Oldesq's comments

Oldesq's comments from the The History Book Club group.

Note: Oldesq is no longer a member of this group.

All, Please welcome Paul to the group. Paul when you have a moment, please find time to post a brief intro so that folks know who you are. Glad to have you with us as the newest addition to our group.

Oldesq

Hello all,

Have been called out of state on a last minute deposition defense. don;t know that I will be able to comment until Friday. Please feel free to let fly with your thoughts about the reading.

Do you think the story of the meeting between Charles V and Francis was apocryphal? (84). It sounds like one of those utopian ideals where the single leaders solve the dispute amongst themselves.

I am most unhappy about the "digression" on the use of the word man to mean man and woman (>82). I think the argument misses the point. Obviously, Barzun does not believe the term "woman" includes man and woman so in my opinion he thwarts his own argument. I think he is a product of his generation on this point. Also, as I wrote before, I don't know why Barzun is so quick to mention the contributions of teenagers as I do not believe there was such a concept in the 16C (84).

Dear All,

Please join me in welcoming the newest member of the History Book Club- Angie. Angie, would you please tell us something about yourself. Again, welcome!

Oldesq

Bentley wrote: "Elizabeth S wrote: "Oldesq,

I also found the comment about religion and morality being at odds as strange. I wrote in the margin, "Interesting claim. I don't get it." I've gone back and re-read..."

But Bentley, I do not see how his own belief demonstrate or refute the statement that religion and morality are at odds. And as Elizabeth wrote, there may be clues about the need for sin in the world for us to understand the fulsomeness of repentance. To me Barzun overstates as religion and morality may need each part to form a type of whole (yin/yang)- but they are not at odds. As an aside, the prodigal son and the parable of the laborers in the vineyard are among the most difficult pieces of scripture to me.

I guess where I think Barzun is failing is in distinguishing his personal religious beliefs from his assertion of a first great revolution in the form of religion as promised on XIII. He purports to be writing an historical work demonstrating that premise but although his style is pleasurable to read, to me he is making a lot of unsupported assertions. It seems that in this section Barzun is declaring that the Humanists achieved a "fusion of faith and philosophy" (56) that was distinguishable from the period immediately preceeding the Reformation. I just think that the broad assertions that Barzun makes in support of that argument overwhelm the premise.

I do hope and pray that there may be a way found to release the journalists. However, I am also concerned about how the media have touched only lightly on whether the two journalists crossed the border- there seems to be a lot of dissembling on that point. I do not condone what seems to be a Kangaroo type court under western standards, I think this fact is an important part of the story.

Sarah, I agree with your characterization. However, I do think this an example of the type of overstatement of argument that Barzun utilizes in making his point. Another example of this is the assertion that religion and morality are at odds with each other. (55) I do not think that is true nor do I think Barzun truly means that.

Also, have you noticed several recurrent themes - one of them being that the elderly have no passion (odd theme for Barzun given his long career)(covered more in last week's thread) and that people rubbing against each other: "Individualism has limits imposed by the coexistence of many other individuals, self-consciousness has none." I do not find the first premise to be true. If we can appreciate the uniqueness of each snowflake, fingerprints and waves- surely we should not dismiss the individuality of the human animal.

Barzun writes one of what I think of as his "asides" in describing the post of poet laureate in the US (which Bentley enjoyed on last week's thread) as having the "modest expectation that their elevation will publicize the importance of literature" (49). However, the post is one that causes some controversy. Poet Laureate of New Jersey Amiri Baraka came under fire for controversial lines about the 9-11 bombings and just last month a rhyming piece on the position of Poet Laureate of Washingston State caused quite a stir.
http://media.www.su-spectator.com/media/...

I think that Barzun overstates his case in many parts of this reading. A glaring example to me is his dismissal of all mideval scholars: "By comparison [to the humanistic writers:], the prose of the mideval scholare was barbaric and fit only for discussing theology. It was far from ignoring Man, but it was logic-chopping and it linked all human concerns to the hereafter." (44)

I note that Barzun describes the humanists of the 14C and 15C as:

open[ing:] a vista on the goals that could be reached on earth: individual self-development, action rather than pious passivity, a life in which reason and will can be used both to improve worldly conditions and to observe the lessons that nature holds for the thoughtful. (44)

How would Barzun reconcile his claims of pious passivity and non-wordly focus with the crusades? (1095-1291)

Bentley and Sarah,

You made my point in that I was thinking Barzun may have been using "short cut" language. What he really may have meant to say is that there are issues with individuals or with theories and rather than laying out both sides of the point- uses a brief extreme example in its stead.

Barzun certainly uses language that demeans or diminishes the Catholic church -- does he not? Some examples are "But Luther did not allow prayers to the Virgin's mother, St. Anne, or to the rest of the blessed troop" (23), "Another discard: the mumbling Latin to uncomprehending ears by an absentminded priest", (27), the "worship of the saints" as a kind of polytheism (31). I think some of these references are short hand for a much larger process- one which Barzun presumes the reader is familiar with- but I am not sure that is true.

I have written before that I think to truly have an "Us" you have to have a "Them- that is a group of people who are different from your own defined group. I agree with Barzun that there was a revolution in religion at the time of the 16C and that it was at a kind of "tipping point" (Malcom Gladwell) in history, But I think there is a dimension that may be lost on us in that geopolitical divisions were much more religiously affiliated in the 16C.

But does that arise from "too much jostling with too many people"? (XIX) I think not. The cave with a small group against the dark and wild things of the night must have been a collection of a small group whose ways were congenial.

There are reports of debris spotted by the Brazilian authorities. So sad.

Regarding Culture- Barzun seems to give us the direction he wants us to go in with the quote "Culture is what is left after you have forgotten all you have definitely set out to learn". (XIX) What do you make of this quote and the following comment that we huddle in little congenial groups?

I am enjoying how obviously learned Barzun is but am a little scared by the depth and breadth of the "aside" type references.

Welcome Leslie- looking forward to meeting you. Oldesq

Wow- it seems to me that there is plenty of fodder for discussion here!

First, I am interested in Barzun's "heads up" in the prologue that he believes the reader would prefer the narrative of the book to be selective and critical rather than neutral and encyclopedic. (XIII) Does this statement raise red flags to you as it does to me? It presumes that the reader has knowledge of the topic before reading this book- does it not?

Another idea that struck me in the prologue is the idea of teenagers having a role in the "intricate plot" of history. (XX). I read some time ago that the idea of a "teenager" is a relatively recent concept which could only arise after life spans had been sufficiently expanded and with the relative ease of the post industrial age. After all, in the cultures of the 16C people married in their early teens- they were not considered to be in some transitional phase to adulthood but fully formed adults in their own right.

I found it interesting on page 4 that in introducing the university of Wittenberg - home of the posting of Luther's 95 propositions - that Barzun writes "(where Hamlet later studied)"- the Shakespeare play does mention that there is where Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Gildenstern studied but what an odd interjection in an historical narrative. I have to say it made me leery of Barzun as a narrator.

I do like the arrangement of the quotes in the text and the references to additional books to read.

Oldesq

Bentley wrote: "Today we had the killing of Dr. Tiller (not good). I think he is the 7th or 8th doctor killed thus far and there are possibly 17 others who were simply wounded. I am not for abortion but violenc..."

I too am shocked by Dr. Tiller being shot in church but I have seen no evidence -- in fact, the Wichita police have specifically stated that they have no known motive for the killing although they have a viable suspect in custody. If that is the case, I think it extremely irresponsible for the media, much less the White House to ascribe a motive for the killing. Such statements would have been timely if someone had taken responsibility and stated the motive was abortion related.

I was always amazed that the 18th passed in any event. It was a very particular time in history!

Hello all, Wanted to write and let everyone know that the book following The Gathering Storm, "Into the Storm" has been made into a series that starts this Sunday night on HBO at 9:00 Eastern.