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

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.

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 30 text:

22 THE LOYOEA ANNUAL Chesterton considers that today the thinkers are too scien- tific— there is not enough healthy idealism; they do not pay enough attention to the spiritual in illustrating principles, but would explain all by mental analysis, which as all followers of the truth know is inadequate. Chesterton’s critical study of Dickens is undoubtedly his best piece of critical literature. Chesterton criticises Dick- ens in a manner peculiarly his own, and though we find the ever-present paradox, and epigram — without which we could not have “ Chesterton he has made a sincere effort to por- tray Dickens as he was, not commonplace as some would have him, nor yet divine. In reading this study ' of Dickens we feel with every page we read that the critic is in sym- pathy with the author, and in it we find Chesterton more in the role of an interpreter, explaining things to our satisfac- tion or amusement; rather than as a critic continually dis- agreeing with the writer. The poems of Chesterton are many and varied in their themes, and more remarkable for boldness of expression and strength of diction, than for metrical rhythm. The poem, “A Christmas Carol,” is true in its sweet significance; strange and strong is the following stanza from “ The Ancient of Days:” “ A staring doll’s-house shoves to him Green floors and starry rafter. And many-coloured graven dolls Live for his lonely laughter. The dolls have crowns and aureoles. Helmets and horns and wings. For they are the saints and seraphim. The prophets and the kings.” So much has already been said regarding Chesterton’s pe- culiar use of words, which are mostly monosyllabic, that we