I note that my less than ringing endorsement of Sir Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation has caused a ripple of irritation in certain quarters. So be it. I stand by what I said. I would, however, like to confess an element of prejudice and presumption. Having made my judgment solely on the basis of the first six episodes that I had seen, and not on the remaining seven that I had not, I was prejudging the case before hearing all the evidence and presuming guilt on the basis of this incomplete evidence.

Last night I watched episode seven, “Grandeur and Obedience”, which covered the baroque and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. It was really excellent and Clark’s almost gushing defence of Catholic art against the iconoclasm of the Protestant north was not only edifying and refreshing but served as an early prophecy of his future reception into the Church. True to form, his defence of the Catholic baroque was an aesthete’s defence and not a theologian’s or a philosopher’s. It was, therefore, incomplete. It was also marred somewhat by the barbed comments at the episode’s conclusion, in which Clark seemed keen to distance himself from any charges of “popery”. Nonetheless, and to give credit where it’s due, this particular episode was a rare example of secular television paying tribute to the majesty of Rome. Bravo, Sir Kenneth. Bravo!

Mea culpa … but …

I suspect that my overall judgment of the series will not be very different from that which I formed after watching the first six episodes. I have little confidence that Clark’s inarticulate grasp of the rational foundations for faith will be sufficient to grapple with the complexities of the Enlightenment, utilitarianism, romanticism, impressionism, secular progressivism and the other isms that have beset civilization over the past three hundred years. Since these form the basis of the remaining six episodes, I expect to revert to my role as curmudgeon as I watch future episodes.