8. FROM DAWN... July 20 ~ July 26 ~~ Part Two - Chapter XII and XIII (285 -331) Non-Spoiler

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

This is the reading assignment for next week.

July 20 – July 26 ~~ Part II, The Reign of Etiquette (285-305)
Also: Cross Section, The View from London Around 1715 (307-331)

The moderator tries to stimulate/instigate discussion but please feel free to open up any thread with questions of your own or your own opinions. These threads are for all of you.

Additionally, it is never too late to pick up the Barzun book and participate. We welcome all of the membership to this discussion.


Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Barzun moves between centuries at the beginning of the chapter The Reign of Etiquette when he compares what Louis XIV was quoted as saying "The State? I am the State," with something that Charles DeGaulle said during the Second World War.

DeGaulle had stated, "I was France, the state, the government. I was the independence and sovereign of France--a quite untenable position."

For some reason, I think Barzun is far reaching here and I do not think that DeGaulle was channeling Louis XIV when he made this statement. What does everyone else think about Barzun's insinuation?

Page 285

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Barzun's quote on page 286 seems to me to explain the title of this chapter in relationship to Louis XIV:

"This perpetual insecurity that Louis lived through between the ages of 10 and 15 he never forgot. It taught him the necessity of taming the nobles and it explains the extraordinary self-mastery that he developed to make etiquette serve as an anti-revolutionary force."

What do you think of Barzun's theory?

[Sarah]

Hmm.. I don't think that DeGaulle was thinking of Louis XIV when he said the statement. I think what Barzun is implying is that the way Louis XIV ruled was a unique way of leadership. There were a certain set of rules that were followed in his presence and he basically didn't exist outside of his role as king. This idea was still alive in DeGaulle's time and is still alive today. People came to associate the rule of France and France itself with DeGaulle. (I am not very familiar with DeGaulle so feel free to correct me on this one.) However, I was talking to a co-worker the other day who was offended by the way that Obama was speaking at a baseball game. He said that the President should maintain more of a sense of dignity at all times and not "shoot the shit with the baseball players." This seems to be the same idea.

I found the description of Louis's court fascinating as well as his character as described. I question if he really put all these rules of etiquette in motion forseeing that they would serve as an anti-revolutionary force. I can certainly see the point of having all the members of the court present to keep an eye on them. However, giving them games and petty things to fight over.. could he have really been that disinterested. It implys that he was looking down on all the sillyness around him with a master plan in mind at all times. I'm not sure he was that calculating.

Sarah

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hello Sarah,

I do not disagree; as far as DeGaulle, DeGaulle was all for France..and was very staunch; but was rather disagreeable when it came to other countries. His France was his beloved country; I do remember when I was at the Churchill Centre in London watching the video of Churchill's funeral and DeGaulle was standing in the crowd and I saw how valiantly he was holding back his tears. I do not think he ever forgot England's help. DeGaulle was always quite rigid and formal from the videos that I have seen of him. As far as our president; he so much wants to be liked and I think he will grow into the job. Sometimes he does have a familiar way about him; he really tries to relate to Americans from every walk in life. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth so it is possible that he is growing into the position and some of the formality it assumes and indeed requires. I too sometimes chafe at situations where I think he is too familiar; but overall I am understanding that some things take time. However, not to get into a discussion of politics; I think he is moving in a better direction than his predecessor.

I have to agree with you regarding the rules of etiquette and what Louis actually did do. Yes, it does seem like he was moving around the court as in a game of chess; I do suspect that he may have been much more calculating than we give him credit for. He certainly was always looking over his shoulder considering the intrique he was only too familiar with.

[Sarah]

I finished the Chapter "The Reign of Etiquette." I certainly have to pick up a book on Louis the XIV. There is a lot here that Barzun assumes we know. On Page 291, he claims that Louis's mistress, the Marquise de Montspan was a satan worshiper who sacrificed an infant to gain the post. Does anyone know what historical evidence this is based on? Her memoirs perhaps .. or his? I am also interested in learning more about the wars that took place during his reign since I'm getting the impression that although Colbert's policies helped the organization of the administration, the wars caused financial hardship for France in the years after his reign. Unfortunately, there is a blank in my personal knowledge of French history here .. between his reign and that of Louis XVI.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Sarah, this book may be give additional info regarding Louis XIV that you might be looking for. It is quite readable.





Regarding Marquise de Montspan (not much found). I did come across this very old edition called The Women of Versailles (check out page 67 onward); I am sure that there are other resources. From what I read, she was very religious but arrogant and despotic. Will look further.

http://ia301535.us.archive.org//load_...

Outline of the Wars of Louis XVI:

http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/H...
http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/3...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/War...


There are not a great many books in English which cover the wars comprehensively. The following book does. Just a postscript: the book is rather pricey; you may want to see if the library has it or you can obtain it via interlibrary loan. When I come across some others, I will post them.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Sarah, I agree that Barzun makes many assumptions as to what he believes we already know; he obviously covered a lot in his 100+ years and this book is a tremendous course in cultural history which reflects his lifelong learning. As I am reading Barzun's book, I find so many areas where I want to pursue deeper study. Sometimes the best learning experience is learning about what you do not know.

[Sarah]

Bentley, I agree. Thank you for the links, they are very helpful.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Sarah, I am glad you liked them.