7. FROM DAWN... July 13 ~ July 19 ~~ Part Two - Chapter X and XI (239 -283) Non-Spoiler

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

All,

Here is the spotlighted section for this week's reading assignment.

July 13 – July 19 ~~Part II (From the Bog and Sand of Versailles to the Tennis Court), The Monarchs’ Revolution (239-259)
Also: Puritans as Democrats (261-283)

This week we have completed Part I of the book and starting Part II which includes all chapters from 10 - 17. This week we are only reading Chapters 10 and 11.

It is never too late to begin a spotlighted book; just post to the non spoiler weekly thread which matches where you are in the discussion.

The moderator is getting caught up with the threads due to vacation; but please feel free to post your own questions, comments, highlights at any time.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Barzun starts out the chapter THE MONARCHS' REVOLUTION with a good summary of two revolutions (in his own words): both the 16C Protestant Reformation and the Monarchical Revolution of the 17th Century.

He states:

"One Revolution calls forth another. When the Protestant Revolution of the 16C had done its best and its worst while destroying unified Christendom, its worst---namely the protracted war of sects - hastened the Monarchical Revolution of the 17th. Its twofold Idea was "monarch-and-nation" and its double goal was stability and peace. The sects had challenged or broken authority everywhere; some means must be found to restore order through a new loyalty and a new symbol.

Source: Page 239 (Barzun)

Do you think that both of these centuries can be summed up so easily?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

PAGE 239:

"This double development-- king into monarch, realm into nation--is the mark of the revolution, in keeping with the definition given earlier: a violent transfer of power and property in the name of an idea."

I think I am still having some issues with Barzun's narrow interpretation and definition of what he considers to be a revolution.

"Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated[9:] between 1) political revolutions 2) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and 3) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (ex. religion)."

Source: Wikipedia

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

I think I lean more towards the Tocqueville stratification. Do folks support the narrower interpretation of Barzun or the broader one of Toqueville? What about the Industrial Revolution, etc? Or possibly some other definition?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

One thing that some folks might find confusing is that Barzun goes back and forth through centuries to make his points in this chapter. Especially when he wants to show us a "pattern".

I am not sure if I enjoy this technique. Any comments?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

On page 241, Barzun states, "A king is a monarch when he holds the monopoly of war, and this means money for a standing army. Money also confers the monopoly of justice, taxation, and coinage--all this made secure by a legion of civil servants to enforce the rules. These indispensables presuppose direction from a center. Monarchy implies centralization. Without it, the well defined region called nation could not be a nation-state. Its agents replace local authorities and govern as uniformly as possible. Thus bureaucracy is born or at least greatly expanded."

I thought the above quote was interesting; I guess he is also saying that when the local authorities are replaced by agents of the king/dictator/etc; then your government or rule is also in jeopardy. Additionally, he is focused on the centralized power issue; all power emanating from one core individual.

I found it interesting on the same page that there was a prohibition of duels for vastly different reasons than I would find to prohibit them (loss of life). From what Barzun is stating; the monarchs were simply concerned about law and order; therefore all signs of any brawls must be curtailed.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

What did folks think of Barzun's insertion of his own personal opinion on page 242: "Our enlightened century has in fact witnessed a return to a kind of blood feud. Instead of the family, it is the local clan or gang or sect. Schoolchildren are keen for it, and so are criminals, the Mafia, the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Corsica, and other places at present known to all. "

First, I am not sure that I agree with this statement in its entirety and the timing of his examples. Northern Ireland probably got reignited in 2002 after the book was published and had been fairly quiet for some time prior to that. Not to say that it is still not a concern; but I call it more terrorism type of activities versus a blood feud. I can see this statement relating to feuds between various religious sects in Iran and Iraq; but the school children allusion puzzled me. I am puzzled by his including this phrase in his remarks.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

What does Barzun really mean by the statement that "The desire for self-vindication is deeply ingrained in western man." Does he feel that this desire is still ingrained in today's society; if so, how? And why just western man versus all of mankind?

Page 242

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I find it interesting that Barzun tries to teach, correct others in this book. On page 243, he is quite adamant about the rising of the bourgeosie as "not the 19C but the 12th." He obviously does not like the current definition which does in fact represent "stuffy moralism and philistine tastes".

What definition comes to mind when hearing this word? Barzun indicates that from the Middle Ages that the illiterate kings had installed clergy (literate) as the main agency of monarchical rule. Another reason for the separation of church and state.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

On page 246, our author once again inserts what one might consider a personal viewpoint:

Here once again he is replaying the theme he presented earlier that the scientists who actually pioneered and were the true ground breakers did not receive the fanfare and fame of those who followed. I had problems with this premise then; and now it is being repeated once again as the reason that folks were able and "prepared" to appreciate Bodin and his work.

He states: "A thoroughly new idea gets no response".

I was starting to think about all of the new ideas that instantly gained recognition and garnered public affirmation. Which ones come to mind?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Since Barzun is skipping back and forth between centuries with his examples, I found the placement of this statement odd.

What time period did he mean with the following:

"The British parliament is as absolute as the worst dictator; the king's possible decline into tyranny is matched by the potential tyranny of the majority."

Page 250

The above statement frankly sounded to me similar to Thomas Paine's pronouncements in COMMON SENSE. All I could say to myself when I read the above statement is (Wow, where did this thought come from). Does Barzun as a former Frenchman harbor any ill feelings towards Britain, etc. or is this a statement about a time passed? I am assuming the latter; but with the sentence's placement, I was not sure.

[Sarah]

Bentley,

I am finally getting caught up on my reading. Regarding your comment on page 239. No, I don't think that these two centuries can be summed up with a statement but I do think that Barzun has a point here. I think part of what he is saying is that change begets change. Once people saw that a traditional institution (ie Catholicism) was subject to change or at least new interpretation .. this opened people up to the idea of new political changes such as the birth of the idea of a nation.

Yes, I always find the skipping around to be confusing. I have more of a linear way of thinking so I have to re-read those parts sometimes. I do like how the book refers to ideas he has mentioned earlier with a page number though .. that has helped me quite a few times.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Sarah,

Glad you are getting caught up. You raise an interesting point; once folks saw that change was possible and/or even tolerated...I guess that was the impetus for more change and the flowering of other ideas that may have been bottled up.

I intend to reread the earlier sections; now that I have a general idea of how Barzun is proceeding. He is a brilliant man; but sometimes hard to keep up with. The transitions can be tough; but I have finally gotten used to his technique.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hi Laljit, there is a lot to catch up; the chapters have been quite dense; however, this week's has been a little easier going. As I said elsewhere, this one book is like an entire course in cultural history.

I look forward to also reading your comments and your opinions regarding these chapters. Real life has a way of interefering with the pleasures of reading. You should be able to get caught up in no time and all of the weekly threads are always open while you do that...so do not worry.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Laljit wrote: "shoot. need to work on catching up as well. Real life strikes again!"

Hey Laljit we miss you; looking forward to your getting caught up.