Scan barcode
A review by socraticgadfly
The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by David M. Perry, Matthew Gabriele
0.75
Horrible book, and in addition, at least on Goodreads, many of the other bad reviews are as bad as the book. Haven't waded through them all here.
Brights book …. Flip side of Dennett’s Brights, it comes off as being!!! But, no historian has called all of the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. That said, if we look at the remains of the Western Roman Empire, the period 843-962, from the end of the Carolingian realm to the start of the HRE, could honestly merit the moniker. Those dates being the Treaty of Verdun ending the unitary Carolingian lands, then the start of the HRE.
So, yes, from the start, we’re going to be in the lands of strawmanning and cherry-picking. And, all in the service of Catholicism. Within Christianity, other worldviews need not apply. There’s added problems, as one reviewer noted, of this being written at CNN, or more apropos, History Channel level, but referencing academic debate over some of these issues.)
Interesting to see Myth of Martyrdom author Candida Moss blurb it when the intro talks about a bunch of Catholic saintly martyrdoms that likely didn’t happen. Those claims start, chronologically, in this book, with Peter in Rome, which certainly never happened.
(Speaking of, the whole book reeks of the Catholicism of its authors. While a modern evangelical half of fundagelical Protestants might have written a book like this, a traditional Lutheran, Calvinist or practitioner of Orthodoxy would not, nor would have a secular historian. And, yes, the word “reek” is deliberate.
UPDATE: Per a Google, after coming across <a href="https://mrambaranolm.medium.com/sounds-about-white-333d0c0fd201">this Medium piece</a> which was a rejected form of an LARB of the book, David Perry is Jewish. Could have fooled me. The book still reeks of Catholic apologetics. That said, having seen this person's Twitter feed on it, no, the LARB editors were right in rejecting the original.)
That said, while the book is largely pabulum, it’s NOT pabulum for the reasons Trumpy 1-star reviews claim. And, yes, their reviews reek of it, even as they ignore the reeking above because it doesn’t fit THEIR narratives. That then said, the portion of 1-starrers that call it out for "mansplaining" also miss the boat, though not quite as bad as the Trump-splainer types. This book is none of the above. It's Catholic apologetics, or Catholic-splaining, if you will.
OK, what follows is chronological notes.
Then, there’s other fun stuff, like the claim that the Western Roman Empire didn’t end when Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. Oh, yes it did. And, yes, Rome became a sinkhole of population and other decline that was nowhere close to fully replaced.
Then, the claim in a chapter on Charlemagne that the HRE didn’t come until the later 12th century, not 962. Yes, the “sacrum” in Latin didn’t attach until Barbarossa, but any history book will tell you it began with Otto the Saxon.
Then, in the chapter on Vikings, I learned the Dneiper and Volga rivers are in western Asia! Neat! I halfway seriously wonder if this was a deliberate take, to de-Europeanize either Russia or Orthodox Christianity. Given that Slavic lands are nowhere further discussed, nor are details of the rise of Kievan Rus, I’m sure it’s deliberate.
There’s also a weird, and AFAIK, totally untrue claim that the Khazars later became Muslim. (I personally believe the bulk, tho not all, after the fall of the Khanate went on to become PART of Azhkenazi Jews. This is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, contra the likes of Wikipedia, in one of its more iffy entries. The Ashkenazi/Sephardi split is itself a linguistic one, not an ethnic or sub-ethnic one, after all.)
At this point, two issues were weighing in my mind:
First, was I going to even make it to the finish line on this book?
Second, would it capture me enough to make that happen by turning out to be a 3-star book rather than something worse?
First Crusade chapter overlooks cannibalism at the Siege of Ma’arra. Besides the cannibalism, the intolerance of Frankish surrender terms go unnoted. BUT, the authors DO engage in a nice bit of “presentism.” As in, a LOT of it.
It does get better after that. Chapter on medieval Spain is good, though nothing to write home about. Ditto on the rise of France.
On the Albigensians, the authors don’t even mention the Cathars tie to the Bogomils in the Balkans. (Of course not; that’s in Orthodox lands.)
Petrarch as in inventor of the idea of Renaissance is mentioned, mainly a an object of polite opprobrium. The earlier 12th-century Renaissance is mentioned in passing.
Weirdly NOT mentioned by two Catholic authors is previous reformations before THE Reformation. These surely would have fit the “bright ages” idea.
So, too, would the conversion of the last portions of Europe, the Balto-Finnic lands. Not mentioned.
Other one-star reviews go into more depth. Several go into Trump-splaining, with their takes perhaps even worse than this book.
So, yes, from the start, we’re going to be in the lands of strawmanning and cherry-picking. And, all in the service of Catholicism. Within Christianity, other worldviews need not apply. There’s added problems, as one reviewer noted, of this being written at CNN, or more apropos, History Channel level, but referencing academic debate over some of these issues.)
Interesting to see Myth of Martyrdom author Candida Moss blurb it when the intro talks about a bunch of Catholic saintly martyrdoms that likely didn’t happen. Those claims start, chronologically, in this book, with Peter in Rome, which certainly never happened.
(Speaking of, the whole book reeks of the Catholicism of its authors. While a modern evangelical half of fundagelical Protestants might have written a book like this, a traditional Lutheran, Calvinist or practitioner of Orthodoxy would not, nor would have a secular historian. And, yes, the word “reek” is deliberate.
UPDATE: Per a Google, after coming across <a href="https://mrambaranolm.medium.com/sounds-about-white-333d0c0fd201">this Medium piece</a> which was a rejected form of an LARB of the book, David Perry is Jewish. Could have fooled me. The book still reeks of Catholic apologetics. That said, having seen this person's Twitter feed on it, no, the LARB editors were right in rejecting the original.)
That said, while the book is largely pabulum, it’s NOT pabulum for the reasons Trumpy 1-star reviews claim. And, yes, their reviews reek of it, even as they ignore the reeking above because it doesn’t fit THEIR narratives. That then said, the portion of 1-starrers that call it out for "mansplaining" also miss the boat, though not quite as bad as the Trump-splainer types. This book is none of the above. It's Catholic apologetics, or Catholic-splaining, if you will.
OK, what follows is chronological notes.
Then, there’s other fun stuff, like the claim that the Western Roman Empire didn’t end when Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus. Oh, yes it did. And, yes, Rome became a sinkhole of population and other decline that was nowhere close to fully replaced.
Then, the claim in a chapter on Charlemagne that the HRE didn’t come until the later 12th century, not 962. Yes, the “sacrum” in Latin didn’t attach until Barbarossa, but any history book will tell you it began with Otto the Saxon.
Then, in the chapter on Vikings, I learned the Dneiper and Volga rivers are in western Asia! Neat! I halfway seriously wonder if this was a deliberate take, to de-Europeanize either Russia or Orthodox Christianity. Given that Slavic lands are nowhere further discussed, nor are details of the rise of Kievan Rus, I’m sure it’s deliberate.
There’s also a weird, and AFAIK, totally untrue claim that the Khazars later became Muslim. (I personally believe the bulk, tho not all, after the fall of the Khanate went on to become PART of Azhkenazi Jews. This is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, contra the likes of Wikipedia, in one of its more iffy entries. The Ashkenazi/Sephardi split is itself a linguistic one, not an ethnic or sub-ethnic one, after all.)
At this point, two issues were weighing in my mind:
First, was I going to even make it to the finish line on this book?
Second, would it capture me enough to make that happen by turning out to be a 3-star book rather than something worse?
First Crusade chapter overlooks cannibalism at the Siege of Ma’arra. Besides the cannibalism, the intolerance of Frankish surrender terms go unnoted. BUT, the authors DO engage in a nice bit of “presentism.” As in, a LOT of it.
It does get better after that. Chapter on medieval Spain is good, though nothing to write home about. Ditto on the rise of France.
On the Albigensians, the authors don’t even mention the Cathars tie to the Bogomils in the Balkans. (Of course not; that’s in Orthodox lands.)
Petrarch as in inventor of the idea of Renaissance is mentioned, mainly a an object of polite opprobrium. The earlier 12th-century Renaissance is mentioned in passing.
Weirdly NOT mentioned by two Catholic authors is previous reformations before THE Reformation. These surely would have fit the “bright ages” idea.
So, too, would the conversion of the last portions of Europe, the Balto-Finnic lands. Not mentioned.
Other one-star reviews go into more depth. Several go into Trump-splaining, with their takes perhaps even worse than this book.