The History Book Club discussion

For those of you who would like to get ahead; starting on June 22nd, we will be covering pages 133 through 167 for the week ending June 28th.

The assignment in more detail is as follows:

June 22 – June 28 ~~ Part I, The Eutopians (starting with Montaigne) (133-143)
Also: Epic & Comic, Lyric & Music, Critic & Public (145-167)

We do have a syllabus for the entire book on a separate thread for those who would like to read ahead.


Bentley

At the beginning of this segment, Barzun seems to be lecturing us on his interpretation of sexual terminology. On page 132, the professor dealt with his interpretation of coupling, etc.; and now he seems to venture into the realm of guilt. There are quite a few of these digressions.

The author seems to be trying to make us understand that the natural should not in some way contaminate the spiritual and then he extrapolates further. I am still trying to understand how some of these digressions fit into the whole. Some do and some don't.

Previously, he was advocating his theory that we should not eat too much - "gobbling three meals a day"; and something about "two backs ad libitum" (I had no idea what he meant) unless he is talking about a back mounted hydration system. Note: I researched this on line and did not see anything that assisted me in understanding what Barzun meant.

There is so much jammed packed into these pages and such evidence of a lifetime of knowledge on the part of the author that sometimes one can feel a little unprepared for the chapters; however, I feel fortunate to be able to gain so much from Barzun in terms of how he strings this history and its relationships together.

Does anybody understand what points Barzun was trying to make with these digressions? I honestly was not seeing the significance for the ones on pages 132 and 133; and they simply went over my head.

Bentley

On page 133, did anybody feel that Barzun was somehow undervaluing Rabelais' choice to become a curate (teaching plainsong to the young)?

Is it possible that Barzun himself is judging Rabelais on his profession and achievements and did not see being a Catholic priest as one of them? Barzun seems to have good relationships with Catholic clergy etc.; but he does seem sometimes to be taking a jab here and there at "organized religion".

He also seems to have an inflated opinion of writing versus other art forms like painting. Barzun states that "writing is not like painting, an art in which mechanical skill can deceive" Here he is trying to state his case why the fifth book of Rabelais published posthumously is still very much authentic.

My favorite part and one where I had to smile was also on page 133; there was a note about the book he recommended: A Journey Into Rabelais' France where he corrects what the author's name was for one of Rabelais' characters. To me this was an odd thing to do; to take the time in the middle of your book to point out an error in another. I was wondering what that told us about Barzun? I thought this was very curious. Did anybody else see this the same way?

Bentley

It seems that Barzun likes to talk about a great many "isms", "ists", "ions", "nesses" (he really is into a great deal of compartmentalization). Possibly we should discuss some of these terms as we go along so that we can keep some of his definitions and clarifications straight.

One of these (which is prominent on page 134) is when he describes Montaigne [who he actually adored:] as being a Humanist.

One characteristic of Montaigne's which he highlights as a Humanist characteristic is the following: "As a good Humanist, Montaigue starts out believing that "to philosophize is to learn how to die". He then states however, that "he came to see that to philosophize is to learn how to live"

How do you think Barzun's interpretation of a Humanist is based upon the above and/or other statements made previously by the author? And how did Montaigne fit that bill; when others did not?

Previously, in the chapter titled THE GOOD LETTERS, Barzun claimed that "Humanists were not all professional bookmen. Among the most passionate were popes, beginning in the mid-15C with Nicholas V, a sincere Christian who made his court an art center and engaged the architect Alberti to draw plans for rebuilding not only the Vatican but also the shabby basilica of St. Peter's...Barzun goes on to say that with this rebuilding, "the Humanist historical spirit was at work."

He went on to end that chapter with the statement that "the Humanists were forced to settle the perennial questions that precede religious belief: What is life for? What is man's duty and destiny? What is the significance of death?"

So what characteristics do Humanists have and/or exhibit? Who would be considered a Humanist and who would not be (according to Barzun)?

Are we able to define what we consider a Humanist to be from the clues that Barzun has given us so far? Or are these terms still a little fuzzy?

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "At the beginning of this segment, Barzun seems to be lecturing us on his interpretation of sexual terminology. On page 132, the professor dealt with his interpretation of coupling..."

A truly exceptional explanation Laljit. You point out a useful observation for the readers; his use of punctuation also comes into play here.

Possibly he is talking about gorging on food (first part) and drink (second phrase).

I also had to get used to the fact that Barzun was being selective in order to expose the face of humanity in each milieu; gd. explanation on Barzun's use of his digressions. Sometimes I felt they added to the explanation and sometimes I find them a distraction. Your view is interesting.

Humanism explanation later (smile)

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "There is so much jammed packed into these pages and such evidence of a lifetime of knowledge on the part of the author that sometimes one can feel a little unprepared for the chapters; however, I f..."

Very funny. My head feels like it is exploding with things I do not know enough about or at all.

Barzun makes me feel a bit ill prepared as a potential cultural theorist; which I am not. Or that I have come late to his party.

Bentley

Folks,

At any time, feel free to also post any of your questions or comments about the reading that you personally may have; we will always try to assist; our discussion posts are simply to get discussion going.

Bentley

I thought that I would put together here a list of the terms that we probably should put in the glossary later once we have had discussion on them; first we started discussing the meaning of "Culture" in the previous thread, we have had posts on the Quotes thread about "Renaissance Man" and in this thread I have asked what Barzun means by calling someone a "Humanist."

The following are terms that Barzun has already introduced in the preceeding pages and is still building on many. You can find where these are referenced in the index of subjects. I have only pulled out some of the more important terms that he has already covered or started to discuss. We probably should make sure we understand these terms and post what we consider the definitions are according to Barzun, etc. It will help in understanding the book, I sense. Some of these terms are familiar to a lot of us; but it would be interesting to see what Barzun's take or twist is on them. A pretty substantial list thus far. You will notice that I have also included the different religious groups that he has already mentioned.

Note: These are just some of the ones "prior to this week's reading".

1. Culture (have begun to discuss this)
2. Renaissance Man - began discussion on the Quotes thread
3. Humanist - initiated discussion on this thread - still needs to be filled in
4. Ancients and Moderns
5. Asceticism
6. Atheism
7. Bourgeois
8. Bureaucracy
9. Calvinism
10.Capitalism
11. Conservatism
12. Decadence
13. Deism
14. Digressions
15. Emancipation
16. Enlightened Despots in Utopia
17. The Enlightenment
18. Epics
19. Epicureanism
20. Evangelicals
21. Existentialism
22. Fools
23. Catholicism
24. Fundamentalism
25. Genre
26. Guilt
27. Higher Criticism
28. Huguenots
29. Humanism/Humanists
30. Humor
31. Idealism
32. Imagination
33. Individualism
34. Inquisition
35. Journalism
36. Liberal/Liberalism
37. Dignity of Man
38. Manicheanism
39. Mannerism
40. Materialism
41. Melancholy
42. Mercantilism
43. Modern Era
44. Morals/Moralism
45. Mysticism
46. Nations/Nationalism
47. Occident
48. Patriotism
49. Persecution
50. Pragmatism/Pragmatists
51. Predestination
52. Presbyterianism
53. Primitivism
54. Protestant/Protestantism
55. Puritan/Puritanism
56. Quakers/Quakerism
57. Puritans/Puritanism
58. Real/Realism
59. Real Presence
60. Reason
61. Reductivism
62. Reformation/Protestant
63. Relativism
64. Renaissance/Renaissance Man
65. Revolution (s)
66. Rights
67. Romantics/Romanticism
68. Rosicrucians
69. Salvation
70. Scatology
71. Secularism
72. Self-Consciousness
73. Self-Determination
74. Social Engineering
75. Socialism
76. society
77. spiritualism
78. Stoic/stoicism
79. Structuralism
80. Superstition
81. unity of the intellect
82. Utopias (discussed in this thread)
83. Ancient Verification
84. Vitalism
85. Character and Type (discussed in this thread)

Regarding Number 82: (UTOPIA)/(UTOPIAN

Page 117 - "The first user of the word Utopia was Sir Thomas More, in the well known book that he wrote and published just a year before Luther 95 Theses. He coined the name from the Greek roots meaning "no place" and the term has since meant, in all languages, a work describing an ideal state.

"The adjective utopian has acquired the further meaning of "unworkable".

Will place in glossary.

What did all of you think about Barzun's notion that before Montaigne that the accepted idea of personality was that it was ruled by one of the body's "humors": (choleric, sanquine, phlegmatic and melancholic). He said that all acts, attitudes and moods depended on the given disposition. Barzun then goes on to call it the psychology of the humors.

I honestly have heard of the above referred to today (ayurvedic ) and wondered what was the origin of this and discovered that it actually went back to the ancient Greeks and Hippocrates. Was actually surprised at that origin.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/typology...

The above url also references what Barzun calls Burton's masterpiece which I have come to learn is called "Anatomy of Melancholy" (now that looks like a page turner).

What is supposedly the origins of these humors? Are these determined allegedly by chemistry, by the mind or both?

Here is a test to find out which one or combination you might be (actually a little of an eyeopener - smile) - just fun - here is a url if you are interested.

http://www.oneishy.com/personality/in...

You can take the Myers Briggs here if you are interested:

http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs....

It seems that Barzun spends an inordinate amount of time when discussing Montaigne (character/type) on psychological aspects.

What is your take on his statement that "This disparity between logic and action enables Montaigne to understand history, of which he is so eager a student." "I do not portray being but passing?"

I love the statement on 136 where he says about Montaigne: " Montaigne, unlike Erasmus or Rabelais had a pleasant childhood and a good start in life: nobody forced him into a monastery." (funny I thought)

On page 138, Barzun discusses more psychology. He asks the question "Are we proportionately wiser and happier?"

He claims that we have a lot more knowledge than in the days of Montaigne and Rabelais.

Barzun makes the following statement: There is today a body of opinion that ascribes our unhappiness precisely to the knowledge we have. What has been called here the double mind can logically desire more knowledge, like any touter of Progress, and at the same time recognize that getting it will not necessarily improve the quality of life."

He then also discusses atomic fission, genetic interference (double edged) and gun powder! By citing these three examples, is Barzun making a statement about our culture? Or how he is defining our decadence? And are we happier today with all of our technology and knowledge. Does my iphone make me happier (lol)?

Or does technology complicate our lives further and contribute to our unhappiness (if we are unhappy) without our knowing it?

Laljit wrote: "Though the Myers-Briggs is still used in industrial psychology and in the corporate sector, the theory and research behind it has essentially been discredited in the clinical side of psychology. Qu..."

Regarding Myers-Briggs:

That is interesting Laljit since I still see it used a lot in corporations (as you pointed out). I agree with you..just another label.

Regarding Character and Type:

He claims that the character only exists in literature. OK I get that. His reasoning is that nobody can look at a character they develop in literature; I guess from all sides like Montaigne looked at himself (in the round); so I guess from Barzun's viewpoint characters are flat or some other shape but not round. I guess I disagree with him here; I recall some of the Tolstoy characters as being particularly rounded, complex, and multi-faceted; so I think Barzun is incorrect in that assessment.

Type is a little more dubious here. He is heralding back to the humors when discussing type? He says type makes him different; but the stance is unchanging (typical). With the reference to typical is that his definition for type? A personality type? Like the example he gave, he or she is generous most of the time or good natured most of the time except with their family who gave this person no time growing up. His type (humor) is basically good natured, peaceful and generous; except in regards to his family who treated him shabbily. I think some of us would use character to describe what a person is all about; he has a good character, etc. It does not seem that Barzun relates to the term being used that way. He also states that the inventor of the term Character was Montaigne.

I hope that I am not being too simplistic here because in everyday life I use these terms differently than Barzun does in his book.

A little long but you raised many interesting points:

Laljit, I see your points and they are good ones. Barzun owes his longevity (of course probably in large part to his genetic makeup) but also I suspect to the advancements in medicine. Does that improve his life; I am not sure...I do not know Barzun or anything personal about him; but I would definately state that it has given him a "longer life" and maybe life itself right now.

So yes...progress has made Barzun a very viable and active 101 year old who actually published this treatise when he was 92! He was and is still contributing even with his advanced chronological age.

Maybe Barzun does not want to acknowledge technological advances because they annoy him or maybe he is not comfortable with them. I do not know; but I would suspect he might find them intrusive and a violation to his sense of privacy or even security maybe. I wonder how much he watches television or uses the internet.

For him the book and the printed page is the perfect form; it is personal and being a person who likes things of paper; I can relate to that statement; but I am also comfortable with technology; yet I have had to come to grips with it and put it in its rightful place; otherwise one/I does/do become a tether to their/my pager, phone, computer, etc.

These pieces of technology can have a great impact on the quality of your life too (good and bad) and it is always personal even though there is always talk about the impersonal aspects of these objects and technology itself.

I think Barzun would prefer actual newspapers too; I love a Sunday Newspaper (the New York Times) and though I love my Mac and the internet....I do like in the winter to curl up on a couch with a fire and a newspaper with a cup of coffee in hand; that environment can be either at home or at Starbucks.... might be the "perfect form" for me (or I could substitute a good book - and I do prefer hardback to softcopy - lol); the Kindle however is quite handy (smile).

I guess what I am saying is that I can relate to Barzun; but I find that as a cultural historian he is not comfortable with the present. And maybe that is why he is finding it decadent. It may be influencing not so much his hypotheses but his conclusions about what he has observed.

In some ways, he is right...is he not? In others, as you so aptly pointed out, he reminds me of the Andy Rooney of cultural historians. I have no idea if they are all this way. I still find him fascinating in his differences even when I disagree with him.

Going back to your first statement (present and past not being that much different as one of his themes); I think I disagree with him profoundly.

Maybe he is talking about the inner nature of man. What are the things that truly would make us happy in this world? Are those things..tangible or intangible, materialistic or spiritual...are they things that money and technology cannot buy.

Maybe I am reaching here. I guess regarding revolutions; we have to get off our butts to change the world and his view is that we cannot do it from our armchairs; but I think folks have changed the world with their pens sitting at a desk or maybe even now sitting at their computer typing a column for a newspaper or for a production on television or even a blog. Are these folks part of a revolution, I don't know.

I think Barzun is going through a personal revolution of sorts himself; he probably liked a lot of things the way they were rather than the way they are now. He may have liked his life better then too, and maybe youth tempered his outlook then as his age and being an elder is tempering it now.

How do you define wisdom anyways? Do we associate that term with youth?

Laljit wrote: "The theory of the humors is based on ancient thought that the body was based on four substances (e.g., phlegm, two types of bile, and blood). A person's personality was based on which substance do..."

The Myers Briggs actually might be up Barzun's alley; he likes to talk about "type".

Laljit, I do not dispute what you are saying about technological progress. I also do not dispute that the printed book had its repercussions and was a significant technological advancement in and of itself.

In what ways do you recall did Barzun say that the book impacted memory in a negative way? I guess I missed that allusion.

Barzun does digress and I sometimes find these distractions, I agree; but I do not think he is comfortable with all of the technology either and maybe his rants are just reactions to the things he does not like. Not excusing them though nor agreeing with them.

Laljit wrote: "On page 63, he writes:

"A price is paid for this convenience: the book has weakened the memory, individual and collective, and divided the House of Intellect into many small flats, the multiplying..."

Laljit, you are making me laugh. Just think, I forgot reading it almost immediately. (lol)

Barzun makes an interesting point. I am not sure about the second half of his statement.

On page 141, I believe that Barzun contradicts what he said before about Character on page 136.

Now he says the following in relationship to Shakespeare and the "roundness" of characters. He states now that Shakespeare is able to do this "by throwing light on new aspects of the person in successive relations; he calls this multi-dimensional mapping; which appears simply to be seeing the character in his multiple roles in life.

Now he says that we now know characters better than we know ourselves.

Then to contradict and confuse us further; he concludes this segment with a statement about Greek tragedy and Aristotle. That the action and the plot are all important and forget the characters.

Somehow Barzun thinks the above leads us to the conclusion "that the full theme of Individualism had not yet resounded".

I understood what he has been saying in each section; but how he moves and changes his perceptions about these terms does not seem to piece together for me. Anybody else see this issue? What is your take?

This was an interesting viewpoint: (page 141):

"Note that although the world understands what Freud meant by the Oedipus complex, nobody has the slightest notion of how Oedipus felt when he killed his father and married his mother. His later sense of guilt is general, not particular."

Now how about that one? I had no idea what to make of the placement of that aside. In fact, I never recall ever even contemplating what Oedipus was feeling; maybe I questioned his thinking. What was this guy thinking may have crossed my mind when I read the story of Oedipus; but not what he was feeling. Prior to this aside, Barzun was discussing how we know characters better than ourselves and then he seems to point to a character like Oedipus and tells us we really did not know Oedipus at all nor what made this character tick; Barzun concludes that Oedipus is really a mystery to all of us; so Barzun seems at the end of this section to negate what he said in the paragraph before.

Very odd.

When the reader gets to the section on Tasso on page 148, Barzun makes the following statement about Tasso, his family's coat of arms and about trees being an emblem of sadness.

I had not heard of that connection; does anybody know its origins or where Barzun might be getting this symbolic meaning?

The quote is:

"The Tasso coat of arms sports the animal; but the poet preferred the tree, and his life makes this emblem of sadness appropriate."

Page 150:

Is it believable that Tasso because of one tactless remark to the Cardinal about Protestants would make the Cardinal drop Tasso altogether and this would drive Tasso into a lifelong depression?

I can see the connection to what happened to him at the court to the statement that he later made where he denounces courtly life as "the House of Idle Talk where one sees things as they are not." Barzun then states that he became suspicious of his very success and then turned down a great offer, went back to Ferrara and seemingly started unraveling.

What could possibly have been the real cause of his paranoia and wanderlust which seemed to be coupled with hallucinations and delusions? He seemed bent on trying to destroy his life; and then he dies right before he is to receive a coveted honor from the Pope. I cannot believe Barzun's insinuations that everything started to unravel for him right after he made that remark; was the remark a symptom of something else?

Folks, there were 17 folks signed up to read From Dawn to Decadence; are you guys behind and need more time; I did not think we were going too fast but please let me know how you are doing. I will continue at the same pace if everything is OK.

Bentley