse vice. Obviously, I'm not the first person to compare drugs and religion. Karl Marx famously called religion “the opiate of the masses”, and that point of view is clearly from the anger mindset. So, I guess we are all coping in one way or another, all of the time.

But one thing I do appreciate about the bargaining phase and what irks me about those who criticize it, bargaining admits that it is coping. People are very quick to laugh at Victorians or laugh at religion and go around calling everything a cope. But these people are also coping as well. You know that silly Garfield meme that says “you are not immune to propaganda”? Well, you are also not immune to cope. And the people that think they are immune are the ones you should be the most suspicious of. They are the ones who reek of cope the most. But when it comes to those who cope through bargaining, whether that be an alcoholic who is trying to get their next drink, someone saying a prayer before heading to bed, or someone who is trying to justify being racist and defending slavery, I think all these people are at least aware that they are coping. When push comes to shove, they'll admit that they need these things to get through their day. Other mindsets, particularly anger or depression, insist they are not coping, even as they larp as revolutionaries or coat everything in irony so they don't get too attached to anyone or anything.  Bargaining is at least somewhat self-aware. 

Something that makes the 19th century distinct is that it was the transition period between the masculine coded era and the feminine coded era. And we see a theme that reoccurs in the 19th century, expressions of femininity and visual style evolved through distinct artistic, literary, and social movements. The century shifted from soft, ethereal Romanticism to structured Victorian opulence, eventually transitioning into the fluid, artistic rebellion of the Aesthetic Movement and Art Nouveau. The century closed with the emergence of the "New Woman." The American ideal shifted to an S-curve silhouette characterized by voluminous "leg-of-mutton" sleeves, a tiny cinched waist, and pompadour hair, bridging traditional elegance with a more active, independent lifestyle. 

A reference to the early Middle Ages and the 9th century was how The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood rejected classical standards, painting women with long, unbound hair, rich crimson lips, and heavy-lidded gazes. They favored a melancholic, mythic femininity rooted in early medieval folklore and nature. The Regency Era relied on high-waisted Empire silhouettes, light muslin fabrics, and a soft, natural presentation popularized almost reminiscent of the tunic, simple look of the 9th century. A lot of 19th century media and art tends to reference things from the 9th century. I'll let you guys have some fun with your own discoveries.. Let me know what other 9th century references you notice in 19th century media. I'd be happy to hear it, especially considering I'm particularly fond of these eras. 

I already touched on this a little bit in the 12th century post, but the 19th century was also an era of vast creativity. There was puppets and vaudeville and great visual storytelling in this era. The 2000s was also an era of great creativity in books and movies. Film was the new thing in the late 19th century, and throughout the early 20th century, there were dozens of visually stunning silent films. It was the period of the novel as we know with exciting, engaging stories emerging that would shape film and television over a century later. 

But I do personally like this era the best. I’m very happy that people can and will disagree with me. But I really do feel that this era is superior to those both before and after it. It's creative, fun, sincere, and has a healthy balance of masculinity and femininity. It also explores darker topics yet maintains hope. It's not naively optimistic like the masculine eras, but neither is it as nihilistic and pessimistic as the more feminine eras. And I do understand the value of all these stages. As depressing and bleak as the feminine stages are, they are quite probably closer to the truth. And as delusional and false as the masculine stages can be, they are necessary, too. It takes bravery and some self-diluting to fight a battle you have little chance of winning or to work towards building something you'll likely fail at and never achieve. Sometimes it's better to not know the truth and just do stuff anyway.

But my personal disposition plants me somewhere in the middle. If anger is driven action and depression is thoughtful contemplation, then bargaining is somewhere in between. Thoughtful action and driven contemplation. It's rather playful, and that's what I like about it. This is all just to say that I think the 19th century felt just right. It's a very balanced era. This is not to say that I think everyone should agree with me or that we as a society should try to make the 19th century last forever like the boomers tried to make the 20th century last forever. That's not the future I long for. In fact, I think the very reason that I can appreciate the 19th century is precisely because the vibe has changed so much since then. If the vibe never changed, we would have continued to take things for granted and never would have noticed what made that era special.

Not one single person knew what Art Nouveau was back in the 19th century, despite the fact that the aesthetic was everywhere at the time. Art Nouveau was just considered normal and therefore was invisible at the time. However, in retrospect, from a world where Art Nouveau is no longer the norm, we can now appreciate it. 

This whole post might just be an autobiographical confession that I am a bit of a manchild, that I'm Peter Pan, and that the 19th century zeitgeist, and to a lesser extent, the 9th century and its art and entertainment are the Neverland that I like to escape to from time to time. These eras of childlike wonder and profound creativity. It's a shame that if my theory about the centuries is correct, the 29th century will be when human beings will begin to experience another era parallel to those ones. So, I won't get to appreciate it fully, and won’t manage to make it there. But such is life.

I know some people probably wanted me to tear the 19th century a new one, like how I criticized the 17th and the 18th in the last couple installments, especially considering that the 19th century is sort of a living wojack of a decade. The stereotype of a stuffy stuck up Victorian who beats up women and loves being racist to any black people he meets comes to mind. It's a bit of a low hanging fruit and an easy target. Everyone seems to love making fun of the 19th century, both the young and the old. But I don't know, maybe I'm just too biased and just don't have it in me.

But even if this century is just as much of a cope as the others, I can't help but believe that it's the best one. The 18th century was focused on the future, on fighting for a better tomorrow. And the 20th century was focused on the past, on reflecting on better days with nostalgic reverence. Curious, isn't it, that both of these centuries point towards the 19th century? The 19th century was focused on the present, as the wise turtle said in Kung Fu Panda, “Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.” And this sentiment is prevalent in 19th century culture. 

And even though this is all my subjective opinion, I think this is the best argument for this century being the greatest era. After all, if a superior era existed before, you would think that the 19th century would be an entirely past focused century obsessed with either nostalgic reverence or the need to blame it for all problems like the 20th and 21st centuries are. And if the best era had yet to come, you would think that the 19th century would be an anticipation of some great future like the 17th and 18th centuries were. Suspicious that the 19th century is all about living in the moment and all the centuries before and after are looking in the direction of the 19th century. 

I personally believe that this is because the 19th century was the absolute peak, the greatest time in our cultural cycle, the perfect balance of everything, the golden mean. I'm sure some bitter people will tell me I'm wrong and that the 19th century sucked because of racism or child labor and that I only like it because I romanticize it too much. And maybe that is true, but I'd appreciate a much better counterargument than that. 

I mentioned in the 17th century and 18th century posts that covering things up was a theme of these eras and demonstrated this with the symbolic imagery of wigs and other instances of covering the hair. If that's the case, then I'd say the 19th century is more like a pirate with an eye patch covering only one eye. So very much aware of what's visible and in front of them, but also tending to turn a blind eye to things. It's funny because the tied up hairstyle that only has one loose hair covering the eye up of the time tended to block one of the person's eyes, and there are plenty of examples of men wearing monocles to hide one part of the eye. 

The 19th century didn't do things blindly like the 17th century, but neither was it paralyzed from knowing too much like the 21st century. The 19th century was self-aware yet still active like a child at play. And in some ways, that might be the optimal state to live in. 

Our modernity continues…