I finished writing a review of this book called The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe. It was a negative review, which I’m not happy about. It doesn’t feel good to savage another author. Besides, there are more good books in the world than anyone could read in ten lifetimes. Why waste a whole Monday reading a bad one, much less a Tuesday writing about it?
Actually, I pitched the review because I liked the title. I thought it would dispel some of the “black legends” of the Middle Ages that popped up during the Renaissance. Well, it doesn’t. The Bright Ages is so loaded up with left-wing politics it can hardly stand up.
I don’t want to rehash the whole review here, but let me just quote a few lines so you know what I’m talking about. In the epilogue, the authors, Matthew Gabriele David M. Perry write:
Recent scholars… believe that Leonardo da Vinci’s model for the Mona Lisa was the wife of a slave trader. We can look back at “la Gioconda” and admire her smile and Leonardo’s brilliance but we can’t do so and ignore that the wealth of her class came at least in part from the intensification of an economy fueled by mass human trafficking.
Now, wait a minute. Why not? Really, I’d like to now. Why do I have to think about slavery every time I look at the Mona Lisa?
Even the way the authors frame their scolding is dishonest. If I don’t immediately associate da Vinci’s painting with the slave trade, it’s not because I’m “ignoring” some obvious link between the two. It’s because no such link exists. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t have known there was any connection at all between the two if I hadn’t read about it in The Bright Ages.
So, again, why do I have to think about slavery every time I look at the Mona Lisa? Did the model’s husband ask da Vinci to embed a secret subliminal code in the painting that turns the viewer into a racist? Is the world’s most famous artwork really just a super meta ad for human chattel? Was Leonardo actually the Edward Bernays of his age?
This reminds me of a post I read last year on a blog called The Public Medievalist. It’s titled, “Dear Tolkien Fans: Black People Exist.” I know, that’s cringy, but bear with me.
The author, Christina Warmbrunn, is a young mixed-race woman who discovered Lord of the Rings when she was ten. She remembers how her love for Tolkien’s fiction grew up alongside her awareness of racism in modern America. And I don’t doubt that for a moment. But then she writes, “I remember wondering if Legolas would have tolerated such open bigotry and discrimination. After learning more about Tolkien and his work, I suspect Legolas might have encouraged it.”
See? It’s the same conundrum. Ms. Warmbrunn didn’t think Lord of the Rings was racist until someone told her it was. Now she can’t see it as anything but racist.
Her love of Tolkien having been spoiled by ideology, Ms. Warmbrunn explains to us that Tolkien’s description of orcs “echo Jim Crow-era caricatures.”
Ms. Warmbrunn knows she can’t say that Tolkien doesn’t literally echo (“repeat or imitate”) Jim Crow-era caricatures. Tolkien never visited the United States and paid very little attention to America. But that’s why academics use the word echo to mean “resemble.” It gives a sense of intentionality where there’s no intention at all. It’s like the professor who was suspended for using the Chinese expression 那个, which sounds like (or “echoes”) the N-word.
All of this can (and should) make us a little angry. But, more than anything, we should feel pity. Would you want to live in Christina Warmbrunn’s head? What about Matthew Gabriele’s, or David M. Perry’s?
What if the things you once loved—whether it’s medieval history or high fantasy—now only brought you anxiety and grief? And how much worse would it be if, deep down, you knew there was no point to your misery? We all know the Mona Lisa and Lord of the Rings aren’t going to turn people into racists. And yet you ruined it for yourself. You poisoned your own well.
This is why we say progressives are the new Puritans (though that really is offensive to the old Puritans). They’re deeply suspicious of happiness. Clearly, none of this has anything to do with history or literature. It’s not even about racism. Gabriele, Perry, and Warmbrunn could just as easily be going on about sexism, homophobia, whatever. All they’re really saying is, “You shouldn’t enjoy anything too much. You should always feel a little bad about something.”
But why? Why choose to resent something you used to love?
Maybe because it takes humility to love something. It’s obvious that, whatever my gifts as a writer, I could never have written The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien is one of a kind. If I can accept that fact humbly, then I can relish the universe he wove together for us. If not—well, then I can still feel morally superior by calling him a racist.
But I really don’t know what causes it, and I probably shouldn’t speculate. The point is that our friends on the Left will not have fun. They refuse to enjoy things as a matter of principle. If by some chance they find themselves enjoying something, they’ll immediately ruin it for themselves by sniffing out a racist needle in the haystack. If they can’t find one, they’ll plant it.
That’s sad, of course. But it should also give us hope. Sooner or later, each of our progressive friends will get tired of making themselves miserable.
Maybe he’ll be walking through the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and find himself face to face with Zeus in Titian’s The Rape of Europa. He’ll be struck by the royal blues and golds in the sky, the mountains that lurch over the sea, the monstrous fish that leap out of the water, the cruel intelligence in the cow’s eyes.
Then a little voice will strike up in the back of his mind. Can you not see the sexual violence echoed in this artefact? Don’t you know the artist was patronized by the House of Habsburg and the Pope? Why do you ignore the deeply exploitative and theocratic systems that afforded Titian the privilege to create this artwork?
Then something inside him will snap. “Oh, shut up,” he’ll tell himself. “I just want to look at this painting.”
From that moment on, nothing will be the same. He’ll realize that happiness, contentment, aren’t the enemies of reform. Just the opposite, as a matter of fact. These normal human sentiments—love of truth and goodness and beauty—make us better able to serve our fellow man.
More than that, though, he’ll enjoy enjoying things. He won’t want to spoil things for himself anymore. And he’ll refuse to feel guilty for being happy.
William F. Buckley once said, “Life can't be all bad when for ten dollars you can buy all the Beethoven sonatas and listen to them for ten years.” I think that’s about the smartest thing he ever wrote. If our friends on the Left could only see that—well, then, they wouldn’t be on the Left.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider buying a copy of my new book The Reactionary Mind. Peace and the Good!