2. FROM DAWN... June 8 ~ June 14 ~~ Part One - Chapters III - IV (43-89) Non-Spoiler

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

For those of you who would like to get ahead; starting on June 8th, we will be covering pages 43 through 89 for the week ending June 14th.

The assignment in more detail is as follows:

June 8 – June 14 ~~Part I, The Good Letters (43-64)
Also: The “Artist” Is Born (65-89)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I guess the NJ's Baraka elevated publicity for the wrong reasons. Of course, the Poet Laureate of Washington State was not that much better. I guess all of us have reason to expect that the post of poet laureate "might just might" elevate and publicize the importance of literature and poetry. Not sure how much success they are having.

Bentley

[Sarah]

Oldesq,

In response to your question #2 above, I would agree that the crusades were not a time of pious passivity or an example of an unworldly focus. However, what I think what Barzun is getting to here is the development of a new outlook on the world. I think before this time, (generally speaking) morals in the western world were defined by religious tradition. If you did something anti-Christian it was automatically immoral. Self-improvement was not good in and of itself and especially if it resulted in material gain. Of course, just like today, not everyone follows "the rules" however they are defined.

Sarah

[Elizabeth S]

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 the last paragraph on page 54 and the first on page 55 a couple of times. I'm still fuzzy on this, so correct me if I'm wrong. Barzun says, "The dogma that a repentant sinner--say, the Prodigal Son--is to be cherished ahead of the merely moral character has great appeal." Perhaps Barzun is here using religion to mean the blessing of repentance and morality to mean living such that repentance is not necessary. Pushing each exclusively leads to the concept that how can you have joy in repentance without sin, therefore sin is necessary, versus avoiding sin in the first place. How far off am I reading this?

[Elizabeth S]

I'm finding that some of the times that I disagree with Barzun, it is really a case of him presenting the argument in the perspective of the people he is discussing. For example, on page 57 he writes "The Byzantines themselves were deemed schismatics: they did not accept the Holy Ghost as an equal member of the Trinity, they celebrated Easter on the wrong date, and gave other signs of wrong-headedness." Sounds like the judgements of those who deemed the Byzantines schismatics in the first place.

My favorite part from "The Good Letters" chapter was the pages on the history of printing. I think I'd like to go read a book about that. Unfortunately, it is one of the areas where Barzun did not recommend one!

I decided I disagree with a comment on page 61, "the uniform finality of black on white leads the innocent to believe that every word so enshrined is true." I think the innocent believe every word is true even if it is orange on purple or whatever strange color a blogger may have chosen. :)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

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 the last paragraph ..."

Elizabeth, I am not sure that Barzun is in any way stating his opionion or presenting how he personally feels in From Dawn to Decadence although it appears he has not been as reluctant in some of his other books; I think in the asides he lets his guard down here; but in the statement above I think he may be just stating that for civilization and for the masses and maybe the religious that this has shown to have great appeal or has elicited great empathy.

After listening to Barzun and hearing about his teaching and writing style and methodology; I think he tries to use a scientific and very structured approach; but when you are in your nineties, I guess you (Barzun) are also entitled to an opinion or two (smile).

I came across this site which has an excerpt from Barzun's book: "God's Country and Mine: A Declaration of Love, Spiced with a Few Harsh Workds (1954) and the chapter titled "The Policeman Within. Scroll down the page and you will find it in an interview with Dannebaum.

Barzun starts by saying the following which I found interesting about the man, himself - "I consider myself a religious man and in the course of my travels I have stepped into many different churches to recollect myself — which you may translate as pray or worship.

In the last couple of paragraphs, he talks about grace and sin (actually two of his favorite subjects) which may be of interest to you.

But one thing all sources of revelation do hint or tell of is that faith, impulse action, to be good, must form a single natural power. “Grace” is the fit word for the unforced working of the divine motion within us. When we do not possess it, that is because it does not possess us. Hence, as I think, the grave error of describing another’s misdeeds or one’s own as springing from original sin. They seem to me to spring rather from subsequent sin, that is, from complication of mind and dulling of imagination, excess of striving and superfluity of righteousness.

Which is why, when I open the morning mail, I refuse to be drawn, even in imagination, into the many gaseous crusades against “these times of crisis.” Good work has to feel familiar and spontaneous, and this implies that we must begin by accepting ourselves. We shall conquer and be saved if the divine energies suffice. The highest social morality I can find in my world today, and my religion such as it is, alike forbid me to engineer salvation by plotting to control man through devices that will work de haut en bas, whether force or superstition or the science of his supposed “nature.”

Here is the url and his interview in its entirety (scroll down the page):

http://barzun100.blogspot.com/2007_01...

This sort of answered my questions about Barzun's private beliefs and in his own words he said he was religious! This interview in a way sort of helps explain a lot for me in terms of the underpinings of the author's belief system or his personal frame of reference.

Bentley

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0837...

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Oldesq, I think we are saying/seeing the same thing; but possibly looking at the elements from different perspectives. There is a naturalness of both; and even though they exist together; they still may be at odds. The son who stayed and was the good son felt that he deserved maybe a goat to celebrate with his friends but never was made a big deal of (things were just expected of him - no play - all work); the other son (all play and no work) who was also blatantly abusive and showed a total lack of respect returns and receives a welcome which the good son could not understand. The father is glad that the prodigal son returned to the fold and has repented; so now his family is once again complete; from what perspective are you viewing the story; the father, the prodigal son or the good son? If you put yourself simply in the position of the good son as sons and daughters often do; how could the father not only take him back but celebrate and give him things that you never enjoyed as the loyal offspring. Barzun I think looks at things from different sides, his own belief system and from others and I think integrates all of them. I do not see any perspective "so at odds" that each or any would not be able to co-exist together and/or possibly not need each other; i.e., to receive or be the benefactor of grace; there must have been sin; they both must co-exist as parts of the integrated whole even though these two same elements are at odds (anyway I hope you see my point.)

I do not see Barzun as making a lot of unsupported assertions; I think the book could have been 10,000 pages if he cited and integrated and proved with his ninety years of being a scholarly historian how all of these different aspects of cultural history were faceted. That one sentence which you cite about the Humanists achieving a fusion of faith and philosophy could by itself be a separate book. I do not think that the argument and broad assertions overwhelms the premise; I think just the opposite; possibly the premise is so expansive that there could never be in a single book or library enough assertions and arguments to prove it to you/us; I think that Barzun is encapsulating a lifetime of study and scholarly pursuit and is just steering us into reading and trying to understand his view of the prism a bit more. What I like about Barzun is that I do not feel he ever apologizes for his integrated view but really doesn't mind if you feel differently; he is having a conversation with you.

I guess this is just another perspective. There is a lot that I dispute; but I sometimes wonder if this conflict is the end result of not having had or spent 90+ years mulling over the differerent perspectives with assiduous study of the concepts presented.

Bentley

[Elizabeth S]

Oldesq,

I agree that Barzun's need to specifically mention teenagers seems unnecessary given that the people he is discussing had no such term. Didn't most societies at that time consider someone we would call an early teen to be an adult? Perhaps Barzun is focusing too much on his audience and is worried that since current society tends to dismiss teenagers as too young, inexperienced, shallow, techno-focused, or what-have-you, he wants to ensure those we would call teenagers of another age are not dismissed similarly.

On the man/woman issue, I don't have a problem with an author using the term "man" to denote people of both genders. I do appreciate a quick note specifying that is the author's intention. The thing I find interesting is when a book discusses all these famous, influential people. And then says, "and women were also influential" and gives us some examples. I tend to think to myself, If women were so influential, why weren't they listed along with the men, rather than requiring their own special section?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Laljit wrote: "Oh, and I think you'll get a kick out of this ... when I went to the wikipedia site for Barzun I saw the portrait that is gracing the group's main page.

Well, before seeing that portrait, I didn..."

Laljit, you are making me chuckle. No, we either have a portrait of the author or if it is a well known person in the case of a biography a photo of him/her. The photo always relates to the spotlighted book. Bentley is my GSP and my handle.

I am still chuckling.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Laljit wrote: "I find it interesting that we seem to latch onto the same issues when reading this book. I was also struck by this notion of morality and the prodigal son. So, to an extent, it appears that Barzun ..."

Laljit, you are moving along quickly through the book. Good for you. I am having the same experience; eavesdropping on an interesting debate; but it is like he is actually talking to us or even giving a lecture with some other cultural theorist.

Interesting example of the superhero (Superman) versus the Black Knight - never thought much about that. But it is very relevant to today's culture as well; look at the celebrities that young people look up to; most have a bad boy or bad girl image.

Laljit, if you find a good book or two on printing etc. let us know; we also have glossaries for each chapter; just post what you find in one of them or in the appropriate thread; I am sure a lot of folks would be very interested.

You have made some excellent points about cultural differences in defining age groups. Glad to have you with us for the discussion of this book.

Regarding the psychology factor, don't you think that parents who ignore the good son or daughter and focus their attention on the bad or more needy family member, do a disservice to their family. I have seen that what results is that the good child feels the unconscious need to act out in order to gain the attention they never received and/or start exhibiting attention getting behavior or getting involved in risk seeking scenarios.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Laljit wrote: "Regarding the psychology factor, don't you think that parents who ignore the good son or daughter and focus their attention on the bad or more needy family member, do a disservice to their family. ..."


Thank you for your response to my ad hoc query. Interesting.