FMANCIPATION, PRIMmVISM,rnINDMDIL^LISM, SEI .F-CONSCIOUSNESS,rnABSTR,^CTION, ANALYSIS,rnSPECIALISM, SCIENTISM, SECULARISM.rnREDUCTIONISM.rnHa ing been a wallflower all mv life atrndances and of die male persnasion intornthe bargain, I ean onlv imagine that diernexperience of reading this book might berncomparable to dancing with a partnerrnwho fails to exert what nsed to be called arnsufficiently strong lead. While Barzunrnleans heavilv on die reader in making arncompelling case for sectarian facHonalisni,rnpost-Reformation, as die proximaterncanse of the rise of the nation-state ruledrnby a monarch in die interest of imposingrnsocial and political stabilit} (in retrospect,rndie locus of power since the late IiddlernAges appears to hac passed from thernHol Roman Empire to the warring I6dicentur’rnsects, thence to modern nations,rnand finally to a free-floating internationalistrnelite), for the most part he relies onrncatalog, anecdote, textbook generalities,rnand encapsulated biography to develop arnthesis that lacks assertivcness, strong development,rnand bold delineation, forrnwhich upper-case nudges arc substitutedrnto indicate the pertinent theme (EMANCIPATION,rnABSTRACriON). Thernprinciple of selection is careful enough,rnthe material suffieientK’well chosen, thatrnmuch —indeed most—of Barzun’s storvrnis interesting, at times een entertaining,rndiough not exacdx’ original. Moreo”er,rnBarzun, as he enters the centur’ of hisrno\ 11 personal experience (he was born inrnEranec in 1907), exerts a stronger (andrnmarkedly more astringent) point of ‘ie\.rnOudines are sketched more starkly, colorsrnare laid on more yividh’: “The blowrnthat hurled the modern world on itsrncourse of self-destruction was the GreatrnWar of 1914-18.” (That is true, though -rnagain —in no \a a remarkable insight.rnB comparison, here is Professor Barzun’srnmost insightful comment on therncircumstances giving rise to that war: “Itrnwas late in the da- to hope for the fusionrn[in the Balkans] that die full-fledged nationsrnhad achiexed when the occidentalrnmonarchs made their rcolution.”)rnIn the public mind, Jacques Barzunrnremains the embodiment of the old idealrnof the gendeman-and-seholar, America’srnforemost—almost its last—patrician intellectual;rnfair] or unfairly, he gained arnreputation in the w ake of the Columbiarnriots of 1969 as a reactionars’ defender ofrnthe Old Idea of the miiyersit, and ofrnWestern culture itself Eor that reason itrnis hardly surprising to find him reactingrnwith feeling against “artists” whosernaxowcd aim is “|h]elping to destro’ arnculture,” and to their message that “artrnas an institution with a moral purposern[is] dead.” What is surprising is tornstumble on such eontradietions —frequentrnenough tliroughout the text torncome finally as no surprise —of ProfessorrnBarzun’s repntafion as his cxtremeh uncriticalrnassessment of Tolsto” (a selfishrnmonster in his personal life and by nornmeans alwas a conscientious arfist) and,rneen more, of George Bernard Shaw—rnwho praised Stalin for his strength ofrnmind and purpose in slaughtering tens ofrnmillions of his own people. (Since Shawrnridiculed Hitler and Mussolini, Barzunrnargues that his support for the Soviet dictatorrnmust be seen as an uncharacteristicrnThe Rockford InstituternCenter on International AffairsrnInaugural ConferencernNovember 4, 2000rnChicago, IllinoisrnFor more information, please call Aaron Wolf at (815) 964-S811.rnact inconsistent with his true nature andrnopinions.)rnJacques Barzun, who in From Dawn tornDecadence chose to work by way of whatrnthe Erench call amoncellement and juxtaposition,rnought not to be faulted for fiiilingrnto write a tendentious, ham-handed,rnpseudoscholarly book in flie genre that isrnso popular today. On flie other hand, arnremark on almost the last page of thernbook that he did write caught my attention;rnThe careful historian, before hernventures to predict the course ofrnhistory, murmurs to himself,rn”Schedei” It is not a niagie word,rnbut the name of a learned Germanrnwho, in 1493 —note the date —rncompiled and published thernNuremburg Chronicle. It announcedrnthat the sixth of the sevenrnages of mankind was drawing to arnclose, and it included several blankrnpages for recording anything of interestrnthat might still occur duringrnthe following days. As we know,rnwhat occurred was the opening ofrnthe New Worid and all the innovationsrnthat followed from it—hardlyrna close.rnThis passage, rather than point me aheadrnto the futuristic vision with which Barzunrnconcludes, instead sent me back to thernbeginning—not only of his book but ofrnthe modern era, the v’ear 1 500. ElsewherernBarzun refers to “the cultural lagrnof about ten years that had generally obtainedrnbetween European and Americanrnart and intellect,” and that the Americanrnexpatriates of the I920’s are said to havernsucceeded in closing. It was this notionrnof Europe informing and forming thernNev- World —especially the part of itrnknown as the United States—that stirredrnan idea I have found m’self toying withrnfor some years. It is that the NewrnWorld —created significantly by OldrnWorld adventurers, dissenters andrnheretics, the restless, the dispossessed,rnand the disaffected —in the process ofrncreating itself succeeded in recreatingrn(perhaps deconstructing is the betterrnword) the Old one. There seems norndoubt this did occur, at least in some degree:rnThe question is simply how earlyrnthe process began — the early 1500’s orrnthe 1950’s, or somewhere in between.rnMv guess is that—in noii- or extra-intellectualrnways to begin with; simply byrnforce of new examples and the self-con-rn26/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn