Orthodoxy
_Philosophy is either eternal or it is not philosophy. . . . A cosmic
philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is
constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private
religion than he can possess a private sun and moon_.
_Introduction to the Book of Job_.
BECAUSE _Orthodoxy_ is supremely Chesterton's own history of his mind
more must be said of it than of his other published works. For "This
book is the life of a man. And a man is his mind." The Notebook shows
him thinking and feeling in his youth exactly on the lines that he
recalls--but they were only lines--in fact an outline. The richness
of life was needed, the richness of thought, to turn the outline into
the masterpiece. No man, not even Chesterton, could have written
_Orthodoxy_ at the age of twenty. It was sufficiently remarkable that
he should have written it at thirty-five: but only a man who had been
thinking along those lines at twenty and much earlier could have
written it at all. For the book is as he says "a sort of slovenly
autobiography." It is not so much an argument for Orthodoxy as the
story of how one man discovered Orthodoxy as the only answer to the
riddle of the universe.
In an interview, given shortly after its publication, Gilbert told of
a temptation that had once been his and which he had overcome almost
before he realized he had been tempted. That temptation was to become
a prophet like all the men in _Heretics_, by emphasizing one aspect of
truth and ignoring the others. To do this would, he knew, bring him a
great crowd of disciples. He had a vision--which constantly grew
wider and deeper--of the many-sided unity of Truth, but he saw that
all the prophets of the age, from Walt Whitman and Schopenhauer to
Wells and Shaw, had become so by taking one side of truth and making
it all of truth. It is so much easier to see and magnify a part than
laboriously to strive to embrace the whole:
. . . a sage feels too small for life,
And a fool too large for it.
Not that he condemned as fools the able men of his generation. For
Wells he had a great esteem, for Shaw a greater. Whitman he had in
his youth almost idolized. But increasingly he recognized even
Whitman as representing an idea that was too narrow because it was
only an aspect. There was not room in Whitman's philosophy for some
of the facts he had already discovered and he felt he had not yet
completed his journey. He must not, for the sake of being a prophet
and of having a following, sacrifice--I will not say a truth already
found, but a truth that might still be lurking somewhere. He could
not be the architect of his own intellectual universe any more than
he had been the creator of sun, moon and earth. "God and humanity
made it," he said of the philosophy he discovered, "and it made me."
He had begun in boyhood, as we have seen, by realizing that the world
as depicted in fairy tales was saner and more sensible than the world
as seen by the intellectuals of his own day. These men had lost the
sense of life's value. They spoke of the world as a vast place
governed by iron laws of necessity. Chesterton felt in it the
presence of will, while the mere thought of vastness was to him about
as cheerful a conception as that of a jail that should with its cold
empty passages cover half the county. "These expanders of the
universe had nothing to show us except more and more infinite
corridors of space lit by ghastly suns and empty of all that was
divine."
These people professed that the universe was one coherent thing;
but they were not fond of the universe. But I was frightfully fond of
the universe and wanted to address it by a diminutive. I often did
so; and it never seemed to mind. Actually and in truth I did feel
that these dim dogmas of vitality were better expressed by calling
the world small than by calling it large. For about infinity there
was a sort of carelessness which was the reverse of the fierce and
pious care which I felt touching the pricelessness and the peril of
life. They showed only a dreary waste; but I felt a sort of sacred
thrift. For economy is far more romantic than extravagance. To them
stars were an unending income of halfpence; but I felt about the
golden sun and the silver moon as a schoolboy feels if he has one
sovereign and one shilling.
These subconscious convictions are best hit off by the colour and
tone of certain tales. Thus I have said that stories of magic alone
can express my sense that life is not only a pleasure but a kind of
eccentric privilege. I may express this other feeling of cosmic
cosiness by allusion to another book always read in boyhood,
"Robinson Crusoe," which I read about this time, and which owes its
eternal vivacity to the fact that it celebrates the poetry of limits,
nay, even the wild romance of prudence. Crusoe is a man on a small
rock with a few comforts just snatched from the sea: the best thing
in the book is simply the list of things saved from the wreck. The
greatest of poems is an inventory. . .
I really felt (the fancy may seem foolish) as if all the order and
number of things were the romantic remnant of Crusoe's ship. That
there are two sexes and one sun, was like the fact that there were
two guns and one axe. It was poignantly urgent that none should be
lost; but somehow, it was rather fun that none could be added. The
trees and the planets seemed like things saved from the wreck: and
when I saw the Matterhorn I was glad that it had not been overlooked
in the confusion. I felt economical about the stars as if they were
sapphires (they are called so in Milton's Eden): I hoarded the hills.
For the universe is a single jewel, and while it is a natural cant to
talk of a jewel as peerless and priceless, of this jewel it is
literally true. This cosmos is indeed without peer and without price:
for there cannot be another one.*
[* _Orthodoxy_, Chapter IV, pp. 112-5.]
A fragment of an essay on Hans Anderson that cannot be later than the
age of seventeen shows Gilbert trying to shape part of what he calls
here, "The Ethics of Elfland," but a large part was, as he says,
"subconscious." In this chapter he sums up the results of musings
about the universe begun so long ago--small wonder that he had seemed
to sleep over his lessons while he was seeing these visions and
dreaming these dreams which after every effort to tell them he still
knows remains half untold:
. . . the attempt to utter the unutterable things. These are my
ultimate attitudes towards life; the soils for the seeds of doctrine.
These in some dark way I thought before I could write, and felt
before I could think; that we may proceed more easily afterwards, I
will roughly recapitulate them now. I felt in my bones; first, that
this world does not explain itself. It may be a miracle with a
supernatural explanation; it may be a conjuring trick, with a natural
explanation. But the explanation of the conjuring trick, if it is to
satisfy me, will have to be better than the natural explanations I
have heard. The thing is magic, true or false. Second, I came to feel
as if magic must have a meaning, and meaning must have some one to
mean it. There was something personal in the world, as in a work of
art; whatever it meant it meant violently. Third, I thought this
purpose beautiful in its old design, in spite of its defects, such as
dragons. Fourth, that the proper form of thanks to it is some form of
humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by
not drinking too much of them. We owed, also, an obedience to
whatever made us. And last, and strangest, there had come into my
mind a vague and vast impression that in some way all good was a
remnant to be stored and held sacred out of some primordial ruin. Man
had saved his good as Crusoe saved his goods; he had saved them from
a wreck. All this I felt and the age gave me no encouragement to feel
it. And all the time I had not even thought of Christian theology.*
[* Ibid., pp. 155-6.]
This theology came with the answers to all the tremendous questions
asked by life. Here the convert has one great advantage over the
Catholic brought up in the Faith. Most of us hear the answers before
we have asked the questions: hence intellectually we lack what G.K.
calls "the soils for the seeds of doctrine." It is nearly impossible
to understand an answer to a question you have not formulated. And
without the sense of urgency that an insistent question brings, many
people do not even try. All the years of his boyhood and early
manhood Chesterton was facing the fundamental questions and hammering
out his answers. At first he had no thought of Christianity as even a
possible answer. Growing up in a world called Christian, he fancied
it a philosophy that had been tried and found wanting. It was only as
he realized that the answers he was finding for himself always fitted
into, were always confirmed by, the Christian view of things that he
began to turn towards it. He sees a good deal of humour in the way he
strained his voice in a painfully juvenile attempt to utter his new
truths, only to find that they were not his and were not new, but
were part of an eternal philosophy.
In the chapter called "The Flag of the World" he tells of the moment
when he discovered the confirmation and reinforcing of his own
speculations by the Christian theology. The point at which this came
concerned his feelings about the men of his youth who labelled
themselves Optimist and Pessimist. Both, he felt, were wrong. It must
be possible at once to love and to hate the world, to love it more
than enough to get on with it, to hate it enough to get it on. And
the Church solved this difficulty by her doctrine of creation and of
Original Sin. "God had written not so much a poem, but rather a play;
a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left
to human actors and stage-managers who had since made a great mess of
it."
As to that mess the Christian could be as pessimist as he liked, as
to the original design he must be optimist, for it was his work to
restore it. "St. George could still fight the dragon . . . if he were
as big as the world he could yet be killed in the name of the world."
And then followed an experience impossible to describe. It was as
if I had been blundering about since my birth with two huge and
unmanageable machines, of different shapes and without apparent
connection--the world and the Christian tradition. I had found this
hole in the world: the fact that one must somehow find a way of
loving the world without trusting it; somehow one must love the world
without being worldly. I found this projecting feature of Christian
theology, like a sort of hard spike, the dogmatic insistence that God
was personal, and had made a world separate from Himself. The spike
of dogma fitted exactly into the hole in the world--it had evidently
been meant to go there--and then the strange thing began to happen.
When once these two parts of the two machines had come together, one
after another, all the other parts fitted and fell in with an eerie
exactitude. I could hear bolt after bolt over all the machinery
falling into its place with a kind of click of relief. Having got one
part right, all the other parts were repeating that rectitude, as
clock after clock strikes noon. Instinct after instinct was answered
by doctrine after doctrine. Or, to vary the metaphor, I was like one
who had advanced into a hostile country to take one high fortress.
And when that fort had fallen the whole country surrendered and
turned solid behind me. The whole land was lit up, as it were, back
to the first fields of my childhood. All those blind fancies of
boyhood which in the fourth chapter I have tried in vain to trace on
the darkness, became suddenly transparent and sane. I was right when
I felt that I would almost rather say that grass was the wrong colour
than say that it must by necessity have been that colour: it might
verily have been any other. My sense that happiness hung on the crazy
thread of a condition did mean something when all was said: it meant
the whole doctrine of the Fall. Even those dim and shapeless monsters
of notions which I have not been able to describe, much less defend,
stepped quietly into their places like colossal caryatides of the
creed. The fancy that the cosmos was not vast and void, but small and
cosy, had a fulfilled significance now, for anything that is a work
of art must be small in the sight of the artist; to God the stars
might be only small and dear, like diamonds. And my haunting instinct
that somehow good was not merely a tool to be used, but a relic to be
guarded, like the goods from Crusoe's ship--even that had been the
wild whisper of something originally wise, for, according to
Christianity, we were indeed the survivors of a wreck, the crew of a
golden ship that had gone down before the beginning of the world.*
[* _Orthodoxy_, Chapter V, pp. 142-4.]
In a chapter called "The Paradoxes of Christianity," the richness of
his mind is most manifest; and in that chapter can best be seen what
Mr. Belloc meant when he told me Chesterton's style reminded him of
St. Augustine's. Talking over with an old schoolfellow of his the
list of books he had, as we have seen, drawn up for _T.P.'s Weekly_,
I discovered deep doubt as to whether Gilbert would really have read
these books, as most of us understand reading, combined with a
conviction that he would have got out of them at a glance more than
most of us by prolonged study. I have certainly never known anyone
his equal at what the schoolboy calls "degutting" a book. He did not
seem to study an author, yet he certainly knew him.
But it remained that his own mind, reflecting and experiencing, made
of his own life his greatest storehouse, so that in all this book
there was, as my father pointed out in the _Dublin Review_ at the
time, an intensely original new light cast on the eternal philosophy
about which so much had already been written. The discovery specially
needed, perhaps, for his own age was that Christianity represented a
new balance that constituted a liberation. The ancient Greek or
Roman had aimed at equilibrium by enforcing moderation and getting
rid of extremes. Christianity "made moderation out of the still crash
of two impetuous emotions." It "got over the difficulty of combining
furious opposites by keeping them both, and keeping them both
furious." "The more I considered Christianity, the more I felt
that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of
that order was to give room for good things to run wild." Thus
inside Christianity the pacifist could become a monk, and the
warrior a Crusader, St. Francis could praise good more loudly
than Walt Whitman, and St. Jerome denounce evil more darkly than
Schopenhauer--but both emotions must be kept in their place. I
remember how George Wyndham laughed as he recited to us the paragraph
where this idea reached its climax.
And sometimes this pure gentleness and this pure fierceness met and
justified their juncture; the paradox of all the prophets was
fulfilled, and, in the soul of St. Louis, the lion lay down with the
lamb. But remember that this text is too lightly interpreted. It is
constantly assumed, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when
the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that
is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is
simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the
lamb. The real problem is--can the lion lie down with the lamb and
still retain his royal ferocity? _That_ is the problem the Church
attempted; _that_ is the miracle she achieved.*
[* _Orthodoxy_, Chapter VI, pp. 178-9.]
All this applied not only to the release of the emotions, the
development of all the elements that go to make up humanity, but even
more to the truths of Revelation. A heresy always means lopping off a
part of the truth and, therefore, ultimately a loss of liberty.
Orthodoxy, in keeping the whole truth, safeguarded freedom and
prevented any one of the great and devouring ideas she was teaching
from swallowing any other truth. This was the justification of
councils, of definitions, even of persecutions and wars of religion:
that they had stood for the defence of reason as well as of faith.
They had stood to prevent the suicide of thought which must result if
the exciting but difficult balance were lost that had replaced the
classical moderation.
The Church could not afford to swerve a hair's breadth on some
things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the
irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and
some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep
the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers,
of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong
enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember
that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a
lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of
a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfilment of
prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to
turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious. . . . A sentence
phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have broken all the
best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions might stop all the
dances; might wither all the Christmas trees or break all the Easter
eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order
that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be
careful, if only that the world might be careless.
This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. 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. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses,
seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude
having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The
Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet
it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one
idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so as
exactly to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge
bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make
Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid
an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox
Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the
orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to
have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been
easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the
bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is
easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head;
the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a
modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of
those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after
fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of
Christendom--that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple
to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one
at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from
Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and
tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure;
and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the
ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth
reeling but erect.*
[* _Orthodoxy_, Chapter VI, pp. 182-5.]
No quotation can adequately convey the wealth of thought in the book.
Yet amazingly, the _Times_ reviewer rebuked G.K. for substituting
emotion for intellect, partly on the strength of a sentence in the
chapter called "The Maniac." "The madman is the man who has lost
everything except his reason." The reviews, when one reads them as a
whole, exactly confirm what Wilfrid Ward said in the _Dublin Review:_
that whereas he had regarded _Orthodoxy_ as a triumphant vindication
of his own view that G.K. was a really profound thinker, he found to
his amazement that those who had thought him superficial, hailed it
as a proof of theirs.
Obviously with a man so much concerned with ultimates the place
accorded him in letters will depend upon whether one agrees or
disagrees with his conclusions. In a country that is not Catholic
this consideration must affect the standing of any Catholic thinker.
Thus Newman was considered by Carlyle to have "the brain of a
moderate sized rabbit," yet by others his is counted the greatest
mind of the century. Similarly Arnold Bennett could credit Chesterton
with only a second-class intellectual apparatus--because he was a
dogmatist. To this Chesterton replied (in _Fancies versus Facts_):
"In truth there are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas
and know it and those who accept dogmas and don't know it. My only
advantage over the gifted novelist lies in my belonging to the former
class." If one grasps the Catholic view of dogma the answer is
satisfying; if not the objector is left with his original
objection--as against Chesterton, as against Newman. And Chesterton
had the extra disadvantage of being a journalist famous for his jokes
now moving in Newman's unquestioned field of philosophy and theology.
It was in part the difficulty of convincing a man against his will.
These critics, as Wilfrid Ward pointed out, read superficially and
looked only at the fooling, the fantastic puns and comparisons,
ignoring the underlying deep seriousness and lines of thought that
made him, as it then seemed boldly, rank Chesterton with such writers
as Butler, Coleridge and Newman. Taking as his text the saying,
"Truth can understand error, but error cannot understand truth,"
Wilfrid Ward called his article, "Mr. Chesterton among the Prophets."
He showed especially the curious confusion made in such comments as
the one I have quoted from the _Times_, and made clearer what
Chesterton was really saying by a comparison with the "illative
sense" of Cardinal Newman. It is the usual difficulty of trying to
express a partly new idea. Newman had coined an expression, but it
did not express all he meant, still less all that Chesterton meant.
Yet it was difficult to use the word "reason" in this particular
discussion, without giving to it two different meanings. For in two
chapters, "The Maniac" and "The Suicide of Thought," Chesterton was
concerned to show that Authority was needed for the defence of reason
(in the larger sense) against its own power of self-destruction. Yet
the maniac commits this suicide by an excessive use of reason (in the
narrower sense). "He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by
charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more
logical for losing certain sane affections. . . . He is in the clean
and well-lit prison of one idea: he is sharpened to one painful
point."
To Chesterton it seemed that most of the modern religions and
philosophies were like the argument by which a madman suffering from
persecution mania proves that he is in a world of enemies: it is
complete, it is unanswerable, yet it is false. The madman's mind
"moves in a perfect but narrow circle. . . . The insane explanation
is quite as complete as the sane one, only it is not so large. . . .
There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing
as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern
religions." Philosophies such as Materialism, Idealism, Monism, all
have in their explanations of the universe this quality of the
madman's argument of "covering everything and leaving everything
out." The Materialist, like the Madman is "unconscious of the alien
energies and the large indifference of the earth; he is not thinking
of the real things of the earth, of fighting peoples or proud mothers
or first love or fear upon the sea. The earth is so very large and
the cosmos is so very small."
People sometimes say, "life is larger than logic," when they want to
dismiss logic, but that was not Chesterton's way. He wanted logic, he
needed logic, as part of the abundance of the mind's life, as part of
a much larger whole. What was the word--we are looking for it
still--for a use of the mind that included all these things; logic
and imagination, mysticism and ecstasy and poetry and joy; a use of
the mind that could embrace the universe and reach upwards to God
without losing its balance. The mind must work in time, yet it can
reach out into Eternity: it is conditioned by space but it can
glimpse infinity. The modern world had imprisoned the mind. Far more
than the body it needed great open spaces. And Chesterton, breaking
violently out of prison, looked around and saw how the Church had
given health to the mind by giving it space to move in and great
ideas to move among. Chesterton, the poet, saw too that man is a poet
and must therefore, "get his head into the heavens." He needs
mysticism and among Her great ideas, the Church gives him mysteries.