“I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought, and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder” - G.K. Chesterton
A site dedicated to G.K. Chesterton, his friends, and the writers he influenced: Belloc, Baring, Lewis, Tolkien, Dawson, Barfield, Knox, Muggeridge, and others.
“I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought, and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder” - G.K. Chesterton
I recently heard about an newly rediscovered Chesterton essay, "The Historical Detective Story." Apparently he had written it for a magazine the Detection Club (to which he belonged) was thinking of creating. The magazine never came into existence, and the essay remained unpublished. Somehow the manuscript ended up at the University of Notre Dame and was recently rediscovered. It was finally published in Strand Magazine with a forward by Dale Ahlquist.
Today, I bought a copy of the magazine at a local bookstore (despite that fact that the cover of the magazine proclaims "Display until Nov. 15").
In the essay, Chesterton discusses contemporary detective stories and laments "a sameness, or even a staleness."
He then suggests a way to get around this problem while still preserving the "dynamic morality of the detective tale."
Before making his suggestion, he develops the "morality"idea.
"For the detective tale is almost the only decently moral tale that is still being told. It is only in blood and thunder stories that there is anything so Christian as blood crying out for justice to the thunder of of the judgment; and the shocker is now the only novel that is not shocking."
His suggestion: The historical detective story. Even though the elements of the "mysterious heart of man" would be the same, the settings, the trappings, would add some new life.
He's not calling for all detective stories to be set in ancient times, but having some set there would bring some freshness to the genre.
His argument about the moral nature of detective stories resonates with me. It is one of the reasons why I like such stories. Indeed, when I read a detective story and there is not justice at the end I am disappointed.
As for historical settings, I have read some that do indeed do make use of such settings. The delightful Medieval Brother Cadfael mysteries of Ellis Peters (Edith Pargeter) and The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco come to mind. But, of course, there are many more.
Maybe Chesterton was prophetic.
I have even myself been tempted to create my own detective story set around the time of the Civil War. Perhaps I will .
As for this rediscovered essay, I enjoyed it. The mentions of Dorothy Sayers and E. C. Bentley added to the delight. And he had a few other suggestions that make it well worth reading.
Get to the bookstore before they take the magazine off the shelf!
For good or evil, a line has been passed in our political history; and something that we have known all our lives is dead. I will take only one example of it: our politicians can no longer be caricatured. - Gilbert K. Chesterton
For these days when we remember the departed, a Chesterton essay from Illustrated London News, April 14, 1906
In fact, the mere abstract rationality of this problem is very wrongly discussed. For instance, it is always considered ludicrous and a signal for a burst of laughter if the spiritualists say that a seance has been spoiled by the presence of a skeptic, or that an attitude of faith is necessary to encourage the psychic communications. But there is nothing at all unreasonable or unlikely about the idea that doubt might discourage and faith encourage spiritual communications, if there are any. The suggestion does not make spiritualism in abstract logic any more improbable. All that it does make it is more difficult. There is nothing foolish or fantastic about the supposition that a dispassionate person acts as a deterrent to passionate truths. Only it happens to make it much harder for any dispassionate person to find out what is true. There are a thousand practical parallels. An impartial psychologist studying the problem of human nature could, no doubt, learn a great deal from a man and woman making love to each other in his presence. None the less, it is unfortunately the fact that no man and woman would make love to each other in the presence of an impartial psychologist. Students of physiology and surgery might learn something from a man suddenly stabbing another man on a platform in a lecture-theater. But no man would stab another man on a platform in a lecture-theater. A schoolmaster would learn much if the boys would be boys in his presence; but they never are boys in his presence. An educationalist studying infancy might make important discoveries if he could hear the things said by a baby when absolutely alone and at his ease with his mother. But it is quite obvious that the mere entrance of a great ugly educationalist (they are an ugly lot) would set the child screaming with terror.
The problem, then, of skepticism and spiritual ecstacies is a perfectly human and intelligible problem to state, though it may be a difficult problem to solve. It is exactly as if a man pointed at some lady (you can choose the lady out of your own acquaintance at your own discretion) and said with marked emphasis, "Under no circumstance could I address a sonnet to that lady." We might reply, "Oh, yes; if you fell in love with her you might feel inclined to do so." He would be fully justified in replying (with tears in his eyes), "But I cannot fall in love with her by any imaginable process." But he would not be logically justified in replying "Oh, that is all nonsense. You want me to give up my judgment, and become a silly partisan." The whole question under discussion is what would happen if he did become a partisan. In the same way, the skeptic who is expelled with bashed hat and tattered coat-tails from a spiritualistic seance has a perfect right to say (with or without tears in his eyes) "But why blame me for unbelief? I cannot manage to believe in such things by any imaginable process." But he has no logical right to say that it could not have been his skepticism that spoilt the seance, or that there was anything at all unphilosophical in supposing that it was. An impartial person is a good judge of many things, but not of all. He is not (for instance) a good judge of what it feels like to be partial.
For my own part, what little I resent in what little I have seen of spiritualism is altogether the opposite element. I do not mind spiritualism, in so far as it is fierce and credulous. In that it seems to me to be akin to sex, to song, to the great epics and the great religions, to all that has made humanity heroic. I do not object to spiritualism in so far as it is spiritualistic. I do object to it in so far as it is scientific. Conviction and curiosity are both very good things. But they ought to have two different houses. There have been many frantic and blasphemous beliefs in this old barbaric earth of ours; men have served their deities with obscene dances, with cannibalism, and the blood of infants. But no religion was quite so blasphemous as to pretend that it was scientifically investigating its god to see what he was made of. Bacchanals did not say, "Let us discover whether there is a god of wine." They enjoyed wine so much that they cried out naturally to the god of it. Christians did not say, "A few experiments will show us whether there is a god of goodness." They loved good so much that they knew that it was a god. Moreover, all the great religions always loved passionately and poetically the symbols and machinery by which they worked --the temple, the colored robes, the altar, the symbolic flowers, or the sacrificial fire. It made these things beautiful: it laid itself open to the charge of idolatry. And into these great ritual religions there has descended, whatever the meaning of it, the thing of which Sophocles spoke, "The power of the gods, which is mighty and groweth not old." When I hear that the spiritualists have begun to carve great golden wings upon their flying tables, I shall recognize the atmosphere of a faith. When I hear them accused of worshipping a planchet made of ivory and sardonyx (whatever that is) I shall know that they have become a great religion. Meanwhile, I fear I shall remain one of those who believe in spirits much too easily ever to become a spiritualist. Modern people think the supernatural so improbable that they want to see it. I think it so probable that I leave it alone. Spirits are not worth all this fuss; I know that, for I am one myself. . .
“The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” - G. K. Chesterton
Okay, he also include T. S. Eliot, but Eliot was an expatriate who renounced his U. S. citizenship.
In another of his books, Poems Every Catholic Should Know, Pearce is more generous. He includes Longfellow, Emily Dickinson, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Jones Very.
Hmm, no Robert Frost. Or Carl Sandburg. Or Walt Whitman. So be it.
One also poet who also did not make his books and lists, indeed, who makes no scholarly lists, is Helen Steiner Rice.
Rice wrote popular inspirational and religious poetry. She strove to get her head and those of her readers "into the heavens."
Indeed, her faith and her ability to express the emotions so many feel made her collections sell millions of copies. She touched many lives, and became know as the "poet laureate of inspirational verse."
Moreover, while so many critics, academic, and intellectuals sorts - logician types! - might dismiss her poetry, other did not. One person who appreciated her poetry was Pope St. John Paul II, and no one can dismiss his intellectual and literary abilities.
As for me, I've long been a fan of her verse. What prompted me to think of her recently was finding a copy of one of her collections in our parish ongoing rummage sale room, Prayerfully, a collection of her prayer poems.
I once even wrote a clerihew about her:
Critics of Helen Steiner Rice
say her poems are just too sweet and nice.
But I suspect those poems will be read
long after those critics are dead.
Let's end with one of hers:
Never Borrow Sorrow From Tomorrow
Deal only with the present —
never step into tomorrow,
For God asks us just to trust Him
and to never borrow sorrow,
For the future is not ours to know,
and it may never be,
So let us live and give our best
and give it lavishly. . .
For to meet tomorrow’s troubles
before they are even ours
Is to anticipate the Savior
and to doubt His all-wise powers,
So let us be content to solve
our problems one by one,
Asking nothing of tomorrow
except “Thy will be done.”
St. Robert Southwell
sat musing for a spell,
then sadly said, “It does seem a shame
Americans don’t properly pronounce my name.”
Ah.
It does seem amusing that in prining my poem about not properly pronouncing his name they list me as living in the wrong city!
Even casual Chestertonians are familiar with Father Brown. Chesterton wrote multiple stories about his clerical sleuth. There have been movies and television series depicting him.
But Chesterton wrote more detective stories than the ones containing the good padre.
John Touhey looks at these other detectives in "Mystery afoot? Call the Chesterton Detective Agency" in Aleteia.
The brief article begins:
A newly rediscovered and just-published essay by G.K. Chesterton prompts us to look at his wacky and wonderful detectives. (There are more than Fr. Brown!)