The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

We are setting up the discussion for Barzun's book:



BRIEF SYNOPSIS:

Highly regarded here and abroad for some thirty works of cultural history and criticism, master historian Jacques Barzun has now set down in one continuous narrative the sum of his discoveries and conclusions about the whole of Western culture since 1500.

In this account, Barzun describes what Western Man wrought from the Renaissance and Reformation down to the present in the double light of its own time and our pressing concerns. He introduces characters and incidents with his unusual literary style and grace, bringing to the fore those that have "Puritans as Democrats," "The Monarch's Revolution," "The Artist Prophet and Jester" – show the recurrent role of great themes throughout the eras.

The triumphs and defeats of five hundred years form an inspiring saga that modifies the current impression of one long tale of oppression by white European males. Women and their deeds are prominent, and freedom (even in sexual matters) is not an invention of the last decades. And when Barzun rates the present not as a culmination but a decline, he is in no way a prophet of doom. Instead, he shows decadence as the creative novelty that will burst forth – tomorrow or the next day.

Only after a lifetime of separate studies covering a broad territory could a writer create with such ease the synthesis displayed in this magnificent volume.



From Dawn to Decadence – 1500 to the Present; 500 Years of Western Cultural Life
- Jacques Barzun
-
Edition: Perennial/HarperCollins Publishers

The first weekly assignment is as follows:

June

June 1 - June 7 ~~ Author’s Note, Prologue, (XIII-XXII), Part I (From Luther’s 95 Theses to Boyle’s “Invisible College)

Also: The West Torn Apart (3-20)

Also: The New Life (21-42)

Discussion begins June 1, 2009. See you there.

Bentley

Reviews:













Preview of book on google:



WALL STREET JOURNAL REVIEW:

"The book is beautifully constructed...Mr. Barzun is also a master of the enlivening anecdote and detail...What finally makes From Dawn to Decadence so readable, and its handling of even familiar matters so fresh, is its civilized, conversational, witty, jargon-eschewing tone of voice....[It:] fully confirms that Mr. Barzun himself is an outstanding exemplar of the tradition he describes."

- John Gross, Wall Street Journal

Hi Oldesq,

I may be further along; but I am loving Barzun's style of writing and his brilliance. I am also amazed at how old he was when this was published.

Goodness knows every historian claims that they are presenting an unbiased and only a factual account of their subject matter; and then we always read an account which has its own set of biases because of the facts selected and how they are interpreted. Maybe Barzun is just being more honest than most in how he will critically evaluate the historic past.

I guess I assume that history is history and that there is some knowledge out there of most historical events.

Possibly Barzun felt that folks might be more familiar with Hamlet than with Luther. I love the layout of the book; I am not sure I appreciate as much the emphasis on the isms; but nevertheless I am enjoying things so far.

I guess because he is such an historian - he sometimes has the urge to interject a fact or two that some might not be aware of and/or not have associated with an event or location. I have found that he does that more than once. I find them interesting tidbits. He seems to have quite a conversational style; and he does have his opinions.

Much of what Oldesq said were things I also noticed, such as the Hamlet reference. My first thought on that one was, "So, in the context of this book, how real is real?" I guess Hamlet is part of western culture, and therefore has enough reality to qualify for a book discussing the history of culture.

The upfront statement that "selective and critical" were the goals "rather than neutral and encyclopedic" made me think for a few minutes. I decided that I am cautiously optimistic about the consequences of that statement. Similarly to Bentley, I think that despite attempts for unbiased accounts, personal perspectives and opinions do creep in, and admitting it upfront is refreshing. I think I will have to wait until I am further into the book to be sure. So far, I am enjoying the read, but am cautious about accepting Barzun's judgments and conclusions since I've already seen a few I disagree with.

Question: So how do you think Barzun is defining culture? He discussed it in the Prologue (pages xviii-xix), but seems to spend more time disagreeing with definitions that he sees as too broad. As I'm reading the chapters, I think Barzun's opinion as to what is and is not culture is a big factor in determining what historical facts survive the sifting and deserve the focus.

I very much enjoy the format of the book. Very readable. I'm marking the "books to read" for possible future perusal. And the quotations in the margins do enrich the text.

Evidently Barzun is still alive, even though he is over 100 now. He was writing this book when he was much older than the age I hope to retire. :)

Elizabeth,

Barzun seems to interject little tidbits of information; they seem like asides. That is what I got out of the Hamlet reference. I have seen quite a few of these interjections as I have read along. Some I thought were helpful and some I thought showed some bias or at the very least (a tongue in cheek comment).

I agree with you and I am also reading selectively and assessing Barzun's opinions as I go along.

In terms of your question of how Barzun is defining culture; that is a terrific one and the answer may help us define his focus; however, I for one have not yet decided. I believe your assessment is spot on: "I think Barzun's opinion as to what is and is not culture is a big factor in determining what historical facts survive the sifting and deserve the focus."

I am entering the books that he has noted in our potential reading list; as a group we can vote on them to determine if they are of interest to any of us. I do love the format and the layout of the book.

I believe I heard that he is still living in San Antonio, Texas. I have been so amazed at the feat of this book at his age; as well as its scholarly and exceptional format and approach.

Glad to see you digging into the book.

Bentley

Bentley,

Perhaps it is because of Barzun's age and experience that he could write such an over-arching, detailed history of culture covering 500 years. I like how he said on page xiv: "I was frequently asked by friends and colleagues how long its preparation had taken. I could only answer: a lifetime." Perhaps only someone as blessed with such a long life could attack and conquer such a project as the writing of this book.

I also think it will be interesting to see how our perception of Barzun's definition of "culture" evolves as we read.

Barzun seems very precise in some of his definitions. He frequently takes two words that I would have thought meant basically the same thing and comes up with a distinct difference. Such as Disbelief versus Unbelief on page 23. It sounds like Disbelief is to not believe in God, while Unbelief is to not bother about believing. Barzun says "Unbelief is ... far more unsettling to the believer" because it can't be labeled as gross wickedness. I think there is some truth in this. It is one thing to have someone with opposite opinions. Sometimes you can even have violent debates during a friendly lunch. But someone who doesn't even care. What is there to talk about?

Bentley,
You wrote "I am entering the books that he has noted in our potential reading list; as a group we can vote on them to determine if they are of interest to any of us. I do love the format and the layout of the book"
I say, What a great idea. I have come across some of my favorite books that way. You know how you become obsessed with one particular event in history and reading about it sends you off 15 little side jaunts. That could never really happen in fiction. That's why reading history is, for me, so much more satisfying.

I never thought of culture like that. I suppose the definition of the word might be a little subjective.And yes people do huddle in little congenial groups, for support, for safety. I guess that would be both literally and figuratively.

Message 8:

Oldesq, I am enjoying them; they are almost like sometimes the evil little bird sitting on the shoulder in some cartoons; who has to get their two cents in. I will wait until you get to the comment on the poet laureates in America (I had quite a chuckle on that one). I am still smiling.

Oldesq et al,

I found a fascinating conversation with Jacques Barzun with Charlie Rose almost nine years ago today on May 29, 2000. What a vibrant man for his age; as sharp as a tack. The conversation was actually a discussion on his newly published book (you guessed it) "From Dawn to Decadence".

So interesting when you actually hear the author and historian speak:



Note: They seemed to spell his last name differently; I will go with the spelling on his book. In the middle of the television presentation, they do show the correct spelling "Barzun".

Response to Message 13:

Oldesq, I wondered about those phrases myself. All of the write-ups on Barzun that I have come across relate what a vigorous intellect he had and how he followed strict rules in his examinations of cultural history; that he was a great thoughtful teacher and professor who was also immensely kind. He may just not understand or see what other folks feel when they talk about their faith, the church's icons or it beliefs. I tried to find out a little bit about Barzun's own religious background and have not found much of anything. I wonder what religion he practices if any. There have been many articles which relate that he thought his life was probably the most boring topic to discuss and he was immensely private.

I hate to say this since I am a believer; but I think he chalked it all up to a bunch of hocus pocus; as much as I hate to say that. It is also indisputable that he felt that the church of long ago was corrupt and maybe that part is very true. His colleagues and acquaintances felt that Barzun was very deep and amazed them all of the time. His views are his views.

I have also found this tribute from Father Oates at Barzun's centennial celebration (so he seems to be on a good rapport with the Catholic theologians - maybe his views are taken as secular ones). Having been born in France; one might think that he was a Catholic by birth; but his family's background (very artistic, intellectual etc.) may have meant that his background was not that devout. He does seem like a private, thoughtful man.



Bentley

In trying to find out more about Barzun's catholic comments; in the Catholic Star Herald I found this reference to Jacques Barzun and what he has written (regarding baseball in America no less); the Catholic Star Herald had written this particular article and had cited Barzun's comments about being able to evaluate American culture in terms of one our favorite sports - Baseball. The Herald's article focused on what steroids in baseball actually meant in terms of morals in America and they made this connection to Barzun's correlation:

"Is there any point in railing about this? Yes. Cultural critic Jacques Barzun, an immigrant to these shores, was right when he said that anyone who wanted to understand America had better understand baseball, the mirror of our national culture. If the Jackie Robinson/Pee Wee Reese Dodgers (or, in my case, the Frank Robinson/Brooks Robinson Orioles) embody America at its best, the steroid era holds up a mirror to an America in moral trouble. Both images bear considerable reflection."

I agree that Barzun seems to poke a little fun at the Catholics. However, I don't agree that this necessarily makes him a disbeliever. From his writing, I get the feeling that he has a deep respect for the religious. As an example, my father is very religious. He was raised as a Catholic and still feels an affiliation with that group but he doesn't think their institutions are absolutely right all the time. Humans are fallible. I think its reasonable to assume that any religion you choose isn't absolutly the "right one" if there is such a thing.

Erasmus seems like a very interesting character that I didn't know much about before this book. I would definitely be interested in reading something of his. I have also liked Barzuns description of the different religious sects, including when they developed and how their ideas vary.

Sarah, very good point. I don't know if I think that Barzun was a believer; but it could very well be that he was just having a little fun (like you said).

I think that Barzun has a deep respect for everyone (including the religious) and from what I have read was as concerned about the method of presenting history as he was about the substance.

You raise a good point in that even though we may enjoy the book; we do not necessarily have to agree with Barzun on everything nor expect him or us to have all of the answers. Barzun is just pointing out in a secular, non emotional way the facts at the time. And of course, religion is such a personal thing and what might be right for you might not be right for someone else.

Erasmus does arouse my interest too; Barzun seems to use a methodical and detailed approach when developing his theses and historical rationale. Again, I think it is this method which he is well known for.

Glad you are getting some enjoyment out of the reading; I am as well.

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "I found this link after I became curious about the divisions of Christianity and thought others might find it interesting as well. It is from the catholic perspective, hence the nature of the diag..."

Laljit, thank you for the link; what you should do next time is simply do a copy of the link itself in your search box and then do a paste in this comment box; it highlights the address as a link and then you can click on it.



You will not see it highlighted until you hit post but it should look like the post above.

The chart is very interesting; I was viewing the left hand side of the green line with the Luther break a little differently than the right hand side where they seemed to indicate that these were all derived or descended from Radical sects.
Were they trying to imply Calvinism was a radical sect or was it simply the far right of the chart like the Anabaptists, Assembly of God, Mennonites. What was your take? The Presbyterians were on that side too and the Quakers (smile).

Note: I went back to look at the chart and there were some explanatory statements; number 6 stated that some of these groups made few changes to the Catholic Church teachings and some made a lot of changes; possibly the ones on the right are the ones which made a "great many changes".

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "I have only gotten this far in this book yet. I am unsure of the protocol of posting a note to an "old thread," so feel free to disregard as I catch up.

First, I am interested in Barzun's "heads u..."

Laljit,

I agree with your assessment; I do think that this book could have been 10,000 pages and probably would not have made a dent in the breadth of knowledge presented; this was quite an undertaking on the part of Barzun. I do like how he gives you hints of detours that you can take to learn more. He recommends different books in the text itself. The format of the book is splendid; but you are correct; there is a lot to "digest".

I have begun a glossary for each chapter so that urls, reference material might be added which may help the reader; feel free to look there for some reference material and/or add some of your own.

Also, you can post to any old thread and we will respond; in fact we have left open the Second World War by Churchill until the end of our discussion of From Dawn to Decadence; it gives folks some time to catch up even though they miss the major discussion. You are doing just fine and we are thrilled with your postings.

Bentley

Tracey, hello and welcome to the Barzun read. It is never too late to join in and we are glad to have you.

Regarding Message 25 - I so agree with you. Isn't it wonderful that we have still some of the most beautiful ornaments of worship; some are breathtaking and frankly when you are within some of these structures that contain these breathtaking artistic treasures...I do not know about you but I feel more spiritually connected...the beauty of these artifacts, frescoes, icons and even the churches themselves can be quite awe inspiring. Sometime I think that this idea about a simpler, purer, plain type of environment hails back to the days of the Puritans,

Tracey wrote: "So far I like the book. He is covering a lot of territory here. Most interesting to me in the first chapter is his description of the beginning of Europe's break from Rome and Catholicism. Though..."

Yes, Barzun covers a lot of territory but I think this book is one of those you read once and then you reread to digest everything that this book has to offer. This was such a sticking point for the Vatican (the divine right of kings)...how does that fit in with God the king...not very easily. I think Luther became a hero in his own time; and he was very successful in the long term given what ultimately evolved. I think that Luther was also very clever.

Hello Joe,

Glad you are jumping right in; you are a great example for the group. I am glad that you were able to get ahold of a copy so soon. This is probably the first cultural history that I have read as well.

He is a great communicator and writer and I think you will see glimpses of the real Barzun along the way.

I like the way you visualized what Barzun meant when he talked about an historian and their own individual perspective. Using the artist analogy was a great one.

Do you think Joe that currently we accept futility and the absurd as normal already? Or do you think that our culture is already decadent? I realize that you are pointing out what Barzun states is just his definition.

I often wonder too about how folks glorify the good old days; but I do think that things were simpler in some respects and for some people maybe things were better back then; but not for all.

Just look at how parents and grandparents are with each generation's musical tastes; they are always shaking their heads at how their children could even like or listen to such sounds.

Yes, Luther and Erasmus came alive for me too. I really wanted to run out and read more about each one. The problem (or the opportunity) depending upon how you look at it is that this book is really like a course where there could be potentially so many wonderful and exciting detours. With each chapter you start to realize how little you really know.

I am glad you have been enticed by Barzun. Hard to believe he wrote and published this book in his nineties; isn't it?

Bentley

Joe, you raise a good point; maybe folks always have accepted those signs of decadence (Barzun's definition) as normal!

If so, what does that say about the validity of Barzun's claim about decadence itself. Maybe there is always a rise and fall in cultures much like the tides...you can count on it.

Yes, I think we have always thought that all capitals was like someone shouting at us.. (like look at this stupid)...at least that is how I felt when I saw how he was introducing these terms.

I do not want to tell you what comes ahead. For me, I have learned a great deal; in fact with every chapter I marveled at what I don't know and I have read and I thought studied all of my life. I have found that Barzun seems to sit on the sidelines like a scientist looking for both the good and the bad...and always the critic. He is always kicking the tires the entire way through.

A simpler life can be a good thing if you are thinking of Henry David Thoreau and Walden Pond (smile); but maybe not altogether that terrific if you are simply watching television and doing nothing else with your life. Is that simpler or is that simply boring. I see your point.

Bentley

As far as Primitivism, this is what Encyclopedia Britannica gives as its meaning and it seems to be much like I interpreted Barzun' definition:

#

I think the best metric for deciding if an age is decadent or not involves the perspective of years in the future. Let me see if I can adequately explain why I think this way.

It is always difficult to judge our own age in comparison with others since we are biased either towards or against the familiar, perhaps depending on how content we are. In looking at comparisons somewhat scientifically, the only fair way to compare two ages is either to have lived through both ages or to have not lived through both ages. Until that time-machine in my basement begins functioning properly, I don't think living through two different ages is likely to happen. Hence comparing our age to any other has a degree of unbalance. And that unbalance would occur for comparison of any age with our current one.

I guess this all leads to the hindsight is 20/20 notion. It seems easier to have an unbiased perspective on ages other than our own. We have greater perspective and less emotion when not looking at our own age. (However, who we are, including the values we have developed by living in our age, is always with us. In that sense, there is no unbiased opinion.)

The distance of time allows us to say things like, "Hesiod was already lamenting the death of the 'golden age' right at the beginning of Western cultural history." From our perspective, we can see it so clearly. From Hesiod's perspective, he was IN the age and so unable to see it clearly.

Personally, I see elements of Decadence and elements of Dawn (or should I say DECADENCE and DAWN) in our current age. I struggle with any attempt to decide which may be dominant, for the above reasons.

Response to Message 20: "Although I am certainly familiar with the reformation and the characters within in, some of the references he makes and subjects he glosses over are unfamiliar and leave me with the sense that I'm missing something."

Amen. I am finding that kind of thing throughout the book. Some areas I really know next to nothing about, but in many areas I guess I wasn't as familiar as I thought. As Bentley keeps saying, dense stuff. Makes me plan to reread the whole thing in 5-10 years and see how much more I've learned.

Response to Message 35 (Elizabeth S) - I have decided to reread this again myself. And I too want to dig further. Sometimes our lack of understanding Barzun may stem from the fact that we are not familiar enough with cultural history and the sources of this information. You make a lot of sense Elizabeth.

Elizabeth S wrote: "I think the best metric for deciding if an age is decadent or not involves the perspective of years in the future. Let me see if I can adequately explain why I think this way.

It is always diffic..."
Elizabeth...I felt like a time traveler reading this; I think you are saying that if you are in the age you are unable to see it clearly and we cannot jump between ages to be able to judge effectively what we think we are seeing or not seeing. Correct?

How does Barzun then judge what has transpired from an historian's viewpoint or even make the suggestion that we are headed for decadence or in fact in the downward spiral (who knows..he may be right)? How does he have that "distance of time"?

Bentley wrote: How does Barzun then judge what has transpired from an historian's viewpoint or even make the suggestion that we are headed for decadence or in fact in the downward spiral (who knows..he may be right)? How does he have that "distance of time"?

Perhaps that is part of what makes Barzun such an effective historian--his age alone gives him a step up in judging times. Not that any 90+ year old person would necessarily be a great judge. But Barzun seems to fully participate in this decade, as presumably he did in his earlier decades, so perhaps he can fairly judge between some of those decades he has lived through.

To have the ideal "distance of time" is obviously impossible. (Although, as a science fiction reader, I have to add, "For now.") I think we all do the best we can, and acknowledge that there is room for error. Since we can't do any better than that, the only option would be to not judge at all. Which would leave us little to read or discuss.

As some people discussed earlier, Barzun comes right out and tells us he isn't trying to be unbiased. I think an opinion, with biases clearly acknowledged, often has more value than an unsuccessful attempt at being unbiased.

Very true Elizabeth in terms of his age (smile). I do not doubt that he can judge adequately the decades he has lived through and the repercussions of those decades. He would be able to judge maybe the Truman years, how did Ike really do as a President versus a General; what were the effects of the New Deal? I certainly would love to sit down and talk with him.

But to judge the centuries that came before; your hypothesis would deem Barzun ineffective. This book does deal from 1500 to the present (500 Years of Western Cultural Life) - does it not?

I agree with message 37 - your second paragraph.

I too like the fact that a brilliant man like Barzun had taken a stab at this. And you are right, he clearly states that he is stating his opinions and beliefs. So we can judge what we want to believe or not. I think he is being fair and upfront although I have not always agreed with him. But in spite of all of that, he has certainly made me think about things in a way I haven't for a few years.