What do you think?
Rate this book
A Thread of Years
The distinguished historian John Lukacs has been described as "one of the most powerful as well as one of the most learned minds [of the] century" by Conor Cruise O'Brien and as "one of the most original and profound of contemporary thinkers" by Paul Fussell. Here Lukacs presents a series of fictionalized vignettes of daily life as experienced by ordinary individuals in the United States (although Lukacs takes us to some European countries as well), each in a year from 1901 to 1969, and each followed by a short dialogue in which the author argues with an interlocutor (who may or may not be himself) over why he has chosen to develop a given scenario in that particular year and what its significance might be.
The period represents the life of a single man, K., which Lukacs weaves in and out of the text and through which can be traced the leitmotif of the the decline of Anglo-American civilization and of the ideal of the gentleman. The book is primarily a work in the history of manners and mores, a delightful-and poignant-succession of sketches that brings the reader into the inner and often undeclared life of individuals and places them in the larger dramas of historical process in this century.
The period represents the life of a single man, K., which Lukacs weaves in and out of the text and through which can be traced the leitmotif of the the decline of Anglo-American civilization and of the ideal of the gentleman. The book is primarily a work in the history of manners and mores, a delightful-and poignant-succession of sketches that brings the reader into the inner and often undeclared life of individuals and places them in the larger dramas of historical process in this century.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
489 pages, Paperback
First published February 17, 1998
3 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
About the author
John Lukacs
61 books116 followersLukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 11, 2014
There are a couple of things that might help you to understand and appreciate John Lukacs. First, his career goal was to be a writer, not a historian. One can say that history, viewed from the wide lens of the Modern Age, to a close-up in Five Days in London: May 1940, to a microscopic view in vignettes as short as a brief imagined conversation, mark the range of his writing. Fortunately, for history as a discipline, and we as readers, he chose modern history as his subject matter.
Second, you should know that one reviewer labeled Lukacs a “conservative polymath”, but Lukacs rejects the “conservative” designation because of his rejection of so much of American political conservatism. Instead, he considers himself a “reactionary impressionist”. What is that? Here’s Lukacs in an interview discussing the “reactionary” portion of his self-designation:
Thus, Lukacs, by this self-designation as a “reactionary”, signals his unique political and historical perspective. But what about the “impressionist” portion of “reactionary impressionist”? For understanding this designation, we have no better guide than A Thread of Years.
A Thread of Years has been labeled an “experimental work”, and Lukacs himself says that it’s neither literature nor history. I think, it’s both, with a good deal of essay and dialogue thrown in. In this work, using most of the years between 1900 and 1969, Lukacs writes short vignettes involving fictional characters within different settings in Europe and the U.S. He then comments upon and discusses the vignettes with his “alter ego”. The subjects of these vignettes vary, although a few characters appear in several of the vignettes. His locales and characters include Philadelphia and its environs (where Lukacs settled and taught), Catholic Churches, its priests and laity (Lukacs is Catholic and taught many years at a small Catholic college in Philadelphia), and Hungarians (Lukacs is a native of Hungry), along with other assorted characters and locales. Even those characters and locales with which he seems to have no direct connection are quite convincing. Any Lukacs reader quickly recognizes his erudition and his writer’s eye for character and place.
The format of vignettes allows Lukacs to write in the manner of a novelist, a form which I have no doubt he could have mastered if he’d have chosen that path. By taking different years and settings, he gives us a sense of the ordinary human lives that co-existed with great historical events. He also demonstrates how culture and civilization have changed in the course of the first 70 years of the 20th century (although published in 1998, Lukacs stopped his vignettes at 1969). For instance, he addresses the decline of the Anglo-Saxon elite in the U.S. and rising tide of a form of populism. The intriguing thing about this project is his ability to create these brief sketches, these impressionistic word pictures of persons and places. In this he's similar to what we experience in the great impressionistic painters. I consider him a verbal Renoir, Manet, Monet, or Degas, but not one not limited to the fin-de-siècle. Instead, he uses a large chunk of the 20th century to locate his verbal canvasses.
The dialogues are more challenging. Like native European intellectuals that I’ve read, he alludes to sources and experiences that often elude me. The dialogues also seem to allow him to acknowledge his biases and prejudices (for instance, he does not like the film Casablanca), thereby both airing them and letting them stand or fall as the reader deems appropriate. Sometimes I felt as if I was overhearing a conversation in a foreign language that I knew a bit of. I could pick-up bits and pieces, but I still felt as though I missed the greater whole. On the other hand, we learn from listening to the adults, so the benefit far outweighs any frustration.
In preparing for this review and blog, I found that I’d labeled 21 earlier blog entries as mentioning, if not focused upon, John Lukacs. This entry makes 22, and assuming my good fortune to keep on reading and learning, you can expect many more. After all, while out of the U.S., he’s published another book. In addition, with Lukacs, I’ve found I can re-read with continued benefit and enjoyment. What better recommendation for an author?
Second, you should know that one reviewer labeled Lukacs a “conservative polymath”, but Lukacs rejects the “conservative” designation because of his rejection of so much of American political conservatism. Instead, he considers himself a “reactionary impressionist”. What is that? Here’s Lukacs in an interview discussing the “reactionary” portion of his self-designation:
“a remnant reactionary, a remnant bourgeois, a remnant admirer of the civilization and culture of the past five hundred years, European and Western." [Quoting his description of himself in his “auto-history”, Last Rites.] I say this even though I consider many of the dominant ideas and achievements of the past 500 years—for example, objectivity, progress, and materialism—to be insufficient, and I strongly resist these categorical formulations as absolutes.
Thus, Lukacs, by this self-designation as a “reactionary”, signals his unique political and historical perspective. But what about the “impressionist” portion of “reactionary impressionist”? For understanding this designation, we have no better guide than A Thread of Years.
A Thread of Years has been labeled an “experimental work”, and Lukacs himself says that it’s neither literature nor history. I think, it’s both, with a good deal of essay and dialogue thrown in. In this work, using most of the years between 1900 and 1969, Lukacs writes short vignettes involving fictional characters within different settings in Europe and the U.S. He then comments upon and discusses the vignettes with his “alter ego”. The subjects of these vignettes vary, although a few characters appear in several of the vignettes. His locales and characters include Philadelphia and its environs (where Lukacs settled and taught), Catholic Churches, its priests and laity (Lukacs is Catholic and taught many years at a small Catholic college in Philadelphia), and Hungarians (Lukacs is a native of Hungry), along with other assorted characters and locales. Even those characters and locales with which he seems to have no direct connection are quite convincing. Any Lukacs reader quickly recognizes his erudition and his writer’s eye for character and place.
The format of vignettes allows Lukacs to write in the manner of a novelist, a form which I have no doubt he could have mastered if he’d have chosen that path. By taking different years and settings, he gives us a sense of the ordinary human lives that co-existed with great historical events. He also demonstrates how culture and civilization have changed in the course of the first 70 years of the 20th century (although published in 1998, Lukacs stopped his vignettes at 1969). For instance, he addresses the decline of the Anglo-Saxon elite in the U.S. and rising tide of a form of populism. The intriguing thing about this project is his ability to create these brief sketches, these impressionistic word pictures of persons and places. In this he's similar to what we experience in the great impressionistic painters. I consider him a verbal Renoir, Manet, Monet, or Degas, but not one not limited to the fin-de-siècle. Instead, he uses a large chunk of the 20th century to locate his verbal canvasses.
The dialogues are more challenging. Like native European intellectuals that I’ve read, he alludes to sources and experiences that often elude me. The dialogues also seem to allow him to acknowledge his biases and prejudices (for instance, he does not like the film Casablanca), thereby both airing them and letting them stand or fall as the reader deems appropriate. Sometimes I felt as if I was overhearing a conversation in a foreign language that I knew a bit of. I could pick-up bits and pieces, but I still felt as though I missed the greater whole. On the other hand, we learn from listening to the adults, so the benefit far outweighs any frustration.
In preparing for this review and blog, I found that I’d labeled 21 earlier blog entries as mentioning, if not focused upon, John Lukacs. This entry makes 22, and assuming my good fortune to keep on reading and learning, you can expect many more. After all, while out of the U.S., he’s published another book. In addition, with Lukacs, I’ve found I can re-read with continued benefit and enjoyment. What better recommendation for an author?
July 10, 2014
Lukas is best known for being a historian, having written nearly twenty books on twentieth century history, so this hybrid is a departure. Hybrid because it's neither quite history or fiction, but a blend of the two. Lukacs makes it clear in the introduction that he has no interest in writing historical fiction which is free to invent characters and situations and link them to actual events. History, on the other hand, is more closely tethered to facts with opinions that may be expressed.
What Lukacs has done is to write short impressionistic sketches or vignettes of each year from 1900 to l969, the point at which he feels the 20th century made a definitive shift . Historical facts might be mentioned in passing, but are completely missing in some years. After the sketch which always involves people going about their everyday lives, along with some commentary, there is a dialogue between the author and a usually skeptical reader who most of the time questions whether this approach has worked or not. Lukacs is modest and admits that perhaps his approach often doesn't work.
As a reader, I think the approach is very uneven. Some years work will in giving you a sense of how individuals were reacting to larger events. In l912, for example, when enthusiasm for Teddy Roosevelt's reforms were waning, a disillusionment began to set in with a one-time liberal becoming conservative and muttering that "something is wrong with the progressive movement - human nature will not change." At the same time, though, an enormous cultural change was underway with the rise of the movie industry in southern California.
In 1924 a rich couple tour Italy in a new and sportily-designed Itralian roadster. Misolini was coming to power, and innovation and hope were in the air for a country that was finally going to regain some of its ancient Roman glory. The irony that the reader brings to this "springtime" is well evoked.
1945 Lucas sees as a turning point of the 20th century, and he mentions the suicide of many Germans, including Hitler, who despaired at the end of the Third Reich. At the same time, though, a large German emigre' colony in sunny southern California were enjoying the beginnings of the rise of the American Empire, helped along in no small degree by the film industry.
A question arises of why Lukacs stops his "thread of years" in l969 when the century is only two thirds completed. Originally, he had intended to stop in the 90's after the fall of the Berlin Wall in l989. His skeptical reader reminds him that he still has over 20 years to go. Lukacs' reply in the voice of the narrator (it's never quite clear whether the narrator and Lukacs are the same, although there's no reason to think otherwise), is the the 60's marked the end of the value of Anglo-American values. He's referring, not to the hippies and the youth movement, but to the "erosion of beliefs and of institutions and of manners and morals and habits than can no longer be restored."
What do all of those generalizations refer to? Lukacs writes at the beginning that he is really trying to depict the decline of the ideal of the "gentleman", the individual who has been blessed with power and influence and has used it in a responsible way. He no longer exists, and if you read all of these 69 vignettes, Lukacs hopes you will see that he has made his case. An interesting attempt, but I'm not convinced that the ideal of the "gentleman" ever existed as Lukacs depicts it. His" skeptical reader" character would agree (and I would agree with him), arguing that Lukacs is indulging in nostalgia for a idealized past.
What Lukacs has done is to write short impressionistic sketches or vignettes of each year from 1900 to l969, the point at which he feels the 20th century made a definitive shift . Historical facts might be mentioned in passing, but are completely missing in some years. After the sketch which always involves people going about their everyday lives, along with some commentary, there is a dialogue between the author and a usually skeptical reader who most of the time questions whether this approach has worked or not. Lukacs is modest and admits that perhaps his approach often doesn't work.
As a reader, I think the approach is very uneven. Some years work will in giving you a sense of how individuals were reacting to larger events. In l912, for example, when enthusiasm for Teddy Roosevelt's reforms were waning, a disillusionment began to set in with a one-time liberal becoming conservative and muttering that "something is wrong with the progressive movement - human nature will not change." At the same time, though, an enormous cultural change was underway with the rise of the movie industry in southern California.
In 1924 a rich couple tour Italy in a new and sportily-designed Itralian roadster. Misolini was coming to power, and innovation and hope were in the air for a country that was finally going to regain some of its ancient Roman glory. The irony that the reader brings to this "springtime" is well evoked.
1945 Lucas sees as a turning point of the 20th century, and he mentions the suicide of many Germans, including Hitler, who despaired at the end of the Third Reich. At the same time, though, a large German emigre' colony in sunny southern California were enjoying the beginnings of the rise of the American Empire, helped along in no small degree by the film industry.
A question arises of why Lukacs stops his "thread of years" in l969 when the century is only two thirds completed. Originally, he had intended to stop in the 90's after the fall of the Berlin Wall in l989. His skeptical reader reminds him that he still has over 20 years to go. Lukacs' reply in the voice of the narrator (it's never quite clear whether the narrator and Lukacs are the same, although there's no reason to think otherwise), is the the 60's marked the end of the value of Anglo-American values. He's referring, not to the hippies and the youth movement, but to the "erosion of beliefs and of institutions and of manners and morals and habits than can no longer be restored."
What do all of those generalizations refer to? Lukacs writes at the beginning that he is really trying to depict the decline of the ideal of the "gentleman", the individual who has been blessed with power and influence and has used it in a responsible way. He no longer exists, and if you read all of these 69 vignettes, Lukacs hopes you will see that he has made his case. An interesting attempt, but I'm not convinced that the ideal of the "gentleman" ever existed as Lukacs depicts it. His" skeptical reader" character would agree (and I would agree with him), arguing that Lukacs is indulging in nostalgia for a idealized past.
November 20, 2017
I expected to enjoy this book, but did not. A major disappointment. It consists of a collection of vignettes, each followed by a discussion of what it was supposed to show. Despite the title, the book lacks any real thread tying it together, and the vignettes are not enlightening.
May 23, 2012
The author incisively uses character and moral judgments as an aid in his best histories, but this is no history. This reduces his oeuvre, ironically showing a flaw of his own.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews