Loyola University Maryland - Evergreen / Green and Gray Yearbook (Baltimore, MD)

Page 28 text:

20 THE LOYOLA ANNUAL portant thing in a man is his philosophy, and many promi- nent philosophers are dangerously wrong.” There has been too much levity Mr. Chesterton thinks in the treatment of philosophy. The men of the day seem to fear the infinite and the absolute. Is the finite and the rela- tive any more clear to them? With one universal voice the “ high brows ” of the day deny the existence of the absolute ; or, if it has existence it will be unknowable forever. Mr. Chesterton asks with the persistency of a Socratian, “ What do you mean? Explain yourself?” But they cannot explain, and as no conclusive proof of their high-sounding dictums are forthcoming, Mr. Chesterton with the straightforward- ness of conviction of the truth of his words sets down these bombastic, unstable thinkers as mere heretics, who are ever struggling to maintain their equilibrium in a chimerical world of their own creation. Rudyard Kipling, who is among those denominated as iconoclasts,” is a heretic because of his Militarism. Bernard Shaw is a heretic because he lacks the faculty of idealization ; in his preface to his critique of Shaw he claims that the peo- ple agree with Shaw because they cannot understand him; while he says emphatically that he only understands Shaw, and still does not agree with him. Mr. Chesterton seems to have a firm conviction of the dis- tinction between right and wrong; there are several ways of viewing the world, either in relief or in perspective, or as it is. Perhaps there is truth in what has been said by one of Chesterton’s critics, viz., that : “ He has given us old say- ings in new garbs.” We wonder, too, notwithstanding the originality and terse- ness in style whether the thought is as original; have we heard these things before, if we have, we have not heard them in this way for a certainty. Chesterton, a master of the

Page 27 text:

THE LOYOLA ANNUAL 19 The anonymous author of “ A Criticism of Chesterton,” writes that a number of causes were influential in the change of attitude, but especially the communing v ithin himself, which v as caused by the Boer War, and the growth of the Imperialistic spirit in England. War was good; it was noble and elevating if waged by equal pov ers, still better if the w eak conquered the strong, but degrading if the strong overwhelmed the weak. As when years before the “ Letters of Junius ” ap- peared, the same sort of interest w’as aroused in 1900 by the cryptic signature G. K. C.; all v anted to know who he was, and though he was with the losing side, by his pov erful per- sonality he compelled men to read him, and his fame was national at the end of the war. Chesterton’s next move was a denial of so called prog- ress,” in that fantastical creation — ‘‘ The Napoleon of Not- ting Hill.” It was not, however, until Chesterton published “ Heretics ” that he raised his standard and showed his aver- sion to anything that was narrow, or clannish; to whatever was abstruse or obscure; his motto seems to be “let every man stand forth in the fight, and if his doctrines or theories can resist the attacks of critics — such as Chesterton — well and good, for then they are orthodox, but if they cannot, the authors are heretics and are ostracised.” It is some years since the publication of “ Heretics,” an astonishing book, in which with the liberty of a free-lance he showed keenly and persuasively his total disagreement or doubting compliance with things in general as they exist to- day. The book appears to the reader who endeavors to grasp its purport, to be directed in its attack against the notion, that men’s attitude toward the universe is great or small only in the relation which this position bears to the expressive grace of its delineation. This work which delights the cul- tivated, and reasoning mind, says plainly, “ the one most im-

Page 29 text:

THE LOYOLA ANNUAL 21 paradox, is genially caustic, and entertainingly critical; he has reduced, what others have propounded in pamphlets, to an epigram. As from time to time one man has borrowed from another, and as Solomon declared “ there was nothing new under the sun,” we seem to find many things in Ches- terton which have been set forth by others, but we must admit that never have we seen them in so agreeable or strange a dress. Mr. Chesterton displays an optimistic sense of romance, which Dickens in his portrayal of the meanest or lowest character always showed; Chesterton, like Dickens, loves the world at large. In “ Heretics,” Chesterton attacked the philosophy of oth- ers; his own is contained in “Orthodoxy,” here he confesses his faith in the Christianity of the Apostles’ Creed, and we find the book replete with surprising thought boldly expressed. “ Orthodoxy ” in our opinion is the most representative book which has come from Chesterton’s pen; it shows the man’s style at its best; it gives ample examples of his peculiar method of expression; and beyond all else it gives his creed; his life in so far as his different stages of belief have affected it. In “ Orthodoxy ” we find Chesterton endeavoring to im- prove on that which he condemned in “ Heretics ” and it is a profound study, of which many do not see the philosophi- cal purport, in so far as it relates how a man, mostly through his own reasoning and theorizing on the different social and religious conditions of the day, dealt with the deeper mys- teries and found the answer — God. If Chesterton were a Catholic, he could not have given a better apology of Christianity to the world, or in a more popular or truthful way defended Scholastic Philosophy. “ Orthodoxy ” is not a book containing new theories, but a book of proven truths, and though we would not call it re- ligious, it is philosophical from beginning to end.