The History Book Club discussion

For those of you who would like to get ahead; starting on June 29th, we will be covering pages 169 through 190 for the week ending July 5th.

The assignment in more detail is as follows:

June 29 – July 5 ~~ Part I (Cross Section), The View from Venice Around 1650 (169-190) (light week owing to July 4 Holiday)

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


Bentley

All,

I will be opening up this section early for discussion because many times I will be in transit over the holiday vacation period and may not have easy access to my computer. But I will respond to every post when I have wireless internet access.

I want to make sure you have a place to post. (Please note that I might not be able to be on that much during this time period; but will check in and post "as much as one can" over vacation); will be back by July 12th in earnest. Vacation is July 2 - July 12th.

At any time, please feel free to post your own questions and comments. Normally we post gradually throughout the week; but due to vacation all discussion questions from the moderator will be posted in advance due to vacation travel, etc.

These are just some comments/remarks/questions to just spur discussion; whatever you would like to post and discuss is up to you. We just try to move the discussion along.

Bentley

OK everyone, let us kick off this segment;

On page 171, Barzun stated that unlike "all other Italian states, which lived through incessant plotting and treason, exile and assassination, the tyrants and their kindred taking turns at massacring one another, Venice remained free of "times of trouble" for five centuries."

What do you "the reader" think the reasons were for Venice being so trouble free for so long? What do you think Barzun contemplated were the reasons for this "time of camelot" and why is he now saying that by 1650 Venice was "on the slope of decline, but slowly?"

Bentley

Going back to the beginning of the chapter (page 170), one thing that I found personally odd is why Barzun was quoting the American humorist Robert Benchley? So Benchley cabled his friends that the streets were filled with water?

I am wondering what was the purpose of this citation by Barzun who is so detailed that I can tell there there is no Barzun allusion which is frivolous.

Bentley

For those of us who have been to Venice; there is nothing not to like about Venice (at least that is my biased point of view). I just love the place; yes it is sinking and yes there are many trying to save this precious location (and rightly so); but I have been so moved when I visited by the real beauty of this location and its people.

It truly is one of my favorite world locations. Has anyone else in the group visited or even lived in Venice.

Bentley

On page 171 Barzun states: (comparing the Roman Empire with the Venetian Republic) "Both have been admired but never again imitated."

What does Barzun mean by this; usually admiration breeds attempts at imitation?

Barzun then goes on and states the following: "By comparison, other states --and modern democracies especially, look as if they did not take government seriously enough to run their affairs with rigor and gravity."

Does Barzun imply that folks who run for office do not have public service and the good of the country or commonwealth in mind?

What does Barzun mean when he refers to Venice as: "It was a clear case of Trade broadening the mind."

It appears that according to Barzun trading with far away places allowed foreigners their ways and their places of worship while at the same time resisting any clerical interference with the city's laws. Is this what Barzun thinks is the recipe for success: religious freedom for all faiths and a strict separation of church from state?

On page 172, Barzun discusses Venice's 25 year war which he said was not the cause but the sign of its decline. When Crete was finally lost, Barzun states the "republic's decay through the next 125 years proved irreversible. "

What does Barzun mean when he states that the war was not the cause but the sign of its decline and yet when the war was lost; the decay through the next 125 years proved fatal. If they had won the war; would that have made a difference? Were they selling their ethics and is that what Barzun sees as the reason for the decline?

Page 174:

Barzun cites that John Winthrop argued vehemently against making his government more democratic saying that there was no warrant for it in scripture. I guess he feared anarchy and everybody being out for themselves and not helping the community as a whole; it was their close bonding that actually helped them survive; he was also the one who stated that it was the duty of the wealthy to take care of the poor. So I guess he was not that bad; he was re-elected governor a total of 12 times.

Barzun then makes a remark about historians (seems he is very close to the subject to talk about it objectively - but that does not stop our author). He states the following: "The belief that contemporaries are aware of what history records as significant is now well founded, which is why history has on the whole a more balanced view of the past than the past has of itself."

Sometimes I have to wonder about this statement; honestly do you really think that an historian who did not live during the depression really knows first hand what it was like to be hungry and out of work and waiting in bread lines. I think not. Or what returning Vietnam veterans really went through and their inner turmoil even until today (I have no knowledge of this firsthand, just an example); or how the Indians really felt about losing their land. I often wonder in hindsight what historians really know and how they jump to their hypotheses and form conclusions or slant their work. I feel you need to have both (a contemporaneous point of view and maybe one looking back in time to see what the effects really were from events and/or decisions of that time period (to observe the fall out).

I also disagree with Barzun about true opera; he states as a fact that nobody reads a libretto as a source of pleasure and to express drama. There have been some very find librettists; including Lorenzo Da Ponte who was an early Venetian librettist well known in the late 1700s: he was Mozart's poet, Casanova's friend, and would serve as librettist of three of his friend Mozart's most famous pieces. Puccini's librettists were also very well known and the poetic words were a beautiful canvas for the music. The music of the opera is certainly well loved; but the words themselves makes the music live and the opera tell a beautiful and memorable story.

I think Barzun should stick to other historical areas; I think he makes carte blanche statements based upon his own personal preferences.

What do others think?

Did anybody think that some of the transitions in this chapter are a bit abrupt; the transition from opera to the thirty years war is one? It feels sometimes that you are starting a new book?

On page 178, Barzun talks about the cultural implications of war as "cultural consequences". In this section he is talking about the Thirty Years War (the last of the "wars of religion").

Is he making a connection between cultural decay and decadence with the consequences of war? He mentioned this before in terms of the Venetians' 25 year war with Crete.

Are we in the US and other Western countries facing decay due to the World Wars or other skirmishes taking place?

And are religious wars the basis of curtailing cultural development and refinement as well as intellectual flowering? I am trying to understand what connection Barzun is making with his statements about cultural decay after these long wars and about theological government entities? He has already presented a fair number of examples from his point of view.

Page 179:

Barzun writes: "Both had to face a question without answer: the sovereign - man or state--is by definition not subject to law: There is God's moral law; but who is to enforce it? To obey it can only be agreed upon, out of self-interest. Grotius's work On the Laws of War and Peace ranks as the first attempt to make public such an agreement; the latest is the charter of the United Nations."

Every few pages, Barzun reveals something about himself and his personal opinions; the above quote may be one of these. What was Barzun trying to say about sovereign states. etc? And maybe more interestingly about the United Nations?

Bentley

Tulip Mania:

Wasn't this a fascinating story about tulips in the Netherlands and their origins. The Dutch really latched onto a wonderful import really making it their own. One always thinks of the Dutch when thinking of tulips and not Constanople or other Near East locations. Setting up exchange markets was a brilliant idea. However, like any great idea, the poor get rich and the rich get greedy.

Was I the only one surprised by the tulip story?

Barzun stated the following: "Time, place and nationality have the power to confer or withhold renown."

Do the readers buy that statement especially in terms of nationality?

Page 182

It is hard to imagine how folks lived in those times. Venice actually to me sounded like light years ahead of some of the other cities including London and Paris. I was really impressed that they had a board of health! I just cannot imagine the absolute horrors of watching waste stream down the streets; how horrible. Those were certainly not the good old days.

Page 183:

First I was amazed that those who were ill in hospitals and travelers stopping at an Inn would expect to share a bed!!!

Second, Barzun mentioned that the 1650's rarely saw a vegetable, never mind a vegetarian.

Third, Barzun raises an open ended question which he does not answer for the reader: "Maybe there was a cultural link between gourmet menus and the bel canto of opera being developed at Venice." (Where did this thought come
from?)

Sometimes I found myself trying to figure out how the sections of the chapter actually flowed.

Reading about the lack of hygiene made me very uncomfortable; I am not sure about the rest of you. Can you imagine not washing the body except at birth, before marriage and after death; how everyone must have smelled? But then we are told to believe that they all washed their hands at meal times. I guess I find that act hard to believe after believing the other.

Bath houses were closed because of syphilis and other diseases or misconduct. So they thought it was safer to be dirty and smelly...yikes.

All, since I am going on vacation and will have limited time to be on the computer, I wanted to go through the weekly reading and post some discussion questions. Please feel free to respond and discuss any of the above and/or any discussion points that you would like to make. The above reflects the entire reading assignment for the week.

These are the folks who signed up for this discussion:


Kate said 'yes' 05/17/2009 06:45AM
Elizabeth S Sorenson said 'yes' 05/15/2009 07:48PM
Miriam said 'yes' 04/04/2009 07:12AM
Kristen said 'yes' 03/25/2009 02:46PM
Peter Berx said 'yes' 03/24/2009 12:16PM
The Antiquary said 'yes' 01/27/2009 06:13AM
Sara Herkes said 'yes' 10/19/2008 11:24AM
Sarah said 'yes' 10/12/2008 03:33PM
Lucas said 'yes' 10/09/2008 02:00PM
Sid Thomson said 'yes' 10/09/2008 08:53AM
mary hight said 'yes' 10/02/2008 09:07AM
Jon said 'yes' 09/19/2008 08:05AM
Virginia said 'yes' 09/09/2008 09:36AM
Debbie M said 'yes' 09/08/2008 09:50PM

How are you all doing? Are you behind? Should I extend the time line so that you can catch up. Happy to do whatever I can to help. By the way Barzun was not a book recommended and/or voted upon by either moderator. We bow to your choices for the spotlighted discussions. Please join in and post; it will make the discussion that much more enjoyable.

All best and let me know what I can do to help.

Bentley

Laljit wrote: "Hope your enjoying your vacation. Quite a few great thoughts regarding the Venice chapter, which, was one of my favorites. I am quite enjoying these slice of life interludes that he provides.

Vi..."

This chapter was particularly good; I agree. I have been in transit and have not had that much time to post; but the vacation has been quite good. Yes, I experienced the same "deeper appreciation" by being able to scratch the surface of Venice with Barzun's help.

If you do get to Venice; I am sure you will love it too; and not just for the canals; it really is so much more.

Very good analysis of what Barzun was attempting to do with that quote; I had not seen Barzun's motivation as you clearly did. I think you are correct; maybe he was also saying something about Americans too; not sure.

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "What does Barzun mean when he refers to Venice as: "It was a clear case of Trade broadening the mind."

It appears that according to Barzun trading with far away places allowed fore..."

I see your viewpoint.

Laljit wrote: "Barzun clearly admires Venice to the point, I think, that he ignores the negative aspects of the government system. He says:

"Taken all in all, Venice was the nearest approach ever made to Plato..."

Sometimes I think Barzun over simplifies things to gather steam for his own conclusions; do not get me wrong I am in awe of his knowledge and accomplishments but he does show his biases; I agree with you. I listen and learn from the author but I do not necessarily come to the same conclusions.

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "On page 178, Barzun talks about the cultural implications of war as "cultural consequences". In this section he is talking about the Thirty Years War (the last of the "wars of reli..."

Interesting take Laljit. I think though he does also see cultural consequences arising from even the decisions to go to war. Are we culturally deficient because we cannot identify other alternatives to bloodshed and the tearing down and/or blowing up of cities and icons of other cultures.

I do see your points and they are excellent ones; the winner takes all and the spoils and the vanquished are ultimately destroyed and deemed inferior. But I also thought that Barzun was subliminally maybe showing us his political and social biases along the way.

I could be wrong.

Laljit wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Tulip Mania:

Wasn't this a fascinating story about tulips in the Netherlands and their origins. The Dutch really latched onto a wonderful import really making it their own. One a..."

That looks like a great book; will add it to the list as well. I think I would like to learn more about this.

Laljit wrote: "I enjoyed reading about Jan Komensky, a man before his time. Barzun seems to imply that he has been ignored because "time, place, and nationality have the power to confer or withhold renown;" howev..."

I was thinking about him the same way; maybe Barzun thinks that the quiet reformers who impacted culture in a more deliberate way should also be given their due; maybe he sees himself as a modern day Komensky?

He obviously identifies with the man in some way.

Laljit, I think he is talking about the waistpacks of today; but I do not think they are embarrassing unless he thinks they look particularly stupid. Maybe he views them as pocketbooks. Unless he is referring to the sports protectors for contact sports used in football, etc.; otherwise, I have no idea.


I guess the following would have been very embarrassing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece

Will be in transit a lot until the 12th but will try to get on as much as I can.

Will post this evening for sure. We are having a thunder storm now..so in for a few hours duration.

I do think that Barzun is a brilliant man; even though I do not necessarily share all of his views or come to the conclusions that he has come to. I wonder if some of his conclusions are ones that someone of his age might have. Not sure.

All Best,

Bentley

Wow, Bentley and Laljit. Just read through all your comments. Good stuff. Currently I'm trying to catch up on all the comments I missed. It has been hard enough to catch up in the book, but the comments and then actually making comments myself! I'll probably jump in sparingly until I catch up.

Sorry I didn't notice your comment, Bentley, asking if people were behind. I would have answered, "Yes! Slow down!" Too late now. Probably just as well. I wonder if the members who voted for the book stuck it out at all. (I became a member just as the book started.)

Good for you for sticking it out. I learned a lot from Barzun.

The more folks post and ask their own questions or comment; the more detailed the discussion and more interesting each discussion becomes. I always respond at the very least. I am glad that we kept truckin...time to move on soon. But I am going to reread Barzun until I have taken adequate notes and have tracked all of his recommendations.

Jump in any time...happy to discuss.

Bentley