ABSTRACT Arthur O. Lovejoy is one of several major Romantic critics of rather long ago whose work is well worth revisiting. Lovejoy’s instrumental effort in the founding of the AAUP early in his career is regrettably marked by his role in defending the academic freedom of colleagues who took pronouncedly racist stances. But later in his career, as part of a series of essays from the 1920s to the 1950s that were crucial in articulating how the category of Romanticism could or should function (or not), Lovejoy confronted Romantic dimensions of racially inflected twentieth-century ideological formations. His programmatic essay “The Meaning of Romanticism for the Historian of Ideas” proposes the importance of a connected set of ideas characteristic of German Romanticism and operating in roughly continuous fashion in German intellectual culture from the 1790s up to the time of the essay in the early years of WWII—and still a force in the politico-aesthetic formation he calls Hitlerism. Evoking the critique of Lovejoy’s colleague Leo Spitzer, I suggest the shortcomings of Lovejoy’s analytic method of “history of ideas,” which grants ideas too much autonomy and thus mistakes their force “in action,” to argue against the Romantic link to Hitlerism Lovejoy posits.

中文翻译：

---

浪漫主义、歧视：谈洛夫乔伊和浪漫主义的意义

摘要 Arthur O. Lovejoy 是很久以前的几位主要浪漫主义评论家之一，他的作品非常值得重温。令人遗憾的是，洛夫乔伊在其职业生涯早期为建立 AAUP 做出了重要努力，他在捍卫明显采取种族主义立场的同事的学术自由方面发挥了作用。但在他的职业生涯后期，作为从 1920 年代到 1950 年代的一系列文章的一部分，这些文章对于阐明浪漫主义类别可以或应该如何（或不应该）发挥作用至关重要，洛夫乔伊面对了受种族影响的 20 世纪意识形态结构的浪漫维度. 他的纲领性文章“浪漫主义对思想史学家的意义”提出了德国浪漫主义特征的一组相互关联的思想的重要性，这些思想在从 1790 年代到早期论文发表的德国知识文化中以大致连续的方式运作。二战的年代——并且仍然是他称之为希特勒主义的政治美学形成中的一股力量。唤起对洛夫乔伊同事利奥·斯皮策的批评，我提出洛夫乔伊“思想史”分析方法的缺点，该方法赋予思想太多的自主权，从而错误地“行动”的力量，以反对洛夫乔伊假设的浪漫主义与希特勒主义的联系.