Chesterton YouTube

G.K. Chesterton in Sight & Sound

H/T: Stephen F.

Dr. Thursday's Post

I have the slowest internet connection in the world. But here, thanks to Dr. Thursday, is a post!

Expelling False Ideas: Newman's Apologia; GKC's Orthodoxy

"False ideas may be refuted indeed by argument, but by true ideas alone are they expelled."
[JHN APVS]

Having opened the matter of the great John Henry Newman last week, I find it necessary to comment further. I cast back in my memory, trying to recall whether I had indeed read the book I referred to - that is Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua - and went and pulled it off the shelf and began an exploration (possibly my second, I really don't recall). I rapidly found that it is so important for our study of GKC's Orthodoxy that I must strongly suggest you make the attempt to read it. It does present some difficulties for an American of the early 2000s: it is written in a very high, British, and scholarly style. (There is a big difference between the academic Newman and the newspaper writer Chesterton.) Even more tiring is its meticulous consideration of matters that are small, tedious, and boring, especially since the typical American of the early 2000s will have no clue who Newman is talking to, or about - like the Reverend Charles Kingsley, who was the chief antagonist in a controversy about something Newman had written. Kingsley and Newman's other foes are are all gone, leaving no trace, except as they appear as opponents in Newman's discussion. Oh. That sounds like Heretics, doesn't it? But wait, there's plenty more. You will be surprised.
Read more.
But first... Here is something unexpected, and of delightful interest! In the set-up Newman provides, to explain why he is forced to explain himself, he has something typical blogg-readers will recognise! There is an almost line-by-line critique (I believe the web term often used is "fisking") of a letter from Kingsley. It, and the other back-and-forth discussions in the set-up, give a whole new perception to the so-called rancor, abuse, negativity, misquoting, misattribution... the list of all the rude and trite grade-school snubbing, poking, hitting, and ridicule that our modern "Media" writers and talking-heads and blogg-writers use consistently. The only thing lacking is a "bloggspot.com" address. It is just delightful. Why mention this? Because of its clear Chestertonian link, of course.
Proud owners of CW1 will immediately chant "The Batchford Controversies" - the splendid collection of ping-pong articles of the controversy between Chesterton and Blatchford. Who was that? Robert Blatchford was the editor of the Clarion; he published some articles speaking of Christianity in a negative (if not derogatory) sense - but magnanimously permitted GKC to give lengthy rebuttals. (See CW1:369-395.) This happened in 1904. All of this, of course, parallels (and greatly excels in intellectual prowess and real interest) the whine of the talking-heads, and is of course a bit better at spelling, grammar, and considered thought than the great majority of bloggerdom, both posting and commenting.

An aside: Bloggs, after all, are merely one modern version of a newspaper with a device to provide letters-to-the-editor. Here's GKC, writing in 1925, about bloggs: "...every citizen ought to have a weekly paper of this sort to splash about in ... this kind of scrap book to keep him quiet."
[G.K.'s Weekly April 4, 1925, quoted in Ward's Gilbert Keith Chesterton497]

Whew, where was I? Oh. Newman's Apologia. To resume:
As difficult and yet interesting as that part is - I mean this "set-up" which explains why Newman is writing the book - the meat and main body of the rest of the book is this:

"I will draw out, as far as may be, the history of my mind; I will state the point at which I began, in what external suggestion or accident each opinion had its rise, how far and how they were developed from within, how they grew, were modified, were combined, were in collision with each other, and were changed; again how I conducted myself towards them...
[Newman, "II. True Mode of Meeting Mr. Kingsley", Apologia Pro Vita Sua]

In other words, Apologia is to Newman what Orthodoxy is to Chesterton - or so it appears to me.

Obviously, GKC proceeds in a far less rigorous and far more "slovenly" manner. But his work is no less powerful, and indeed, no less truthful - again, or so it appears to me. Consider, if you will, the next lines of GKC's Preface, especially in light of those lines from Newman I just quoted:

It [This book] deals first with all the writer's own solitary and sincere speculations and then with all the startling style in which they were all suddenly satisfied by the Christian Theology.
[GKC Orthdoxy]

GKC intends to examine what HE believes, and (to some extent) how he came to believe it. As we shall hear shortly (maybe even next week), "...I have attempted in a vague and personal way, in a set of mental pictures rather than in a series of deductions, to state the philosophy in which I have come to believe." [CW1:211] Remember this, as we go further into the book. GKC is not really trying to convince YOU of something - though much of his writing, especially in this book, tends to have that effect! He is telling us about his own thoughts, and how he convinced himself. GKC concludes his preface by saying that he "regards it [Christianity] as amounting to a convincing creed. But if it is not that it is at least a repeated and surprising coincidence." [Orthodoxy preface] As I have pointed out elsewhere, using the grand "Prefatory Note" from GKC's 1925 book, The Everlasting Man, "this study is not specially concerned with the differences between a Catholic and a Protestant. Much of it is devoted to many sorts of Pagans rather than any sort of Christians..." Perhaps here he might have said "it is devoted to many sorts of lunatics rather than any sort of sane men" - though that seems more appropriate a comment for Heretics. But perhaps, as you shall see, if we ever get to the main text, where the form of Heretics tends to be by person, the form of Orthodoxy tends to be by concept. I shall give you a rough sense of what we shall see:

We shall consider, with an echo back to his The Defendant - GKC's introduction called "In Defence of Everything Else". (We must recall that the Latin apologia - which I understand is a Greek borrowing - means "defence".) As I have belaboured for three postings now, GKC began with Newman, and he shall pay him homage in this most suitable manner. (I am still waiting to hear back from any young researcher seeking a dissertation topic...)

Then we visit the mentally disturbed in "The Maniac". On this let us be perfectly clear - as so few are, perhaps because they have not yet read The Poet and the Lunatics. Or heard about how GKC and his wife would entertain themselves:

I remember that we strolled out one day, for a sort of second honeymoon, and went upon a journey into the void, a voyage deliberately objectless. I saw a passing omnibus labelled "Hanwell" and, feeling this to be an appropriate omen, we boarded it and left it somewhere at a stray station, which I entered and asked the man in the ticket-office where the next train went to. He uttered the pedantic reply, "Where do you want to go to?" And I uttered the profound and philosophical rejoinder, "Wherever the next train goes to." It seemed that it went to Slough; which may seem to be singular taste, even in a train. However, we went to Slough, and from there set out walking with even less notion of where we were going.
[GKC Autobiography CW16:202]

Now, both Hanwell and Slough are (were?) sites of lunatic asylums. (I see that I have considered this topic previously) Alert ears who hear Scrooge mention retiring to "Bedlam" or the response "Belleview" to the taxi-driver in "Miracle on 34th Street" can understand how these names touched those who read GKC. GKC understood, in the real sense, the important things about the insane - which is what really makes them insane: it is not the loss of their humanity, but the loss of their reason.

Then, he leaps from one form of insanity to another, and looks at "The Suicide of Thought". Here, he richly and wonderfully anticipates John Paul II's Fides et Ratio with his powerful words:

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
[CW1:236]

We shall perhaps plunge into the ancient sense of argument, and see how these two link in a sort of wave-particle duality... but I must not try to explain everything now.

The fourth chapter, called "The Ethics of Elfland" is perhaps among the most printed of GKC's writing. Part of it, as I have learned from Fr. Jaki's Chesterton a Seer of Science, was reprinted in Great Essays in Science, a title in the Pocket Library: "There was Chesterton in the company of Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Henri Fabre, J.R. Oppenheimer, Arthur Stanley Eddington, Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell, so many giants in mathematics, physics, and natural history. Chesterton was also in the company of such prominent interpreters of science as John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, and even T. H. and Julian Huxley." [Jaki, CASOS] Amazing. You will find out why when we get there.

Next is "The Flag of the World" - where we find out why suicide is so bad, and we hear echoes from The Man Who Was Thursday - and, therefore, we also hear about martyrs. We shall get a tiny taste of the God's-eye view of creation, as we hear that "A poet is so separate from his poem that he himself speaks of it as a little thing he has 'thrown off'." - Again, from Jaki I learned a deeper truth here, because the Hebrew bara used for the verb "create" has a sense of hacking or chopping off.

Then comes "The Paradoxes of Christianity" - which begins, oddly enough, with even more about science. (And here you thought it was about theology?) But attend: "When once one believes in a creed, one is proud of its complexity, as scientists are proud of the complexity of science. It shows how rich it is in discoveries. If it is right at all, it is a compliment to say that it's elaborately right. A stick might fit a hole or a stone a hollow by accident. But a key and a lock are both complex. And if a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key." [CW1:287] I know, I know - GKC's not getting into the Petrine Commission... not quite yet. But if you want more on that, you can find it in GKC's The Everlasting Man see CW2:346 et seq. (Also see Jaki's The Keys of the Kingdom for more details.) We shall also see something which provides a striking scene in none other than The Phantom Tollbooth - but I must not spoil it for you. (See if you are able to spot it for yourself!)

The next chapter, "The Eternal Revolution," will provide a presaging of an important Chestertonian motif, brought to a deeper and richer presentation in his 1911 Ballade of the White Horse:

If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.
[CW1:320]

"The Romance of Orthodoxy" fleshes out something GKC expresses in an earlier chapter, tying in with insanity:

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad.
[CW1:305]

It will cause all kinds of havoc, speaking of things like miracles and "progress" - just consider this one sentence! "If you really want poor children to go to the seaside, you cannot think it illiberal that they should go there on flying dragons; you can only think it unlikely." But it gets even more powerful, and simultaneously mor3e controversial:

...let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.
[CW1:343]

The conclusion, "Authority and the Adventurer," gives an expected summary - which is, of course, full of unexpected things:

If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence.
[CW1:348]

We hear, almost in a kind of an echo, great themes which shall sound in full strength in his 1925 The Everlasting Man such as the literary style of Jesus. [CW2:332] I shall go no further here except to note this is the chapter which gives the ultimate distinction between the good angels and the bad angels:

Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. ... solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity. [CW1:325-6]

Let us prepare, then to learn - in particular, to learn to be able to take ourselves lightly - that we may not fall by force of gravity. GKC will help us learn.

--Dr. Thursday

FYI: Personal stuff

Please pray for Sean, editor of Gilbert magazine, today. He is having surgery to repair a hernia.

And here is some personal information about my travel schedule over the next two weeks.

C.S. Lewis fans: newsletter

From Robert Trexler, editor of the CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C.S. Lewis Society:

Attached is the latest issue of CSL. In it you will find:

* A feature article by Michael Ward, author of Planet Narnia (the speaker for our Feb 8th meeting)
* An annoucement of our 40th Anniversary Weekend conference in August 2009.
* Seven reviews of recent books related to George MacDonald.
* Two monthly meeting reports, including the meeting with Christopher Mitchell, Director of the Wade Center.
* The contents of all our issues published in 2007.

I will forward the (20 page) PDF file to anyone and everyone whom may enjoy it. You can become a subscribing member (in the US) for $10 dollars - - - $20 for foreign members.

Newsletter subscription information:
Email or web-site.

Cheese Poetry Makes another Comeback

Matt has written a little poem about cheese, which you should read.

H/T: Dr. Thursday

Expelled: The Movie

I just watched this trailer and read about the movie. It is very intriguing and makes a good point, a point any thinking person in this country is asking. Why is it PC to believe in Darwinism and forbidden to NOT believe in it? Is Darwinism Dogma in our country? It would seem so.

The movie is being released in February, and I think it would be interesting to see it and discuss it, especially with teens and young adults.

ChesterCast

Sean mentioned in the latest issue of Gilbert Magazine about ChesterCast, and I tried the link he provided in Tremendous Trifles and found I had to dig a little further, so I am linking the ChesterCast to you here.

According to the site, you will find:

"Readings from the public domains writings of Christian Apologist GK Chesterton"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these can be downloaded to your computer, to your iPod or other MP3 type player devices. Then you can listen while you drive to work, take the bus or wait in an elevator.

Preface to Orthodoxy

Just in case you'd like to read about what Dr. Thursday is referring to in his post yesterday, here is the preface to Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy
by G. K. Chesterton

Dedication
To My Mother

Preface
This book is meant to be a companion to Heretics, and to put the
positive side in addition to the negative. Many critics complained of
the book called Heretics because it merely criticised current
philosophies without offering any alternative philosophy. This book is
an attempt to answer the challenge. It is unavoidably affirmative and
therefore unavoidably autobiographical. The writer has been driven back
upon somewhat the same difficulty as that which beset Newman in writing
his Apologia; he has been forced to be egotistical only in order
to be sincere. While everything else may be different the motive in both
cases is the same. It is the purpose of the writer to attempt an
explanation, not of whether the Christian Faith can be believed, but of
how he personally has come to believe it. The book is therefore arranged
upon the positive principle of a riddle and its answer. It deals first
with all the writer's own solitary and sincere speculations and then
with all the startling style in which they were all suddenly satisfied
by the Christian Theology. The writer regards it as amounting to a
convincing creed. But if it is not that it is at least a repeated and
surprising coincidence.

Gilbert K. Chesterton.

Dr. Thursday's Post

Last week we began my own very personal and technical and lunatic exploration of GKC's Orthodoxy. I began by examining the very opening - GKC's introductory Preface - and I am sure my lengthy essay gave you the impression that we'd never get out of the Preface - and into the Canon. (A little liturgical humour there, hee hee.) After you read this week's, I am sorry to say that I myself am starting to wonder whether I shall be able to get out of the Preface. It is not very long, and is not even really a part of the main writing, but as all Chestertonians know (let's all say it together!):

The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame.
[GKC, "The Toy Theatre" in Tremendous Trifles]

In fact, after re-reading last week's LENGTHY essay, I feel a bit like Charlemagne, who when he stopped at a certain monastery for lunch, was served some blue cheese (I don't know if it was Roquefort; I don't think it was Stilton!). He proceeded to start picking out the blue mold, and one of the monks told him: "Sire, that part is the best of all."

You see, in my meticulous study of these few words, I left out one line - a line which I knew would get me into a long and even lengthier exploration of ... of the One Subject. Let me quote it now:

The writer has been driven back upon somewhat the same difficulty as that which beset Newman in writing his Apologia; he has been forced to be egotistical only in order to be sincere.
[GKC, Orthodoxy]

Ah. You are wondering why there is no CW1 in that footnote. (I must have been asleep last week.) Indeed! I must amend my larger study and indeed the larger status of the Chesterton domain, and report that my edition of the CW does NOT contain this preface!!! I shall ask Nancy to give it to you in its entirety, so you can print it and wedge it into your CW if your edition also lacks it.

To resume: I did not want to go into this line, in the introductory state I was attempting last week, because the topic of Newman is a large one - in some senses, larger than GKC, in that he was a priest and eventually a cardinal. But in so many senses, a comrade, a co-heir, a co-worker, a master intellect, a bountiful feast, and a great hero and icon of the Coming Restoration of Catholicism in England.

Who? Newman? John Henry Newman. Born 1801, died 1890. Englishman. Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College of Oxford. Anglican. Convert and Priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Created Cardinal in 1879. Writer of a vast number of books, including one of the most pivotal books I have ever read, The Idea of a University. (I mean pivotal in my own personal sense.)

GKC mentions him about 100 times in his own writing, in particular in The Victorian Age in Literature. If I had a connection to a college or university (I mean besides Chesterton University!) I would strongly urge a doctoral student to consider studying the connections and parallels between these two giants. I mention Chesterton University not with tongue in cheek. It is known to those of us who have read the rich dragon-trove of GKC's Illustrated London News essays that GKC himself wanted to found a university:

...perhaps I may leave in my will directions or (what is much more improbable) funds for the founding of a great university...
[GKC, ILN Oct 30 1926 CW34:193]

I know the ellipses make this quote sound a bit - uh - contrived. But if you want to know the context, you know what you must do.

And if you want to know more about the link between GKC and JHN, you must now click the button here.

The book by Newman which Chesterton alludes to in his preface is Apologia Pro Vita Sua That is, "An Apology For His Life" - where "Apology" is used in the classical sense for "Defence". Newman's book is about his own journey, and so is GKC's, as we shall see perhaps if I ever get finished with the Preface.

But there are other connections. There is a strong sense of University in Orthodoxy, despite the variation in the languages. University is "one turning"; Orthodoxy is "right/true opinion/teaching". And "university" is just the Latin for the Greek "catholic". I am not getting into some ecclesial matter here. I am trying to point out (in perhaps a very silly way) the fact that GKC's book tries to cover a very large topic - the All - and he finds he must do it by telling us about himself and his own experience. Which is what Newman also does, though with far greater rigor.

In my as-yet unpublished work on Subsidiarity, I quote Newman to assist in my discussion of a very technical detail, using his work to point to Right Opinion as a technical guide, and to avoid what for many others has been a downfall of - er - let us call it "Modern Management". I did this partly because I was delightfully shocked to find Newman's anticipation of Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum - but also because I am a technical person, and like to bring technical matters in association with each other. How else does a work from 1852 about founding a university apply to both a method for efficient satellite transport of television commercials and to the papal writing about workers, socialism, and unions from 1891? Well, Chesterton, being a writer, can be expected to bring literary matters together in unusual and surprising ways - he links Newman with Browning, with Shaw, and with Dickens. Not, perhaps, in a quantity which would lead to large books, or even journal articles - but enough to give a One Turn kind of feel to the vastness of literature being associated with Newman.

For example:

A mere sympathy for democratic merry-making and mourning will not make a man a writer like Dickens. But without that sympathy Dickens would not be a writer like Dickens; and probably not a writer at all. A mere conviction that Catholic thought is the clearest as well as the best disciplined, will not make a man a writer like Newman. But without that conviction Newman would not be a writer like Newman; and probably not a writer at all. It is useless for the aesthete (or any other anarchist) to urge the isolated individuality of the artist, apart from his attitude to his age. His attitude to his age is his individuality: men are never individual when alone.
[GKC, introduction, The Victorian Age in Literature]

I was going to quote a very interesting and long paragraph by GKC about Browning into which Newman is injected, but I find I cannot explain it well enough to make it interesting, because I do not know the poem being discussed. If I find it I shall do it another time, the paragraph has a lot to commend study.

And though I do not know any plays by Shaw (I mean I have never seen them, nor even read them) I do know Shaw through GKC, since he was mentioned as a "Heretic" - but remember how GKC explained that! I shall quote it again, though it is not as terse as some of GKC's aphorisms, it deserves to be studied for its moral guidance:

I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic - that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite coherent, and quite wrong.
[GKC, Heretics CW1:46]

Indeed! Let us learn this well, and keep it in mind whenever we are led to write in disagreement with someone. It will also remind us of our Lord, Who called Herod "that fox" and the Pharisees "whitened sepulchres" and "brood of vipers" yet died for them too.

Perhaps this is a closer approach to an aphorism. What great controversialist of the Media of today, faced with such a question about his chief opponent, would answer as GKC did during a Q&A after a lecture:

[Questioner:] "Is George Bernard Shaw a coming peril?"
[GKC:] "Heavens, no. He is a disappearing pleasure."
[Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton 590]

Having quoted these, let us hear GKC give us the dramatic link to Newman:

...there are people who say what they have to say best when they are saying it for themselves, and I am one of them and Mr. Shaw is another. Therefore, I always regard his plays as mere appendices to his thrilling and theatrical prefaces. If I read any vivid pieces of explanation in literature, such as Huxley's explanation of Evolution, or Newman's of Catholicism, I may very likely find some notes at the end of the book, giving special instances of the application. Huxley might add a particular case of a green cockatoo or a mongrel terrier. Newman might add a particular case of a Greek heresiarch or a seventeenth-century sectary. In the same way Mr. Shaw puts at the end of his stimulating treatise some notes, cast in dramatic form, about the particular case of a gentleman called Hotchkiss or a lady named Bridgnorth. But I leave all these notes for later reading. I want to know what Mr. Shaw thinks, not what Mr. Shaw thinks that Mr. Hotchkiss would think. And, to do Mr. Shaw justice, he has never shown any reluctance to let me know.
[GKC, ILN Apr 1, 1911 CW29:64]

Nor has Newman. I have no shame in admitting how little of Newman I have read - there is very much by him to read, and it is intellectually powerful and not always easy as GKC to consume. Moreover, it is not easy to get some of his lesser works. However! you can go here for an on-line collection. Also, our esteemed Chestertonian friend, Father Jaki, has a number of excellent books on Newman - see here if you are interested. (As you may already know, Fr. Jaki also has an excellent study of GKC and science.)

Alas, I find my time very short at the present, so perhaps you are going to be let go without my usual length. I have hardly begun to hint at the richness of Newman - and hardly even touched the link from JHN to GKC. But perhaps I shall have another turn in a week or so.

--Dr. Thursday

PS. Rather than completely forget about the Browning, I have decided to give you the quote, even if it is a bit long. If you know where "Sludge" can be found in the E-cosmos, please let us know. Also, if you are a student of poetry, it would be of real assistance to hear your insights, both into Browning's poem and on GKC's comments. Thanks!

The general idea is that Browning must have intended "Sludge" for an attack on spiritual phenomena, because the medium in that poem is made a vulgar and contemptible mountebank, because his cheats are quite openly confessed, and he himself put into every ignominious situation, detected, exposed, throttled, horsewhipped, and forgiven. To regard this deduction as sound is to misunderstand Browning at the very start of every poem that he ever wrote. There is nothing that the man loved more, nothing that deserves more emphatically to be called a speciality of Browning, than the utterance of large and noble truths by the lips of mean and grotesque human beings. In his poetry praise and wisdom were perfected not only out of the mouths of babes and sucklings [Ps 8:3], but out of the mouths of swindlers and snobs. Now what, as a matter of fact, is the outline and development of the poem of "Sludge"? The climax of the poem, considered as a work of art, is so fine that it is quite extraordinary that any one should have missed the point of it, since it is the whole point of the monologue. Sludge the Medium has been caught out in a piece of unquestionable trickery, a piece of trickery for which there is no conceivable explanation or palliation which will leave his moral character intact. He is therefore seized with a sudden resolution, partly angry, partly frightened, and partly humorous, to become absolutely frank, and to tell the whole truth about himself for the first time not only to his dupe, but to himself. He excuses himself for the earlier stages of the trickster's life by a survey of the border-land between truth and fiction, not by any means a piece of sophistry or cynicism, but a perfectly fair statement of an ethical difficulty which does exist. There are some people who think that it must be immoral to admit that there are any doubtful cases of morality, as if a man should refrain from discussing the precise boundary at the upper end of the Isthmus of Panama, for fear the inquiry should shake his belief in the existence of North America. People of this kind quite consistently think Sludge to be merely a scoundrel talking nonsense. It may be remembered that they thought the same thing of Newman. It is actually supposed, apparently in the current use of words, that casuistry is the name of a crime; it does not appear to occur to people that casuistry is a science, and about as much a crime as botany. This tendency to casuistry in Browning's monologues has done much towards establishing for him that reputation for pure intellectualism which has done him so much harm. But casuistry in this sense is not a cold and analytical thing, but a very warm and sympathetic thing. To know what combinations of excuse might justify a man in manslaughter or bigamy, is not to have a callous indifference to virtue; it is rather to have so ardent an admiration for virtue as to seek it in the remotest desert and the darkest incognito.

This is emphatically the case with the question of truth and falsehood raised in "Sludge the Medium."
[GKC, Browning]

That Trip to California...

Gilbert magazine reported a story written by and about Dale Ahlquist, or someone with that name anyway, who reportedly went to California and tasted a lot of wine. In between the wine imbibing, there were some alleged talks about G.K. Chesterton. Sources cannot confirm nor deny that such talks took place.

I dunno. I think someone went to California and took in a lot of wine, I'm just not sure who. Or is that whom?

And Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach Chesterton? Well duh! Aquinas lived WAAAAY before Chesterton. Who wrote that story?????

Chesterton and Trademark Law

This is a very cool little Tremendous Trifle sent to me by alert reader Ryan (H/T):

I was reading my casebook for a class on Trademarks and Unfair Competition this morning when I stumbled across the following quotation:

"...where a color serves a significant non-trademark function -- whether to distinguish a heart pill from a digestive medication or to satisfy the "noble instinct for giving the right touch of beauty to common and necessary things," G. Chesterton, SIMPLICITY AND TOLSTOY 61 (1912) - Courts will examine whether its use as a mark..."

The case was Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995), and it was authored by none other than Justice Breyer, a Jewish man, who wrote the opinion Stenberg v. Carhart rejecting Nebraska's attempt to categorically ban partial birth abortions as unconstitutional. Needless to say, he didn't quote Chesterton in that opinion.

Just thought it was interesting and figured you might, too. Ryan

The Spanish Chesterton Blog

Gilbert arrived...

...and so far, that's all I can say. I am in the midst of a major sewing project, and sewing and reading don't work at the same time, I found out.

The only think I know so far is there is an awesome review of a new book in it. ;-)

Oh, and rumor has it a certain columnist shall be returning next issue...any guesses?

A Reader Bleg

In case you aren't familiar with the term, a "bleg" is a Blog Beg for a favor.

So, here is my request: does anyone know the answer for Matthew? He's looking for a place to host MP3 files of readings of Chesterton's.

I would love to post freely on the internet about a dozen GKC essays that I had read and put into mp3 format.
I just don’t know where. Do you know of any person(s) that would host the files?

Thanks
Matthew
Cleveland Chesterton Club

Does anyone know of either a free host site for these kinds of files, or know of anyone who would be willing to host the files?

Thanks.

Show the world you'd rather be reading GKC

Put this on your bumper. H/T: Paul Cat.

Do you need a free copy of The Man Who Was Thursday?

Free book giveaway today, go here to enter the contest!

Surprise Yourself

Get yours today!

Bobby Fisher: RIP

"Poets do not go mad, but chess players do." GKC Orthodoxy CW1:219 (Thanks for the reference, Dr. Thursday)

New Issue of Gilbert...

....arriving at some mailboxes.

I, on the other hand, seem to have to always wait until my mailman is done reading it. ;-)

Teaching Orthodoxy

Our Frequent Reader and Friend of the ACS Blog with the interesting name Enbrethiliel says she is going to teach Orthodoxy.

I am intrigued. What grade level teacher are you and who are these lucky students? How does a teacher prepare her students for the firestorm that is Chesterton?

Ideas about Orthodoxy

I have some ideas about celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of Orthodoxy, but I wondered if you had any. What are your plans?

Will you:

1. Come to the conference?

2. Read Orthodoxy for the first time?

3. Re-read Orthodoxy?

4. Burn Orthodoxy?

5. Prepare a speech about Orthodoxy?

6. Write an article about Orthodoxy?

7. Join in a blog discussion about Orthodoxy?

What are your plans?

Dr. Thursday's Post

An exploration of Orthodoxy: the beginning

One of my duties here in the E-cosmos, as in the outer, or Real world - yes, John Mayer, there really is such a thing, as I am sure he asserts every time he goes to cash his album royalty check. But then Chestertonians know that "No sceptics work sceptically." [GKC St. Thomas Aquinas CW2:542]

Sorry, I've wanted to say that for some time. (Incidentally I rather enjoy that song, but the philosophy is silly.) Ahem. I shall start again.

One of my duties here in the E-cosmos, as in the Real World, of which this blogg is just a small and unplottable fragment, is to provide an interesting counterbalance to certain topics. It gets me into hot water - but then (as GKC remarks) "I believe in getting into hot water. I think it keeps you clean." (ILN Mar 10 1906 CW27:142) Though it can be frustrating, for the audience as well as for me.

So, in keeping with this Chestertonian scheme of keeping clean by getting into hot water, I have decided to talk about 1908 and what happened then. Everyone knows that 2008 is the centennial of Orthodoxy, one of GKC's most important books - and I will begin my exploration in the usual Chestertonian way - by talking about something else. Like Father Brown.

Click here to continue reading.

You see, there is a very important centennial coming up in the Fall (I mean Autumn) of this year which may be slightly overshadowed by our celebration of the centennial of GKC's "slovenly autobiography". [CW2:215] That event was the Eucharistic Congress of 1908, held in London... or have you forgotten these stirring words?

Flambeau was in England. The police of three countries had tracked the great criminal at last from Ghent to Brussels, from Brussels to the Hook of Holland; and it was conjectured that he would take some advantage of the unfamiliarity and confusion of the Eucharistic Congress, then taking place in London.
[GKC, "The Blue Cross", The Innocence of Father Brown, emphasis added]

Yes, there really was a Eucharistic Congress in London - the nineteenth of such meetings, which are world-wide, and still being held - that one was held September 9-13, 1908. See here for some more about the amazing story.

Why do I start there? Because, though it may be hard to talk well about such a gigantic book as Orthodoxy, the one we shall examine closely throughout this year, it is necessary that we look into things in an upside-down, and a distant, an alien, an outsider kind of view. Otherwise, we shall get nowhere. We must imagine, in a sense, that WE are Flambeau. We are in England. Someone is after us. Actually two people. One, to arrest us and bring us to trial. (He, alas, shall face a different kind of trial before we do; but I cannot explain this allusion here.) Another, who is not so much following us, but in front of us, is trying to catch us with "an unseen hook and an invisible line"... for the Lord has made him a Fisher of Men. [See "The Queer Feet" in The Innocence of Father Brown]

Chesterton, in his own way, is also a fisher of men. And that is a distinctly Christian vocation. It is not only the priest who is called to this fishing. Nor does such fishing always involve nets! If we were proceeding to argue as Aquinas, we should indeed cite that Father Brown story about the thread.

Orthodoxy, you see, is one of the most potent of Chesterton's threads.

Our ACS president, Dale Ahlquist, and I have discussed the curious division of Chestertonians into those who seem to center on Orthodoxy and those who seem to center on The Everlasting Man. Some people read Orthodoxy first and then The Everlasting Man, and some do it the other way around. (Some haven't yet, lucky you! Get busy.) There is a debate - a silly, and rather half-hearted one - about which is "more important" or "more fundamental". (We do not debate it. We like them both.)

After some struggle, we have produced a shorthand explanation, to remove all doubt, and set the matter to rest:

Orthodoxy is about how GKC found it.

The Everlasting Man is about what he found. (Or, rather WHOM. Remember that "the Everlasting Man" is GKC's own title for Jesus Christ.)

So. Having settled another seeming paradox of "A OR B" by choosing "A AND B", as is my right, since I know Boolean Algebra, I shall now proceed to make a first examination of Orthodoxy. Every Chestertonian is going to be doing this during 2008. The whole Conference, according to last report, is going to be doing this. I can only hope to do it differently by trickery. I shall do it by NOT doing it, like Calvin (from the comic "Calvin and Hobbes") touching the "Opposite Pole", or as one sees the sun at night by its reflection from the moon. Or I shall do it like Valentin following Flambeau: that is, by following "the train of the unreasonable". I shall stop at odd things in the text, things others might stride past, and look at them by the light of the moon. So, let us begin, with the help of God.

Take, for example, the opening words of GKC's Orthodoxy:

This book is meant to be a companion to Heretics, and to put the positive side in addition to the negative. Many critics complained of the book called Heretics because it merely criticised current philosophies without offering any alternative philosophy. This book is an attempt to answer the challenge. It is unavoidably affirmative and therefore unavoidably autobiographical.
[GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:209]

First, we see that this book almost presumes that you have already examined GKC's earlier book, Heretics, in which he skewers some great names of his time - some still known, others forgotten except for their appearance within it. For example, the great playwright, George Bernard Shaw:

I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic - that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite
coherent, and quite wrong.
[GKC, Heretics CW1:46]

Chesterton is not being a 21st century (or better, a 19th century) journalist, intent on throwing mud, or ink (since the streets have now been paved). He is being something far more amazing: a thirteenth century scholastic. He is aiming, not at the person, but at that person's ideas. GKC says GBS's philosophy (his ideas) are wrong - an important distinction.

In the same way, then, in Orthodoxy GKC is about to talk about some MORE ideas. But this time, those ideas which are RIGHT where those in his other volume were wrong - or perhaps I should be more precise to say these ideas are TRUE where the others are FALSE. (But we are not going to see an epistemological analysis here; do it yourself if you are that interested!)

It is important to note the strange humility here. GKC claims that the ideas we are about to see are "affirmative" - they state a truth. He immediately links this with himself - he uses that power-word "Therefore" and shows that (1) he is NOT setting forth a text on mathematics, which can be asserted by adherence to the learned rules; (2) he is not setting forth a text on "natural science" - on physics or such studies, which can be established by repetition of the experience of the matter being considered; (3) he is not setting forth a text on "theological science" which is a matter of contemplation (if not literal inspiration). He is not going to resort to an appeal to authority, which might turn into a fistfight. Nor is he doing the usual kind of writing which comes under the general head of Liberal Arts, which is usually just a presenting of excerpts from other writers on a given topic, and a reconsideration of the relevance or the accuracy of their work. (This may be just another form of the appeal to authority, which explains why so many lit'ry folk have black eyes. Hee hee.) All these things are good and worthy in their place, and GKC talks about all of them elsewhere, and almost always with respect.

No, here, GKC is trying to do something very difficult. He is going to tell us something about what HE believes, and how his thought got him to that particular belief. He is not, in the formal sense, "proving" something. He is giving an exposition of his own thought. It is therefore both affirmative and autobiographical.

Let us advance, just slightly, into the paragraph, skipping the mention of Newman - or I shall soon fill your hard disk with curiosities. Perhaps someday someone will explore the relation between Newman and Chesterton - it will be useful as well as inspiring. But let us go on, as there is one other blazing jewel to explore today:

It is the purpose of the writer to attempt an explanation, not of whether the Christian Faith can be believed, but of how he personally has come to believe it. The book is therefore arranged upon the positive principle of a riddle and its answer.
[GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:209]

People wonder about the link from GKC to JRRT - that is from the Master of Paradox to the Master of Hobbits and the Subcreator of Middle Earth, J.R.R. Tolkien. There are many points to explore (and topics for other days), and here is another point of contact. GKC sees the essential question of truth as a riddle. (remember Bilbo and Gollum?)

GKC had already begun pondering the marvellous Book of Job in the Bible - he wrote an introduction to it in 1907 - he begins it so: "The Book of Job is among the other Old Testament Books both a philosophical riddle and a historical riddle." [In GKC as M.C.] Even before that, in 1901, he knew it: "Every great literature has always been allegorical - allegorical of some view of the whole universe. The 'Iliad' is only great because all life is a battle, the 'Odyssey' because all life is a journey, the Book of Job because all life is a riddle." ["A Defence of Nonsense" in The Defendant] For Bilbo and Gollum, the Riddle game was considered "sacred" and "of immense antiquity"... it would be all too easy to explore this, and delay the issue at hand again. But I shall resist the Ring, the Ring-Maker, and all his works...

The riddle form, the question and answer, the challenge and response, the joke and the punchline... are these just the eastbound and westbound lanes of the turnpike, the systole and diastole, the input and output, the morning and evening terminators of the intellect? Or are they something more?

GKC means to find out. And we, please God, shall follow him as he explains his own study of his own experience, his own thought - and his own discovery.

Remember, the country of England is claimed to have been discovered by Gilbert Keith Chesterton. Yes, indeed. He claimed it himself. (We'll get to that line in a future episode.) Let us not be bothered by the dull history that others discovered it before him. Let us have the adventure, like Bilbo, and set off down the Road - which is also called the Way.

--Dr. Thursday.

PS. Come close to the screen, I have a secret to tell. I heard it as a secret; it was so written by a priest in a very rare newspaper. Here it is:

"One day while we were studying in Roma, we heard it whispered that the supreme joke of eternity consists of two parts - a question and an answer, like all the classic aphorisms - the two parts of course being the Old and New Testaments." [from "Humor and Its Basis in Reason" by Fr. A. Thomas, O.P. in Something Good to Read Vol. CXIV No. 230 (Feb. 11, 1998)]

So the next time someone asks you the silly old question about "Why did the Chicken Cross the Road" you will understand what the joke really is. And like GKC, you will feel the universe shift into rightness, even as it appears upside down! You will hear the song of the angels at Bethlehem, the cries at Calvary, the strange sounds of that Paschal Sunday which we now know are "Alleluias" - and the Great Noise which is the whisper of the Spirit. It's an adventure.

Chesterton on the Cover of a magazine other than Gilbert?

I think I posted this already, but I can't find it. H/T: Joe G. Thanks, Joe!

Chilly?

I wore my Chesterton University sweatshirt until it wore out. Almost every time I wore it, someone would stop me on the street, kind of pause and stare, and then say,

"Um, where is that? Because I'm from Chesterton [Indiana] and I didn't think there was a University there..."

I would reassure them it was about G. K. Chesterton and that it was sort of a joke about his writing being so universal and thorough, you could get a University degree just by reading him, etc.

But now, there is a new sweatshirt. A sweatshirt with Chesterton's name on it and a school's name, and the place is real. And by wearing this sweatshirt, you can really support the new school, and advertise for it to as you travel around the country.

It's only $32, and the proceeds go to help start up the school, a worthy cause. Buy one today and keep the winter chill away.

College Students: The Gilbert and Frances Scholarship

For entering and current students, especially those with a journalistic bent, please see the details here.

Deadline: March 31, 2008

Chesterton Academy Meeting: Opening Speech

It is worth taking the time to read this speech, and once again, I am envious of those lucky folks living in the St. Paul area. The Chesterton Academy is going to be a marvelous endeavor and blessing to those involved.

For those of us who cannot attend (because we're too old) or have children who cannot attend (because we live too far away) let's commit ourselves to praying for this worthy educational establishment, especially as it begins the journey.

A Tremendous Trifle: A GKC Pez Dispenser!

Thanks to John for alerting me to this very interesting Chestertonian Pez dispenser!

2 Chances to Win The Father Brown Reader: Stories from Chesterton

Love2Learn is celebrating it's 10th anniversary as a Catholic Homeschooling Resource website by giving away tons of books. This week, you have a chance to win my adaptation of the Father Brown stories, among many other books you could win. Entering the contest is so easy, just leave a comment in the comments box here (not here on this blog--sorry for the confusion).

Seton Hall University sponsors a very interesting set of talks

If you live in the New Jersey/New York area, you could get to these lectures.

How have different authors depicted Catholic life in their literature?

Seton Hall University will explore this question through “Saints and Sleuths II: Catholic Life in Literature.” The event, which spans two weekends in January, will feature dramatic readings of four literary works, along with commentary on each. Free and open to the public, it will be held at Theatre-in-the-Round in the Bishop Dougherty University Center. For more information, please call (973) 275-2431.

The event will include the following programs:

* January 18, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of The Chesterbelloc, by James P. McGlone. Commentary by Dr. John McCarthy.
* January 19, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of The Fallen Idols of Father Brown, adapted by John Dandona. Commentary by Reverend Ian Boyd, C.S.B., and Dr. Dermot Quinn.
* January 20, 2 p.m. – Dramatic reading of Newman’s The Parting of Friends, arranged by James P. McGlone. Commentary by Monsignor Thomas Ivory and Monsignor Richard Liddy.
* January 25, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of Canon Sheehan’s My New Curate, adapted by John Dandola. Commentary by Dr. Dermot Quinn and Monsignor Robert Emery.
* January 26, 8 p.m. – Repeat performance of My New Curate. Commentary by Monsignor Brendan Madden and Monsignor Kevin Flanigan.


“Saints and Sleuths II: Catholic Life in Literature” is sponsored by Seton Hall University’s Center for Vocation and Servant Leadership, G.K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture, Center for Catholic Studies and Celtic Theatre Company.

The Surprise on DVD

I was just notified by EWTN that my order for The Surprise on DVD has shipped! Our family can't wait to see it again.

Our Man Chris Chan gets a mention

Chris's article criticizing the adaptations of Agatha Christie was noticed here.

How to Be a Dunce--Part Two

I was thinking a little more about this post, and the comments people added, and I realized something I think is important that none of us mentioned.

I think Chesterton turned out OK because he had parents at home who loved him and stimulated his mind. So that even if he wasn't getting that at school, even if they all thought he was a dunce there in the school environment, at least at home, he was shining. He was brilliant. His parents treated him as if he had a good mind. They carried on nightly dinner table discussions. Gilbert and Cecil carried on lengthy debates and discussions. Mr. Chesterton read to them, did puppet theater with them, and, with his ever curious mind, was always tinkering with some new project of his own: Edward Chesterton wrote books, illustrated them, did photography (think: back then, photography wasn't the hobby it is today! He had a darkroom at home and everything), and his office was filled with every kind of invention.

Chesterton's mother adored him, and, like Edison's mother, believed in him even when the school didn't recognize his genius.

I think this home life is what saved Chesterton during his school years. And that, I believe is the difference between then and now. Now, if you have a child like Chesterton come through the school system, will he survive? There are precious few parents who engage with the children at home anymore. It's almost a relic of the past.

However, some children still manage. They discover, on their own, great writers or inventors or come upon something or someone that makes a difference in their lives.

Anyway, I just wanted to discuss the "home factor" in Chesterton's education.

Another Chestertonian Health Update

Sean is doing much better, but keep those prayers coming. He is recovering from the infection, but must get a little better in order to have the surgery he needs to have. If he improves, he may have the surgery as soon as next week, so let's all keep him in our prayers for a speedy recovery from the infection. Thanks for asking about him.

Dr. Thursday's Post

Special Report - Boys' Adventures and a Second Christmas

I dedicate this essay to the memory of a truly great writer and adventurer, Bertrand R. Brinley.

In gratitude,
--Dr. Thursday

While I ought to continue the prolongation of Christmas by a special commentary on the upcoming (new-style) Baptism of the Lord, which is concurrently celebrated with the old-style Holy Family (First Sunday after Epiphany), I have had an interesting kind of Second Christmas, which, as you may see, might even play into the present liturgical scheme.

Just before the end of the year, I had to investigate something-or-other, and as all Chestertonians know about encyclopedias (TCM 240), one thing led to another. (Hmm, I think there is a rock song called that.) Yes, for me, it is as Bunny Watson (Katherine Hepburn) remarked to Richard Sumner (Spencer Tracey) in "Desk Set": "I associate many things with many things."

Ahem. This was somehow motivated by the discussion over in our bloggmistress's own blogg about children's literature, or (as GKC calls it) "Books for Boys". GKC's essay in The Common Man is very important to our topic - here is just a short excerpt:

The mental digestion of boys is as strong as their physical digestion. They do not heed the cookery of art any more than the art of cookery. They can eat the apples of the tree of knowledge, and they can eat them raw. It is a great mistake to suppose that boys only read boyish books. Not only do they privately revel in their sisters' most sentimental novels, but they absorb cartloads of useless information. One boy in particular, with whose career from an early age we have the best reasons for being familiar, used to read whole volumes of Chamber's Encyclopaedia, and of a very musty and unreliable History of English Trade. The thing was a mere brute pleasure of reading, a pleasure in leisurely and mechanical receptiveness. It was the sort of pleasure that a cow must have in grazing all day long. But when all allowance has been made for the omnivorousness of youth, we incline to think that there is probably a considerable amount of truth in the idea that boys' books have to some extent degenerated. They have degenerated probably for the reason that all forms of art degenerate, because they are despised. Probably they were less despised in the days when they still had upon them, as it were, the glamour of the great masters of historical romance. The spirit of Scott and Ainsworth and Fenimore Cooper remained in them even if it was only the reflection of a hundred reflections and each in a distorting mirror. No one will ever understand the spirit at the back of popular and juvenile literature until he realises one fact, that a large amount of it is the result of that enthusiasm of the young reader which makes him wish to hear more and more about certain heroes, and read more and more of certain types of books. He dowers the creatures of fiction with a kind of boyish immortality. He is not surprised if Dick Deadshot or Jack Harkaway renews his youth through a series of volumes which reaches further than the length of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. These books have the vital philosophy of youth, a philosophy in which death does not exist, except, indeed, as an external and picturesque incident which happens to villains.
[GKC, The Common Man 228-9]

Clearly, GKC liked and appreciated Books for Boys. In his other foundation-essay of this topic, he illuminates us further: "The essence of adventure stories, as Stevenson pointed out, is that the reader is himself the adventurer. He imagines himself sharing the combat and the comradeship..." [GKC, ILN Sept 23, 1922 CW32:450] These two elements, the seeming perpetual life, and the reader's sharing in the participation, stand at the foundation to this matter, and deserve some deep study - which I hope to return to. But for today I wish to go into another aspect of "Boy's Adventures".

Read more.

I claim that anyone - boy or girl - and this means readers of any age - can, should, and will delight in such stories. Rather than a sign of some distorted refusal to grow up, delight in "Boys' Stories" is far more a definite indication of authentic maturity. (Remember, "unless you change, and become LIKE little children..." - we can delve into THAT also another day!) Such books, when they are good, provoke a sharp, insistent interest. They motivate far better than those smarmy "Power" management posters one sees hung up in company lunchrooms. They display exemplars of honesty, confidence, chivalry, steadfastness, friendship - all the manly, Christian virtues - remember virtue derives from Latin vir = Man-the-male! Even a boy can "Be a man." (It is part of the paradox that a woman can be so without losing any of her innate femininity.) They hold up a mirror far more magical than Harry Potter's "Erised" or than that of the witch in Snow White - for this mirror shows a stark image of the Good Man, the Trusted Friend, the Honest Worker - all the virtuous and veiled heroes of the Heavenly Hall - and commands us to compare ourselves to them: how do we rank? It is a grave danger - but ought not be avoided, since its comparison is the safest path to improvement. (This "mirror" is nothing more than an examination of conscience in story-form.)

Not that such books are handbooks of Moral Theology! They are fiction, not scholarly texts. But then so are the parables of our Lord! Often there are unpunished crimes (the thieves in the Good Samaritan) unresolved threads (what the older brother of the Prodigal Son does) or other distasteful characters (the bad judge pestered by the widow)... But I am not here to argue the goodness of "Story" - whether given from divine or from human pens. I am simply trying to call attention to such things.

Nor ought the apparent bias of Boys (as distinct from Girls) be of concern. This is not that kind of matter. That particular subject which GKC considered one of the Great Secrets of All Humanity, because we ALL know about it, and yet do not ordinarily talk about its details in public (see ILN August 10, 1907 CW27:523 et seq for the whole discussion) is, by definition, out of bounds for such stories, except in the most distant, and always the most chivalrous, manner. Again, in our present day, there is far too much of this secret not being properly kept - and I need not mention it further. Which is one reason why such Literature is so good.

Another reason is the rightful placing of the "hard" matter of science and morality (yes, as Dorothy Sayers noted, there ARE six other deadly sins besides the one that has "adult" in its name!) Here's how GKC explains it:

...it was a mark of the old English school of boys' literature that the authors were full of scientific hobbies. Where they differed from the scientific futurists of to-day is that they never were tormented with the sceptical fancy that material changes must be accompanied by moral changes. The morality they expressed - or rather, assumed - was the sane and simple morality which is the soul of all adventures. Adventure involves loyalty because it involves purpose; it involves courage because it involves peril; it involves a certain receptiveness and readiness to be easily pleased because it involves making the best of anything. The modern story-teller is disturbed with a vague evolutionary notion that this morality can change. We can only say that, if it does change, there will be no adventure stories, and probably no adventures. Thus a real adventure story cannot be made on a certain moral or immoral model not uncommon in modern books. I mean the sort of story in which the hero is the villain. The hero need not be directly dealing in morality, but his own moral position must be by implication secure and satisfying; for it is the whole meaning of adventure that his soul is the fixed point in a wildly agitated world.
[GKC, ILN Sept 23, 1922 CW32:453]

Wow. But I seem to be drifting into a discussion of such Stories in general, and today I want to talk about some very specific stories. Specifically, the short stories by Bertrand R. Brinley, written in the early 1960s and first appearing in Boys' Life, about the Mad Scientists of Mammoth Falls.

These stories have been among my very favourites for decades. They were an important milestone along my path into science. Not that I haunted a house, or built a flying saucer, or dug up a dinosaur egg! But because they joined, in a very Chestertonian way, two ideas which would otherwise be seen as quite disjoint: the idea of science, and the idea of humor - or, even more general, the idea of having a Good Time with science. At first, you would expect that Chesterton, having died in 1936, could by no means have written anything at all on a story which first appeared in 1964 or so. But then, knowing our Mr. Chesterton as you should by now, you ought to expect that he did just about everything but name the book and its main characters. And behold: you would be right!

Some solemn and superficial people (for nearly all very superficial people are solemn) have declared that the fairy-tales are immoral; they base this upon some accidental circumstances or regrettable incidents in the war between giants and boys, some cases in which the latter indulged in unsympathetic deceptions or even in practical jokes. The objection, however, is not only false, but very much the reverse of the facts. The fairy-tales are at root not only moral in the sense of being innocent, but moral in the sense of being didactic, moral in the sense of being moralising. It is all very well to talk of the freedom of fairyland, but there was precious little freedom in fairyland by the best official accounts.
[GKC ILN Feb 29, 1908 CW28:53]

For, I regret to inform my friends who live in the Midwest area near the southwest end of Lake Michigan, Mammoth Falls is NOT in Illinois, or Wisconsin. it is in Fairy Land, and the boys battle the usual giants, sometimes with unsympathetic deceptions, and sometimes with practical jokes. But the point, as GKC lectures at length in his Orthodoxy, is that the Science (often termed "magic") of that land provides very little freedom. Perhaps this is why these scientists are "mad"...

It would be all too easy to construct parallels between the Seven Mad Scientists and their once-friend and arch foe, and GKC's Seven Members of the Council of the Days, and their opponent... but that is not the point here. Let the bible scholars sort this, as Ronald Knox sorted Holmes and the mystery of the variant Watsons. No, I am not trying that kind of literary exploration. It would be all too easy to critique the "science", the practicality, or the legality, of the antics of these young men. But that would be like trying to bring the Prodigal Son to the Sanhedrin for judgement... a silly and useless exercise, even for the moot of it. It would be all too easy to condemn, with all the fires of dragons, the explanations of how certain - er - technical tricks can be done - but any typical television show or movie provides far easier, and far more dangerous temptations.

No, I come not to critique, but to announce. I come with news of great joy. I am quite late at this, since it was old news even some years ago, but in this case, it is better late than never.

For me, 2007 was not only the year in which I read the final Harry Potter mystery, and learned the revelations akin to those of the Road to Emmaus (which I understand is JKR's favourite painting). It was also the year I learned that there were MORE stories about the Mad Scientists - more than the two books of short stories which I read long ago and keep happily on my Important Books shelf.

I said something about a second Christmas - it came last week, when I obtained the TWO OTHER BOOKS about the Mad Scientists - and they are full-length novels! The first is called The Big Kerplop! (referring to something which falls into Strawberry Lake from an Air Force jet). It is important because it gives the foundation of the Club, and many important details about the members, including the "casting out" of the enemy. The second is called The Big Chunk of Ice, and it has such a feel of Manalive and other Chesterton stories, it is hilarious as well as different - I can't easily give a good summary, nor do I want to, as that might spoil it.

Note - I am not connected with Purple House Press, the Brinleys, or anything related to these books - except as a reader and as one who delights in a friendship with the seven Mad Scientists. I would strongly urge you, whether you are a boy, have a boy brother, son, grandson, nephew, or neighbour, or have been a boy, or have known a boy - get these books, and read them. You do NOT have to be a scientist to like them, as you do not have to be a priest to like Father Brown, or a English journalist to like Chesterton. I think you will enjoy them - I hope you do. I did, and still do.

I said at the beginning of this ridiculously incoherent ramble that this topic of boy's books is connected to the liturgical epoch we are in. Well, that's a real stretch - or maybe it isn't. It sometimes seems quite misleading, as some may guess that Christ was baptised as an infant - but really! He was "about 30" at that time, and except for the glimpse at the Finding in the Temple, there is a good 18, if not 28 to 30 years about which we know nothing - or next to nothing. Hear again GKC on this, from his master reference to our Lord:

There are a great many things about it [the Gospel] which nobody would have invented, for they are things that nobody has ever made any particular use of; things which if they were remarked at all have remained rather as puzzles. For instance, there is that long stretch of silence in the life of Christ up to the age of thirty. It is of all silences the most immense and imaginatively impressive. But it is not the sort of thing that anybody is particularly likely to invent in order to prove something; and nobody so far as I know has ever tried to prove anything in particular from it. It is impressive, but it is only impressive as a fact; there is nothing particularly popular or obvious about it as a fable. The ordinary trend of hero-worship and myth-making is much more likely to say the precise opposite.
[GKC The Everlasting Man CW2:321]

It may be, as I have pointed out somewhere, that this was because He wished to be "full-grown" since the epiphyses of the clavicle do not fuse until then - the collarbone is the last of the long bones to "finish" being put together. Or it may be, as GKC continues in the above-quoted text, that "there is indeed something strange in the thought that the who of all humanity needed least preparation seems to have had most. Whether it was some mode of the divine humility, or some truth of which we see the shadow in the longer domestic tutelage of the higher creatures of the earth, I do not propose to speculate; I mention it simply as an example of the sort of thing that does in any case give rise to speculations, quite apart from recognised religious speculations." [Ibid CW2:321-2]

But the reason could be simpler. What was He doing? Well! As an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a lad, He grew - and He learned. He was busy. And after he grew and learned, He was working - as we all do. He was with His family, doing the family things. And in the end, He like the Mad Scientists, went and "battled giants", sometimes with "unsympathetic deceptions" and sometimes with what were nearly "practical jokes". Yes, there are still giants to fight. Sometimes, laughter is the best weapon: "The child or the boy is quite right in believing that there really is a dragon somewhere, and that the harder he is hit the better." [GKC ILN Sept 23 1922 CW32:454]

Chesterton Monologue to Watch

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=dc2a6340e258630febd5
I tried to get the video embedded, but I just couldn't do it. So, to see it, click on the above link.

How to Be a Dunce

Chesterton's case showed how he slunk through the educational system without much notice. One teacher claimed that under his skull was a big white lump of fat. And Gilbert seemed to make some effort at trying to hide his brilliance, trying to stay out of the range of official attention.

I wonder how many kids today are attempting this same path through our educational system.

What happens if they shine? They get put in "Superior Ability" classes and given more work. So why shine?

What happens if they're "getting it"? They are made to tutor other kids or do examples in front of everyone. So why admit you get it?

What happens if they're a good kid? They get made into a "mentor" for a not-so-good kid and have to hang with that person who doesn't want them to be with them. So why be visibly good?

What do teachers do with a student like Chesterton? What could they do? What should they do? Would Chesterton's life turned out better if the educational system had been different? Or, was it ok that he slunk through those years with his face hidden from the English teacher, who might discover his love of words and sounds?

Karen Edmisten: Recent Reading: The Father Brown Reader

Karen has a lovely review of the Father Brown Reader, thanks so much Karen, I'm glad you and the children enjoyed them!

Mixed Media

In general, the media tows the PC line, so it wouldn't be surprising that they would be in favor of a Democratic candidate. This year they have a double chance to be even more PC because they have the chance to support both a minority and another minority. They should be in their glory.

And so I find it curious that the story they want is that Hillary cries or shows emotion. Do they find that so amazing, that she's a woman and a person to boot? I mean, headlines because her voice quavers? Give me a break! Would they do this to a man?

So, they want her, but they don't want her to show her feelings. They want her to act like a man because she's tough. Sure she's tough, but think of the pressure she's under. Most of us would crack. I would. Of course, I'd be running for the other side.

Dallas Optimistic about Mr. Huckabee and Iowa

Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee both have the potential to bring about a clean break with the hyper-partisan politics of the recent past. You could see this in their gracious, hopeful victory speeches. Quoting the English writer G.K. Chesterton, Mr. Huckabee said, "A true soldier fights not because he hates those who are in front of him, but because he loves those who are behind him." Mr. Obama's remarks were in the same generous spirit. It's thrilling to see two happy warriors prevail in such an important battle.

The presidential primary races are far from over, of course. But come what may, it's hard to shake the sense that a new era in American political history has begun. Dallas Morning News, 01/-5/08

Chesterton Getting a Lot of Press Today

Mike Huckabee quoted G.K. Chesterton last night in his victory speech, and so everyone today is talking about Chesterton. They may even be wandering over here to see what we think of it.

We think it is great that Chesterton is quoted and even better if the quote is understood, and even better if it leads to people reading more than just one quote of Chesterton's.

So, if you're here because of Mr. Huckabee, welcome! Sit down, grab a cup of coffee, and peruse the site. Take a look at our mother-site, the American Chesterton Society, and especially the quotes and extras. Buy a book, tape or make a donation. Thanks!

UPDATE: Well, I heard from reliable sources that my source wasn't reliable, so I'm glad to know that wasn't how he really sounded last night.

Dr. Thursday's Post

Revealing Things: Tam Antiqua, tam nova: So Old and So New

In considering my topic for today, so horribly delayed for a very special reason, as you shall hear, I was inhibited at first because I recalled that I had written very recently AND at length about the Three Scientists who came bringing gifts to the Christ Child. Er, you know I mean the Three Kings, but most fittingly left in the ancient form as "The Magi" of unspecified number. Remember, they observed the Star - that sounds just about as scientific as one can get!

The feast for this Sunday, January 6, is called "epiphany" because it is a "showing" - a revealing. The Greek root "phain" means "show", or even "to give light". While we remember that God the Son, incarnate as Jesus the Everlasting Man, was already visible to Mary and Joseph, to the local shepherds, to (it may be postulated) the Roman Census-takers, to the Jewish authority in the person of Simeon, and to others in the Temple, here, on this special day, we recall that He was also made visible to certain "representatives" of the Whole Human Family. It is this truth which shows up in the relatively recent tradition that the three Magi were of the three "branches" or races of Man: white, yellow, black, or the three sons of Noah who are said to represent the progenitors of these races. That is effective in many ways, even if it be nothing more than a story with a moral. It is not so much that there be three, or that they be - er - anthropologically "representative" of cultures or physiological characteristics. It is the idea which Aquinas explained in his Summa (III Q36 A3,5,6) that they represent The Pagans, as distinct from the Jews: the Whole Family must know. After all, the angel told the shepherds: "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy that shall be to all the people." [Lk 2:10, emphasis added]

As I said, we have considered some of this previously. But I have something more to tell you, brought about by my experience this morning, which explains my hasty rambling tone and tardiness.
Read more.

This morning, I attended the funeral of the father of a good friend. It was remarkable for it was the first time I experienced the rituals of Greek Orthodoxy. It was awesome. It was ornate. It was moving - not only because of the friendship and compassion - but because of the chant, the incense, the candles, the lovely icons, the reverence, and a rich harmony with my own faith. And, I must say, I had a certain strange sense of separation - and for me an even stronger longing for unity. I know very little Greek, but every so often a word leapt out. Most striking was the grand ritual announcement preceding the readings:

Sophia! Wisdom!

which one can take to mean "listen up, you'll learn something" or "Come, O Wisdom, and enlighten me as I read/hear" or even "Behold, in what you shall now hear lives the Very Truth of the Divine Intellect."

But after the statement of the reading's source, they actually then say something like "Attention"... again, "Sit up and take notice!"

As the various prayers and responses were chanted, I sat in awe, thinking that these very sounds were common, even more so than Latin, in the streets and markets of Jerusalem, of Antioch, and even of Rome. And for me there was a feeling of a common possession - which we should have with Latin, but should have also with Greek. Even now, the Roman ritual calls for the opening litany "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy" to be in its most ancient Greek form: "Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison." Oh God! May the day be not far off that this division be healed!

But there is another reason, an even more profound one, which I must mention that I learned from a brief glance at the book for the "Divine Liturgy".

One of the numerous "bidding" or petitioning prayers (akin to the "Prayers of the Faithful" of the Novus Ordo, or like those of the Good Friday ritual) was a prayer for peace in the world. But! (And if you've heard me on this before, keep reading anyway. It's worth thinking about this deeply.) You must remember that the Greek word which comes out "world" in English does NOT mean "Earth".

The Greek word for "world" is KOSMOS.

This is not to be taken as a demonstration of the existence of alien beings from other planets. But it IS a demonstration of the universally pervading power and authority of God. Do you recall that first Father Brown story? "Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star."

We - and I see no reason to abstain from such a prayer, regardless of one's Christian connection - attest to a belief in God the Father almighty. All galaxies, all planets are subject to His law, to His guidance, to His love - and to His salvation. We ought to pray for peace throughout the Kosmos - starting with ourselves, but extending to the most alien life-form known: our neighbor. The rock group "Rush" has a song which hints of this:

We are planets to each other,
Drifting in our orbits to a brief eclipse,
Each of us a world apart
Alone and yet together like two passing ships.
[Rush, "Entre Nous"]

But they may not go far enough. For every two humans are separated by a chasm far more vast than simple astronomical distance - and so a prayer for peace throughout the Kosmos makes a lot of sense.

Why do I mention this? Omitting Orlando Furioso's flight to the moon, or Barbicane's lunar cannon-shot, it is only in new stories, written in comparatively recent time, that we have begun to even imagine crossing the vast distances to other planets. But here, in an ancient tongue, can still be heard the faith that called to St. Augustine, to which he responded "Late have I loved Thee, oh Beauty ever ancient, ever new!"

And why today? Because the revelation of Epiphany, of the Showing of the King, is for all times and all places. The axes of space and time cross at one place - on the Hill of Calvary. In this sense, then, Orthodox are most Catholic - in the Greek sense. May God speed our unity!

And there is one other reason - a Chestertonian one. It is because of the remarkable quote with which I conclude - the only place which AMBER tells me contains the word "Epiphany". But read it for yourself, and remember I found it AFTER I had thought on all this earlier today...

May the soul of Spiros, and of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

And may the Peace of God pervade the Kosmos! Amen.

--Dr. Thursday

What is called the Seville procession ... exists in many different places besides Seville. But as it is done in many different places, so it is done in many different ways. There are often elements that are in their nature new, that are unexpected in the sense that nobody could possibly expect them. I have heard it said that, sometimes, a man will rush out into the path of the procession and pour out a stream of absurdly spontaneous poetry, like an improvisation on a musical instrument; and that sometimes somebody else (also rather abruptly moved by the Muse) will answer him from a window, with appropriate poetical repartees. But the point is that the old framework allows of these new things; just as the old orchard bears fresh fruit or the old garden fresh flowers. These old civilisations give us the sensation of being always at the beginning of things; whereas mere modern innovation gives us the sensation, even in its novelty, of drawing nearer and nearer to the end.

There is one custom in Spain, and probably in other southern countries, which might be a model of the popular instinct for poetry in action. It is what corresponds to our idea of Santa Claus; who is, of course, St. Nicolas, and in the North the patron of children and the giver of gifts at Christmas. In the South this function is performed by the Three Kings, and the gifts are given at the Epiphany. It is in a sense more logical, which, perhaps, is why it is common among the Latins. The Wise Men are in any case bringing gifts to the Holy Child, and they bring them at the same time to the human children. But there is in connection with it an excellent example of how people who retain this popular instinct can actually act a poem.

The mysterious Kings arrive at the end of the holiday; which again is really very reasonable. It is much better that the games and dances and dramas, which are fugitive, should come first, and the children be left with the presents, or permanent possessions, at the end. But it is also the occasion of a process very mystical and moving to the imagination. The Kings are conceived as coming nearer and nearer every day; and, if there are images of these sacred figures, they are moved from place to place, every night. That alone is strangely thrilling, either considered as a child's game or as a mystic's meditation on the mysteries of time and space. On the last night of all, when the strange travellers through time are supposed to arrive, the children carefully put out water and green stuff for the camels and the horses of that superhuman cavalcade out of the depths of the East. Even the touch of putting water, so necessary to purely Eastern animals, is enough to suggest that reach of the imagination to the ends of the earth.
[GKC ILN June 26, 1926 CW34:116-7]