Defining Decadence
Decadence is a “falling away” from an idea or substantive notion. The grip of society is loosened on an idea or principle until it no longer holds the power to influence. The root word is decay, but it goes beyond merely decay, to decline in society and civilization. Decadence in art, for example, is seen in a breaking free or emancipation from religious significance. Decadence paved the way for Romanticism, which sought to introduce frivolity, aesthetic, and whim, such as the move in religious art and architecture, for example, from Gothic (a reaching up to heaven from earth) to Baroque (a bringing of heaven down to earth). Gothic was stark, stiff, rigid, cold. Baroque was beautiful, voluptuous, inviting. Through decadence, rules break down, new ways of thinking are embraced, and each successive way, however, is in a sense a rebellion against the prior one. Decadence is a deterioration of the purity of a thing. It is seen in religion, not in its tendency toward corruption, but it in losing steadfastness.
The Invisible College
The Invisible College was originally a group of natural philosophers and intellectuals who sought to advance knowledge through experimentation in the 17th century. Eventually it led to the formation of the Royal Society of London, which was chartered by Charles II. The belief that all questions had a scientific answer and all that experience should be tested empirically became known as scientism. The more one relied on the five senses and reason to discern one’s world, the less necessary was reliance upon religion or ideas about of God. Explanations of the natural universe were no longer the province of religion, but the mind.
Martin Luther
I particularly enjoyed the section on Luther and was much informed. The angry earthy legend shorted his true character. The man was also deeply loving, warm and affectionate. He opened his home to all manner of preachers, scholars and thinkers, with whom he would hold court and discuss theology and the issues of the day. His generosity and hospitality made him a poor man. He married his wife because of guilt and charity, not romance, but came to love her with a deep devotion. Though he is accused of anti-Semitism, it is important to note that his verbal abuse of adversaries was a common and accepted form of debate, of which he made ready use.
His endurance was unmatched, preaching several times a week, and writing more than 55 volumes of ministerial and theological works. He read through the Bible about every six months. He died a middle-aged man, according to modern life expectancies, and yet produced a remarkable volume of work. Luther was truly a renaissance man, which according to Barzun, was one who applied himself deftly to the higher disciplines of life. Luther was a theologian and scholar, a reformer, a musician and composer, and a naturalist. His interests were varied, but with the common thread of awe for God’s handiwork, whether it was in the creation, His people, the arts, or His Word.
This is especially true of his awe for the Christian faith. Luther once wrote, “If one consults reason alone, one cannot assent to the articles of our faith.” This is a denial of some ethical systems which arose after Luther, systems which argued against the need for God, suggesting that ethics can be established through reason and logic alone. At least Hume had that right.
Luther had a strong sense of the spiritual world around him. He understood and saw the work of Satan everywhere. No doubt, the forces of evil were against the reformers and their work. He waged spiritual warfare routinely throughout his ministry. Though not a perfect saint, Luther’s strenuous and vigorous pursuit of the pious life stands as an example to all men. He was a humble man. In many ways, Luther was a Paul of his own period. Conversely, given his prolific writing, preaching and teaching as the voice of the Reformation, he could have claimed the office of prophet, but unlike Paul, denied the office applied to himself.
The most remarkable thing about Luther, however, is the impact he made on western civilization and culture through his religious reforms in Christianity. His work, though somewhat wobbly as a new born colt after his death, eventually gained strength and grounding, finding its place in the world. As Barzun noted, “his revolution was a fait accompli” that changed the world forever.
The French Revolution
I was intrigued with Barzun’s treatment of the French Revolution, though somewhat surprisingly, it presented a view of the Revolution as noble on balance, excusing its excesses, at least by comparison to my own knowledge of history and two books I’ve read recently. One of the two books, the one closer to the events of the Revolution, was Gustav Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Le Bon saw the French Revolutionists as inspired by the ideals of human liberty and fraternity, which agreed with Barzun. However, their agreement more or less ended there. Barzun seemed to soften the historical conclusions drawn by other analysts who hold that, over time, the revolution was reduced to a mob of looters and pillagers, attacking anything or anyone who disagreed with their views or seemed in any way to represent the French monarchy or its sympathetic political establishment. The second book I recently read on the subject, Ann Coulter’s Demonic, based in part on Le Bon’s The Crowd, argued from a slightly different perspective, though agreed with the essential conclusions of Le Bon. Coulter used Le Bon’s take on the Revolution and his general views on the nature of mobs, along with her own research and analysis, as a back drop to explain the methodologies and aims of the current liberal-social movement in the United States and to give it a historical context grounded in the French Revolution.
Conversely, a fair amount of what Barzun said is rather good. For example, he made some very interesting statements regarding the causes of the French Revolution. The corrupt and self indulgent monarchy needed to be replaced by at least a constitutional monarchy, such as England’s, but if that was not a possibility, then the establishment of a republic would suffice. Barzun pointed out that the “germ” of the French Revolution was the Protestant Reformation, which derided and sought reform of the corruptions and self indulgence of the Roman Catholic papacy. The Protestants “asserted the Christian Liberty… of free and equal access to God,” an appealing and transferable maxim for the French. As the French Revolution progressed, evidence of the influence of the sentiments of the American Revolutionists, some of which echoed those of the Protestant Reformers, emerged in the speeches and writings of the leaders of the French Revolution. The French saw the Americans as having fought to free men from what they perceived as a tyrannical monarchy in England. The French could identify with the Americans. Ironically, it was the French monarchy which finally came to the aid of the Americans, largely through the work of Jefferson and Franklin, helping them to secure their independence from England, less for the cause of liberty than for the cause of self preservation, however, as England was the despised enemy of France.
Perhaps Barzun’s greatest errors were his liberal descriptions and analysis of what exactly went on during the French Revolution. He stated that, “the Paris mob was thus an organized and articulate mass of people.” Mobs, by definition, are never organized or articulate. They are random, disorganized, unthinking, hapless, lack leadership and can be controlled by images and perceptions. Mobs adopt a morality that is often in substantial contradiction to that of their individual members. Barzun claims that the most violent factions of the French Revolution were “patriots, defenders of truth and virtue – no, saviors of the revolution.” He describes the methods of the revolutionaries as “petty massacres,” adding that they upheld the principles of “sovereignty of the people, equality, and what was termed honorable mediocrity.” Barzun rightly assesses the lasting impact and cultural value of the French Revolution. It ended the French monarchy, and thereby weakened other European monarchies, and it reinforced and advanced the best ideals of democracy and representative government. I feel that Barzun’s work on this subject is useful, but not entirely authoritative. I suppose that no work of this sort is ever without some bias in one direction or another. Like Justo Gonzales’ treatment of church history, it is well researched, well- written, and includes the author’s best and thoughtful, yet somewhat subjective, cultural analysis.
William Shakespeare
The contribution of 16th century playwright, William Shakespeare, to literature and the theater, and consequently the culture, even modern culture, are without question. Through the years, however, Shakespeare has not always been held in the highest esteem. For the two centuries following his death, he was analyzed and dismissed as having limited talents. As time went by, his genius and wit and his comedic abilities and understanding of the human psyche won out. He was viewed by many as an antidote to Voltaire.
Today, he is recognized as something on the order of the Freud of playwrights. Shakespeare’s skill in dissecting the aspirations and motives of people from every walk of life, from the lowest member of society to highest gentry or regent, is uncanny. Shakespeare was able to indulge in both political and social commentary through his plays, winning the hearts and often echoing the minds of commoner and nobleman alike. His influence is still seen today, not only through his entertaining and insightful plays, but through the myriad notable quotes which crept into the vernacular in earlier centuries but linger profoundly and memorably in modern times.
Shakespeare developed characters so large, so recognizable, so iconic, so acutely human, that they transcend dialect and culture, break free of their provinciality, and speak directly to the ageless condition of the heart. The characters ring true and connect with audiences across all lines. We can see ourselves in each of the personas he creates. The honesty and boldness of Shakespeare’s writing is as fresh and new today as it was when he originally penned his works.
Still, Barzun takes a measured view of Shakespeare. He sees Shakespeare as part time bore and part time savant. Barzun supports his assessment of the half-genius by arguing that, although much of Shakespeare is still staged and screened today (about half his works routinely see daylight in the arts), actors, directors, and producers regularly trifle with his writings, changing plots, altering dialogue, re-envisioning tragedies as comedies, and speculating about their authenticity. Shakespeare does, however, measure up to the Romanticism of his age, challenging the aristocracy of his day and exposing its warts, mixing tragedy with comedy and intrigue with fanciful imaginings to produce heartfelt emotion in the extreme, validating the visceral expressions of humankind as not only acceptable but honorable.
Shakespeare’s legacy is one which opens life up to the magnifying glass, affording his audience the most intimate view of the machinations and intricacies of the mind, the steadfast constancy and vicissitudes of the soul, and the marvels and depths of the spirit. Shakespeare, with all his imperfections, forced us to look at ourselves, to see the evil and the good, to recognize those qualities in others, to value the vagaries of motives, to judge actions as well as sentiments, and to respond in earnestness with trepidation and wonder at our potential.
Western Sexuality
I found the final section of Barzun’s epic work to be the least compelling. But, I shall take up his views on the modern history of western sexuality. Barzun is mildly schizophrenic on the 20th century’s liberal advances. I noted with consternation that he characterized Margaret Sanger as “courageous.” While this is not strictly incorrect, Barzun leaves it at that, suggesting that he approved of her work in contraception and pregnancy termination. Barzun ignores, however, the advent of the modern abortion clinic, which Sanger championed, and the role that her Planned Parenthood has played in the sexual revolution, the breakdown of the American family, the welfare state, and overall liberal shift in western society. Planned Parenthood is a nationwide and partially government-funded network of abortion facilities which was founded by Sanger along with her partner, Katharine Martha Houghton Hepburn, the mother of actress Katharine Hepburn. Sanger’s cooperation with Nazi Germany and her interest and support of Eugenics (the improvement of the human race through controlled breeding), go unmentioned.
While giving tacit approval to Sanger, Barzun describes some of the ills of the sexual revolution as “disasters,” including high numbers of “early pregnancies,” the significant reduction in the quality and quantity of academics, and the distribution of contraceptives and sexual education materials in the public schools. While I agree with the descriptions of these ills as disasters, Barzun limits his comments to general notions and offers no analysis. It seems to me that all societies move to the left until they acted upon by some correcting force. The nature of man, unchecked by the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, dooms him to continue his march along the path of debauchery and self destruction. Barzun also points to the ill of the new definition of sexual harassment, which arose during the sexual revolution. He decries the stigmatization of unwanted sexual advances as “harassment.” Barzun disapproves of the drift towards viewing activities as mundane as staring at females as somehow grounds for legal action.
Barzun’s pendulum swings as he describes pornography as “a form of utopian literature.” Though he seems to see pornography as more than an innocent expression of sensuality, he does not care to label it dirty or morally wrong. However, when pornography begins to seep into Barzun’s beloved higher arts, such as the stage, film, and painting, he takes a stronger stance, finally calling it “perversity.” But, when kept in its place, Barzun seems to have little issue with pornography. Oddly, in the next breath, Barzun scolds women for demanding the “feminine equivalent” of drugs developed to address issues of male erectile dysfunction. While validating the male need for the drug, he ridicules women for seeking such medical liberation of their sexuality and for failing to see the value of longing and desire which find their natural balance in the ebb and flow of the seasons of life. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose. It is hard to fully understand Barzun’s take on the progress of sexuality, but given the age in which he lived (1907 – 1979), I believe I am on solid ground when I categorize it as liberal. Some of his ideas would have no doubt been seen as progressive by his non-academic contemporaries.
Critique
Contribution – Barzun opened my eyes to the role of art in the development of society. Prior to Barzun, I saw art as merely the expression of style within periods, largely reporting on events after the fact. After Barzun I see it as much more. Art is not only a reflection of the attitudes of the day, it also is the cutting edge of society. Barzun has led me to believe that life imitates art. The artist is saying something new, pushing the envelope, making an argument, seeking revolution, driving change, kicking against the goads, rebelling against authority. In large measure, art moves societies, more or less, toward the liberal position. Religion and convention are always the enemies of the most influential art. Moreover, art is a thread that sometimes runs ahead of societal evolution and sometimes runs behind it, but it is always there, either commenting or suggesting. As one era in civilization gives way to the next, art is its voice. I will never look at art the same way again.
Weakness – Barzun, not being a Christian, lacks an understanding of the Christian World View. He is a bit jaded and tends to see religion as homogenous in so far as it has any beneficial value to the society. I mean that he seems to take the position, “Religion, so what? Take it or leave it, it has no real substance.” In this regard he gives much greater weight to art, and almost dismisses religion as having any truly positive impact on society.
Witnessing – Barzun demonstrated the tendency of societies to marginalize religion in favor of naturalism and anti-supernaturalism. Ultimately, the human heart wants to deny God and it discovers new ways to do so with each new movement. Self reliance and self determination continue as themes that tend to drive all societal change in the macro. Wittingly or unwittingly, Barzun has underscored this, and it is profound. Demonstrating this relentless determination of the human heart to eliminate God from any reality is consistent with biblical anthropological theology and an argument the veracity thereof.
