Hans Memling’s portraits

A couple of weeks ago, because a friend was writing a book review on the subject, I discovered 15th century Netherlandish art, which for some reason had previously escaped my attention. I was immediately struck by some of the portraits by Hans Memling, in which there is shown a specific, particular, idiosyncratic individual, caught in a single instant of time, almost in the transition from one thought to the next, while there is also a sense of the transcendent framework of Christian truth in which this person is living.

For example, in the portrait of Maria Portinari, painted around 1470, we see the slight compression of the muscles around her mouth, expressing the subtlest movement of her thought, yet this highly individualized person is not living in relation merely to worldly things, but to God. It is a perfect expression of the Western Christian consciousness, reaching a peak in the Renaissance, in which the individual and God, the concrete and the transcendent, are in perfect balance with each other. The portrait is part of a devotional triptych in which Maria’s husband, Tommaso, is on the left. The painting hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (See also Memling’s portrait of Bernardo Bembo.)

—end of initial entry—

A reader writes:

Sometime ago I think I noted to you that going to the symphony is in some sense an act of defending Western civilization; patronizing the arts is a humane and civilized act, endorsing those things the jihad seeks to destroy. The Dutch and Flemish painters were geniuses. I recall walking out of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam one day some years ago after absorbing all that art, always with the “golden light,” and there on the canal bank was that same light! That same golden hue seen in paintings from 500 plus years earlier was hovering over the grass and trees. Yes, modern science would explain that light as a product of so much water vapor, so many particles per cubic meter, the sun at such an angle … but the effect was simply stunning, there was a sense of continuity to it, that the light so treasured by artists of centuries ago was right outside the museum door, right there over picnics and children. It was a moment I treasure, and this reproduction of a painting reminds me of it. It reminds me of what we stand to lose, and how to retain it.

Taking justifiable pride in the works of Western civilization must be more than our skill at arms, our marvelous machines, it must also include totally artificial creations such as chamber music, symphonies, organ music, opera and operetta, visual arts and so forth; everything, in point of fact, that the Jihad wishes to destroy. At one period in Japan in the Shogun’s reign, it was expected that every fighting man was to possess a good sense of aesthetics; that he be able to arrange flowers or write calligraphy or conduct the tea ceremony, all in the traditional fashion, as well as kill ten other men with edged weapons such as a sword or spear, dying in the process if need be. To be true to tradition he was to be equally adept in “pen and sword.” There is a similar tradition in the West, for those who know where to find it; a tradition of the gentleman who appreciates great wine, art, music and literature, and who will be the first across the enemy’s battlements, taking the fight to them where ever it is necessary. He knows who he is, he knows what is culture is, he knows how to fight and he knows why he fights; not merely for glory, rarely for loot, but for larger things. What’s more, he was often a Christian; there were Christian warriors, I can point you to web sites where the issue of the Christian “man at arms” is discussed today.

It is meet, fit and proper that your site should include such glorious works of art as well as discussions on how to beat the jihad; the “why we fight” as well as “how should we fight.” Thank you for posting this.

LA replies:

I thank the reader for this. I would only quibble on one passing point if I may. I don’t think that this should be seen as “taking pride” in Western civilization. How can we be “proud” of things we did not create? Rather, it is about loving the true and the good, which lifts us up, and makes us realize with gratitude and excitement that we ourselves are participants and heirs of the civilization and culture that created these things. And that makes us realize what we are and what is at stake.

I think we should not speak about cultural (or racial) “pride,” which to my ears sounds like a collective ego trip à la multiculturalism, but about loving the good, which is above us, and loving our own tradition, which is the particular expression of the good that formed us and made us what we are.

Stephen writes:

I like this remark a lot. I had a related thought recently regarding historical misdeeds of the West, decimation of the Indians, slavery, etc. White Americans and Westerners have become convinced that whatever their ancestors did “wrong” destroys the legitimacy of their civilization. It does not. (This is not claimed for any nonwestern people—except maybe the Japanese). What I feel we need is to love our ancestors as we love our parents, warts and all, and affirm our connection to them. We are fully free to debate whether the atom bombings were right or wrong, but we should see anyone who uses Western misdeeds to fan up hatred for the West as the enemy they are.

LA repies:

I agree.

Howard Sutherland writes:

About your observation that we should not “take pride” in Western civilization as its achievements are not ours personally, what about an appreciation of our inheritance; enough to appreciate that we have a duty to preserve it and pass it on? Also, if we believe it (Christianity) is true, we should say so. Defending the West means challenging Islam in religious terms.

While I take your point about misplaced pride, I think we must have, and act on, a conscious attachment to Western civilization. It has made us what we are, and “warts and all” is objectively good. In the case of Christianity, which is inseparable from Western civilization while not exclusive to it, it is not only good but true. So, in addition to a Western gentleman’s duty to appreciate Western high culture (through listening to great music, reading great books, watching great plays, etc.), there is also a duty to the extent one is able to preserve and transmit that legacy. I think that when many people talk of “taking pride” in something, that is what they mean rather than taking personal credit for achievements that owe nothing to them individually. That may be a slight misuse of the word pride, but the attitude is essential. We may be sure that the Mussulmen are proud in that sense of their prophet and his deeds. In the modern West, for a Christian openly to show pride in the same sense in Jesus Christ and His works is generally considered embarrassing at best, oppressive at worst. As you point out in so many ways, we disarm ourselves before the fight and refuse even to notice that we are in one. We need our civilizational “pride.”

LA replies:

I agree with most of what Mr. Sutherland says. My criticism of “pride” is not just of the idea that we are taking personal credit for something we did not create; however, I’m unable at the moment to say what I do mean. It will come to me eventually.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 15, 2006 11:55 PM | Send