Reagan and Chesterton

I've just heard that Reagan quoted Chesterton in his Christmas at the Whitehouse talk in 1981. He was heard to quote:

The world will never starve for want of wonders, but for want of wonder.

A good reminder to us during this Advent time of year.

Random Chestertonian Quote

"All habits are bad habits," said Michael, with deadly calm. "Madness does not come by breaking out, but by giving in; by settling down in some dirty, little, self-repeating circle of ideas; by being tamed. You went mad about money, because you're an heiress."

"It's a lie," cried Rosamund furiously. "I never was mean about money."

"You were worse," said Michael, in a low voice, and yet violently. "You thought that other people were. You thought every man who came near you must be a fortune-hunter; you would not let yourself go and be sane; and now you're mad, and I'm mad; and serve us right."
Manalive, Chpater 3, G.K. Chesterton.

Chesterton and Christmas

Well, I got my wish, and am now the proud owner of Advent and Christmas Wisdom from G.K. Chesterton. I liked the back cover:

People are losing the power to enjoy Christmas through identifying it with enjoyment. When once they lose sight of the old suggestion that it is all about something, they naturally fall into blank pauses of wondering what it is all about. To be told to rejoice on Christmas Day is reasonable and intelligible, if you understand the name, or even look at the word. To be told to rejoice on the twenty-fifth of December is like being told to rejoice at quarter-past eleven on Thursday week. You cannot suddenly be frivolous unless you believe there is a serious reason for being frivolous. G.K Chesterton, "The New War on Christmas," December 26, 1925

This Advent, let us join G.K. Chesterton as he approaches the child Jesus. "You will come to find, as others before you, that Gilbert Keith Chesterton has walked into your life to make you laugh and think, to serve as your friend and mentor" (From the Introduction).

Dr. Thursday's Post

Argument and Truth

Nancy Brown, our dutiful bloggmistress, has recently posted excerpts from a comment made on one of my postings from last year. I must say it is quite gratifying to see my writing causing discussion. Addition, set theory, poetry and mathematics and the pursuit of truth... so many topics for exploration. At present I am extremely busy, but there are days when I sit here and wonder how to select the topic to write about... It reminds me of this little passage:

"He was restless just then and drafted about into the commonest crowds. He did no work lately; sometimes sat and stared at a blank sheet of paper as if he had no ideas."
"Or as if he had too many," said Gabriel Gale.
[GKC, "The Purple Jewel" in The Poet and the Lunatics, emphasis added]

It is a good book for many reasons; among others, these words of Gabriel Gale, two of my favourite lines in all of GKC:

"Were you ever an isosceles triangle?"

and

"I often stare at windows."

So do I, GG; so do I. But this book is even more important because it, like every other one of Chesterton's books, is really a slovenly autobiography, part of which is an even more slovenly, and half-poetic, attempt to get at truth, and distinguish the truth from things which are nothing more than appearance.

Which has been a matter of real contention in some bloggs and other forms of media. Nancy Brown has begun to explore this on her own blogg, here and here and here. Some matters seem clearly to be about truth: "This is true, we MUST accept it, even if uncomfortable or annoying." Some others, just as clearly, seem to be matters of taste: "I like this; though I approve of it and enjoy it; but it is of no concern that you do not find it so."

How to handle such cases? How to discern truth from taste? And how to let someone know about what MAY be a serious matter? Is this mushroom edible or deadly poison? Are you a mycophile gourmet? Or perhaps you are allergic to them? Or do you have some philosophical reason against eating fungi?

In exasperation, one might wish to see what the Bible has to say. But alas - there is the tradition of the last 500 years for each to interpret the Bible for one's self - this a most unsteady foundation. Excuse me - that is not the right way to go, for my topic today as GKC said, is "not specially concerned with the differences between a Catholic and a Protestant." [prefatory note to The Everlasting Man] It is not even concerned with the differences between Christians and varieties of Pagans. It is merely my attempt to get a little further into the idea of difference - which I thought would make a welcome change from my discussion on addition. Hee hee.

Also it is well to consider this matter now, at the tail end of the Church Year, when we ponder the "Return of the King" and the promised final division of sheep and goats, all mysteries solved and all questions answered.
Read more.

It is significant that we can show biblical evidence to begin our exploration. For example:

On the one hand: St. Paul talks about how, when he was a child he talked and acted like a child - but he grew up and put childish ways aside.
But on the other hand: Jesus says "unless you change and become like little children, you shall by no means enter the kingdom."

On the one hand: Jesus said in praying one should not repeat one's words.
On the other hand: In Gethsemani, he prayed "using the same words as before".

But we are not here to sift these biblical matters. The important point, of course, in these, and every other such case, is the need to discriminate, to discern, to tell apart one thing or idea or word from another - that is, to divide - or (to crash our math symbols together) to find the difference. (But then division is really a form of repeated subtraction, just as multiplication is a form of repeated addition.)

People, even in the Catholic Church, have decided that the techniques of the Middle Ages are mostly boring, dull, and useless. It's especially funny to hear this from university people. But Chesterton knew quite well that those methods were not only amazingly interesting, but powerfully useful:

I revert to the doctrinal methods of the thirteenth century, inspired by the general hope of getting something done.
[GKC, Heretics CW1:46]

Yes, at that famous little cable TV place that I used to work at, people knew that the system was founded upon "Thirteenth Century Metaphysics" - simply because it was founded on reason. And as Father Brown points out (let us say it now in chorus): "You attacked reason, it's bad theology."

To proceed. The word "argument" comes up in such discussions. Someone is "arguing" over whatever matter is at hand. But how did those people of long ago argue? What REALLY happened? Does anyone know?

(Please don't bring up the "angels on the head of a pin" for now; we can do that one some other time.)

Well, first of all, the "disputation" was a very important part of education. The only remnant I know of is the "proofs" still introduced in high school geometry and seen in other branches of math. But it was an important idea in the Middle Ages, and good exercise, not just for future priests, lawyers, and physicians, but for anyone who wanted to use his brain to deal with reality. Moreover, it was done by very serious people, not for anger or malice or "humour" (what can that mean?) or even to convince the doubtful - no, it was used by people (often very friendly people) who were in deep, complete, and utterly full agreement with each other.

Are you amazed? You should be. If I had time, I would give you samples from some fascinating books on that era. One in particular which is quite amazing to examine is Gratian's The Treatise on the Laws (with) The Ordinary Gloss, a work dating as far back as 1170. But I can give a far more recent example, which is both instructive and amusing:

My brother, Cecil Edward Chesterton, was born when I was about five years old; and, after a brief pause, began to argue. He continued to argue to the end; for I am sure that he argued energetically with the soldiers among whom he died, in the last glory of the Great War. It is reported of me that when I was told that I possessed a brother, my first thought went to my own interminable taste for reciting verses, and that I said, "That's all right; now I shall always have an audience." if I did say this, I was in error. My brother was by no means disposed to be merely an audience; and frequently forced the function of an audience upon me. More frequently still, perhaps, it was a case of there being simultaneously two orators and no audience. We argued throughout our boyhood and youth until we became the pest of our whole social circle. We shouted at each other across the table, on the subject of Parnell or Puritanism or Charles the First's head, until our nearest and dearest fled at our approach, and we had a desert around us. And though it is not a matter of undiluted pleasure to recall having been so horrible a nuisance, I am rather glad in other ways that we did so early thrash out our own thoughts on almost all the subjects in the world. I am glad to think that through all those years we never stopped arguing; and we never once quarrelled.
[GKC, Autobiography CW16:187, emphasis added]

As you can see, these beloved brothers knew the DIFFERENCE. But then what is an argument? Why have a disputation?

Ever hear a smarmy educator burble on about teaching "problem-solving" in school?

Any clue what that might possibly mean? (Ask me about recursion another time; they do NOT mean recursion.)

Argument is a CLASSICAL form of "problem-solving". It is NOT about "convincing". It is not a form of "verbal fighting". It is NOT an expression of anger or of ME being right and YOU being wrong.

It is simply a very clever technique of GETTING TO THE TRUTH.

But of course, I have transgressed. I have mentioned religious things, and the horrid Middle Ages - and that boring detective-story-writing journalist and his nasty brother who was even convicted of libel. (A long story for another time.)

Ah - despite all this, perhaps there are still some readers left to me. They want to know more.

I have already used up quite a bit of my posting-space allotment for today, so I can barely summarise the technique here. Basically, there is a thing called the "circle" - which is an odd term, considering there are really only two players in the game. But it means that the two alternate in their turns to speak. (I here refer to the description in Shallo's Scholastic Philosophy.)

First move: The Defendant states a claim on a matter. It may be something perfectly obvious, or something deeply abstruse. But the Defendant must give any necessary details on the meaning of the claim, and give "short, solid arguments" (formal explanations using logic) proving the parts of the claim.

Second move: the Objector may attack either the claim directly, or the arguments (formal logic explanations) by which it was proved.

The situation then reverses, and now the Defendant may attack the various elements of the Objector's work.

And so on. Until there is a resolution, or they discover a lack of sufficient information, or (perhaps) it is dinnertime, or bedtime, or something else intrudes. (In Socrates' case it was the hemlock.)

One of the most important of the possible moves in the attack is announced by the word distinguo. (No this is NOT a Hogwarts spell, though it is a Latin verb in the first-person singular indicative!) This word means "I distinguish, separate, divide in parts". In argument it is used to break apart something (say a word) which may have been used in a general sense, and show that its various separate specific meanings apply in different ways - for the original claim may apply in some senses, but not in others - as it is required to find the truth, each of the various cases must be examined.

Yes, at the end of time, all our arguments, and all our searches shall be terminated, and the final DISTINGUO shall be pronounced: "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden that shall not be known and come abroad." [Luke 8:17] Then we'll get our papers back and see where our mistakes were.

But for now, as we work in joyful hope, let us distinguish something very important. We can never tolerate error. Error is error, whether it be mathematical or logical, or historical or theological. But that does not mean we must ourselves COMMIT ERROR by pointing out error: "And why seest thou the mote in thy brother's eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not?" [Luke 6:41] We must always bear love in mind - love is "willing the good of the other" - and so must practise fraternal correction in love. It is again that matter of distinction, of telling apart:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
[GKC, The Thing CW3:157]

I have rambled on for quite some time, but perhaps you have begun to see something here. Let us argue in charity, with love, with our eyes seeking truth and not our own "winning" or glory. Truth is not a game score, and, since it is intangible, has the property Dante remarks on (in Purgatorio) that its DIVISION actually INCREASES its possession. Anna Leonowens put the same idea in rhyme:

It's a very ancient saying,
But a true and honest thought:
That if you become a teacher,
By your pupils you'll be taught."
[Rodgers and Hammerstein's "The King and I"]

Or, to use the modern words, it's a "win-win" scenario.

But let us always argue (and read, write, learn, teach, blogg) - in love, that is (as GKC said) with our BROTHER.

--Dr. Thursday.

12,000 Opportunities

If you are a friend to the Chesterton Society, and word has it that 12,000 of you are, then you recently received a letter from our esteemed Mr. Ahlquist wishing us all a Merry Christmas!

In this letter, we are told of a few ways we could wish Merry Christmas back to the American Chesterton Society. I'm going to help you make this very easy.

1. Purchase a Chesterton Ornament. Mine is already on our tree and pretty much looks like this photograph, except that our tree is leaving heavily to the "Chesterton" side.






2. Purchase a copy of Tremendous Trifles.











3. (I have a vested interest in this third item.)Purchase a copy of Father Brown stories adapted for children. (At the very excellent price of $7.95 for members.)











4. Buy anything at all from the ACS.

5. Give the ACS a nice Christmasy donation.

There! I've made it very easy for you to wish us a Merry Christmas.

This Advent with Chesterton and Jesus

Published by Ligouri.

"As one of the few relatively recent Christian writers who are admired and quoted by Christians at all ends of the spectrum, G.K Chesterton, the great English convert to the Catholic faith, was known as a remarkable and diverse but extremely influential English writer. His inexhaustible and wide ranging portfolio of works includes journalistic writing, poetry, biography, Christian, fantasy and detective genres. His style is distinctive and always marked by humility, consistency, irony, wit and wonder. Some of his most enduring books include The Everlasting Man, which led C.S. Lewis to become a Christian and The Napoleon of Notting Hill which inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish independence.

G.K. Chesterton is sometimes referred to as the most unjustly neglected writer of our time. One reason might be his versatility and the inability for modern thinkers, theologians and commentators to pigeonhole him. We challenge you to enjoy his remarkable style, eloquence and faith-based writing at this joyous time of the year.

In this edition of Advent and Christmas Wisdom, each day's reflection includes a selection from one of Chesterton's finest works, a suitable Scripture verse, an appropriate prayer, and an exercise. This addition to one of Liguori's bestselling series is truly a refreshing, prayerful preparation for the coming of Christ at Christmas."

It's on my wish list for this advent. Here is one more review which I found on amazon.com:

"This contains many of the great writers wittiest and most profound observations on faith and the meaning of Christmas. Some of them are taken from his well known books, but there are also many taken from his lesser known writings. For the Chesterton fan, there may be a surprise or two; for others, this is an enjoyable introduction. It also contains bible readings and prayers for each day of advent, related to the Chesterton quote. But the best part is the activity for each day. They are practical, creative ideas for putting into practice the spiritual values of the readings for the day. The activities are appropriate for adults and school age children. Its a great way to make this advent a memorable one."

One contributing writer is someone Gilbert readers will recognize: Robert Moore-Jummonville. Congratulations, Robert.

A GKC Debate about Math

Back in October of 2006, our Dr. Thursday elicited some interesting discussion when he brought up Math, GKC and an Ignatian Asylum, after which a spirited debate ensued.

"Wild Goose", citing the One-Should-Always-Have-A-Healthy-
Skepticism-For-An-Encyclopedia-Where-Anyone-Can-Claim-Expertise
Wikipedia, stated:

It is not quite true that “When somebody [Newton] discovered the Differential Calculus there was only one Differential Calculus he could discover.”

Leibniz also discovered Differential Calculus, in a different form, arguably, a more durable and suitable calculus:

“The infinitesimal calculus can be expressed either in the notation of fluxions or in that of differentials. “

To which Dr. Thursday responded:

I should not have added [Newton] to GKC's words. It was in the 1660s (or so) that both Newton and Leibniz "discovered" calculus; yes, almost simultaneously, though Newton seems to have priority.

Alas, "a quarrel arose between the followers of Newton and the followers of Leibniz, and unhappily it grew into a quarrel between the great men themselves..." [The World of Mathematics 143, 286 et seq; Purcell, Calculus 156, 278]

And, if you're still following this (for full arguments, please see the comments section of the above referenced posting), "Wild Goose" continued:

You have brought up an excellent topic. The way I see it, the main point of your post was that math and science have their own fixed rules, while poetry has its own, due to the free will of the author or the creator. (“But when Shakespeare killed Romeo he might have married him to Juliet's old nurse if he had felt inclined.”) You are saying that there is only one calculus, while there may be a virtually infinite number of plays or plots along the lines of Romeo and Juliet, limited only by the author’s imagination. But I think that would be like comparing apples and oranges.

After which "DavyMax", a new commenter as far as one can tell that sort of thing, just today responded:

To simplify things a bit. Godel proved the essential intuitive nature of mathematics. But Wild Goose, you seem to be implying that intuition and imagination are one in the same. They are in fact quite different. Without seeing a proof I may intuitively think that there are infinitely many primes or that the Reimann hypothesis is true or the Axiom of Choice. However, this is because I would think, for instance, as I do, that the Axiom of Choice is in fact the truth. Clearly, this is quite different from writing a different ending of Romeo and Juliet (or preferably some other story I rather like the ending of Romeo and Juliet). Mathematicians do not intuitively think something because that's the way it sounds nice or because they think it's "cool." It's because they think it is TRUE. That is the ultimate goal. They may and often do choose to explore an idea because it is pretty or beautiful, but not because of those goals in mind but because they know from experience that the truth most often is pretty and beautiful.

This reminds me also of the line from V for Vendetta that says something of Artists telling the truth with lies. This is true in the sense that they are trying to express some inner truth through any means neccesary and we all understand what they're doing. Mathematicians are seeking rather than expressing truth when using intuition. Whereas, artists are expressing a truth already experienced when using imagination.

I thought I'd bring the whole thing to the fore because with a post that old, it's hard for people to jump back into the conversation. But I wanted to thank DavyMax for finding us and joining in the conversation by attempting to revisited this topic, if others are interested. Anyone want to respond to DavyMax? I thought he brought up an excellent point about Truth, and the difference between intuition and imagination.

"The Surprise" on EWTN update

I had to find this out on Mark Shea's blog. These Chesterton people never tell me anything. ;-)

I just heard from Steve Beaumont. Our premiere is--are you ready?--Thursday, December 20, at FIVE A.M. (Eastern Time, so Mark can watch it at 2 AM). Maybe we can call that the preview.

The real premiere is on Friday, Dec. 21 at 10 PM (ET), 9 PM (CT), 7 PM (PT).

And then, when nobody is doing anything on Dec. 24, they can watch it at 1 PM (ET), Noon (CT), 10 AM (PT).

I imagine it will be repeated in January as well.

A Chestertonian Thanksgiving

Forthwith, a selection of Chesterton on thanksgiving and gratitude.

Happy Thanksgiving!

...thanks are the highest form of thought... gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.
A Short History of England CW20:463

we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them.
Orthodoxy CW1:268

I have often thanked God for the telephone...
What's Wrong With the World CW4:112

...you may say, if you like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to raise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard.
Orthodoxy CW1:228

We thank people for birthday presents of cigars and slippers. Can I thank no one for the birthday present of birth?
Orthodoxy CW1:258

Briefly, any person, in any position, is a beggar who has nothing but thanks to give for a service.
ILN Feb 25 1911 CW29:44
Read more Thanksgiving thoughts here.

The shocking truth is that our creeds are continually changing, while our customs get stiffer and stiffer every day. That is to say, in effect, that we are bound always to do the same thing, but may give any number of nonsensical modern reasons for doing it. Everyone in the modern world is made to say "Thank you"; but anyone in the modern world is free to deny that gratitude is a good thing. Now surely it would be much better if a man were expected to understand and respect the idea of gratitude, but were allowed sometimes to express it in some other way than by saying "Thank you" to the lady who had passed him the salt. As, for instance, he might express it by falling on his knees before her, by offering her twopence out of his waistcoat pocket, by producing on the spur of the moment a short lyric on the subject of her beauty and benevolence, by giving her his card, by bursting into tears, or by passing the salt back to her. Each of these formal expressions of gratitude might be appropriate to some particular epoch, environment, or civilisation, this suiting a more leisurely, and that a more feverish age. But what is clearly essential in the matter is that the ideal of gratitude should not change: for gratitude is the first virtue of living things, first with dogs and with saints.
ILN Mar 23 1907 CW27:426

Happy is he who not only knows the causes of things, but who has not lost touch with their beginnings. Happy is he who still loves something that he loved in the nursery: he has not been broken in two by time; he is not two men,
but one, and has saved not only his soul but his life. I can count a fair list of things I have always desired and still desire - sword-blades, the coloured angels of religious art, a kind of cake called jumbles, Grimm's "Fairy Tales" and a shilling paint-box. Some of these things I confess thankfully that I now have (though jumbles have died with a decaying civilisation), but I am more thankful still that the desire in these cases remains. For
this is a great gift from God, to have things and still to desire them.
ILN Sept 26 1908 CW28:186-7

The news that some Europeans have been wrecked on a desert island is gratifying, in so far as it shows that there are still some desert islands for us to be wrecked on. Moreover, it is also interesting because these, the latest facts, actually support the oldest stories. For instance, superior critics have often sniffed at the labours of Robinson Crusoe, specifically upon the ground that he depended so much upon stores from the sunken wreck. But these actual people shipwrecked a few weeks ago depended entirely upon them; and yet the critics might not have cared for the billet. A few years ago, when physical science was still taken seriously, a very clever boys' book was written, called "Perseverance Island." It was written in order to show how "Robinson Crusoe" ought to have been written. In this story, the wrecked man gained practically nothing from the wreck. He made everything out of the brute materials of the island. He was, I think, allowed the advantage of some broken barrels washed up from the wreck with a few metal hoops round them. It would have been rather hard on the poor man to force him to make a copper-mine or a tin-mine. After all, the process of making everything that one wants cannot be carried too far in this world. We have all saved something from the ship. At the very least, there was something that Crusoe could not make on the island; there was something Crusoe was forced to steal from the wreck; I mean Crusoe. That precious bale, in any case, he brought ashore; that special cargo called "R. C.," at least, did not originate in the island. It was a free import, and not a native manufacture. Crusoe might be driven to make his own trousers on the island. But he was not driven to make his own legs on the island; if that had been his first technical job he might have approached it with a hesitation not unconnected with despair. Even the pessimist when he thinks, if he ever does, must realise that he has something to be thankful for: he owes something to the world, as Crusoe did to the ship. You may regard the universe as a wreck: but at least you have saved something from the wreck.
ILN Oct 24, 1908 CW28:201-2

The difference between rebellion and anarchy is that rebellion, by its nature, achieves a purpose; and, having achieved that purpose, returns to the normal rhythm of law and order. Rebellion is as abnormal as an emetic or an amputation, and it is sometimes as wholesome. But it is only wholesome if it is an abnormality which is intended promptly and decisively to restore the normal. I may thank a doctor for cutting off my leg if I am in deadly peril of poison; but I shall not thank any gentleman who continually chips larger or smaller pieces off my leg accordingly as he thinks that I am not looking quite the thing. I may thank a doctor for making me sick, but not for occupying himself through a long and busy life in making all my food more or less sickening. So rebellion, because it is crucial, must be responsible. It must be thinking not only of the disease, not only of the brief and desperate remedy, but also of that healthy condition which it desires to render permanent; and which, when once effected, it will respect as a fixed thing. In other words, we may restate our original proposition thus: To be responsible for a rebellion is to be responsible for a new Government. Anyone who is in revolt ought to be mainly thinking of that condition of affairs against which he would not be in revolt. But I will have nothing to do with this notion of a nibbling anarchy; the perpetual doing of small, indefensible things.
ILN Nov 21 1908 CW28:218-9

Mr. Marinetti utters a contradiction in terms when he says that he likes motor-cars but dislikes museums. If men do not study previous science, they certainly will invent no further science. The poet's motor-car has been built up by the most elaborate and even meticulous study of the past. Sculpture or music might conceivably spring up spontaneously; but if there is one thing of all others that depends on the past it is mechanical science. Motor-cars are probably invented by people who
pass half their lives in museums. It is at least evident that the Italian writer has chosen a most unfortunate example to show his independence of his fathers that begat him. If he were going to be a naked savage, he would at least have only life to thank them for. But if he is going to be a luxurious modern motorist in a fur coat and goggles, why then he must go down on his knees and thank every man who ever lived, from the first barbarian who stripped off the furry skin of a beast to the last optician who invented a system of lenses. When Mr. Marinetti has invented a really modern motor-car, a car that does not include the ancient institution of wheels, or allow for the old-world posture of sitting, I shall be very much interested to
hear of that car. But I will not go in the car, even if he asks me.
Dec 18 1909 CW28:444

"Aren't those sparks splendid?" I said.
"Yes," he replied.
'That is all that I ask you to admit," said I. "Give me those few red specks and I will deduce Christian morality. Once I thought like you, that one's pleasure in a flying spark was a thing that could come and go with that spark. Once I thought that the delight was as free as the fire. Once I thought that red star we see was alone in space. But now I know that the red star is only on the apex of an invisible pyramid of virtues. That red fire is only the flower on a stalk of living habits, which you cannot see. Only because your mother made you say 'Thank you' for a bun are you now able to thank Nature or
chaos for those red stars of an instant or for the white stars of all time. Only because you were humble before fireworks on the fifth of November do you now enjoy any fireworks that you chance to see. You only like them being red because you were told about the blood of the martyrs; you only like them being bright because brightness is a glory. That flame flowered out of virtues, and it will fade with virtues. Seduce a woman, and that spark will be less bright. Shed blood, and that spark will be less red. Be really bad, and they will be to you like the spots on a wallpaper."
"The Diabolist" in Tremendous Trifles

Happy Thanksgiving!

We here at the ACS blog are thankful for YOU, our dear readers. We hope you have a very happy, holy, blessed, and thankful Thanksgiving.

And we'll leave you some Chestertonian thoughts on Thanksgiving contributed by Dr. Thursday. Now, I have to go get ready to have 22 for turkey.

Google Alerts and Chesterton

I have this "Google Alert" set up to let me know if Chesterton is mentioned on the web or in a blog or anywhere on the internet.

And what is amazing and wonderful is that everyday, I find people having conversations about some work of Chesterton's. All different kinds of people. Atheists, free-thinkers, agnostics, modernists, post-modernists, joyless modernists (I did not make that up, someone calls himself that out there), priests, sane people, housewives, truck drivers, theologians, experimental theologists and more. Every day. Proving once again that Chesterton is timely for today, and elicits exciting conversations and great arguments.

If you'd like to see what's going on out there, go to google.com. Click on news. Over on the left, you'll see a link to "News Alerts" with a little envelope (meaning they will be e-mailed to you). Click on that, and then you set up the alert by putting words in the box (i.e., "G.K. Chesterton") and saying how often you'd like the news to arrive (I have it once a day) and where you want it sent (use a spam e-mail address/free e-mail/alternative e-mail if you are concerned about someone using your e-mail for junk mail). That's it! Then you can travel over to the "joyless modernist" and see what he's talking about, and if you can add to the conversation. Doesn't that sound like fun?

Prayer Request-Special Intention

This is from a reader of this blog:

Yesterday the company I work for announced they are closing our division in 2008, with no expectation of any future...Hence I humbly ask for your prayers - and your suggestions, if you by any chance know of a need or have a hint of use for a computer scientist. My boss and co-workers have also lost their jobs, pray for them, too.

Please e-mail me (Nancy) if you know of a position for a computer scientist. I will pass the information along to the person who e-mailed me this request. Thank you.

Newsworthy Announcement

As some of you know, there are Chesterton societies that spring up locally. The Chesterton Society likes this. As on the national/international level, there are really only a few things going on: The Annual Conference, the Web site, and the Blog. Occasionally there are pilgrimages, books are published, etc. But as far as Chestertonians meeting Chestertonians and getting to know the "Big Guy" as we sometimes affectionately call Gilbert Chesterton, where it's happening on a consistent and regular basis is at the local level. Which is so Chestertonian.

Anyone anywhere can start up a Chesterton society. There may even be one in your city already, but maybe it's on the west side, and you could start one on the east side. If you don't have a society, it is easy to start one up, you can find the directions for such an endeavor here.

Now I want to tell you about a unique Chesterton society, one that has only just started up and had their first meeting. Maybe I should let Joe tell you about it. Joe?

I wanted to inform you that the newly established Chesterton Society here at Saint Charles Seminary is off to a great start. We had a great turnout for our first meeting. Adding those interested who were unable to attend the meeting, it looks like our membership will level off at about 26 men - that's 15% of the student body! For our next meeting in December, we're reading "The Blue Cross,"The Wise Men," and "A Christmas Carol."

I was elected the Society president, and two other fanatical types were elected to our offices of Secretary and Vice-President. One thing is certain, that our group will not suffer from lack of enthusiasm on the part of its leaders.

...We will be praying for the mission of the ACS at the beginning of each meeting....

Regards,
Joseph

PS: Since the meetings are in-house at the Seminary, we're not an "open" society really and can only take enrolled students as members. If any St. Charles students are reading this, please come to the next meeting!

Joe came to the last conference, and you can see his picture and read a very readable report on the event here. I think it is particularly amazing and wonderful that a young group of future priests are reading and discussing Chesterton together, and I think we should all pray for this group, as they are praying for us. Together, we will help people turn to Christ.

Happy 10th Anniversary ACS! 10 Ideas for Celebrating the 10th on the 20th!

Ten years is a pretty long time in the web world, so I think we should celebrate. You can:

1) Drink a toast to the American Chesterton Society and their web presence, which has introduced thousands more to the good news of Chesterton's writing. *Clink*!

2) Become a member of the American Chesterton Society, and enjoy all the benefits therein.

3) Purchase a book from the American Chesterton Society and support the cause (getting Chesterton into more schools, homes and minds in this country--which could help everything from economics to religion to next year's election).

4) Read a Chesterton book or watch a Chesterton video.

5) Invite Dale to come to speak to your group about Chesterton.

6) Invite Nancy to come to speak to your group about Children and Chesterton.

7) Plan right now to attend the conference June 12-14 2008 at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, MN.

8) Buy a Chesterton Christmas ornament for your tree. Buy two and give one away.

9) Plan to start up a local Chesterton Society and discuss your favorite Chesterton book with a bunch of like-minded people.

10) Pray for the Chesterton Society. We need the Guidance, Help and Love of Heaven to keep us going.

*Cheers*!

Support the Chesterton Society and buy a gift for a young person for Christmas or St. Nicholas Day

Look at this beautiful cover, designed and made by Gilbert's own Ted Schluenderfritz. And it looks even better in person, but don't take my word for it, order one and see for yourself.

The FIRST book you could give children of Chesterton's! How cool is that? And your purchase helps support the ACS as well.

Go for it! (Buy 2!)

Headmaster at Chesterton Academy Announced: John DeJak

Welcome Headmaster DeJak!

Anniversary Celebrations

I just noticed, while visiting the American Chesterton Society Web Site, that the web site itself is about to celebrate it's 10th anniversary! With the Stat Counter currently at over 600,000, that's a lot of people finding out about Gilbert Chesterton in the last ten years. Congratulations, ACS!

Gilbert magazine just celebrated it's 10th anniversary, too.

And, on December 8th, this blog will be 2 whole years old! Our Stat Counter indicates... that it is no longer a stat counter :-( God only knows how many hundreds of thousands of visitors we've had in the last two years!!!!!

Right now, we're thinking of some games we could play on our anniversary. Or contests we could run. Triolets? Clerihews? Gype? Mystery Word Searches? Memes? What will we come up with? Stay tuned and you will find out.

And in our effort to provide you with an obscure Chestertonian quote, I give you this (found by searching on the word "anniversary"):

But it would never occur to the Prussians not to ride their high horses with the freshest insolence for the far-off victory of Sedan; though on that very anniversary the star of their fate had turned scornful in the sky, and Von Kluck was in retreat from Paris.--The Appetite of Tyranny, 1915, CW5

Dr. Thursday's Post

Y^e Thorn and y^e Thin Thread of Thanks

"...before I have done with you, you shall thank God for the very ducks on the pond."
-- G. K. Chesterton, Manalive

Sometimes even philosophers are engineers. Sometimes even atheists are catholic.

Yes, I know, don't those words express a horrible thought? Don't they make you cringe? The poor, sad doctors of philosophy: Nietzscheites blinded by the light, Hegelians and Kantians busy ignoring all the evidence, Aristotelites peering uncertainly at the swamp-exhalations the rest of us call the Milky Way, Platonics in the darkness of their unlighted cave, Socratics ending every sentence with a question mark - all the vast horde of "wisdom-lovers", forced to stoop to the filthy abasement of submitting to INK AND PAPER, and (horrors!) perhaps even a word-processor....

Yes, indeed: to leave off their dreaming, wake from their various unreal mental states, and slam hard up against Reality. Simply in order to get their latest idea into their favourite academic journal. Ah. What a delight.

But then they must. Or all their nonsense would stay stuffed in their brains, and not pollute our world. But each time they come to reality, bowing low before the simple tools, designed by engineers, built by workers, existing for real, and obeying the rules of reality, they formally, absolutely, completely deny their own mental dreams, and attest to the Scholastic, the Thomistic - no, let us be modern - the Chestertonian View. The Real View - which is Reality.

Why is it Chestertonian? Let us see what he had to say.
Read more.
It is a wonderful line, and one which we shall study again in another context:

... I am black but comely at this moment: because the cyclostyle has blacked me. Fear not. I shall wash myself. ... I like the Cyclostyle ink; it is so inky. I do not think there is anyone who takes quite such a fierce pleasure in things being themselves as I do. The startling wetness of water excites and intoxicates me: the fieriness of fire, the steeliness of steel, the unutterable muddiness of mud. It is just the same with people.... When we call a man "manly" or a woman "womanly" we touch the deepest philosophy.
[GKC to his fiancée, July 8 1899, quoted in Ward's Gilbert Keith Chesterton 108-9]

Reality. Real ink. It's black. What a wonderful thing ink is - its most wonderful action is in being black - black but comely, as the Canticle of Canticles (1:4) has it. (The discussion will involve all three words; it ought to be quite a meaty topic.)
"The inky-ness of ink." If the ink were faint, weak, insipid... "if salt loses its flavour" [Mt 5:13] ...well then why bother? Might as well use water for all the good it would do. Also, ink must dry quickly (though not too quickly!) and it must not spread - and there are probably a whole bunch of other important properties required. Maybe it's just as well we can buy it in a store, and not have to make it at home. Of course if you are using a laser printer, there's a whole other set of issues, but we cannot go into that now, hee hee. I am already far away from my topic - uh, yeah. Oh, that's right. Words, and letters. After all, if you have something to say, and you REALLY intent to put it down in BLACK and white, you had better think a little about your words.

And that's why I mentioned the second horrible short quip in my opening. How is it possible for an atheist to be "catholic"? I mean in the lower-case sense - the Greek word which means "universal". It's not my idea, it's Chesterton's:

It is the standing peculiarity of this curious world of ours that almost everything in it has been extolled enthusiastically and invariably extolled to the disadvantage of everything else. One after another almost every one of the phenomena of the universe has been declared to be alone capable of making life worth living. Books, love, business, religion, alcohol, abstract truth, private emotion, money, simplicity, mysticism, hard work, a life close to nature, a life close to Belgrave Square are every one of them passionately maintained by somebody to be so good that they redeem the evil of an otherwise indefensible world. Thus, while the world is almost always condemned in summary, it is always justified, and indeed extolled, in detail after detail. Existence has been praised and absolved by a chorus of pessimists. The work of giving thanks to Heaven is, as it were, divided ingeniously among them. Schopenhauer is told of as a kind of librarian in the House of God, to sing the praises of the austere pleasures of the mind. Carlyle, as steward, undertakes the working department and eulogises a life of labour in the fields. Omar Khayyam is established in the cellar, and swears that it is the only room in the house. Even the blackest of pessimistic artists enjoys his art. At the precise moment that he has written some shameless and terrible indictment of Creation, his one pang of joy in the achievement joins the universal chorus of gratitude, with the scent of the wild flower and the song of the bird.
[GKC, Varied Types 32-33]

In case you were wondering, Varied Types is Chesterton's Twelve Types with eight more essays added in. The essays first appeared in The Daily News and The Speaker.

And all this is why I quoted Innocent Smith from GKC's Manalive: "...before I have done with you, you shall thank God for the very ducks on the pond." Indeed. Before I am done with you, you - you philosopher, you atheist - you shall indeed thank God (or at least thank an unnamed engineer!) for your paper, your ink, your computer, your power lines, your desk and chair - the list goes on and on. "The greatest of poems is an inventory." [GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:267]

And you should be thankful even for the very letters and words you are writing and reading. What if you had to type (let us say) your posting, or your commment into one of these little comment boxes, and found, to your dismay, that some key on your keyboard was sticking? Not an important one, let us say... but a "rarely used" one.

As I have told you, I wander through the universe (and the university) peering into subjects that I do not study, but wish to know at least a little BIT about. I got a couple of books on "Bibliography"- the study of books-in-themselves - and learned how there is a letter which we call a "small letter" (you know, not a CAPITAL one) which is, (or had been) in the correct sense, an UPPER-CASE character - the letter "k". It's very funny - but I will have to tell you about it another time, because it does not help me get to my point.

But here's something that will. At least it is another oddity Have you ever seen those old fashioned signs, usually in a curio or souvenir shop, or on some just-built "olde-style" businesses, that read "Ye Olde Curio Shoppe"? This "Ye" is a famous double typographical error.

The correct typography ought to be "Y^e" whatever. This is an OLD form of a contraction, and it is, like the upper-case little "k", a quirk of the ancient printing presses. It is just as funny to a Chestertonian as it is to see the failure of modern printers to use "ligatures" for "fl", "fi", "ff", and so on.

Why is it a quirk? Because in those ancient days, the REAL spelling of the word "the" was "þe" - that odd looking p-shape is NOT one of Tolkien's elvish runes. It is the old English letter called "thorn", which spelled the common digraph "th" of English. There were two such letters:

Þ or þ called "thorn"

and

Ð or ð called "eth"

But the printers would run out, or not have the "thorn" - especially in big fonts, like for title pages, or for POSTERS which got POSTED UP for people to see... (No they did NOT have bloggs back then; this was posting of paper with glue onto walls.) So the printers substituted the letter "Y" (Why, I don't quite know; I missed that lecture, or page) and to clue the reader in that there was something "contracted" about the word they were trying to represent, they "superscripted" the "e", thus we have "Y^e" = "the".

Note. This is NOT the same "ye" as the old plural of "you", as in "O come all YE faithful".

Wow, Dr. Thursday, you've really gone off the deep end. What on earth does "YE" (however it is printed) and old English letters and whatever you were moaning about before about catholic atheists - what does ANY of that have to do with thanksgiving?

Well, I am sorry to subject you to my wondering, but that is what hit me about the alliteration in GKC's very famous phrase, speaking about his own thought, life, and conversion:

I hung on to the remains of religion by one thin thread of thanks. I thanked whatever gods might be, not like Swinburne, because no life lived for ever, but because any life lived at all; not, like Henley for my unconquerable soul (for I have never been so optimistic about my own soul as all that) but for my own soul and my own body, even if they could be conquered. This way of looking at things, with a sort of mystical minimum of gratitude, was of course, to some extent assisted by those few of the fashionable writers who were not pessimists; especially by Walt Whitman, by Browning and by Stevenson; Browning's "God must be glad one loves his world so much", or Stevenson's "belief in the ultimate decency of things". But I do not think it is too much to say that I took it in a way of my own; even if it was a way I could not see clearly or make very clear. What I meant, whether or no I managed to say it, was this; that no man knows how much he is an optimist, even when he calls himself a pessimist, because he has not really measured the depths of his debt to whatever created him and enabled him to call himself anything. At the back of our brains, so to speak, there was a forgotten blaze or burst of astonishment at our own existence. The object of the artistic and spiritual life was to dig for this submerged sunrise of wonder; so that a man sitting in a chair might suddenly understand that he was actually alive, and be happy. There were other aspects of this feeling, and other arguments about it, to which I shall have to return. Here it is only a necessary part of the narrative; as it involves the fact that, when I did begin to write, I was full of a new and fiery resolution to write against the Decadents and the Pessimists who ruled the culture of the age.
[GKC, Autobiography CW16:97, emphasis added]

I hope that, if all else fails, computers, characters (upper and lower!), philosophy and engineering, we all preserve our own "thin thread of thanks" unbroken...

--Dr. Thursday.

Novel News

Part of our on-going business here at the ACS blogg is to keep you informed of Chestertonian news. An anonymous source has leaked some details of a new work of fiction being developed - apparently being written by a Chestertonian, as it has tantalising Chesterton quotes at the start of each chapter. The leak consists of several chapters, set in America in the late 1840s. One of the main characters, John Fisher, was born in England though is presently working in America. It is suggested that his coat of arms plays a role in the story, and the author has asked Dr. Thursday to arrange an appropriate arms:

The Original Arms of John Fisher: Or, on a fess between three water-bougets azure, a fish naiant argent. (His mark of difference, a martlet, is omitted.)
Motto: Noli timere ex hoc iam homines eris capiens.
("Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men." Luke 5:10)

Our source informs us that the word "original" appears because the arms is changed; further explanation will have to await the complete text.

We look forward to reading this work when it is complete, and will inform you of further news as we learn of it.

And our thanks to Dr. Thursday for his heraldry expertise which helped in the making of this post.

Chesterton Academy Meeting

If you live in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, there is an important meeting in two days on November 15th concerning the new Chesterton Academy. Please attend if you are able.