From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life (Paperback)

At the end of the book, he writes from the perspective of the year 2300 about what happens in the next 300 years. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the book. He predicts that boredom will eventually drive people back into being interested in the traditional intellectual, social, and artistic paths of western civilization. At one level, he may well be right because the current technological revolution will rapidly reduce the amount of employment required for every day goods and services. Until more interesting ones are developed, a surfeit of cheap goods, services and entertainment may quickly become boring -- particularly if they are primarily consumed in a passive way.

Barzun also tell us the book is aimed at those who like to read about art and thought, manners, morals, and religion, and the social setting in which these activities have been and are taking place.

His hypothesis is a defense of western civilization.

This is an unusually long book, but the nature of the subject requires it. Certainly, I saw no place where the book provided too much or extraneous detail. To help the reader, the book is delightfully broken down into smaller units. The first is from 1500 to 1660 (the key issue was what to believe in religion), the second from 1661-1789 (the status of the individual and the mode of government predominate as topics), the third from 1790-1920 (government as a means to provide social and economic equality as the central issues), and the fourth from 1921 to the present (a mixture of all these past issues). Then, within each section, there are a series of essays that look at the primary religious, artistic, scientific, social, governmental, and thought developments. To tie all of these essays together, he uses concepts that he feels are continuing themes over the 500 years. To help these stand out, he CAPITALIZES them. Some of the major themes include PRIMITIVISM, EMANCIPATION, INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, ANALYSIS, REDUCTIVISM, SECULARISM and ABSTRACTION. To give the reader a firm place to stand, he includes several essays that are centered on a place and time to give a better sense of what it was like to live then. These are usually chosen to be near where the dominant themes were playing most strongly (Madrid in 1540, Venice in 1650, London in 1715, Weimar in 1790, Paris in 1830, and Chicago in 1880).

What is good about this perspective is that it puts many things in context. You see the design in the mosaic as well as the design in the individual tile. Barzun adds to this by masterfully explaining why things happened differently than expected. For example, Luther in 1517, the French aristocrats in 1789, and the Russian nobles in 1917 did not intend to start revolutions. Luther tacking his theses was the equivalent of publishing an article today. What made it different was that the printing press allowed these ideas to spread.

Barzun adds another perspective that is useful: the intellectual spread of ideas and concepts. When thinking about the past, most of us focus on the greatest individual contributors. But in doing so, we may miss people who added a key element that allowed others to accomplish more in the future. I was impressed by how many essayists, artists, musicians, and philosphers he cited whose names were totally unfamiliar to me. Yet, I was enriched by understanding their contributions from reading this book. This gave me a new sense of how to think about history. I should confess that I was a modern French history major in college, so I should know more of these people than most will.

I do not agree with Barzun on all of his points, and he would be surprised if you or I did. For example, I think he vastly underestimates the impact of economic, technological, and financial forces on these five centuries. Looking forward, I think he is even more blind to them. For example, the rise of the Internet will allow us all to be in contact. But what should we rely on each other for? You may be a great soccer player, but not so good at algebra. If I ask you to help me do some financial planning, you may inadvertently harm me even though you are a well-meaning, moral person. This question of when to trust will be critical to further development of civilization. If you would like to read another perspective on these centuries that favors the factors that Barzun underrepresents, you may find The Sovereign Individual helpful.

I also don't think he makes his case for the superiority of western civilization over other cultures in the last 500 years. That would really require a different kind of book than this one is. This one focuses on Europe and North America. I suspect that he should have set a slightly less ambitious goal.

So, what's it all add up to? You cannot help but gain by reading this book. You will better understand the arguments for and against all of our current issues. You will locate artists and writers whom you will enjoy. You will have a great deal more fun on your next trip to Europe, visiting all of the places he talks about. You will also develop your own perspective on what the last 500 years means for now and in the future. For example, I was astonished to realize how much worse the 20th century was in many ways than earlier centuries, even though I was aware of the relevant details. Our social idealism is declining at an enormous rate compared to our scientific and commercial progress. All of these things are a lot to get from one book. I suspect we will not see its equal in our lives.

By the way, I suggest that you take this book in bite-sized pieces, unless you cannot stop yourself from going faster. The ideas will be easier to appreciate and connect, if you just read one essay at a time.

Overcome your misconception, disbelief, procrastination, independence, wishful thinking, and tradition stalls by becoming a better thinker about these issues. Enjoy!

However, when it comes to economics and historical interpretation the book is of more mixed quality. He repeats the old saw that money has to be in circulation for an economy to be healthy, an idea intuited from a false analogy with the human body and blood circulation. In fact, people need to keep stores of money because money can be exchanged for anything and so it makes the unpredictability of life easier to cope with.

When it comes to history everything he says up until the formation of the nation state seems plausible. After that, the argument goes rapidly downhill. His most egregious mistake is his misinterpretation of the American revolution as being merely an application of English common law. As Harry Jaffa argues in 'A New Birth of Freedom', the American revolution was far more radical than that.