Thursday, April 23, 2009

St. George and Father Jaki

Sean, our steadfast editor-of-the-magazine, reminds me that today is the feast dayof St. George, who "was for England", and so I gladly fly his banner, full of strong heraldry, which is blazoned "Argent, a cross gules".

And so, to supply Sean's patrons at his Blue Boar blogg, I hunt through the nearly 300 references to St. George in AMBER, wondering (as I am during this time) if there might be something which will help shed some light on Father Jaki and his work. And I found something remarkable...

((click here to

I saw this morning a literary competition in an exceedingly highbrow weekly, a prize being awarded for a conversation between a modern interviewer and St. George. And I was struck by the fact that clever, and even brilliant, contributors missed much of the point, even about the modern interviewer, by missing the point about the ancient saint. I am not setting up as an authority on either. I am not pretending to be learned; nor is there here any question of learning. It is a question of quite superficial information, but of information that is fairly well spread out over the whole surface. I have not been right slap-bang through "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" lately, any more than had Mr. Silas Wegg; I have not read every word of the "Acta Sanctorum" within the last week or so; I have not even read very closely the relatively romance of "The Seven Champions of Christendom." I have nothing but general information; but it is fairly general. What surprises me in people younger, brighter, and more progressively educated than myself is that their general information is very patchy.

Now, it is unfair to say that they know nothing about St. George, because it may fairly be answered that there is nothing to be known about St. George. In one sense, nobody knows who St. George was; we only know who he was not. The only clear and solid fact about him is that he certainly was not what Gibbon said he was; the contractor of Cappadocia. He was merely recorded as a common soldier of the legions martyred with multitudes under Diocletian; nor is there any particular reason to doubt that he was. All the rest is legend, though legend is often very valuable to history. And I mean by general information the sense of the life in legends; how they grow; where they come from; why they remain. I know what saints
were supposed to be; what patron saints were supposed to do; how they often did it for the most diverse groups ages after their death; how other saints besides George dealt with dragons; how other nations besides England invoked St. George; how the saints were before the knights; how the knights were before the nations; and so
on. In short, I have picked up quite crudely what Mr. Wells calls an Outline of History; but a more scientifically educated generation still seems to have only snippets of history; the lie out of Gibbon; the legend about the dragon; the phrase "St. George for Merry England," and such isolated items. The result is a curious sort of narrowness, even about the problem of the present or the immediate past. For instance, one quite intelligent contributor apparently identified "St. George" as somebody supposed to have lived in "Merry England," and explained that his period (whatever it was supposed to be) was not really merry, because there was a great deal of mud in the streets, or people lived in mud hovels. Apart from everything else, I call it narrow for a man to suppose that Mud is the opposite of merriment. Did he never make any mud-pies? Was he not much merrier making them than contributing to intellectual weeklies?

But the essential point is this. Everybody thought the joke must be found in showing how unlike St. George's time was to ours. I think it would be a much better joke to show how extremely like St. George's time was to ours. But the writers are hampered in this by being extremely vague about what was St. George's time. Now, a man in the later Roman Empire, like George the Martyr, would have seen all round him an ancient world that was astonishingly like the modern world. Whether or no Merry England was a suitable phrase for mediaevalism, whether or no mediaevalism was all mud, it is quite certain that the Empire of Diocletian was not all mud. Imperial Rome was not all mud, but all marble, all mortar and massive building, all pipes and tanks and engineering, all sorts of elaborate equipments of luxury or hygiene. And among all those palatial baths and towering aqueducts, George would probably be thinking pretty much what many an intelligent man is thinking now - that man does not live by soap alone; [Cf Mt 4:4 quoting Dt. 8:3] and that hygiene, or even health, is not much good unless you can take a healthy view of it - or, better still, feel a healthy indifference to it.

Suppose, for instance, that the soldier George had read some of the satires on fashionable society that were produced in that old Pagan world. He would find fact after fact and fashion after fashion exactly parallel to our own. He would find Juvenal making fun of fashionable ladies who join in masculine sports or adventures in a spirit of self-advertisement. The Roman satirist describes how grand Roman ladies would appear as gladiators in the arena, sacrificing not only modesty, but the manners of their rank in order to be in the limelight. That exact fashionable blend of Feminism and Publicity did really exist in the real epoch of the real St. George; almost exactly as it exists today. Or suppose the Roman soldier read the religious and philosophical literature circulating through the Roman Empire. He would find all that we call New Religions now already called New Religions then. He would find idealists who were Vegetarians, like Apollonius of Tyana; theosophists who had learned all about Reincarnation from Brahmins and Hindu seers; prophets of the Simple Life in the drawing-rooms of duchesses, talking about the secrets of health., wealth, and wisdom; promises of a new Universal Religion, which should include all beliefs without any particular belief in any of them. If the real original St. George did find himself interviewed by a modern newspaper man, he would think that hardly anything in the newspaper was new. He would not think primarily that he had come into a strange world, far away from dragons and princesses and mediaeval armour. he would think he had got back into the old bewildered and decaying world of the last phase of Paganism, loud with denials of religion and louder with the howlings of superstition. Certainly he would find himself in a world in which it was possible to say much of what the Pagan philosophers and much of what the Christian Fathers said of those original Last Days. But I will not push the enquiry so far as to ask whether, in this epoch or in that, there was anything particular for the Saint to do, except to die.

[ILN June 18 1932 reprinted in All I Survey; thanks to Frank Petta and my mother]

You may be wondering what any of that has to do with Father Jaki and his work. It's very simple. As GKC says, "I think it would be a much better joke to show how extremely like St. George's time was to ours. But the writers are hampered in this by being extremely vague about what was St. George's time." One of the important things Fr. Jaki has done is to bring to light some very interesting details about the past - in particular about science and scientists. He wrote with far more erudition - which is a fancy word meaning he uses lots more footnotes, which tell you what books he's read - but his argument is much the same as GKC's. It's a matter of seeing things more clearly, more deeply - and knowing how "saints dealt with dragons".

It's a useful skill, for there still are dragons around. To arms!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Join our FaceBook fan page today!