[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I’ll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you’ve read them all, I’ll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked]
Introduction
The Ballad of the White Horse is a 2,684 line poem about conservatism, and it is brilliant. It has been called the last great epic poem written in English. I have not read the three dozen or so English epic poems that Wikipedia claims have been written since, so I cannot confirm the “last” part, but I can confirm the rest. It is a great poem, in both quality and size, and it is undoubtedly an epic poem. It has almost all the qualities required of an epic poem: it begins by invoking a muse (his wife), it starts in media res, the plot is centered around a hero of legend, there are supernatural visions and interventions, and an omniscient narrator. The only epic requirement it lacks is a long boring list shoved in somewhere, for which I am grateful.
On the surface level the poem is about King Alfred the Great, a pre-Hastings Anglo-Saxon king who has the twin qualities of being both legendary and real. There was certainly an actual King Alfred who really did fight a Viking lord named Guthrum and built the foundation needed for his grandson to form the Kingdom of England. He is considered the first English king, and is the only English monarch to be given the epithet “the Great”. At the same time he is also a figure of legend. They say he disguised himself as a wandering minstrel and played the harp for Guthrum in his own camp on the night before they would meet in battle. They also say he once accidentally burned a peasant woman’s cakes, and she, not knowing he was her king, chewed him out thoroughly (I’d expand on that, but that’s really the whole legend; one of those stories told to children that seem to have no moral or point).
In the introduction Chesterton tells us straight off that his poem is not meant to be historically accurate.
This ballad needs no historical notes, for the simple reason that it does not profess to be historical. All of it that is not frankly fictitious, as in any prose romance about the past, is meant to emphasize tradition rather than history. King Alfred is not a legend in the sense that King Arthur may be a legend; that is, in the sense that he may possibly be a lie. But King Alfred is a legend in this broader and more human sense, that the legends are the most important things about him.
The legend of King Alfred the Great is well told by Chesterton and his story is entertaining and engaging with a climactic battle, death duels, suspense, and burnt cakes. If all you get out of it is an entertaining yarn then your time will be well spent. The poetry is excellent, and accessible to the layman. As the tweet said, people want poetry to rhyme so bad. Chesterton gives that to us. His lines are a joy to read aloud (as all good poetry should).
Beneath that, not all that well hidden, the Ballad is Chesterton’s love song to conservatism as he understands it. In it Chesterton weaves the ideas that he has been writing about all his life and creates a cohesive narrative theme. The Ballad is like a melody that all his other works, fiction and nonfiction, dance to. Chesterton wrote many books, yet none seemed to stand higher than the others in terms of quality or popularity. Because of this he has been called “the master without a masterpiece” (though, appropriately, the quote itself seems legendary: I have found it referenced everywhere but I cannot find the source). I disagree: the Ballad of the White Horse is his masterpiece. It is Chesterton boiled down to his essence. Within it we find two core themes of Chesterton’s body of work: hope in defiance of fate, and the eternal revolution.
The Doom of Alfred
The poem begins with the White Horse and the destruction of the world. How the White Horse of Uffington was there before Rome was founded, and remained after its collapse. We are introduced to the poem’s post-apocalyptic setting:
For the end of the world was long ago
And all we dwell to-day
As children of some second birth.
Like a strange people left on Earth
After a judgment day.
Rome has fallen and England is plunged into chaos. The vikings have come and are sweeping over the land conquering all in their path. Chesterton depicts them as savage men bent on death and destruction:
The Northmen came about our land:
A Christless chivalry
Who knew not of the arch, or pen
Great beautiful, half-witted men
From the sunrise and the sea […]Their souls were drifting as the sea
And all good towns and lands
They only saw with heavy eyes
And broke with heavy hands.
Against these “Hairy men, as huge as sin” we find King Alfred of Wessex alone, fighting a desperate and losing campaign. Rather, when we find him he is not fighting but fleeing alone and hunted through the woods after a lost battle. Chesterton heaps on how badly things are stacked against Alfred. The vikings have won battle after battle, and even when Alfred successfully fended them off they would come again year after year, wearing him down:
And if ever he climbed the crest of luck
And set the flag before,
Returning as a wheel returns,
Came ruin and the rain that burns,
And all began once more.
Alfred has not only lost a battle, but lost most of his vassals and allies as well. Wessex is outnumbered, outfought, and facing the end. There is no-one left to help them. Chesterton repeats this multiple times to make sure we get the point: that the Vikings
…laid hold upon the heavens
And no help came at all
or how Alfred fought them
With foemen leaning on his shield
And roaring on him when he reeled;
And no help came at all.
Alfred’s plight is so desperate that he is losing all hope of victory:
In the island in the river
He was broken to his knee:
And he read, writ with an iron pen,
That God had wearied of Wessex men
And given their country, field and fen,
To the devils of the sea.
It is here, fleeing and alone, where Alfred receives a vision of Mary, the Mother of God. Alfred tells her that while he wouldn’t presume to ask about the secrets of God or Heaven, he would like to know whether he will somehow drive back the Vikings, or if the fate of Wessex is to die fighting and fade away. Mary corrects him; any man can ask and receive the secrets of God, but she will not tell him his fate.
The gates of heaven are lightly locked,
We do not guard our gold,
Men may uproot where worlds begin,
Or read the name of the nameless sin;
But if he fail or if he win
To no good man is told.
Here we are introduced to one of Chesterton’s core themes: hope versus fate. Chesterton sees hope as one of the primary distinguishers between Christianity and paganism, buddhism, eastern philosophy in general, and materialistic determinism. We see this same dichotomy in another of Chesterton’s great poems, Lepanto, where he has Muhammed, enthroned in glory in the Muslim paradise, say:
We have set the seal of Solomon on all things under sun,
Of knowledge and of sorrow and endurance of things done,
But a noise is in the mountains, in the mountains, and I know
The voice that shook our palaces—four hundred years ago:
It is he that saith not ‘Kismet’; it is he that knows not Fate ;
It is Richard, it is Raymond, it is Godfrey in the gate!
It is he whose loss is laughter when he counts the wager worth,
Put down your feet upon him, that our peace be on the earth.
This contrast, between the fatalism of the East and the defiance of fate of the West, is expounded on further by Mary in the Ballad:
“The men of the East may spell the stars,
And times and triumphs mark,
But the men signed of the cross of Christ
Go gaily in the dark.“The men of the East may search the scrolls
For sure fates and fame,
But the men that drink the blood of God
Go singing to their shame.
We see this theme repeated throughout the poem, comparing the Christian Alfred to the pagan Guthrum and his men. Later in the Ballad Alfred disguises himself as a bard and, having snuck into the viking camp, has a philosophical debate with Guthrum and his three captains in the form of singing competition. After Alfred plays, each of the Viking lords play as well, and each of their songs puts forward their view of life. The youngest Viking sings boldly of hedonism, how he takes what he wants from the world and enjoys each thing thoroughly. The next Viking, somewhat older, sings sadly about how the god Baldur the beautiful was slain, and how all good things eventually come to ruin. The next, even older, sings a song of rage against the gods and against the world, and how after a man tires of women and ale he takes comfort in battle. The fate of all men is to die, and the fate of the world is to burn, and so he will become a participant in the destruction instead of merely a victim of it. Finally Guthrum, the oldest, sings:
For he sang of a wheel returning,
And the mire trod back to mire,
And how red hells and golden heavens
Are castles in the fire."It is good to sit where the good tales go,
To sit as our fathers sat;
But the hour shall come after his youth,
When a man shall know not tales but truth,
And his heart fail thereat."When he shall read what is written
So plain in clouds and clods,
When he shall hunger without hope
Even for evil gods."For this is a heavy matter,
And the truth is cold to tell;
Do we not know, have we not heard,
The soul is like a lost bird,
The body a broken shell."And a man hopes, being ignorant,
Till in white woods apart
He finds at last the lost bird dead:
And a man may still lift up his head
But never more his heart."There comes no noise but weeping
Out of the ancient sky,
And a tear is in the tiniest flower
Because the gods must die."The little brooks are very sweet,
Like a girl's ribbons curled,
But the great sea is bitter
That washes all the world."Strong are the Roman roses,
Or the free flowers of the heath,
But every flower, like a flower of the sea,
Smelleth with the salt of death."And the heart of the locked battle
Is the happiest place for men;
When shrieking souls as shafts go by
And many have died and all may die;
Though this word be a mystery,
Death is most distant then."Death blazes bright above the cup,
And clear above the crown;
But in that dream of battle
We seem to tread it down."Wherefore I am a great king,
And waste the world in vain,
Because man hath not other power,
Save that in dealing death for dower,
He may forget it for an hour
To remember it again."
This song of resignation to death is fitting for a Viking. What myths and tales we have from the pagan Norse tell a story of fated destruction: that Ragnarok will come, and the gods will fight the giants, and they all will certainly die. The sun and moon will be devoured and even the victors of that battle will succumb to their wounds.
Alfred, in contrast, takes up the harp and sings a song of hope:
"When God put man in a garden
He girt him with a sword,
And sent him forth a free knight
That might betray his lord;"He brake Him and betrayed Him,
And fast and far he fell,
Till you and I may stretch our necks
And burn our beards in hell."But though I lie on the floor of the world,
With the seven sins for rods,
I would rather fall with Adam
Than rise with all your gods."What have the strong gods given?
Where have the glad gods led?
When Guthrum sits on a hero's throne
And asks if he is dead?"Sirs, I am but a nameless man,
A rhymester without home,
Yet since I come of the Wessex clay
And carry the cross of Rome,"I will even answer the mighty earl
That asked of Wessex men
Why they be meek and monkish folk,
And bow to the White Lord's broken yoke;
What sign have we save blood and smoke?
Here is my answer then."That on you is fallen the shadow,
And not upon the Name;
That though we scatter and though we fly,
And you hang over us like the sky,
You are more tired of victory,
Than we are tired of shame."That though you hunt the Christian man
Like a hare on the hill-side,
The hare has still more heart to run
Than you have heart to ride."That though all lances split on you,
All swords be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to lose
Than you to win again."Your lord sits high in the saddle,
A broken-hearted king,
But our king Alfred, lost from fame,
Fallen among foes or bonds of shame,
In I know not what mean trade or name,
Has still some song to sing;
What is Hope?
Critics of virtue ethics will often question how you can know what virtues the virtue ethicist should cultivate. In Catholic theology there is no such problem, as they have seven official virtues specified. Four of these virtues they inherited from Greek philosophy and they represent the practical and straightforward virtues that any rational man is likely to find worthwhile: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Added to these four were three virtues unique to Christianity, believed to be revelations from God that mankind would not identify if left to their own devices. These three are faith, hope, and love.
Love is fairly easy to comprehend, though you could write volumes on its nuances as a virtue. Faith is more controversial, but still graspable: just as we have faith that the plane won’t crash when we take a long flight, Christians have faith in God’s promises. They hold to their belief, in the face of doubt. Hope, however, is harder to grok..
Hope is, of course, the desire for something combined with the expectation that you will receive it. What does it mean for hope to be a virtue then? I have hope for a tasty dinner tonight, but it is hard to see what is virtuous about that. Presumably it is a virtue to have hope for heaven, or hope for the beatific vision, or simple hope of salvation, but how is that different than having faith in those things? If I have faith that I am saved from my sins, that means I believe it and that I will try to continue to believe it despite the ups and downs of life and the fears that may haunt me from time to time. What does hope add to that? Is hope simply faith in things we desire? It kind of seems like hope isn’t pulling its own weight in the virtue department.
The Catholics, of course, have an answer for this (you don’t spend two thousand years trying to hash out theology without producing volumes of work on every little facet of it). Faith, they say, is an act of the intellect. You believe something (presumably because you have good reason to) and then you choose to continue believing it. Hope is not an act of the intellect, but an act of will. You desire something and you choose to act as if that desire is attainable. Hope spurs you to move. Hope lies between the twin errors of despair, where you do not believe your desire is possible to obtain, and presumption, where you believe that you are certain to obtain your desire. Both errors will prevent you from acting; in the first case because nothing you do can obtain what you desire, and in the second because no action is necessary to obtain it. In the middle lies hope. You desire salvation, you believe it is possible but not certain that you will obtain it, and you take action to do so. Faith is all in your head, while hope is in your heart and your feet.
It is hope that drives Alfred forward. He asks Mary to know what the final result will be, seeking either despair or presumption. Mary will not tell him. The only answer she will give is this:
I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
She disappears and Alfred is alone again. She has not given him any comfort: either the comfort of knowing that he will prevail, or the lesser comfort of knowing that he will fail and his struggles will soon be over. All he can do is continue his efforts as before, in hope; but this hope rejuvenates him. Before the vision he was falling to despair, but afterwards:
Up across windy wastes and up
Went Alfred over the shaws,
Shaken of the joy of giants,
The joy without a cause.
The Adventure
So Alfred has hope and his enemies do not. The Vikings display both errors of hope simultaneously. They presume that their victory is certain, merely because they have won over and over and their enemy is outnumbered, scattered, and demoralized. Yet Guthrum also despairs for he has no hope of anything he does lasting beyond his life. All will burn in Surtr’s fire, and all will die with Odin. As Chesterton writes in his book Orthodoxy:
To the pagan the small things are as sweet as the small brooks breaking out of the mountain; but the broad things are as bitter as the sea. When the pagan looks at the very core of the cosmos he is struck cold. Behind the gods, who are merely despotic, sit the fates, who are deadly. Nay, the fates are worse than deadly; they are dead.
Fate is dead, in as much as it cannot move or change. To a pagan like Guthrum no man can escape his “wyrd”, no matter what he does. No action he can take will change his doom.
Alright, so fate leads to despair or presumption. But why should the “West”, the Christians, be any different? Don’t they believe that the ultimate fate of everything is also set? That the trump will sound, Jesus will descend, and evil will be done away with forevermore? What advantage does the “West” have against the “East” when it comes to fate?
For Chesterton, a Christian is in the exact reversed position as the pagan; if the pagan finds the small things sweet, but the big things bitter the Christian finds the big things sweet and the small things bitter. To the Christian the universe has a happy ending for certain, but he may not. Nothing he can do will change the ultimate fate of the universe, but what he does today could change his own ultimate fate. Which brings us to the other half of the equation: the risk of failure. Chesterton again:
“To the Buddhist or the eastern fatalist existence is a science or a plan, which must end up in a certain way. But to a Christian existence is a story, which may end up in any way. In a thrilling novel (that purely Christian product) the hero is not eaten by cannibals; but it is essential to the existence of the thrill that he might be eaten by cannibals. The hero must (so to speak) be an eatable hero. So Christian morals have always said to the man, not that he would lose his soul, but that he must take care that he didn't…the point is that a story is exciting because it has in it so strong an element of will, of what theology calls free-will. You cannot finish a sum how you like. But you can finish a story how you like. When somebody discovered the Differential Calculus there was only one Differential Calculus he could discover. But when Shakespeare killed Romeo he might have married him to Juliet's old nurse if he had felt inclined. And Christendom has excelled in the narrative romance exactly because it has insisted on the theological free-will.
This is the real dividing line Chesterton makes between his “West and East”. In order for a philosophy to stir men to action there must be stakes. There must be something real to gain, and something real to lose. Chesterton sees this as the engine of all human progress:
In so far as we desire the definite reconstructions and the dangerous revolutions which have distinguished European civilization, we shall not discourage the thought of possible ruin; we shall rather encourage it. If we want, like the Eastern saints, merely to contemplate how right things are, of course we shall only say that they must go right. But if we particularly want to make them go right, we must insist that they may go wrong.
We see this idea repeated in the Balled during Alfred’s vision of Mary, in which she says
"But you and all the kind of Christ
Are ignorant and brave,
And you have wars you hardly win
And souls you hardly save.”
And because Alfred believes that the battle can go right, and can certainly go wrong, he acts.
Piling Stones
When the battle finally comes, Alfred fails.
His three mighty captains fight like heroes, but each are slain in turn. The Vikings are too strong, their numbers too great, and Alfred’s men break. Alfred finds himself in the same position as the beginning of the poem: fleeing for his life after a disastrous battle. He had hope, but what he desired has not come to pass. The Lady was right: “The sky grows darker yet, and the sea rises higher.”
So what does Alfred do? He does the same thing he did at the beginning of the poem. He starts over and tries again.
And this was the might of Alfred,
At the ending of the way;
That of such smiters, wise or wild,
He was least distant from the child,
Piling the stones all day.For Eldred fought like a frank hunter
That killeth and goeth home;
And Mark had fought because all arms
Rang like the name of Rome.And Colan fought with a double mind,
Moody and madly gay;
But Alfred fought as gravely
As a good child at play.He saw wheels break and work run back
And all things as they were;
And his heart was orbed like victory
And simple like despair.Therefore is Mark forgotten,
That was wise with his tongue and brave;
And the cairn over Colan crumbled,
And the cross on Eldred's grave.Their great souls went on a wind away,
And they have not tale or tomb;
And Alfred born in Wantage
Rules England till the doom.Because in the forest of all fears
Like a strange fresh gust from sea,
Struck him that ancient innocence
That is more than mastery.And as a child whose bricks fall down
Re-piles them o'er and o'er,
Came ruin and the rain that burns,
Returning as a wheel returns,
And crouching in the furze and ferns
He began his life once more.
Alfred blows his battle horn, and his men pause mid-flight. Alfred gives a stirring battle speech, rallies his men, reforms the ranks, and charges into the Viking line once more. The Vikings, having already started to celebrate, are confused. The fight was hopeless for Alfred from the start, and now he charges in again with half his men gone? And we get the final grand battle scene:
Wild stared the Danes at the double ways
Where they loitered, all at large,
As that dark line for the last time
Doubled the knee to charge—And caught their weapons clumsily,
And marvelled how and why—
In such degree, by rule and rod,
The people of the peace of God
Went roaring down to die.And when the last arrow
Was fitted and was flown,
When the broken shield hung on the breast,
And the hopeless lance was laid in rest,
And the hopeless horn blown,The King looked up, and what he saw
Was a great light like death,
For Our Lady stood on the standards rent,
As lonely and as innocent
As when between white walls she went
And the lilies of Nazareth.One instant in a still light
He saw Our Lady then,
Her dress was soft as western sky,
And she was a queen most womanly—
But she was a queen of men.Over the iron forest
He saw Our Lady stand,
Her eyes were sad withouten art,
And seven swords were in her heart—
But one was in her hand.Then the last charge went blindly,
And all too lost for fear:
The Danes closed round, a roaring ring,
And twenty clubs rose o'er the King,
Four Danes hewed at him, halloing,
And Ogier of the Stone and Sling
Drove at him with a spear.But the Danes were wild with laughter,
And the great spear swung wide,
The point stuck to a straggling tree,
And either host cried suddenly,
As Alfred leapt aside.Short time had shaggy Ogier
To pull his lance in line—
He knew King Alfred's axe on high,
He heard it rushing through the sky,
He cowered beneath it with a cry—
It split him to the spine:
And Alfred sprang over him dead,
And blew the battle sign.Then bursting all and blasting
Came Christendom like death,
Kicked of such catapults of will,
The staves shiver, the barrels spill,
The waggons waver and crash and kill
The waggoners beneath.Barriers go backwards, banners rend,
Great shields groan like a gong—
Horses like horns of nightmare
Neigh horribly and long.Horses ramp high and rock and boil
And break their golden reins,
And slide on carnage clamorously,
Down where the bitter blood doth lie,
Where Ogier went on foot to die,
In the old way of the Danes."The high tide!" King Alfred cried.
"The high tide and the turn!
As a tide turns on the tall grey seas,
See how they waver in the trees,
How stray their spears, how knock their knees,
How wild their watchfires burn!”
Here, called by the sound of the renewed battle, a host of Alfred’s men who had fled return and crash into the Vikings’ flank, breaking their line and sending the Northmen into a rout. Alfred, through perseverance, is victorious. The battle ends with Guthrum looking on, amazed. In the poem, as in real life, it will not be long before he is baptized.
The White Horse and the Eternal Revolution
Why is the poem named The Ballad of the White Horse?
The poem begins with the White Horse of Uffington, and the White Horse winds in and out of the poem here and there, but the primary focus is on Alfred. Chesterton sets the battle in the White Horse Vale but the White Horse itself doesn’t really come into it. It doesn’t suddenly inspire Alfred to action, he doesn’t mention it in his stirring speech to his men, and it doesn’t have any tactical impact on the battle itself. So why is it the Ballad of the White Horse instead of The Ballad of King Alfred? In the eighth and final section of the poem we get our answer, and find the second of Chesterton’s core themes..
It is now many decades in the future. Alfred has had a long and prosperous reign and the kingdom has flourished. He is holding court in the White Horse Vale on scouring day. Every year the villages from around the vale come to the White Horse and hold a festival. During that festival they scour the Horse: they cut away all the weeds and turf that have started to grow over the chalk lines that make up the Horse. They scrape the chalk itself, which grays with dirt and dust, until it is white and clean again. They make a great party of it, and Alfred, now old, enjoys watching the work.
Suddenly a messenger comes bearing bad tidings:
"Danes drive the white East Angles
In six fights on the plains,
Danes waste the world about the Thames,
Danes to the eastward—Danes!"
After the battle Alfred made a peace treaty with Guthrum, yet now the Vikings have come again, looting and killing. One of Alfred’s young vassals voices his anger with the Vikings, and his despair that King Alfred was not able to defeat them and be done with them all those years ago:
But the young earl said: "Ill the saints,
The saints of England, guard
The land wherein we pledge them gold;
The dykes decay, the King grows old,
And surely this is hard,"That we be never quit of them;
That when his head is hoar
He cannot say to them he smote,
And spared with a hand hard at the throat,
'Go, and return no more.'"
To this Alfred smiles, and points to the peasants on the hill, scouring the White Horse.
"Will ye part with the weeds for ever?
Or show daisies to the door?
Or will you bid the bold grass
Go, and return no more?"So ceaseless and so secret
Thrive terror and theft set free;
Treason and shame shall come to pass
While one weed flowers in a morass;
And like the stillness of stiff grass
The stillness of tyranny."Over our white souls also
Wild heresies and high
Wave prouder than the plumes of grass,
And sadder than their sigh."And I go riding against the raid,
And ye know not where I am;
But ye shall know in a day or year,
When one green star of grass grows here;
Chaos has charged you, charger and spear,
Battle-axe and battering-ram."And though skies alter and empires melt,
This word shall still be true:
If we would have the horse of old,
Scour ye the horse anew.”
This is what Chesterton calls the eternal revolution. To quote again from Orthodoxy:
We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution.
If you want to conserve something then you commit yourself to revolutionary action. To preserve what is good you not only need to protect it, you need to actively rebuild it. If you want a white post then you must strip the old paint and paint it white again, every few years, forever. Chesterton teaches that it is such with all good things. His hero is not merely the man who defeats the enemy, but the one who always rises to fight them again. The man with hope; that is to say, a vision of what he wants and the will to take action to get it. Without such hope all good things will fall to ruin: with it they can be preserved eternally.
Which is why the whole poem is named after the White Horse! There are certainly things older than the White Horse, like Stonehenge or the Great Pyramid of Giza, but they are made of stone. Giant stones, hard to knock over or carry away and well suited to survive the elements. You don’t have to do much of anything to preserve them other than leave them alone. The White Horse, on the other hand, is soft chalk lines cut out of the turf. If you left it alone for 20 years it would disappear completely. The only way it can persist is if it is regularly scoured, and yet it has persisted for 3,000 years. The people of the White Horse vale cut the horse out of the grass before the first stone was laid in Rome, and they cut it out to this day. As long as they do the Horse can last another three millennia. As soon as they stop, it will disappear. The same is true for all human institutions: for nations, constitutions, laws, traditions, stories, ambitions, and dreams. You will never “part with weeds forever, or show daisies to the door”.
This, then, is Chesterton’s thesis. Everything corrupts, but can be preserved. What is needed to preserve what is good is hope, risk, and revolution. The poem’s ending reiterates this theme neatly:
Loud was the war on London wall,
And loud in London gates,
And loud the sea-kings in the cloud
Broke through their dreaming gods, and loud
Cried on their dreadful Fates.And all the while on White Horse Hill
The horse lay long and wan,
The turf crawled and the fungus crept,
And the little sorrel, while all men slept,
Unwrought the work of man.With velvet finger, velvet foot,
The fierce soft mosses then
Crept on the large white commonweal
All folk had striven to strip and peel,
And the grass, like a great green witch's wheel,
Unwound the toils of men.And clover and silent thistle throve,
And buds burst silently,
With little care for the Thames Valley
Or what things there might be—That away on the widening river,
In the eastern plains for crown
Stood up in the pale purple sky
One turret of smoke like ivory;
And the smoke changed and the wind went by,
And the King took London Town.
Thanks. I was very happy to see this review, since Ballad of the White Horse is my all-time favorite poem (I finally finished memorizing it earlier this year!)
I agree with everything this says, and I think it gets the moral right. But at the risk of doubting Chesterton's genius, it really bothers me how he presents it at the end.
My understanding is: Alfred defeats the Danes. His vassals tell him that he could potentially press his victory and drive them from England entirely. But he feels like this would be "showing daisies the door" and against the spirit of eternal revolution. So he makes a peace treaty that lets them stay in England. Then when he gets old and weak, they backstab him and attack his subjects. The king must go back to war, despite his old age. Still, he gives a speech saying that this is the way things have to be.
This bothers me for the same reason it would bother me if the police caught a murderer, then let him go without jail time because "each generation must defeat the murderer anew, that's just how things work". It isn't! If police did that, it would be unfair to the murderer's next victims! In the same way, Alfred's decision seems unfair to all the people who the Vikings killed or uprooted the second time around. It's all nice and well to say that if you can't defeat a problem permanently, you must remain ever vigilant. But the poem suggests Alfred is going beyond that, and refusing to defeat a problem permanently - even though he could - in order to prove a point.
(also, "the Vikings" are a terrible symbol for "problem mankind just has to learn to live with because it can never be fully ended". England has been Viking-free for almost a millennium now!)
I can't tell whether I'm just overinterpreting the lines where people tell Alfred he could have gotten rid of the Danes, or whether this is a contentful disagreement between me and Chesterton. If the latter, I appreciate that his poem doesn't shy away from the inevitable bad consequences of taking his incorrect position on this. But the fact that he's under no illusions here makes it even harder for me to understand what he's thinking, other than giving Alfred another opportunity to make a flowery speech.
(one of my favorite parts about the poem is how it stops just sort of postmodern-style lampshading of how everything Alfred does is an opportunity to give a flowery speech about virtue. In one part, a peasant woman offers him some bread to tend her fire, Alfred gives a flowery speech to himself about how virtuous the poor are, and he gets so distracted that he forgets to actually tend the fire and burns all her food. Then the woman slaps him, he's surprised for just a second, but he quickly regains his bearings and gives a flowery speech about the symbolic meaning of peasants slapping kings, and even though he's still standing in the place he got slapped, the woman is never mentioned again - presumably she gets creeped out by all the soliloquizing and sneaks away)
My other complaint (no, really, I love the poem, I just don't get many opportunities to complain about it) is the last twelve stanzas. Sure, they're incredibly beautiful and form a great emotional arc and the part about the grass is great. But they're almost unrelated to anything that's come before. King Alfred is attacking London . . . why again? Something about defeating the Danes? Who he didn't want to defeat before? But now they're back? And he has to take London to stop them? But we've just gone through ~500 stanzas about the King's first battle, then a discussion of the symbolism of the horse, then a prophecy - and now we get 12 stanzas of "oh and also there was another battle, don't worry, he won". And it ends with "and the King took London town", which sounds like it should be the crowning point of the poem. But there wasn't really any effort to build up London as symbolically important before. Earlier in the poem one of Alfred's generals says "I doubt if you will have the crown / till you have taken London town", but in fact he has had the crown for decades at this point. I don't know, I just never "got" this part emotionally.
Vikings in particular are not a threat, but in the last book Chesterton discusses "the barbarian come again" in terms that evoke modern ... Bureaucrats? Secularists? George Bernard Shaw? He doesn't pin down exactly who he's talking about with these words, but they seem to be modern people:
"They shall not come with warships,
They shall not waste with brands,
But books be all their eating,
And ink be on their hands.
"Not with the humour of hunters
Or savage skill in war,
But ordering all things with dead words,
Strings shall they make of beasts and birds,
And wheels of wind and star.
"They shall come mild as monkish clerks,
With many a scroll and pen;
And backward shall ye turn and gaze,
Desiring one of Alfred's days,
When pagans still were men."
Evil reappears in every age, sometimes with a new form, leading to the need to defeat it once again? I agree with Scott that some particular evils, at least, can be defeated in an ensuring way, though Evil writ large will always be around until Christ returns.
When it's your monkish clerks who neither lust nor fight, it's all "go robed in rain and snow but the heart of flame therein", when it's the other guy's monkish clerks it's "backwards shall ye turn and gaze desiring . . . when pagans were still men"
"Mild as" monkish clerks, not that they *are* monkish clerks. There are false prophets as well as true ones.
To quote a C.S. Lewis poem on the two kinds of pagans:
Cliche Came Out of its Cage
1
You said 'The world is going back to Paganism'.
Oh bright Vision! I saw our dynasty in the bar of the House
Spill from their tumblers a libation to the Erinyes,
And Leavis with Lord Russell wreathed in flowers, heralded with flutes,
Leading white bulls to the cathedral of the solemn Muses
To pay where due the glory of their latest theorem.
Hestia's fire in every flat, rekindled, burned before
The Lardergods. Unmarried daughters with obedient hands
Tended it By the hearth the white-armd venerable mother
Domum servabat, lanam faciebat. at the hour
Of sacrifice their brothers came, silent, corrected, grave
Before their elders; on their downy cheeks easily the blush
Arose (it is the mark of freemen's children) as they trooped,
Gleaming with oil, demurely home from the palaestra or the dance.
Walk carefully, do not wake the envy of the happy gods,
Shun Hubris. The middle of the road, the middle sort of men,
Are best. Aidos surpasses gold. Reverence for the aged
Is wholesome as seasonable rain, and for a man to die
Defending the city in battle is a harmonious thing.
Thus with magistral hand the Puritan Sophrosune
Cooled and schooled and tempered our uneasy motions;
Heathendom came again, the circumspection and the holy fears ...
You said it. Did you mean it? Oh inordinate liar, stop.
2
Or did you mean another kind of heathenry?
Think, then, that under heaven-roof the little disc of the earth,
Fortified Midgard, lies encircled by the ravening Worm.
Over its icy bastions faces of giant and troll
Look in, ready to invade it. The Wolf, admittedly, is bound;
But the bond wil1 break, the Beast run free. The weary gods,
Scarred with old wounds the one-eyed Odin, Tyr who has lost a hand,
Will limp to their stations for the Last defence. Make it your hope
To be counted worthy on that day to stand beside them;
For the end of man is to partake of their defeat and die
His second, final death in good company. The stupid, strong
Unteachable monsters are certain to be victorious at last,
And every man of decent blood is on the losing side.
Take as your model the tall women with yellow hair in plaits
Who walked back into burning houses to die with men,
Or him who as the death spear entered into his vitals
Made critical comments on its workmanship and aim.
Are these the Pagans you spoke of? Know your betters and crouch, dogs;
You that have Vichy water in your veins and worship the event
Your goddess History (whom your fathers called the strumpet Fortune).
Thanks for posting this! I hadn't read it before.
That one made me cry. Thank you.
My guess would be the poem assumes it's being read by people who know enough about Alfred the Great to know that re-taking London was when he declared himself King of the English. Chesterton may not have realised it would be talked about a century after his death by people in other countries.
Is there an annotated version or version with commentary you would recommend?
At the risk of being a non-Catholic spouting nonsense about Catholics, I think that you *are* getting at something contentful- a profound difference between the views of a utilitarian consequentialist and those of (a certain flavor of) a Catholic.
To illustrate my point, let me turn to another great Catholic writer. When Bilbo does not stab Gollum, yes, it is an act of pity and morally upright and so on. But consider what’s at stake. He almost gets caught (and then presumably gets killed). He explicitly almost cracks his skull on the low ceiling. Gollum’s shriek alerts the goblins and Bilbo almost gets caught by them. _Any single of those happening would have doomed the world to darkness_.
When Aragorn decides what to do on Amon Hen after the breaking of the Fellowship, he has a number of perfectly reasonable choices. Go help Frodo (Aragorn previously treaded the deadly flowers of Morgul vale!) or go to Minas Tirith as he intended and Boromir’s dream suggested. One thing that _wasn’t_ reasonable was taking the time to have any kind of ceremony for Boromir (complete with a long poem!), and then chase the Uruk-Hai across Rohan, in the opposite direction from all the action and risking being killed by Uruks or even the Rohirrim. And of course, pertinently to your original point, he pardons the Easterlings after the war and doesn’t even exterminate the Orcs- and then spends much of his life campaigning in the East and South.
Building a huge army, crafting a Ring etc. actually did make more sense than Gandalf’s plan. Saruman was at least partially sincere when he thought he was opposing Sauron his way. At least at first.
Returning to Chesterton himself- Father Brown has a number of situations where he could take a “wrong” action that would bring glory to the Church. He scoffs at those.
I could give many more examples, but the point is- when people tell you that “the Catholic Church is not utilitarian”, this is what they mean. The Bilbo that would stab Gollum would fully succumb to the Ring. The Aragorn that would abandon Merry and Pippin wouldn’t be the kind of future king that would be needed. You do the right thing because it is the right thing. And it also may “pay off” as Aragorn’s choices did but that’s not why you do it.
Perhaps the Alfred that wouldn’t let the Vikings go wouldn’t be Alfred.
(To be clear- I am not defending this view, merely clarifying how Chesterton might have thought).
Yes, yes. This. I think this is almost inconceivable for any consequentialist. In a simple sense this could be trivialised perhaps to the trolley problem, even. But there's also a strong Christian (or renegade Christian?) strand with retelling stories from the "baddie" perspective where the moral choice is essentially tragic, but if you accept the Christian narrative, ultimately right (starting from, I kid you not, the True Cross speaking in a trippy Dream of the Rood ca. 710 AD).
I don't think it's at all inconceivable for a consequentialist, and I personally think of any consequentialist who fails to engage with these sorts of ideas as operating at a very low level of sophistication. It's impossible to judge all the outcomes of every action you take in full, and you should always be cautious of the patterns you create in your own reasoning and judgment through your behavior, and the patterns that any rule will create in the reasoning of people subjected to it, not just the idealized consequences of those measures taken in isolation. And even if you exercise your best judgment, sometimes things won't work out for the better.
But, as a rule, writers trying to lionize some particular moral code pretty much never craft stories where their heroes act according to that code, and the worst case outcome actually comes to pass. It's one thing to say "A Bilbo who would have killed Gollum would have succumbed to the Ring, so even though there was a risk of disaster, it was the right thing to do." It's another thing to write a story where the protagonists show mercy to their enemies, it comes back to bite them, and their enemies win and take over the world and the forces of Good suffer an ultimate and permanent defeat, but the author presents the protagonists as having made the right choices anyway.
If you believe some higher power will prevent these sorts of outcomes from actually occurring in real life, then virtue ethics become essentially identical to consequentialism- behave according to the appropriate virtues, and the consequences will resolve themselves. It's a very different matter to believe that people should behave according to select virtues even when this will in fact lead to worse outcomes than not doing so.
That's an excellent critique, generally speaking, but, well - Morgoth _and_ Sauron were indeed shown more mercy or at least leniency than they deserved, with devastating results. Some smaller-scale disasters caused in part by misplaced kindness involve Eol, the sons of Feanor, Turin and Saruman.
In most of those cases, Tolkien does not dwell much on how the Good Guys should have been much more vindictive (Treebeard's decision to let Saruman go is perhaps the biggest exception).
Dialing up vindictiveness - without implausibly careful calibration - might decisively eliminate the enemies you can see, but it'll also make new ones out of folks who could otherwise have been allies, or at least neutral. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-njals-saga One particularly memetic way to express the sentiment is "those 'no-nonsense solutions' don't hold water in a world of jet-powered apes and time travel."
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Desertopa suggests that Good Guys doing Good Things, losing Badly to Bad Guys and the narrator still claiming they were acting correctly doesn't happen often or at all. I'm giving a few examples from the Legendarium where this plot played out to a significant extent. Good Guys were too nice to Bad Guys, paid Bad price, Tolkien did not obviously consider the too-niceness a mistake.
Pragmatically doing bad things means that there are no Good Guys, you are now the Bad Guys yourselves.
I guess it depends on the Badness of the things and the Guys. Gandalf does not think Treebeard was correct in letting Saruman go.
"Some smaller-scale disasters caused in part by misplaced kindness involve Eol, the sons of Feanor, Turin and Saruman."
As for the Feanorians, there's not much could have been done about them. If the Valar had intervened and dragged them back by force, or even killed them, this would have proven (at least to Feanor) that the claims made by Morgoth were true, and the Elves were the slaves of the Valar. And the Valar did not feel they had the right to interfere with the fate of the Elves, as the Children of Eru; they saw their original interference (bringing them to Valinor) had resulted in this, and any further meddling would just cause more trouble.
To kill them would have reduced the Valar to the same level of Morgoth. You don't defeat evil by becoming evil.
I was thinking about kindly granting them shelter in Nargothrond, and then not kicking them out when they were obviously being… them.
That was a delicate political balancing act, though. Curufin and Celegorm are princes of the Noldor and part of the large-scale alliance holding back Morgoth, the Union of Maedhros. They weren't just annoying cousins that Finrod could have kicked out, there would be consequences. Orodreth, Finrod's brother/nephew (depending on the version) owed his life to them:
"Sauron was able to besiege and take the fortress, driving Orodreth out where he would have been slain if not for the arrival of Curufin and Celegorm with their riders and other forces they could gather. They fought fiercely, allowing Orodreth to escape to Nargothrond, before they too had to fall back and join him."
They were actually on good terms with the people of Nargothrond, until Beren came looking for Finrod's help. Even that wouldn't have triggered outright rebellion, until the Silmaril was mentioned. This awoke the Oath once more, and Curufin and Celegorm - by a mixture of outright threats of war, and the influence they had won over the people - managed to persuade the citizens of Nargothrond to disobey Finrod. Finrod then turned over the rule to Orodreth, and it was only when news of Finrod's death came back that they then kicked out Curufin and Celegorm.
Part of the entire curse involved with the Oath was the mistrust and fear it sowed. The great houses of the Noldor were already on very tense terms with one another, and under the shadow of Morgoth there was already fear of internal treachery. Finrod didn't want to provoke his people to open rebellion, so he stepped aside, and Curufin and Celegorm didn't openly attempt to take the rule until later:
"With Finrod gone, Celegorm and Curufin further swayed the hearts of the people of Nargothrond, and Orodreth had no power to withstand them. The ultimate goal of the brothers was to take control of all Elf-kingdoms before then seeking the Silmarils.
...With the aid of Huan, however, Lúthien escaped and the two managed to rescue Beren along with many Elf prisoners from Sauron. When these Elves, along with Huan, returned to Nargothrond the people learned of Finrod's death and Lúthien's great deeds and turned against the brothers, now perceiving their motives as treachery. Returned to power, Orodreth would not let Celegorm and Curufin be slain, and instead expelled them from Nargothrond. None went with them; even Curufin's son, Celebrimbor, repudiated his deeds and remained behind. Huan, however, still followed his master Celegorm."
There had already been one Kin-Slaying, and Orodreth wasn't eager to kill his own cousins and stain Elvish hands even deeper in blood. What Curufin and Celegorm did, did have serious consequences, but if Nargothrond was held responsible for killing two of Maedhros' brothers, things would have been even worse. They were all already facing Morgoth, they didn't need a civil war to be a distraction right then.
One could give them some rest and provision and send them on their way. The final outcome was as shocking as it was inevitable and predictable.
I don't think it was predictable; after they turned up with Orodreth who was all "Hey, uncle, they saved my life but they can't go home yet", things were improved for a while. That's how they were able to acquire influence in Nargothrond, and Finrod was probably hoping to glue the cracks in the family relationships between the House of Feanor and the House of Finarfin back together by treating them well.
Until Beren showed up with the request for help getting a Silmaril, nobody expected *that*. And then of course the Oath kicked in, and everything goes to Hell once that happens.
The Kinslaying alone would have been reason to mistrust them. Even Thingol understood that. Finrod was supposed to be one of the wisest folk around. That they were cursed by the Valar _and_ had the ill will of Morgoth was not a secret. If he has hoped to have good fortune and healing out of all that, he was being naive. I don’t think that’s mere hindsight.
"writers trying to lionize some particular moral code pretty much never craft stories where their heroes act according to that code, and the worst case outcome actually comes to pass."
Interestingly, Ragnarok, which Chesterton so disparages here, is exactly that. Although he is also a Catholic, I think Tolkein has a better understanding of the pagan sense of virtue. Tolkien [1] (quoting Kerr): " 'The winning side is Chaos and Unreason'—mythologically, the monsters—'but the gods, who are defeated, think that defeat no refutation.' And in their war men are their chosen allies, able when heroic to share in this 'absolute resistance, perfect because without hope' "
The "melancholy" felt by the pagans wasn't just because of their eschatology, but because anyone living then could expect many disasters to befall them:incurable disease and injury, famine, war. they held great regard for both those who kept going despite disaster, and those who fell to it valiantly. As an atheist, the view that one should stick to one's principles despite knowing that everything will be swept way in the end seems more virtuous than the idea that doing so earns brownie points in heaven.
[1] "The monster and the critics"
Re patterns, what you make possible, etc. —
I’m reminded of Tietjens’ anger (in Parade’s End) at his father for killing himself, because he made it an option for his sons, basically. He felt it as an attack or a loss of protection/tradition, I think.
> _Any single of those happening would have doomed the world to darkness_.
Certainly would have been bad for Bilbo personally, but I'm not so sure how that scenario plays out for the wider world. Gollum held on to the ring an awfully long time, and could conceivably have done so longer still. Keeping it buried might even have slowed the process of Sauron's recovery.
Without Bilbo, maybe Gandalf has to step in to keep the dwarves from getting eaten by spiders, and negotiate their release from the elves. Maybe they get a replacement elvish burglar as part of the deal, who then discovers Smaug's vulnerability in time to save Laketown. The Battle of Five Armies would presumably go differently due to diplomatic ripple effects despite Bilbo not being directly involved.
Later, Frodo gets involved because he wants to find out what the heck happened to his uncle that would result in a dwarf showing up at his door with plunder shares and a next-of-kin notification, but no body having been recovered. They can't even say for sure he's dead!
Gandalf presumably still sees good cause to get a team together at Rivendell to manage Sauron-related problems, but in Moria, rather than a silent tomb, they find an active siege between the Balrog and some ring-bearing goblin warlord, whose charred finger happens to land in Frodo's pocket as a fateful echo of both Isildur, and Bilbo's misuse of the riddle game. Gandalf recognizes its significance, but falls off a bridge (as previously scheduled) before he can explain fully, and then the plot's mostly back on track from there.
What's the exact scenario?
Bilbo getting killed and the Ring not getting out? Obvious and swift win for Sauron. He didn't need the Ring to win - he was already very much winning. This is something people sometimes miss - Gandalf, Saruman, all the elves and all of Gondor together are completely outclassed. Direct confrontations of any kind are never suggested because they are hopeless at this point. Aragorn and Elrond are no Elendil and Gil-Galad.
Gandalf changing pre-set plans to attack Dol-Guldur to accompany the dwarves for no particular reason? I mean, sure, also Manwe deciding to just descend and fix everything. Fact is, Gandalf didn't really know about the Ring and expected the company to get in trouble and still left them. He would have done the same, only earlier. Or even would have insisted on them going back to rescue Bilbo as he was in fact attempting to do when Bilbo showed up.
Elvish burglar? Whose smell would be unfamiliar to Smaug? He wouldn't play riddles with an elf. And Thorin was not overfond of the wood elves either.
The Ring getting to Orcs - again, various scenarios, extremely likely to get to Sauron.
Frodo and next-of-kin notification - nope. Next of kin would have been... Lobelia? Frodo was adopted when he 21, years after he was orphaned. Anyway, one thing he would not do for his distantly familiar obviously-mad uncle who vanished years ago is go to the unprecedented-for-Hobbits-except-Bilbo journey to Rivendell.
ETA: I don't think I've emphasized enough how much this would not be happening. The next-of-kin notification would be taking place a year or two after Bilbo's death at the latest. Frodo was simply not alive then.
Gandalf assembling a team in Rivendell - he didn't do that even in the book. But let's suppose this all somehow happens (why? The Council had no actual point other than the Ring). Why would the team do the whole stealthy creep thing? The only strategy available to them would have been a diminished version of the Last Alliance. And anyway, when does this happen? For most of the time windows, there's no real contest between an Orc even with a Ring and the Balrog. So the Ring either stays in Moria or the Balrog gets it. No good outcomes.
And even somehow ignoring everything above - the plot is _not_ on track. In this world, there's no Gollum to guide Frodo and no Gollum's teeth to actually get the Ring into the fire.
Fair enough, I yield to your greater knowledge of the relevant canon.
Otho was Bilbo's blood relation (so he expected to inherit Bag End) so if a Dwarf turned up with "sorry about your cousin, here's his share of the treasure" it would have been accepted by all in The Shire as "this is what happens when you go off on adventures". Otho Sackville-Baggins would have had no reason to go haring off on an adventure of his own trying to discover Bilbo's fate. (More likely reaction would have been "good riddance to bad rubbish").
Frodo would have been left to be 'brought up anyhow' among the Brandybucks, as per Gaffer Gamgee's recital of the family history in the pub before the big birthday party:
"Anyway: there was this Mr. Frodo left an orphan and stranded, as you might say, among those queer Bucklanders, being brought up anyhow in Brandy Hall. A regular warren, by all accounts. Old Master Gorbadoc never had fewer than a couple of hundred relations in the place. Mr. Bilbo never did a kinder deed than when he brought the lad back to live among decent folk.
‘But I reckon it was a nasty knock for those Sackville-Bagginses. They thought they were going to get Bag End, that time when he went off and was thought to be dead. And then he comes back and orders them off; and he goes on living and living, and never looking a day older, bless him! And suddenly he produces an heir, and has all the papers made out proper. The Sackville-Bagginses won’t never see the inside of Bag End now, or it is to be hoped not.’
Otho was less than gruntled upon Bilbo's disappearance, as he had hoped to inherit:
‘Only one thing is clear to me,’ said Otho, ‘and that is that you are doing exceedingly well out of it. I insist on seeing the will.’
Otho would have been Bilbo’s heir, but for the adoption of Frodo. He read the will carefully and snorted. It was, unfortunately, very clear and correct (according to the legal customs of hobbits, which demand among other things seven signatures of witnesses in red ink).
‘Foiled again!’ he said to his wife. ‘And after waiting sixty years. Spoons? Fiddlesticks!’ He snapped his fingers under Frodo’s nose and stumped off.
You’re correct of course, it was he, not Lobelia, who would have inherited. Poor Otho, one tends to forget about him much like Telep… we sorry Celeborn. Wisest of the Elves.
… now I’m trying to Imagine Lotho as the Ring-Bearer.
Tolkien says he died at the "ripe but disappointed age of 102", so he didn't live to see Frodo leaving and selling Bag End to Lobelia 😁 His dream of being the multiple head of Hobbit families (hence, Baggins-Sackville-Baggins) never came true:
"Customs differed in cases where the 'head' died leaving no son. ...In other great families the headship might pass through a daughter of the deceased to his eldest grandson (irrespective of the daughter's age). This latter custom was usual in families of more recent origin, without ancient records or ancestral mansions. In such cases the heir (if he accepted the courtesy title) took the name of his mother's family – though he often retained that of his father's family also (placed second). This was the case with Otho Sackville-Baggins. For the nominal headship of the Sackvilles had come to him through his mother Camellia. It was his rather absurd ambition to achieve the rare distinction of being 'head' of two families (he would probably then have called himself Baggins-Sackville-Baggins) : a situation which will explain his exasperation with the adventures and disappearances of Bilbo, quite apart from any loss of property involved in the adoption of Frodo."
Lotho as Ring-Bearer? He wouldn't have gotten as far as Farmer Maggot's farm, the night he heard Gaffer Gamgee talking with someone about "Baggins", he would have immediately rushed out and surrendered it.
Don’t sell Lotho short! He was a fool, yet not without some strength in his own way. There was a reason he had to be… removed.
Lotho would not have had the same relationship with Gandalf, though. If he had inherited the Ring, he probably would have thought of it as some kind of magic ring and kept it as a private secret to use (the way Bilbo did). I doubt he would have sought advice, and the moment it seemed to become risky or dangerous to him, he would want to be shot of it.
He didn't have the understanding or long view that this was something dangerous to all the world (to be fair, Frodo didn't either, until Gandalf came back to tell him). As far as he would be concerned, this was something dodgy cousin Bilbo had brought back from his travels, probably stolen, and now the former owner had come looking for it. Hand it over, get rid of the stranger, everything is okay again.
OR… start using its power to ferret out secrets. Sneak up on people. Cough cough. Ahem. Goll-cough.
(1) " Gollum held on to the ring an awfully long time, and could conceivably have done so longer still."
No, The Ring was actively trying to get back to its master, which is how Gollum came to 'lose' it in the first place. If it ended up being picked up by a goblin or Orc, it would have made its way to Sauron much sooner.
(2) Aw man, does nobody understand the point being made about *mercy*? This is why I want to kill Tom Bombadil after watching the latest episode of Rings of Power; they have him word-for-word quoting Gandalf's speech about "some that die deserve life" but the boneheads in charge of this show/scriptwriting twist it to force a choice between "abandon your friends to CERTAIN DEATH or go save them and LOSE ALL CHANCE TO FULFIL YOUR DESTINY" (more stupid 'conflict for the sake of conflict').
Total misunderstanding of the entire point of what Tolkien, via Gandalf, has to say.
Whether the Ring is “actively” trying much and how sentient or whatever it is are some of the most unclear yet important points in LoTR.
Certainly it would have many chances to betray Gollum and get itself to be found by some orc. He hunted and ate a young goblin on the very day he lost the Ring.
Even the strongest argument “in favor”, Isildur’s death, is not all that clear. This also depends on which version of events we actually consider.
The Ring is not sentient, but it is filled with Sauron's power and finely attuned to the will of its master. He is constantly, as it were, calling it back and it can respond to that.
Think of it as a type of machine intelligence, that may not be conscious as such, but has a clear set of instructions and goals to follow.
Why didn’t it betray Gollum all those years? Dol-Guldur is closer to Gollum than Mordor. Providence interfering gently every single time? I find it more parsimonious to assume that its “freedom to act” is very limited and it is not in fact attuned to the Will of Sauron all that well, certainly not so far from Mordor and while Sauron is still relatively weak.
Sauron was still rebuilding all that time. It wasn't until he did settle in Dol Guldur and finally openly show himself as the Necromancer that the Ring would have "switched on" again. And since Gollum was stubbornly sitting under a mountain and not going anywhere except to fish and kill goblins, it couldn't get out.
The Ring was trying to get out by any means, so it 'slipped out' of Gollum's possession and (it's too much to say 'hoped' but I can't put it better) hoped that it would be picked up by someone more useful to it. The intervention of Providence was that it was Bilbo who picked it up, not (as would seem much more likely) one of the goblins.
There was quite a bit of time between the rise of the Necromancer and Bilbo finding the ring. Time enough to slip just when Gollum would be sneaking up on a goblin.
In fact, the year of the finding of the Ring famously marked the _end_ of the Necromancer’s career in the region.
That's when the Necromancer was driven out and *openly* identified as Sauron. Up to then, I think he was probably hiding his power and identity, precisely to avoid recognition. I don't wonder that the Ring wasn't aware of its master at that time.
Once Sauron is out in the open, then the Ring picks up the Bat-Signal. And then instead of running out with the Ring into the wide open where it can influence him to go East, young Hobbit, Gollum instead sneaks around his home territory until driven out, and then goes to hide under the mountains.
Very frustrating! There was a funny Tumblr post from the Ring's point of view on being picked up by Hobbits (and Gollum started out as a Hobbit) and they just. won't. do. what. it. wants.
Boromir gets it and things are looking up, but damn it, wouldn't you know, another bloody Hobbit gets it back and that's the end of that.
Timeline still doesn’t work. Sauron “came out of the closet” *after* Bilbo picked up the Ring.
There is a really well written fantasy novel called "The Worm Ouroboros" by E. R. Eddison. In it, a viking-inspired kingdom of warrior fight against another kingdom of evil viking-inspired warriors. Battles are fought, people fall into and out of love, betrayals occur, protagonists die, and in the end the good guys win. Then life goes on a while. Getting bored, one of the heroes prays to the Gods to grant him a wish. The wish he wants? To bring his old enemies back.
Life without the good fight wasn't worth living.
On a sudden Lord Brandoch Daha stood up, unbuckling from his shoulder his golden baldrick set with apricot-coloured sapphires and diamonds and fire-opals that imaged thunderbolts. He threw it before him on the table, with his sword, clattering among the cups. “O Queen Sophonisba,” said he, “thou hast spoken a fit funeral dirge for our glory as for Witchland’s. This sword Zeldornius gave me. I bare it at Krothering Side against Corinius, when I threw him out of Demonland. I bare it at Melikaphkhaz. I bare it in the last great fight in Witchland. Thou wilt say it brought me good luck and victory in battle. But it brought not to me, as to Zeldornius, this last best luck of all: that earth should gape for me when my great deeds were ended.”
[...]
[Lord Juss] answered, “I shall be thirty-three years old tomorrow, and that is young by the reckoning of men. None of us be old, and my brethren and Lord Brandoch Daha younger than I. Yet as old men may we now look forth on our lives, since the goodness thereof is gone by for us.” And he said, “Thou O Queen canst scarcely know our grief; for to thee the blessed Gods gave thy heart’s desire: youth forever, and peace. Would they might give us our good gift, that should be youth forever, and war; and unwaning strength and skill in arms. Would they might but give us our great enemies alive and whole again. For better it were we should run hazard again of utter destruction, than thus live out our lives like cattle fattening for the slaughter, or like silly garden plants.”
(Tolkien, famously, thought that this philosophy was disgusting and marred the book.)
Yes, that's it exactly. It's certainly a different take on heroism.
That reminds me of a more recent fantasy saga. The Sith believe that the best way to grow stronger is to struggle against powerful enemies. Which is why a Sith Lord is expected to find and train an apprentice: if there are no sufficiently powerful enemies at hand, they will create their own. 😉
I am a Catholic (but not a theologian), and I think you got the closest to explaining it: an act of mercy can make redemption possible. As others noted, the invaders are different Danes, as the previous ones converted, which changes the nature of the conversation. But it is intentional (and always kind of funny) that consequentialists can't account for mercy and redemption, which is a major appeal of Catholicism.
This sounds right to me.
When people say “the Catholic Church is not utilitarian” I think they have in mind something like Newman's quote "The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."
It's not that, exactly. The young courtier is saying "why can't we make an end of the bad guys once and for all?" and Alfred is saying "life is not like that, there will always be weeds".
Even if they had killed off the Danes (instead of making peace) at the end of the last war, some new enemy would come along in their place. There is no one, forever, done and dusted, now we won and everything is fine. Rome had its golden day and fell, and that was the world's end for the people of that time. But new society grew up, with people both good and bad.
If you want things to stay good, you have to keep cleaning house. There is never going to be one final "great, everything is clean and tidy, I'll never have to do anything again".
New enemies and new challenges are part of the nature of the world as we have it. While they're gone off to fight and win another victory, the weeds are growing on the White Horse after it has been scoured. The daisies don't care about Alfred taking London, and when the victors come home, they'll have to have another scouring day next year and get down on their knees and weed the White Horse, and bedamned if they're the Big Damn Heroes who kicked Viking asses all over again.
It may also be a subtle reference to the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares:
Matthew 13:24-30
"The Parable of the Weeds
24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Just like the poor, we'll have the weeds with us always, until the end of the world. That's what being a conservative is about at bottom: understanding that to keep the thing clean, you have to work at it. Unlike the progressive, there is no one final "and now we've fixed it all forever and will never have to do anything again" dream; starting a revolution is easy, staying a revolutionary is hard.
As that English Catholic guy said, in his fiction and in his letters:
“For the Lord of the Galadhrim is accounted the wisest of the Elves of Middle-Earth, and a giver of gifts beyond the power of kings. He has dwelt in the West since the days of dawn, and I have dwelt with him years uncounted, for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.”
"Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' – though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory."
You get back up, you pick up your sword (or your broom, or your spade) and you do it all over again until the day you die. Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water.
Sure, but I think Scott's contention is that, in this specific case, Alfred had a chance to finish his job, but decided not to. Sure, "chop wood, carry water", but sometimes, you need to chop a fixed amount of wood to ensure you'll be warm in the winter. Leaving the work half-done today just because there's eventually going to be another winter after the coming one seems... ill-advised.
No, he did not have a chance to invade continental Europe and exterminate the source of Viking invasions.
Scott is mistaken in his reading, I think (though I shudder to suggest any error on the part of the True Caliph).
This is a *different* bunch of Danes landing and making trouble, and Alfred is not king of All England at this point. To "finish the job" means he would have had to go to Europe, seek out and kill *every* Dane there to make sure nobody would survive to launch another raid, and then maybe come back to England and kill all the Danes in the Danelaw, whom he had made a treaty with and who had been living more or less in peace with him for decades.
That would be like if instead of interning the Japanese during the Second World War, Roosevelt had said "No, to hell with it, kill them all so they'll never try this again". Uh, yeah. That may be a very utilitarian decision, but us snivelling bleeding-heart non-utilitarians have the gall to object to such "git er done" acts.
Same with Europe after the First World War - if the Allies had killed every single German (man, woman and child), both in Germany and any Germans or people of German descent living in the US and elsewhere, then there sure wouldn't have been a Second World War on the continent. But even punitive as Versailles was, they didn't go to *that* extreme.
And Alfred *did* finish the job this time as well - he kicked out the new wave of invaders, and he can't be blamed for not foreseeing that one hundred and seventy years later, there would be a succession crisis in England that meant a bunch of Vikings who had settled down in Normandy would arrive to claim the realm.
That's fair -- I have not read the poem, so I was assuming that Scott's reading was accurate, and Alfred stopped short of neutralizing all the hostile Vikings who were already in England. But if Alfred did indeed neutralize them (by making them sign a peace treaty), then his job was indeed done. Going out and genociding a whole other continent would've been excessive indeed.
I don’t think you should be satisfied by this. Alfred couldn’t _know_ Guthrum would be true to his word. And in any case, there would be a deterrence argument for killing them all. Within the consequentialist framework (or a relatively simple version thereof), he still took a needless risk.
As I've described in a longer comment, killing them all wasn't pragmatically possible, and it would have been a very stupid idea as it would *immediately* invite retaliatory, vengeance-seeking, raids by their kinsfolk and countrymen in Scandinavia and on the Continent.
Imagine that after the American Civil War, the North had embarked on a policy of "kill them all" in the South. Whether or not this would have succeeded, I leave up to others to discuss. But Alfred wasn't even in as strong a position as the post-Civil War North. He was *not* king of England, as 'England' didn't exist as a state or nation then. He was king of Wessex, with an allied/subdued kingdom of Mercia. Marching north on a "kill 'em all" expedition, after just about winning a hard-fought victory, would have been monumentally stupid.
We moderns may expect that "oh, nobody really means it when they sign treaties, that's just going to be broken the second either side sees advantage", but that wasn't the case then. Alfred was Guthrum's sponsor in baptism, his god-father: this was a relationship that meant something. If Alfred went around breaking treaties and betraying relationships and being foresworn, he wouldn't remain king long.
Sometimes consequentalism is damn stupid, and this is one of those times.
Sure, though these are in fact valid consequentialist arguments.
But what I had in mind was not betraying the Vikings after the treaty and baptism. It’s not having the treaty and baptism in the first place.
Sure, but then what? No treaty? Okay, you kill Guthrum. You kill as many of his army as you can.
But then you have the rest of the Danelaw suddenly very interested in "Okay, what happened here?" and now you've got a *new* Viking army turning up to fight you all over again. Remember, there is no "England" to fight off the Vikings. Alfred is king of Wessex, the other kingdoms are going to be "sorry bro, this is none of our business" since they don't want to be dragged into another war.
Making a treaty with the guys functionally ruling half the country is the more sensible option.
Doesn’t this assume a monolithic Danelaw that acts together instead of falling apart into internal squabbles, after the death of Guthrum?
Guthrum's force was only *half* of the invading army, which had formed expressly to try and conquer the kingdoms of East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex.
Halfdan was ruling over the northern half of the Danelaw:
"Halfdan led one band north to Northumbria, where he overwintered by the river Tyne (874–875). In 875, he ravaged further north to Scotland, where he fought the Picts and the Britons of Strathclyde. Returning south of the border in 876, he shared out Northumbrian land among his men, who "ploughed the land and supported themselves." This land was part of what became known as the Danelaw."
At this time Halfdan was king of Northumbria and Guthrum was king of East Anglia. If Alfred had tried massacring the surrendered Danes, this would have been the perfect excuse for Halfdan (and any other interested parties) to march south and try conquering Wessex to complete the set. Alfred was in no position to march north and try kicking Danish arse there.
By making a treaty, and having Guthrum be baptised, Alfred ensured peace, and a buffer between Wessex and any new Danish/Viking forces that might try landing in East Anglia to invade:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alfred_and_Guthrum
"In 866, the Great Heathen Army landed in East Anglia with the intention of conquering all of the English kingdoms. During its campaign, the Viking army conquered the kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria. It initially overran the Kingdom of Wessex, but Danish King Guthrum was defeated by Alfred's army at the Battle of Edington in 878. Under the terms of his surrender, shortly afterward, Guthrum was obliged to be baptised to endorse the agreement, as well as to allow him to rule more legitimately over his Christian vassals but remaining pagan to his pagan vassals. He was then with his army to leave Wessex. That agreement is known as the Treaty of Wedmore."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrum
"Under the terms of his surrender, Guthrum was obliged to be baptised in the Christian faith and then with his army leave Wessex. This agreement is known as the Treaty of Wedmore. Another treaty soon followed that set out the boundaries between Alfred and Guthrum's territories as well as agreements on peaceful trade, and the weregild value of its people. This is known as the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum.
Guthrum returned to East Anglia, and although there are records of Viking raiding parties in the 880s, Guthrum ceased to be a threat and ruled for more than ten years as a Christian king for his Saxon vassals and simultaneously as a Norse king for his Viking ones. He had coins minted that bore his baptismal name of Æthelstan. On his death in 890, the Annals of St Neots, a chronicle compiled at Bury St Edmunds in the 12th century, recorded that Guthrum was buried at Hadleigh, Suffolk."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alfred_and_Guthrum
"There is more than one version of the treaty recorded. The original documents were written in Old English. This version was translated by Frederick Attenborough:
Prologue: These are the terms of peace which King Alfred and King Guthrum, and the councillors of all the English nation, and all the people who dwell in East Anglia, have all agreed upon and confirmed with oaths, on their own behalf and for their subjects both living and unborn, who are anxious for God's favour and ours.
1. First as to the boundaries between us. [They shall run] up the Thames, and then up the Lea, and along the Lea to its source, then in a straight line to Bedford, and then up the Ouse to Watling Street.
2. Secondly, if a man is slain, whether he is an Englishman or a Dane, all of us shall place the same value on his life — namely 8 half-marks of pure gold, with the exception of commoners who occupy tributary land, and freedmen of the Danes. These also shall be valued at the same amount — [namely] 200 shillings — in either case.
3. If anyone accuses a king's thegn of homicide, if he dares to clear himself, he shall do so with [the oaths of] twelve king's thegns. If anyone accuses a man who belongs to a lower order than that of king's thegn, he shall clear himself with [the oaths of] eleven of his equals and one king's thegn. And this law shall apply to every suit which involves an amount greater than 4 mancusses. And if he [the accused] dare not [attempt to clear himself], he shall pay [as compensation] three times the amount at which the stolen property is valued.
4. Every man shall have knowledge of his warrantor when he buys slaves, or horses, or oxen.
5. And we all declared, on the day when the oaths were sworn, that neither slaves nor freemen should be allowed to pass over to the Danish host without permission, any more than that any of them [should come over] to us. If, however, it happens that any of them, in order to satisfy their wants, wish to trade with us, or we [for the same reason wish to trade] with them, in cattle and in goods, it shall be allowed on condition that hostages are given as security for peaceful behaviour, and as evidence by which it may be known that no treachery is intended."
I'd interpreted the courtiers' complaint:
"The steel that sang so sweet at tune
At Ashdown and at Ethandune
Why lies it scabbarded so soon
And heavily like lead
...
Why dwell the Danes in North England?
And up to the river ride?
Three more such marches like thy own
Would end them..."
Combined with the young earl's complaint:
"He cannot say to those he smote
And spared, with a hand hard at the throat
Go, and return no more"
...to mean that Alfred specifically rejected a "drive the Danes out of England" plan which everyone thought would have succeeded, and that the same Danes he spared were the ones who burnt Brand's farm and attacked London later. If that's not true, and these verses are just rhetorical flourish, then I guess Alfred's/Chesterton's perspective would make more sense.
It seems Alfred rejected the 'drive out the danes' policy, but I don't think it was universally expected to succeed. Alfred was king of Wessex, the southernmost kingdom in England at the time. Northumberland wasn't, and had never been, part of this realm. So in that sense it's less a 'drive out the danes' and more an 'invade the danes' policy that he rejected. It would have been a new war, and it's hard to criticise him for rejecting that.
And as others have said, it wasn't Guthrum's army which was causing trouble, it was other Danes, who had settled up north. Guthrum kept the treaty and was peaceful for the rest of his life. The relevant poetic licence in BOTWH is describing Guthrum as the king of the Danes, when he was really more like one of a number of warlords.
Well, first we have to deep-dive into history to work out why the young earl's policy was rejected (or not so much rejected, as the flaws pointed out) by Alfred.
Okay, so Alfred is a 9th century Anglo-Saxon king. Well, the only reason for that is that after the collapse of Roman Britain in the 5th century (roughly), bands of invaders from the area around the North Sea (roughly) turned up and conquered, settled, and took over: the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes.
So this is a "beam in your eye" situation - if the Anglo-Saxon Problem had been solved by the Romano-British, there wouldn't *be* any King Alfred. The weeds always return: in the days of the Romano-British, the weeds had been the ancestors of Alfred. Now in Alfred's day, the weeds are the Danes (roughly speaking). And if they do solve The Danish Problem who are the next lot of weeds? That's what Alfred (in Chesterton's version) is trying to get across to the young earl: there is no Final Solution (and I use that term on purpose).
Secondly, on pragmatic grounds, they can't do it. Maybe the young earl wasn't around for the days of Alfred's war, or maybe he had been too young to fight in it, but Alfred's victory only came after a long, gruelling series of defeats.
It all kicked off with the Great Heathen Horde led by Ivar the Boneless (and two of his brothers,; "According to the Tale of Ragnar Lodbrok, he was ...the brother of Björn Ironside, Halvdan Hvitserk, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye and Ragnvald)", which by the way is a *fantastic* title for the whole thing. The *ostensible* reason claimed was revenge for the killing of Ivar and brothers' father by king Aella of Northumbria, but most likely it was a combination large raiding party and planned invasion, since the Frankish kingdoms where they usually raided had toughened up their defences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
"The Great Heathen Army, also known as the Viking Great Army, was a coalition of Scandinavian warriors who invaded England in 865 AD. Since the late 8th century, the Vikings had been engaging in raids on centres of wealth, such as monasteries. The Great Heathen Army was much larger and aimed to conquer and occupy the four kingdoms of East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex."
Anyway, the above kingdoms weren't able to drive out the raiders, especially as they had been fortified by the Great Summer Army which turned up from Scandinavia. and fourteen years later, Alfred finally defeats the half of the army led by Guthrum and makes peace:
" According to Alfred the Great's biographer Asser, the Vikings then split into two bands. Halfdan led one band north to Northumbria ...Returning south of the border in 876, he shared out Northumbrian land among his men, who "ploughed the land and supported themselves." This land was part of what became known as the Danelaw.
According to Asser, the second band was led by Guthrum, Oscetel, and Anwend. ... Asser reports that Alfred made a treaty with the Vikings to get them to leave Wessex. The Vikings left Wareham, but it was not long before they were raiding other parts of Wessex, and initially they were successful. Alfred fought back, however, and eventually won victory over them at the Battle of Edington in 878. This was followed closely by what was described by Asser as the Treaty of Wedmore, where Guthrum agreed to be baptised and then for him and his army to leave Wessex. Then some time after, the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum was agreed, that set out the boundaries between Alfred and Guthrum's territories as well as agreements on peaceful trade, and the weregild value of their people."
So pragmatically, Alfred *can't* mount an invasion to clear out the Danelaw and "drive the Danes out of England". He doesn't have the strength and if he does anything like this, he's giving the Danes/Vikings the perfect excuse to mount a second invasion. You reviewed the Sage of Burnt Njal, you know the complex web of obligations around kin-slaying. "He's slaughtering our kindred" is the perfect casus belli for the Scandinavian and Continental Danes to come together and invade.
We've discussed this before, but the great asset for the Vikings is their ships. They can land on the coast, they can sail up navigable rivers, and mount hit-and-run attacks then get away in their ships before local forces can catch up to them. There isn't a comparable English navy to engage them.
Thirdly, again on pragmatic grounds, Alfred is relying on being able to trust Guthrum. He can't fight a war on two fronts, and he needs to be assured that it won't turn out "ha ha, Guthrum came up from behind and stabbed him in the back". For Guthrum's part, he's got what he wanted: his life was spared, he has his own kingdom, and he has an alliance that he would need to be very stupid to trash, and I don't think Guthrum is stupid.
If Alfred tries invading the Danelaw to drive out the Danes, Guthrum will be forced to break that alliance. Alfred's policy turned enemies into allies, the young earl's policy would just create more enemies and this time round, maybe Alfred *wouldn't* win that war. The Danes in time may become "English", just as Alfred's ancestors became "English" after they too had been an invading force that settled down in the land. EDIT: Oops, and I doubt "everyone thought" the #DriveTheDanesOutofEngland would have succeeded; the young earl does, but he's young and inexperienced and full of the stories of the glories of war and overwhelming victories, while Alfred and his veterans remember the slogging in the mud for years and years, and when the kingdom of Wessex was reduced to one island in a marsh.
"In 878, a third Viking army gathered on Fulham by the Thames. It seems they were partly discouraged by the defeat of Guthrum but also Alfred's success against the Vikings coincided with a period of renewed weakness in Francia. The Frankish emperor, Charles the Bald, died in 877 and his son shortly after, precipitating a period of political instability of which the Vikings were quick to take advantage. The assembled Viking army on the Thames departed in 879 to begin new campaigns on the continent.
...By 896, the Viking army was all but defeated and no longer saw any reason to continue their attacks and dispersed to East Anglia and Northumbria. Those that were penniless found themselves ships and went south across the sea to the Seine. Anglo-Saxon England had been torn apart by the invading Great Heathen Army and the Vikings had control of northern and eastern England, while Alfred and his successors had defended their kingdom and remained in control of Wessex."
Alfred the Great really is a fascinating character; he was intelligent, genuinely religious, genuinely interested in education and trying to reclaim the best of what had come before from Roman Britain, while improving his own forces against external threat, including reorganising the army, creating fortified towns, and building at least an attempt at a navy to counter the Viking ships.
>That would be like if instead of interning the Japanese during the Second World War, Roosevelt had said "No, to hell with it, kill them all so they'll never try this again". Uh, yeah. That may be a very utilitarian decision, but us snivelling bleeding-heart non-utilitarians have the gall to object to such "git er done" acts.
Well, except that it wouldn't be like that at all. The Japanese people interned by Roosevelt's Executive Order during WWII were largely farmers and fishermen who came to the US, not as an invading force, but as individuals looking to make a living. Killing all of them wouldn't have been utilitarian at all; it just would have been bonkers.
The number of actual Japanese soldiers captured by the US was relatively small, and most of them were actually held prisoner in Australia and New Zealand, and had nothing to do specifically with "Roosevelt" anyway. The analogy simply isn't very analogous, as the Japanese never even got a chance to land an invading force in the United States outside of a few sparsely inhabited islands. Killing the few Japanese who managed to land on US soil *and* subsequently get captured rather than killed in battle might have been utilitarian, but it wouldn't have had much effect (and of course I would join you as a fellow sniveling bleeding-heart non-utilitarian in objecting to such an unchivalrous thing).
Anyhow, the choice isn't between simply letting the invaders hang around or killing every last of them wherever they can be found. Driving them off your island while you have the chance seems like the feasible and responsible "compromise." It doesn't mean they'll never invade again but at least they'll have to cross the water to do it!
> Well, except that it wouldn't be like that at all. The Japanese people interned by Roosevelt's Executive Order during WWII were largely farmers and fishermen who came to the US, not as an invading force, but as individuals looking to make a living.
But it would, indeed, be EXACTLY like that, although for the opposite reason you imply. The vast majority of the Danes in England, were 'farmers and fishermen just trying to make a living'. Turns out it's really easy to rile such people up into a Great Heathen Army.
Hi Deiseach!
That reminds me of a proverb from a civil engineer, who was talking about why sidewalks in Disney World get repaired so much more quickly than the average city sidewalk:
"We only maintain that which we love."
Even though it was just a simple concrete observation, I thought it immediately applied to everything in my life. Marriage, kids, career, friendships, yardwork, prayer-life, website code, etc.
Kind regards,
David
Chesterton writes about this very idea in "Orthodoxy", and uses as his example Pimplico, a section of London that in Chesteron's time was known for its slums:
"Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing—say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is THEIRS, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her."
Thanks FLWAB! That's a great quote!
I was reading something about the “Last Shaker” the other day, and there was something about Shaker doctrine, or nonsense depending on your POV, and how life is for laboring, literally and towards God; so that you may reach heaven and there - labor. Which to someone like me, the Marthas of the world, sounds quite satisfactory. Partly because it implicitly supposes that heaven is much like this place, perhaps indistinguishable.
ETA: I agree though, and am surprised Scott thought enemies could be vanquished finally and forever, or that it particularly mattered who they were, or that the Vikings were somehow “worse” than any other enemies so at the least they should be dispatched forever.
This is a great summary, and eloquently put. Another reason I like it is it is a fair and strong position for me to contrast my fairly strong non-conservatism (in the intelligent, Chesterton sense): I share his appreciation for hope and his distaste for fatalism, but have a more radical sense of hope.
The maintenance of the horse of Uffington is beautiful because of the sense of continuing community, but the maintenance of polio clinics and orphanages for starving children is, to me, a sign of profound failure; we could just not have polio or starving children at all!
My progressivism is one of eradicating smallpox, of ending slavery, of ending profound need; the poor may always be with us in a relative sense, but rich countries have essentially eradicated many particular poverties; those of water, clothing, hunger have been the first to fall, poverty of healthcare is solved in most rich countries, and I hope to see poverties of shelter, communication, and transport eliminated in my lifetime in much of the world.
Chesterton is right that you need to keep painting the fence, but you can also make a better paint.
"poverty of healthcare is solved in most rich countries"
The pertinent part there being *rich* countries. It certainly has not been abolished globally, anymore than poverty in general.
I don't think Chesterton is saying "don't even bother trying to eradicate bad things" but rather "you will have to be careful that you maintain the eradication, once you have achieved it".
Polio and TB may be coming back. Things like measles are on the rise again, and that is because we forgot about maintenance. People thought measles was a solved problem, they didn't get their kids vaccinated, and here we go with the same old story.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/polio-is-back-in-the-united-states-how-did-that-happen/
"I hope to see poverties of shelter, communication, and transport eliminated in my lifetime in much of the world".
Believe me, I say this not to mock or belittle you. But I remember, back in the days of the economic boom pre-2008 crash, the Episcopal Church (for one) confidently asserting that global poverty could be ended within (a short period of time) because now our societies were all so rich.
And then the crash happened shortly afterwards, and all those riches turned out to be bubbles and built on sand. And, well, 'the poor we have with us always'.
Getting to the age I am, I am now past the youthful confidence of "this time for sure!" about any problems. You have to keep painting the fence post.
I do fundamentally agree with you here; without constant effort, things degrade. But, to mix my metaphors, even if you need to keep repainting, you do get to move the fence posts once in a while (hopefully in a better direction).
This isn't essential to your point, and does not dispute your conclusion so it's just to note, but we *really are* vastly richer as a planet than we were even fifty years ago; vast swathes of the world's population now have access to steady food, water, medicine, etc, as a higher proportion than ever before, and that's despite most population growth happening in poor countries! Global maternal mortality rates have plummeted by something like over 90% over the past century.
Oh, exactly! But the broader point is that all these improvements happened because we *worked* at them, they didn't just happen 'of themselves'. Society got richer and then suddenly everyone was healthy? Yes, but they became healthy because of X, Y and Z going out and doing things like finding out how cholera was transmitted (and taking away pump handles) and so forth.
It's more "if the police caught a murderer, the murderer went to jail for a reasonable period of time, was released having served his time, and then murdered someone again", which to be fair is something that happens pretty frequently. There's also the fact that it's not just that the Vikings had "made a peace treaty" - they became Christians:
"When the pagan people of the sea
Fled to their palisades,
Nailed there with javelins to cling
And wonder smote the pirate king,
And brought him to his christening
And the end of all his raids.
(For not till the night's blue slate is wiped
Of its last star utterly,
And fierce new signs writ there to read,
Shall eyes with such amazement heed,
As when a great man knows indeed
A greater thing than he.)"
So yes, I think you are, to a degree, "overinterpreting the lines where people tell Alfred he could have gotten rid of the Danes" - to do so after they had pacified and converted would, to Alfred, have been criminal. However, I agree that this isn't a point that's made particularly strongly, partly I think because Chesterton is having to make the historical 'facts' (such as they are) fit his narrative and his point.
I also think it's unclear from the poem itself whether the Danes who are attacking at the end are in fact the same as those who had settled and converted before (ie. traitors), or a new wave of invaders. If the latter, I think this entire contention disappears.
It's different Danes. Guthrum and his bunch settled down and kept the peace, but years later Danes driven out from the Continent landed in England and started making mischief again, the scallywags.
> "if the police caught a murderer, the murderer went to jail for a reasonable period of time, was released having served his time, and then murdered someone again", which to be fair is something that happens pretty frequently.
Sounds like you've got a defective jail, then, if it's releasing people without having first properly reformed them.
As far as I can tell, Guthrum didn't break his word to Alfred. Presumably these were different vikings that attacked again.
Yes, it seems there was a naval invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great#Viking_attacks_(890s) so Alfred couldn't have exterminated them absent an invasion of the continent beyond his powers.
chesterton lives in britain after it was conquered by viking-adjacent normans, so maybe it's a progress but slower modern conservative vision
you memorized all of it.?! That's very impressive. What other poems have you memorized?
I recommend that everyone should try memorizing poems. They’re easier than prose to memorize (since they often have rhymes and meters that help you remember what line comes next), and having a poem memorized is great for when you’re bored. Start with a short one, keep adding more poems as you go, and eventually you get good at memorizing them and you can tackle something big.
"Lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy lazy Jane.
She wants a drink of water
so she waits and waits and waits and waits and waits
for it to rain."
I'd recommand spaced repetition. Here's an article about it, with a section specifically dedicated to poetry https://borretti.me/article/effective-spaced-repetition
(1) "His vassals tell him that he could potentially press his victory and drive them from England entirely."
From my understanding? Nope. There isn't an "England" at this point, but a hodge-podge of independent kingdoms. Alfred is king of Wessex, with no claims on any other kingdoms, apart from something like "Hey, Mercia, you guys surrendered to my grandfather back in the day so you owe me fealty".
Which doesn't really do him much good, since the Vikings are occupying London which is located in Mercia and the Mercians have enough problems of their own to deal with. At the time of the events in the poem, he's holed up in the marshes and fighting as a resistance leader, not a king of a settled realm. After his first big victory, as described in the poem, the best he can do is "this half of the country is our territory and that half is yours":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great#/media/File:Britain_886.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great
"He won a decisive victory in the Battle of Edington in 878 and made an agreement with the Vikings, dividing England between Anglo-Saxon territory and the Viking-ruled Danelaw, composed of Scandinavian York, the north-east Midlands and East Anglia."
(2) The treaty with Guthrum did make peace. Also, Guthrum is now Christian. This is a big thing! He is now bound by a relationship to Alfred! And in a time when there isn't a nationality as identify (remember, there is no "England"), being fellow-Christians fills that breach. Turning around and massacring your (new) fellow-Christian king and his subjects is not a nice thing to do, and will cause people to regard you as untrustworthy and not believe any treaties you make with them.
"One of the terms of the surrender was that Guthrum convert to Christianity. Three weeks later, the Danish king and 29 of his chief men were baptised at Alfred's court at Aller, near Athelney, with Alfred receiving Guthrum as his spiritual son."
Alfred and Guthrum carve up territory, Guthrum goes to his new lands, and it actually works out pretty well. *This* bunch of Vikings are now settled down and mostly peaceable:
"With the signing of the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum, an event most commonly held to have taken place around 880 when Guthrum's people began settling East Anglia, Guthrum was neutralised as a threat. The Viking army, which had stayed at Fulham during the winter of 878–879, sailed for Ghent and was active on the continent from 879 to 892."
It's the *other* bunches of Vikings that are the trouble.
(3) Now I'm not just king of Wessex, guys!
"A year later, in 886, Alfred reoccupied the city of London and set out to make it habitable again. Alfred entrusted the city to the care of his son-in-law Æthelred, ealdorman of Mercia. Soon afterwards, Alfred restyled himself as "King of the Anglo-Saxons". The restoration of London progressed through the latter half of the 880s and is believed to have revolved around a new street plan; added fortifications in addition to the existing Roman walls; and, some believe, the construction of matching fortifications on the south bank of the River Thames.
This is also the period in which almost all chroniclers agree that the Saxon people of pre-unification England submitted to Alfred. In 888, Æthelred, the archbishop of Canterbury, also died. One year later Guthrum, or Athelstan by his baptismal name, Alfred's former enemy and king of East Anglia, died and was buried in Hadleigh, Suffolk. Guthrum's death changed the political landscape for Alfred. The resulting power vacuum stirred other power-hungry warlords eager to take his place in the following years."
So Alfred goes back to rule in Wessex, leaving his half of Mercia under the governance of his son-in-law. Everything in the garden is rosy, except for those dratted Danes:
"After another lull, in the autumn of 892 or 893, the Danes attacked again. Finding their position in mainland Europe precarious, they crossed to England in 330 ships in two divisions. They entrenched themselves, the larger body at Appledore, Kent, and the lesser under Hastein, at Milton, also in Kent. The invaders brought their wives and children with them, indicating a meaningful attempt at conquest and colonisation."
*This* is the second battle he has to fight, and where the young courtier is complaining about Those Dratted Danish Invasions never seeming to end. And Alfred more or less agrees: after all, what can he do? Go off and invade Denmark and conquer it and make it part of his own realm, so there won't be any more Viking raids? Yeah, that's not going to happen, so all he can do is fight *today's* battle and clean their clocks (and the clocks of any other invasion forces that tootle along):
"Those who escaped retreated to Shoebury. After collecting reinforcements, they made a sudden dash across England and occupied the ruined Roman walls of Chester. The English did not attempt a winter blockade but contented themselves with destroying all the supplies in the district.
Early in 894 or 895 lack of food obliged the Danes to retire once more to Essex. At the end of the year, the Danes drew their ships up the River Thames and the River Lea and fortified themselves twenty miles (32 km) north of London. A frontal attack on the Danish lines failed but later in the year, Alfred saw a means of obstructing the river to prevent the egress of the Danish ships. The Danes realised that they were outmanoeuvred, struck off north-westwards and wintered at Cwatbridge near Bridgnorth. The next year, 896 (or 897), they gave up the struggle. Some retired to Northumbria, some to East Anglia. Those who had no connections in England returned to the continent."
And that's why Chesterton finishes with the weeds creeping over the White Horse once again, with the news of the victory in re-taking London happening off-stage. The weeds don't care about human wins or losses. Nature continues on, whether Alfred is king or not. And this is what Alfred understands that the young courtier doesn't: there is no end. You have to do it all, over and over again. If you want something, you have to work for it and work to keep it.
Alfred was intelligent, capable, ambitious and a good ruler. He encouraged the revival of learning and the arts, as well as taking back territory and expanding his kingdom until he made himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons".
"Historian Richard Abels sees Alfred's educational and military reforms as complementary. Restoring religion and learning in Wessex, Abels contends, was to Alfred's mind as essential to the defence of his realm as the building of the burhs. As Alfred observed in the preface to his English translation of Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care, kings who fail to obey their divine duty to promote learning can expect earthly punishments to befall their people. The pursuit of wisdom, he assured his readers of the Boethius, was the surest path to power: "Study wisdom, then, and, when you have learned it, condemn it not, for I tell you that by its means you may without fail attain to power, yea, even though not desiring it".
I don't think the idea is the Alfred made a treaty with the Danes *so that* the eternal revolution could be preserved. I think it's that it was the best he could have done at the time. At the end, he's reminding his men that the eternal revolution is in fact inevitable. He's not saying we should deliberately act to preserve the bad forces that make it so; no, those we should fight, understanding all the while that they can never be entirely extirpated.
Not sure if Chesterton thought about it, but one good reason Alfred couldn't just permanently end the Danish problem is that that would have required killing all the Danes living in England, which would have been a very un-christian thing to do.
One hundred years after Alfred king Ethelred the Unready actually tried to do exactly that in the St. Brice's Day Massacre. Historians are not agreed how much that massacre was actually an attempt to really kill all danish settlers, but it is almost certain that its main effect was uniting all Danes and their allies and so to finally cause the total invasion of England by Sweyn Forkbeard. Perhaps the belief that an evil could be finally ended by a thorough cleansing is just a bad idea, that have only ever had bad consequences for the countries that tried it.
Look at this way: "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times". But there's one easy solution to this problem: simply never create the good times. Never fully defeat the enemy. The revolution must continue, forever.
I have a slightly different take on that old aphorism. "Sometimes strong men create good times. Just as often, strong men create hard times and bully everyone into saying times are good."
I think "strong" and "weak" in the saying are meant to be interpreted as moral strength, not physical strength.
I think you're assuming too much if you assume everyone who uses this aphorism understands it as you do. Sidebar: I know one weight lifter who considers most types of (male) physical weakness to be signs of moral weakness. This is his favorite aphorism. It's very vagueness likely broadens its appeal.
Haha, I didn't mean to claim that everyone does use it my way, maybe just that I would prefer if they did. 😉
But also, the saying doesn't really make sense to me if it means purely physical strength. Physical strength alone just isn't that useful in the modern world.
I would grant that weight lifting could be one way to develop discipline and character. I just don't think it's the only way.
Sure. My friend’s way of reading the aphorism is uniquely stupid. Just one example of several different ways to interpret the saying.
> I would prefer if they did.
Well, go scour the appropriate horse until they do, then.
>Physical strength alone just isn't that useful in the modern world.<
So what you're saying is, good times created weak men?
I don’t think of England as Viking-free but I guess it would be too much to suggest that Alfred had the wisdom to recognize there was something in the Vikings worth preserving, bringing into the fold.
Also somebody needs to watch “The Last Kingdom”!
The Vikings do not represent an enemy. They represent the fact that there is an enemy!
Consider a different biblical image: the poor you will always have with you. Now why might that be? Eliezer has a tweet thread where he asked a similar question about resource scarcity; in a world which is abundant in all material things except oxygen is there poverty? That bottlenecks we shall face is true, don't know bottleneck lasts forever. The war against scarcity seems eternal. Economists have said that this is because human wants are infinite. But really it is more that dynamic human societies have many white horses that must be cleaned at different great in different ways. Every person conceived is a white horse on the verge of being overgrown, some will not be successful, some will be blackened by the mud of injustice, others overwhelmed by the weeds of misfortunes, others can shine only if others pull their weeds for them, and some refuse help at all. We know of no way to run a society with a zero error rate. Though we will continue to fight it, the poor we will always have with us.
Similarly with the Vikings. Alfred is not betraying his children's children by making compromise with sin, rather the story is meant as a lesson concerning the battle against human travail, but not any individual human travail. It's a platonist vision not an aristotelian one. Alfred narratively is not allowed to have a lasting victory, because lasting victory is not possible in this England.
--
I'm not fully convinced by this reading. And I think Chesterton could have improved the poem, especially the end. But part of the secret to Chesterton is that all of his works were written in a hurry. And besides, I would call his true masterpiece The Man Who Was Thursday.
This point about refusing to solve a solvable problem reminds me of a description of the conflict between modern progressives and conservatives as hinging, in at least many cases, on the question of whether progressive policies have the character of, "We should abolish Mondays." The thing unpleasant about Monday is that you have to start working again, after having some time off. It is fundamentally an un-solvable problem. You could shuffle the schedule around, but so long as you take time off, and then start work again, starting work will be an unpleasant contrast, relative to leisure. In many cases conservatives feel that progressives are trying to spend government money on solving problems, and will end up just moving the problem somewhere else.
The question, of course, is always: Are they right? In some cases they may seem to be. For instance: It is foolish to simply give people big housing vouchers, if it is illegal to build more housing. All that will happen is that housing will become more expensive, and consumers of housing services will be effectively just as poor as ever. But this doesn't mean the problem of housing scarcity is fundamentally insoluble. We do, in fact, have the technology to build a bunch of condos and apartments. Mistaking a solvable problem for an "I hate Mondays" type problem will lead one to behaving in a resigned / despairing manner rather than trying to fix it.
The more I think of it, I wonder if *daisies* might be intentionally ambiguous. Do you want a world without daisies? A world without wildness? Maybe some square footage without …
I have, literally, scoured weeds off of the Uffington White Horse. The Ballad is deeply beautiful and inspiring.
And the review made a pic of folks scouring weed deeply beautiful and inspiring. No small feat.
Why is Alfred referred to as Albert?
Huh, I always proofread these for grammar errors etc, and I caught several in this one, but I missed that Alfred was called Albert about five times. Must be one of those things like "the the" which is too obvious to notice. I've corrected it.
I attended a scholarly presentation on historical persons (of one family, so first names were being used) which kept changing the first name of one of the principal characters. First he was Arthur (his real name), then he was John, then he was something else. The presenter never noticed until I inquired in the question session.
I spotted another error: The review says "We see this idea repeated in the Balled [sic]", but the last word should of course be "Ballad" instead.
Excellent! Now I have to go read it again. It's been too long.
The Twitter link is dead, or goes to a private account.
archive.org to the rescue:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220224181704/https://twitter.com/ursulabrs/status/1434791291653558275
ursula says:
As a teacher of poetry what I can tell you for sure is people want poems to rhyme. They want poems to rhyme so bad. But we won’t give it to them
If I had a tankard to bang on the table, I'd be banging it right now while shouting YES YES YES 😁
You get it. You get what he was saying in the poem. Yes, I'm biased as all get-out here, but you guys knew that already, so this is one of at least two contenders for overall winner as far as I'm concerned.
I'll just quote another English Catholic 'pale stale male' about what is hope:
Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (Conversation of Finrod and Andreth):
'What is hope?' she said. 'An expectation of good, which though uncertain has some foundation in what is known? Then we have none'.
'That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy. Amdir you have not, you say. Does no Estel at all abide?'
Anyway, I'm happy now. I would say to anyone reading this review, go look the poem up and try reciting it out loud. It's verse, it's meant to be said, and the swing of it will bring you along.
This review has definitely motivated me to go read Chesterton. I've seen many many references here over the years but I haven't actually picked up one of his works myself yet. Any suggestions on the best approach to him?
On the non-fiction side I would start with "Orthodoxy": despite the name it's a lot of fun to read, and it does a great job of explaining the foundations of Chesterton's thinking and philosophy.
On the fiction side, his "Father Brown" mystery books are probably his most popular works (according to legend, whenever he started running out of money he would tell his wife that it was time to write another Father Brown book), and if you like mystery stories they're fabulous. "The Man Who Was Thursday" is probably his best fiction book, but I find "The Napoleon of Notting Hill" just as good, if not better.
Fortunately all these books are easily available in web versions on Project Gutenberg, since they are long out of copyright.
Orthodoxy: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/130
The Innocence of Father Brown (first in the series): https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/204
The Man Who Was Thursday: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1695
The Napoleon of Notting Hill: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20058
On "faith", I am of the opinion that the modern version of "faith" (which just renders down to belief) is an impoverishment of a very rich concept that is better maintained in how the word is used elsewhere.
To have faith in God is not to believe in God, but rather, something more similar to *trusting* God, and keeping to the faith is not merely continuing to believe, but in continuing to have that trust, and to behave as if that trust is valid.
Hi Thegnskald!
Just this morning, I learned from a lecture by Alister McGrath that although the first word of the Apostle's Creed in Latin, "Credo" is typically translated as "I believe"... in the Latin at the time, it meant "to trust or confide in a person or thing; to have confidence in; to trust."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6rOVUXF9BY&t=779s
Kind regards,
David
Yeah. Faith is a process that starts with belief. But doesn't end there. It doesn't even end in knowledge, because faith is incremental. In a way, the faith process (believe something might be true, act on what it tells you, learn if it is true, repeat) is how we learn anything that is true. Religious or not. Which makes sense--God is the source of all truth, even about His creations.
How about, "to be faithful to God"
> We see this theme repeated throughout the poem
This section is not a quote, but is put in a quote block.
I was going to say that too!
A beautiful poem and an excellent review. However the cynic in me can’t help but compare the moral to the heathen tale of Sisyphus.
Well observed. Though the original pagan view of Sisiphus is: he is damned and cursed. - while atheist Albert Camus can not help but see it from a Christian/Catholic tradition. And imagine him "happy".
http://hitherby-dragons.wikidot.com/intermission-i-i
> “It is good to be a living person in the Underworld,” Tantalus says, “since there is nothing here that can actually kill you.”
> There is a distant cursing. There is a distant rumbling.
> Sisyphus, rolled over by a distant boulder, screams.
> “There are also disadvantages,” Tantalus concedes.
That particular chapter's conclusion features an alternate solution which, fortunately, can be succinctly and elegantly proven to be more or less universally applicable, without the proof itself requiring reference to any sort of benevolent higher power.
There is a big difference though: Sisyphus's eternal labor has no point or purpose. The eternal labor to preserve the White Horse has a point: the point is to keep the White Horse around. Presumably for the people who scour it that's a meaningful purpose, renewing the Horse so that their children and their children's children will live in a world with the Horse in it.
In contrast, the only purpose of Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill forever is to punish him. Nobody (including himself) benefits from his labor.
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
The other thing is: Sisyphus needs to spend all his time on the boulder (presumably). Scrubbing the white horse or fighting the occasional Viking doesn't take up all your time and leaves a lot of your life free for other things. Life is full of dumb tasks that need to be done over and over again for no permanent effect, like brushing your teeth.
> There is a big difference though: Sisyphus's eternal labor has no point or purpose. The eternal labor to preserve the White Horse has a point: the point is to keep the White Horse around.
That just sounds like circular logic to me. Keeping the white horse around isn't the same category as Sisyphus' busywork... why?
At minimum, because the existence of the White Horse is something that matters to some people, and the people who scour it find the continued existence of the White Horse and their participation in it's maintenance meaningful. Because of the scourers actions, generations yet unborn will get the enjoy the sight of the White Horse, just as he has, and his grandfathers did, and their grandfathers. That means something to the scourer at minimum, which is why he chooses to scour.
Sisyphus did not choose his task, and it has no meaning to anyone beyond sending the message "Do bad stuff and you'll get punished forever"; the punishment being, never-ending and work that is meaningless to you.
> and it has no meaning to anyone beyond sending the message "Do bad stuff and you'll get punished forever"
This sounds like a more valuable product of one's labours than "Woah a white horse" frankly.
True!
Sisyphus can stop pushing the boulder any time he wants; he's just too proud to admit that there's something he can't do.
There's definitely another epic feature missing: no talking boat!
I was sad to see that scene cut from the Unsong reprinting. It was a quality bit.
I think I either made that up for Unsong, or got it from an English teacher who was wrong and had made it up themselves. IIRC I checked and there was no talking boat in eg the Iliad.
Yeah, but it was funny.
You may have been remembering the talking figurehead of the Argo, the ship of Jason and the Argonauts.
Tolkien on The Ballad of the White Horse (letter 180):
“P (Priscilla) has been wading through The Ballad of The White Horse for the last many nights; and my efforts to explain the obscurer parts to her convince me that it is not as good as I thought. The ending is absurd. The brilliant smash and glitter of the words and phrases (when they come off, and are not mere loud colours) cannot disguise the fact that G.K.C. knew nothing whatever about the ‘North’, heathen or Christian.”
Elsewhere, he is rather fond of Chesterton, and even this letter suggests that his initial impression had been much more positive. But there is a somewhat overly sentimental feel to some parts of the poem that apparently irked Tolkien, and of course nobody ever was likelier to bristle at historical inaccuracies concerning England!
I do wonder what his objections to the ending were, and how they relate to Scott’s.
I don't know what Tolkien's specific objections were, but in terms of style their writings feel very different.
In everything he writes Chesterton gives the impression of throwing something down in a hurry (he said he wrote his newspaper pieces in the pub minutes before they were due).
BOTWH certainly gives that impression, it's uneven. The best bits are brilliant, and as a whole it's great, but it has many bits that are untidy or slapdash.
This seems a way away from Tolkien's way of doing things, and I can see Tolkien finding it grating.
"I cannot understand the people who take literature seriously; but I can love them, and I do. Out of my love I warn them to keep clear of this book. It is a collection of crude and shapeless papers upon current or rather flying subjects; and they must be published pretty much as they stand. They were written, as a rule, at the last moment; they were handed in the moment before it was too late, and I do not think that our commonwealth would have been shaken to its foundations if they had been handed in the moment after. They must go out now, with all their imperfections on their head, or rather on mine; for their vices are too vital to be improved with a blue pencil, or with anything I can think of, except dynamite.
Their chief vice is that so many of them are very serious; because I had no time to make them flippant. It is so easy to be solemn; it is so hard to be frivolous. Let any honest reader shut his eyes for a few moments, and approaching the secret tribunal of his soul, ask himself whether he would really rather be asked in the next two hours to write the front page of the Times, which is full of long leading articles, or the front page of Tit-Bits, which is full of short jokes. If the reader is the fine conscientious fellow I take him for, he will at once reply that he would rather on the spur of the moment write ten Times articles than one Tit-Bits joke. Responsibility, a heavy and cautious responsibility of speech, is the easiest thing in the world; anybody can do it. That is why so many tired, elderly, and wealthy men go in for politics. They are responsible, because they have not the strength of mind left to be irresponsible. It is more dignified to sit still than to dance the Barn Dance. It is also easier. So in these easy pages I keep myself on the whole on the level of the Times: it is only occasionally that I leap upwards almost to the level of Tit-Bits.
I resume the defence of this indefensible book. These articles have another disadvantage arising from the scurry in which they were written; they are too long-winded and elaborate. One of the great disadvantages of hurry is that it takes such a long time. If I have to start for Highgate this day week, I may perhaps go the shortest way. If I have to start this minute, I shall almost certainly go the longest. In these essays (as I read them over) I feel frightfully annoyed with myself for not getting to the point more quickly; but I had not enough leisure to be quick."
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." - Blaise Pascal
This is beautiful. I'd like to say more than that, but I can't find the words.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
This was a great review. My only objections are the statements at the beginning that the poem is "about conservatism" and "is Chesterton’s love song to conservatism as he understands it." The review goes on to explain Chesterton's understanding, but in Chesterton's own words, and in fact, this isn't "conservatism" at all.
Yes, I thought this! Indeed, in the quote from Chesterton where he explicitly mentions conservatism and progressivism, he seems to be in favour of what he calls progressivism. "[A]ll conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not."
This is only true if you’re inoculated in what passes for modern conservatism in American politics. Chesterton’s idea of conservatism is best espoused by Chesterton’s Fence: not the that the fence should never be reformed, but that it should not be reformed until the would-be reformed understands what purpose it served. The “progressives” that Chesterton targeted in his day were of two stripes; industrialists who wanted to sweep the world of old away in favor of capitalism and material things, and communists and socialists who sought to destroy the entire old order in favor of their new vision for men. Chesterton was so opposed to both of these visions that he developed his own idealized system of economics (distributism) as a third way. Today we don’t think of Bezos/Thiel/etc as “progressives” but I think Chesterton would have put them in them in that category, and I think he was right. They and what we now call “the left” are in a great haste to destroy the old way of being and doing, and have not given any great thought to why the people of old lives that way. A real conservatism is alive and constantly being renewed, but it also gives our ancestors a heavy vote in the process. Orthodoxy expands on this at some length.
It seems more about conservationism ("how to keep what's good") than conservatism ("everything that is, is good") although as a Christian presumably he'd believe the Creation to be essentially good, the devilish meddling notwithstanding.
It certainly does not seem to concern - at least not directly - conservatism as a political ideology or movement.
I can't tell you when it happened, but at some point Chesterton became a distributist. Distributists define themselves as standing in opposition to state socialism AND laissez faire capitalism.
Yep, I came along to say exactly this. The kind of Christianity represented here seems to be beautiful and noble and radical - not what Christian conservatism is today, and not what it has ever been, so far as I understand it.
I'm not quite convinced by the white horse as a conservative argument, either. It suggests that we have to weed and renew the white horse because that's the tradition; and it's the tradition because it's necessary to weed and renew the white horse. But somehow no-one seems to have explained why the white horse is good. I'm guessing Chesterton thinks it's obvious that the horse is beautiful, and that's motivation enough. And as it happens, on the subject of the white horse itself, I think everyone would agree. But sometimes the things that people think are beautiful change, like the hierarchically structured nuclear family. Does he have an answer for what to do when the motivation changes? I dunno.
Another nice example people gave is the fact that the Vikings ultimately win, via France. At this point, 1,000 years later, should we carry on Alfred's perpetual revolution? Should I kill my Anglo-Saxon neighbour?
What a brilliant essay!! Thank you.
I do think the quotes are tad excessive, but easily skippable if one is so inclined, and everything else is readable, engaging, interesting and informative.
And surely I can't be the first person requesting the edit of the Alberts to Alfreds?
RE: "But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact...If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution."
I don't know anything about him beyond his Wikipedia page, but is Chesterton really proposing that society is the painted post as it stands? Maybe so, based on these opening lines:
Before the gods that made the gods
Had seen their sunrise pass,
The White Horse of the White Horse Vale
Was cut out of the grass.
That seems awfully facile to me, and if I'm understanding it right, would undermine the legitimate moral lesson that we must continually fight to protect what's good in society.
To belabor the analogy, it's equally as clear to me that there are Vikings intent on destroying the Horse, as it is that the Horse is imperfect and crusaders from within might want to improve it. If you blindly treat the latter as the former, you'll get a sclerotic society with frozen mores. Maybe this is too much subtlety to ask for in the genre. But I think if you're going to treat it as a paean to conservatism in the real world, it seems like a fatal flaw.
Apropos of frozen mores, here's Chesterton on female suffrage: https://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/wrong-with-the-world/47/ & https://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/wrong-with-the-world/18/.
But isn't that the heart of conservatism? It's in the name, for goodness' sake. The world has changed, of course, and that's because the conservatives failed. That's what's driving the current wave of reactionaries: to defeat the progressives, so they can paint the post white again.
Sure, but I guess I'm reacting to the characterization that this piece represents some nobler form of conservatism. Cards on the table (as is probably obvious), I don't start from a place that is sympathetic to the ideology. But based on the tone of the reception here (e.g. Scott calling it his favorite poem), I was expecting a more robust or nuanced defense.
Whether or not you think it's noble, it's certainly more effective. Modern "conservatives" took the status quo for granted, and it fell apart before they could even properly react. Change and entropy is inevitable unless it is actively resisted.
It's flattering rhetorically, and strategically an effective proposal. I just don't think it's a sophisticated or convincing one. Among other things, it's ahistorical--not in the literal sense that the post discusses, but in that it doesn't consider how a conservative consensus is formed (the Horse has existed for all time). The modern conservatives were presumably a product of change themselves...
I take your point that I may be incorrectly reading the poem (and the post) as more of an apologia than a call to action. But I do think it's worthwhile to evaluate the material on its merits, if we're going to go around praising it.
I think what it actually represents is the nobility of conservatism. It would be surprising for an ideology to be so popular, if there was nothing noble about it at all.
Incidentally, I think you are perhaps underestimating the degree to which you approach things from a conservative perspective, when circumstances call for it. Just like I might approach things from a progressive perspective at times, without consciously thinking about it in those terms. I don't think it would be wise to view absolutely everything through the same ideological lens.
I don't see the need to assume there's any connection between the popularity of something and its nobility.
I'm going to challenge your categorical dismissal of frozen mores. Just because our mores needed to evolve in the past, that is no guarantee they need to evolve today. And just because our mores need to evolve today, that is no guarantee they need to evolve forever.
While our mores can never be perfect, I can imagine a time when then potential cost of further experimentation might vastly outweigh the potential cost of freezing mores today.
So you feel as Chesterton says is the modern division into Conservatives and Progressives?
“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”
Or, to emphasise the importance of definitions, from the detective story "The Flying Stars":
"A radical does not mean a man who lives on radishes," remarked Crook, with some impatience; and a Conservative does not mean a man who preserves jam. Neither, I assure you, does a Socialist mean a man who desires a social evening with the chimney-sweep. A Socialist means a man who wants all the chimneys swept and all the chimney-sweeps paid for it."
A conservative is someone who wants to conserve. A conservator in a museum does the same thing, and I don't think anyone objects to "if we wish the items to remain whole, action must be taken to take care of them and repair any damage, and even simply to maintain them as they are". You don't just leave things alone without acting on them, and you don't blindly refuse to touch anything because it's fine as it is. It's fine right now, but if you leave it alone, the weeds grow over it.
From the chapter "The Eternal Revolution" in "Orthodoxy":
"The great and grave changes in our political civilization all belonged to the early nineteenth century, not to the later. They belonged to the black and white epoch when men believed fixedly in Toryism, in Protestantism, in Calvinism, in Reform, and not unfrequently in Revolution. And whatever each man believed in he hammered at steadily, without scepticism: and there was a time when the Established Church might have fallen, and the House of Lords nearly fell. It was because Radicals were wise enough to be constant and consistent; it was because Radicals were wise enough to be Conservative. But in the existing atmosphere there is not enough time and tradition in Radicalism to pull anything down. There is a great deal of truth in Lord Hugh Cecil’s suggestion (made in a fine speech) that the era of change is over, and that ours is an era of conservation and repose. But probably it would pain Lord Hugh Cecil if he realized (what is certainly the case) that ours is only an age of conservation because it is an age of complete unbelief. Let beliefs fade fast and frequently, if you wish institutions to remain the same. The more the life of the mind is unhinged, the more the machinery of matter will be left to itself. The net result of all our political suggestions, Collectivism, Tolstoyanism, Neo-Feudalism, Communism, Anarchy, Scientific Bureaucracy — the plain fruit of all of them is that the Monarchy and the House of Lords will remain. The net result of all the new religions will be that the Church of England will not (for heaven knows how long) be disestablished. It was Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Cunninghame Grahame, Bernard Shaw and Auberon Herbert, who between them, with bowed gigantic backs, bore up the throne of the Archbishop of Canterbury."
And to return to the poem, from the chapter "The Age of Legends" in "The Sbort History of England":
"There is one fundamental fact which must be understood of the whole of this period. Yet a modern man must very nearly turn his mind upside down to understand it. Almost every modern man has in his head an association between freedom and the future. The whole culture of our time has been full of the notion of "A Good Time Coming." Now the whole culture of the Dark Ages was full of the notion of "A Good Time Going." They looked backwards to old enlightenment and forwards to new prejudices. In our time there has come a quarrel between faith and hope — which perhaps must be healed by charity. But they were situated otherwise. They hoped — but it may be said that they hoped for yesterday. All the motives that make a man a progressive now made a man a conservative then. The more he could keep of the past the more he had of a fair law and a free state; the more he gave way to the future the more he must endure of ignorance and privilege. All we call reason was one with all we call reaction. And this is the clue which we must carry with us through the lives of all the great men of the Dark Ages; of Alfred, of Bede, of Dunstan. If the most extreme modern Republican were put back in that period he would be an equally extreme Papist or even Imperialist. For the Pope was what was left of the Empire; and the Empire what was left of the Republic."
I find almost no value in this Chesterton quote and I am left to assume his lofty reputation is based on his fiction.
>Apropos of frozen mores, here's Chesterton on female suffrage
I guess these are supposed to make Chesterton look bad, but that really only works if you read them as uncharitably as possible.
Ch. 47, your first link, seems to be basically a standard objection to small-l liberal democracy, which is the tendency to "liberate" even those who do not perceive themselves to be in need of any liberation. The entire argument is contigent on the idea that a majority of women are themselves are opposed to women's suffrage, and Chesterton is clear about that. Even today small-l liberals have the tendency to try and liberate people who want nothing of the sort - how many bazillions were spent trying to liberate Afghani women at the point of a gun, even though they (apparently) wanted none of it?
Ch. 18, your second link, is in fact remarkably prescient. Chesterton does not deny that women have been treated badly and even as servants in domestic life. He just argues out that sending women into the workforce isn't going to solve that problem:
>"I do not deny that women have been wronged and even tortured; but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time."
Quite a few studies show that on average, modern working women continue to do most of the housework and "care" work even if they also have a full time job. Chesterton appears to have correctly foreseen that problem.
The second half of this is generally an observation that women are not the same as men, and have psychic traits that would likely reshape the workforce:
> "Modern women defend their office with all the fierceness of domesticity. They fight for desk and typewriter as for hearth and home, and develop a sort of wolfish wifehood on behalf of the invisible head of the firm.
"Human resources" did not exist in 1910, but Chesterton appears to have described a certain kind of HR lady perfectly. Helen Andrews made a similar point here:
https://thelampmagazine.com/issues/issue-21/against-human-resources
When you consider that Chesterton was writing these things over 110 years ago, he comes off as downright progressive.
I think it was Theodore Roosevelt that said something like this about women being able to vote: "I am for it, but I do not think it will make much of a difference, because they'll still be choosing between the same candidates that the men are." (Which was basically accurate - people who expected women to vote in large numbers for, say, pacifist candidates ended up disappointed.)
There was a fair bit of extra support for prohibitionist candidates from newly-enfranchised women, but that would up disappointing in other ways.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the name of the author of the book being reviewed was in the post’s title or subtitle? The way it is now, we have to delve into the review to discover this basic piece of information.
If you're not going to read the thing, why would you care who the author is?
I've never heard of a "Ballad of a White Horse" before this, as far as I know, but I have heard of GK Chesterton. Standard book reviews usually list the title, author, and even additional bibliographic information about a book, at the beginning of the review, because that puts a bunch of standardized, often useful information, in one place, where potential readers can see it before starting in on the review, and people who were so moved by the review might see it after and go out and get the book.
This review and the comments made me think of a certain scene in the TV show Vikings: https://youtu.be/CPMSzstuVD0?si=D7VFw6JkZuSgVXTA&t=120
Warning: this scene is VERY SAD
“I always believed that death was a fate far better than life …”
I only wish that Christianity had been a religion that upheld this one idea, that life, writ large - the life of this planet - is the great treasure.
Instead, it’s fetuses and murderers.
Other living things are barely even a special case, at least in the Protestantism of my experience.
> Protestantism
There’s the problem
The poem has tremendous bounce and gusto, and the point that everything good needs maintenance is excellent.
Still, I'm left with factual questions. Is Christianity actually that good? Is it that much better than other religions?
For that argument you'll be wanting Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy". In the introduction he writes "These essays are concerned only to discuss the actual fact that the central Christian theology (sufficiently summarized in the Apostles' Creed) is the best root of energy and sound ethics."
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130-images.html
Strictly speaking, for the poem’s purposes it only needs to be better than the Vikings’ religion/ culture.
I thought Christianity was supposed to be better than Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (at least), but maybe that's from Lepanto or something.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re saying. Chesterton obviously thought so, and provided what he would consider arguments in his writings.
If the claim is that this specific poem compares Christianity to these religions, then maybe it’s me being dumb and missing it?
If you’re saying that this conclusion is implied by the logic of the poem, then I don’t think so. Guthrum converting to Christianity is clearly considered an improvement, but this doesn’t mean that him converting to e.g. Islam wouldn’t be.
I should think that it goes without saying that actual Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Buddhism nor all the rest, do not function the way Chesterton says they do. Christianity is not the only source of the kind of hope he is celebrating.
I hope it also goes without saying that Christianity has frequently acted as other people's "weeds"--an inimical force that pulls down all that some culture wants to preserve.
Please note that I am not saying that Christianity is any worse than other world religions, just that's in terms of the effects it has had on non-believers it isn't any better.
Chesterton is not really the author to read if you want “the logical case for Christianity.” Someone else suggested Orthodoxy, and it is indeed a great book, but it’s not going to be what you want if you want, like, a point by point rebuttal of Dawkins and Harris. For that you’ll want to look at someone like Edward Feser or Trent Horn.
"Cleaning the White Horse" should be a turn of phrase for the work that must always be done.
I'd prefer "Scouring" over "Cleaning" as it's a traditional term for it and a bit more memorable. This would be a handy idiom; I agree.
Sigh. I rather wish there were epic poems about the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Project. People have split the nucleus and men have stood upon the Moon. And the footprints on the Moon will last ten million years https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6BjNNddehiI . Not all accomplishments require ceaseless maintenance.
We got distracted from going to the moon for a few decades, lost the ability to do so, and now are trying to spend billions of dollars getting it back (and failing!) Sounds like a thing that requires ceaseless maintenance to me!
>We got distracted from going to the moon for a few decades, lost the ability to do so, and now are trying to spend billions of dollars getting it back
True! Many Thanks!
>(and failing!)
That remains to be seen. The current plan is for Artemis III to land people on the moon in 2026. I suspect that it will be delayed, perhaps 50:50 odds on whether it happens say by the next election cycle in 2028.
>Sounds like a thing that requires ceaseless maintenance to me!
And yet the Apollo 11 LEM descent stage still sits there, a monument that men did indeed walk the lunar surface. True, we cannot do the same this year, but it _was_ accomplished. The astronauts' footprints on the moon _do_ remain there. And large parts of the knowledge of how to do it were not lost.
edit: To clarify: I view the endurance of the Apollo 11 landing site as a side issue. My original "Sigh" is about the poem being about
Yet another war. Again. A conflict between armed groups. Again. "Willie McBride, it all happened again. And again, and again, and again, and again."
I don't really _care_ that King Alfred picked himself off the ground and fought another battle. Frankly, from the vantage point of over a thousand years after his battles, I haven't got the foggiest idea of whether the world would have been on balance better or worse if the Danes had won, and I doubt that anyone else can tell either. I would rather celebrate that men walked on the moon and that people split the nucleus.
To pick another example of something I would rather celebrate: Smallpox no longer spreads around the globe. It had no animal reservoir. Once we got everyone vaccinated, the wild virus went extinct. Barring some bastard actively releasing it into the human population again, it is _gone_. That was a permanent achievement.
Scouring the carvings on an airless moon every few million years (plus the occasional preventative asteroid deflection) might seem like near-constant maintenance work, to the kind of people who can throw around 10km/s delta-v as casually as Alfred the Great getting up in the middle of the night to visit the latrine. https://qntm.org/free
>https://qntm.org/free
Cute! Many Thanks! In our own system Pluto and Charon are doubly tidally locked - but not with so small a separation.
>Scouring the carvings on an airless moon every few million years (plus the occasional preventative asteroid deflection) might seem like near-constant maintenance work
Hmm???
>Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years.
For _human_ purposes, if something needs maintenance every ten million years, that's just about indistinguishable from not needing it at all.
"And yet the Apollo 11 LEM descent stage still sits there, a monument that men did indeed walk the lunar surface."
Like the Roman ruins in Alfred's times? Works so impossible to be done by the hands of man, to the thought of the people of that day, that they must have been made by giants?
'From the Anglo-Saxon poem The Wanderer, 87: 'eald enta geweorc idlu stodon', 'the old creations of giants [i.e. ancient buildings, erected by a former race] stood desolate.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wanderer_(Old_English_poem)
We walked there once, will we ever do so again? That's the point of the 'ceaseless maintenance', you can't just rely on "well we know how to do it and we've done it, of course everyone will remember how" because as examples throughout history have shown, no, everyone forgets.
>That's the point of the 'ceaseless maintenance',
Many Thanks! I was originally looking at a different point, that I prefer to celebrate that the moon landings _happened_, even though we currently don't have the ability to replicate them. Perhaps Artemis III will actually land on the moon again.
I'm with Scott on this one. It doesn't count if no one can see it to be inspired, and we've thoughtlessly left that capability to rot. If we manage to get it back, someone is going to have to write the Ballad of Elon Musk, and I'm not sure I'm ready for that.
You don't think William McGonagall would be up to the task? 😁
https://mypoeticside.com/show-classic-poem-18831
excerpt from Saving a Train:
But he resolves to save the on-coming train,
So every nerve and muscle he does strain,
And he trudges along dauntlessly on his crutches,
And tenaciously to them he clutches.
And just in time he reaches his father's car
To save the on-coming train from afar,
So he seizes the red light, and swings it round,
And cried with all his might, 'The bridge is down! The bridge is down!'
So forward his father's car he drives,
Determined to save the passengers' lives,
Struggling hard with might and main,
Hoping his struggle won't prove in vain.
So on comes the iron-horse snorting and rumbling,
And the mountain-torrent at the bridge kept roaring and tumbling;
While brave Carl keeps shouting, 'The bridge is down! The bridge is down!'
He cried with a pitiful wail and sound.
But, thank heaven, the engine-driver sees the red light
That Carl keeps swinging round his head with all his might;
But bang! bang! goes the engine with a terrible crash,
And the car is dashed all to smash.
But the breaking of the car stops the train,
And poor Carl's struggle is not in vain;
But, poor soul, he was found stark dead,
Crushed and mangled from foot to head!
To the extent that the LEM doesn't require constant maintenance by people who love and preserve it, then the LEM isn't what the poem is about. It's about all those institutions that make civilized life possible--without constant upkeep, they degrade. The horse is just a metaphor, after all.
Many Thanks!
>To the extent that the LEM doesn't require constant maintenance by people who love and preserve it, then the LEM isn't what the poem is about.
And I'm not enthusiastic about the poem, in at least two different senses.
a) I don't really _care_ that King Alfred picked himself up and fought yet another battle. From the distance of a thousand years, I have no idea whether the world would be a better or worse place if the Danes had won, and I don't think anyone else knows either. I just view their war as "yet another battle between two armed groups"
b) Maintenance is a _cost_ . The more maintenance an institution, machine, or structure needs, the worse it is. A pipe that constantly needs leaks plugged is less valuable than one that holds water _without_ further effort. There _are_ a few triumphs such as the eradication of smallpox which look like they will require no further effort. There are _many_ cases where an invention or discovery was difficult to make, but the effort to teach it, while nonzero, is far smaller than the original effort. I prefer to celebrate such advances more than those that require constant maintenance.
IMHO you are missing the point of the poem:
>From the distance of a thousand years, I have no idea whether the world would be a better or worse place if the Danes had won, and I don't think anyone else knows either.
I'm fairly sure that Chesterton cares as little as you do. It's just a metaphor. Haven't you ever had the experience of having lost everything you were striving for, and having to find the wherewithall to pick yourself back up and keep trying? Chesterton wants you to see those banners waving.
>I prefer to celebrate such advances more than those that require constant maintenance.
Really? I'm skeptical-as in, I don't believe you really mean this. How about a relationship? A garden? A lifestyle? There are many, many challenges in life that cannot ever be "one and done." I am guessing that you actually have experienced this and found the determination to carry on somehow. That's the hope Chesterton is describing.
Many Thanks! I am not missing the point of the poem, but rather am _disagreeing_ with the point of the poem.
>Really? I'm skeptical-as in, I don't believe you really mean this. How about a relationship? A garden? A lifestyle? There are many, many challenges in life that cannot ever be "one and done."
My point is that constant maintenance is _crappy_. It is not something to be celebrated, but something one grits one's teeth over. Yeah, I _do_ really mean this.
There are many, many situations where the right response to discovering that something requires a great deal of maintenance is to yeet it. To reiterate:
Maintenance is a _cost_.
I think Chesterton agrees with you: maintenance *is* a cost, but it's the price we pay for having things. We can't just 'leave it alone' because then everything gradually falls apart. It won't get better on its own, it won't even stay the same. The weeds sprout up, the rust spreads, the hole in the roof gets bigger as the weather over years works on it.
You *can* ignore it all for a while, even a long while. But one day the roof finally collapses on top of your head because you didn't want to, or couldn't be bothered to, maintain it.
>I think Chesterton agrees with you: maintenance _is_ a cost, but it's the price we pay for having things.
Many Thanks! Yes, typically there are several options. As you said:
>You _can_ ignore it all for a while, even a long while. But one day the roof finally collapses on top of your head because you didn't want to, or couldn't be bothered to, maintain it.
Sometimes there are choices between options requiring more maintenance and those (typically initially more costly in some way, or with some other disadvantage) requiring less. An implement can be made of regular steel or stainless steel. The latter is far less subject to rust, though initially costlier.
Sometimes the right choice is to look at the _total_ cost of ownership, including maintenance, and say "To hell with this, it isn't worth it."
Sometimes the right choice _is_ to omit (selected) maintenance and treat the item as temporary. If my house outlasts me, I will never know if it lasts for thirty years or a thousand.
We don't have to eradicate smallpox again. But we do have to have a medical institution that can treat and eradicate disease effectively, and that does require maintenance; we've seen it backslide before. (For instance, in the 19th century medicine stopped believing that fresh produce would prevent scurvy.) Surely "it was cool how we had that accomplishment one time" would be pretty hollow if it was *just* about the particular accomplishment itself, with no cause for reflection on how we might achieve similar things in the future.
>We don't have to eradicate smallpox again.
Many Thanks!
>But we do have to have a medical institution that can treat and eradicate disease effectively, and that does require maintenance; we've seen it backslide before.
And the more maintenance it requires, the less of an advantage it provides. Ideally, we want to move as many illnesses into the "solved problem" category as possible. It is better to have a robust institutional structure which was can be reasonably sure won't unlearn how to solve deficiency diseases than one that requires constant oversight because it always has a substantial rate of screwing up.
>Surely "it was cool how we had that accomplishment one time" would be pretty hollow if it was _just_ about the particular accomplishment itself, with no cause for reflection on how we might achieve similar things in the future.
I disagree, but I'm going to take an example from another field, because medicine deals with such a complex system that there are a nearly endless series of problems to solve.
Consider the role of timekeeping in finding a ship's longitude. To make a very long story ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude ) short, John Harrison developed chronometers from 1731 through 1762 which were sufficiently accurate for this purpose. Since then, of course, time measurement has been continuously improved _but the original problem was solved and stayed solved_. If NIST never made another refinement to timekeeping, all of the applications which run on the clocks with today's accuracy will continue to work. Not everything requires "how we might achieve similar things in the future"
I think "robust institutional structure" is another word for "maintenance." You keep hiring and promoting good people. You keep practicing responsible research, without shortcuts. You resist ideological pressure. These things are not and could never be automatic.
"Not everything requires "how we might achieve similar things in the future""
But not everything is a good fit for a long work of poetry, either. Harrison's achievement would be a bad fit for a poem, or a movie, if it didn't show us something broader than its literal self.
>But not everything is a good fit for a long work of poetry, either. Harrison's achievement would be a bad fit for a poem, or a movie, if it didn't show us something broader than its literal self.
Many Thanks! It depends on the audience. Personally, I found Harrison's achievement more interesting and noteworthy than King Alfred's tale.
>I think "robust institutional structure" is another word for "maintenance."
Not always. Consider the structure of a jury: Twelve jurors, who need to come to a unanimous decision to render a verdict. I'd read a claim that the motivation for picking twelve is that that number is sufficient that at least one juror is usually skeptical of the majority verdict, so at least some actual discussion typically takes place.
Once the _policy_ of using twelve jurors and requiring a unanimous decision is set, the selection of jurors, the equivalent of
>You keep hiring and promoting good people.
only needs to weakly constrain who is on the jury. This is _different_ from how carefully one has to select people if one has an autocratic system where only one _single_ person makes the decision. In the latter system, if one doesn't select the person with extreme care, you are sunk. The _policy_ for a jury system is more robust, and requires less trial-to-trial maintenance, than an autocratic system.
>These things are not and could never be automatic.
Some policy choices are a lot closer to automatically working than others.
Yeah, Jeffrey, it's a pain that every day you have to eat food and breathe air. How much worse humans are than rocks - a rock doesn't need three meals a day and sleep and water! Humans constantly require maintenance, it's such a drag 😁
The Pessimist
by
Benjamin Franklin King
Nothing to do but work,
Nothing to eat but food,
Nothing to wear but clothes
To keep one from going nude.
Nothing to breathe but air
Quick as a flash 't is gone;
Nowhere to fall but off,
Nowhere to stand but on.
Nothing to comb but hair,
Nowhere to sleep but in bed,
Nothing to weep but tears,
Nothing to bury but dead.
Nothing to sing but songs,
Ah, well, alas! alack!
Nowhere to go but out,
Nowhere to come but back.
Nothing to see but sights,
Nothing to quench but thirst,
Nothing to have but what we’ve got;
Thus thro’ life we are cursed.
Nothing to strike but a gait;
Everything moves that goes.
Nothing at all but common sense
Can ever withstand these woes.
>a rock doesn't need three meals a day
True! Many Thanks! Yet most people, myself included, enjoy eating. Most acts of maintenance drudgery - not so much...
For centuries, man believed the moon was made of cheese.
Over 25 years ago, man landed on the moon and learned it was made of rocks.
We haven't been back since.
Behold the power of Cheese.
https://youtu.be/bze-4tInJgI?si=8Jx2ju4x7o8L2TnW
Good review. I can't resist a bit of a hobby-horse gripe of mine though: free will is by no means a requirement for hope, virtue, moral responsibility, or any other thing that makes life worth living. I think Chesterton wants to assume otherwise because it is convenient for his theological arguments. But asserting that determinism is the death of hope is ironically an anti-hope position when the balance of evidence is against the existence of any meaningful sense of free will.
Chesterton expanded on his thoughts regarding free will, and why he believed it was so important, a bit in "Orthodoxy":
"Now it is the charge against the main deductions of the materialist that, right or wrong, they gradually destroy his humanity; I do not mean only kindness, I mean hope, courage, poetry, initiative, all that is human. For instance, when materialism leads men to complete fatalism (as it generally does), it is quite idle to pretend that it is in any sense a liberating force. It is absurd to say that you are especially advancing freedom when you only use free thought to destroy free will. The determinists come to bind, not to loose. They may well call their law the "chain" of causation. It is the worst chain that ever fettered a human being. You may use the language of liberty, if you like, about materialistic teaching, but it is obvious that this is just as inapplicable to it as a whole as the same language when applied to a man locked up in a mad-house. You may say, if you like, that the man is free to think himself a poached egg. But it is surely a more massive and important fact that if he is a poached egg he is not free to eat, drink, sleep, walk, or smoke a cigarette. Similarly 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."
He also wrote more on this in an essay he wrote for the magazine "Clarion" titled "Why I am a Christian":
"You have the contradiction whatever you are. Determinists tell me, with a degree of truth, that Determinism makes no difference to daily life. That means that although the Determinist knows men have no free will, yet he goes on treating them as if they had.
"The difference then is very simple. The Christian puts the contradiction into his philosophy. The Determinist puts it into his daily habits. The Christian states as an avowed mystery what the Determinist calls nonsense. The Determinist has the same nonsense for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper every day of his life.
"The Christian, I repeat, puts the mystery into his philosophy. That mystery by its darkness enlightens all things. Once grant him that, and life is life, and bread is bread, and cheese is cheese: he can laugh and fight. The Determinist makes the matter of the will logical and lucid: and in the light of that lucidity all things are darkened, words have no meaning, actions no aim. He has made his philosophy a syllogism and himself a gibbering lunatic."
Chesterton's point seems to be that the primary "evidence" against free will is theoretical and philosophical in nature, while the evidence in favor of free will is empirical (making choices and willing one thing over another is all something we experience directly, making it as empirical as something can get) and practical in nature: you cannot really behave as if you have no free will, even if you believe it.
I agree that we have to act *as if* people are culpable even if there is no free will, but it is beyond me to imagine how that acting could possibly be *true*.
In what sense is anything true, then? We act as if there are such things as protons and gluons and electron holes https://www.xkcd.com/2817/ and space-like or time-like or light-like curves, and that gives us the power to turn ordinary rocks into various magic boxes that answer riddles, or annihilate cities.
We act as if there is such a thing as free will, or civil rights, or aggregate demand and inflation, and that gives us the power to turn starving bandits into happy, healthy citizens.
We invented the word "culpable" to refer to certain people's relationship to certain of their actions. We came up with a theory behind it that involved non-determinism and spirituality. Just because that theory turns out to be false doesn't mean that "culpable" doesn't refer to that relationship between people and their actions, just that this relationship works differently from how we thought.
(I would say the same about "free will".)
There are a number of physicists who are not so sure that we live in a fully determined universe. If you buy Godel-like arguments, then even if it is, we can never comprehend the universe on that level, and events must continue to seem unpredictable, even in principle.
But of course that isn't what Chesterton was saying (he wasn't a physicist or a mathematician). He was saying that too much emphasis on empiricism and logic will deprive a person of the poetry of life. That dismissing paradoxical mysteries that cannot be solved as not being real shows a diminishing return. I find that STEM style thinkers tend to disagree, but every artist I ever met agreed with Chesterton whole-heartedly.
Physical determinism and Incompleteness have nothing to do with one another. You should be very skeptical about pop-science explanations of Godel. It's a very precise mathematical statement that cannot be applied to all of metaphysics as you're doing in your first paragraph.
Also, to that extent that actually physicists stray from "shut up and calculate" to consider the metaphysics of the measurement problem, I'd bet money that a wide majority would say the universe is inherently random, not deterministic.
I see that I explained myself poorly. The physics experiments aren't connected to Godel's theorem, and Godel isn't necessary to the argument. The experimental results are well documented, and won a Nobel prize in 2022: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
I VASTLY prefer non-rhyming poetry. When I read rhyming poetry silently, I always read it as if it is non-rhyming poetry. I mentally ignore the rhymes.
"What's the point of even reading it then? Clever rhymes are the whole point of rhyming poetry." Well, that all depends on poet. Some rhyming poets lean more heavily on rhymes, while for others, it almost more of an afterthought. it's definitely true that a lot of rhymed poetry is wasted on me, especially the short poems. All the more reason for me to stick to non-rhyming poetry most of the time.
Anyone else noticing how the Book of Ecclesiastes, for the most part, sounds just as cynical as a Viking song? Of course, it famously ends on a positive note, but I don't think that positive ending ENTIRELY contradicts the main body of the piece, though it's been a while since I've read this.
And in contrast, the Anglo-Saxon culture was generally very much like that of the Danes; the contrast in actual history has little of that seen in the poem.
The poem Deor cites legends we mostly know about from Norse sources (when at all), while being *all about* keeping up the hope you need to go on in the face of adversity, as does the Battle of Maldon. I'm not very familiar with the literature from the far side of the North Sea, but I bet Jackson Crawford could name a dozen examples without much thought.
Note that Chesterton himself warned against reading too much history into his poem. The Danes, and even King Alfred himself, are really just metaphors.
Indeed! And the review rightly quotes Chesterton's introduction on that point.
I would recommend Deor to anyone who likes the message of Christian hope in Ballad of the White Horse. It's short, it's a little tricky because we don't know all the references, and it's a masterpiece.
Roger Zelazny's "A Rose for Ecclesiastes" uses precisely that trope, of being a greater cynicism than even the great Martian cynics achieved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rose_for_Ecclesiastes
"In anger at Martian religious fatalism and impassioned by his love for the dancer and his child-to-be, Gallinger breaks into the temple during a closed service and reads to the Martians from his translation of Ecclesiastes. He mocks it as he reads it, stating:
He was right! It is vanity; it is pride! It is the hubris of rationalism to always attack the prophet, the mystic, the god. It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us. —And the truly sacred names of God are blasphemous things to speak!"
Link to the story:
https://escapepod.org/2014/02/28/ep437-rose-ecclesiastes/
I read the story, I loved the story. Zelazny was a phenom.
The end notes are added, by others. AFAIK To make the text (my favorite book in the bible) more palatable.
I question Chesterton's analysis of Christianity, at least as summarized here. Calvinism is a hugely fatalistic branch of Christianity. While I don't think that many people were self-identifying as Calvinist by 1911, when Chesterton wrote this poem, the influence of Calvinism remained pervasive in many Christian sects. As Chesterton must have known. Was he doing an implicit "no true Scotsman" when he placed fatalism and Christianity in stark opposition?
As a devout Catholic, Chesterton considered Calvinism to be a Christian heresy, not representative of Christianity itself. He wrote a little about Calvinism in his book "What's Wrong with the World":
"The difference between Puritanism and Catholicism is not about whether some priestly word or gesture is significant and sacred. It is about whether any word or gesture is significant and sacred. To the Catholic every other daily act is dramatic dedication to the service of good or of evil. To the Calvinist no act can have that sort of solemnity, because the person doing it has been dedicated from eternity, and is merely filling up his time until the crack of doom. The difference is something subtler than plum-puddings or private theatricals; the difference is that to a Christian of my kind this short earthly life is intensely thrilling and precious; to a Calvinist it is confessedly automatic and uninteresting. To me these threescore years and ten are the battle. To the Fabian Calvinist (by his own confession) they are only a long procession of the victors in laurels and the vanquished in chains. To me earthly life is the drama; to him it is the epilogue. Shavians think about the embryo; Spiritualists about the ghost; Christians about the man. It is as well to have these things clear."
This is partly why I left Christianity for the green fields of (Pan?)Deism. Hard to take endorse the ideology of a group of people so committed to the No True Scotsman.
Of course, I respect Christians, I mainly socialize with Christians, and I have no problem with, say, prayer in schools.
I find this a rather bizarre objection. Calvinists and Catholics are radically different groups, a well-known fact. It is not at all a NTS for a Catholic to disavow a Calvinist position, or vice versa. It is no scandal to any worldview—be it Christianity, communism, empiricism, whatever—that it has subcategories or internal disagreements.
It's one thing to disagree. That I'm fine with. It's another thing entirely to say another established Christian sect isn't "really Christian." That's daft.
I think this is just an equivocation on the word “Christian.” Obviously, Chesterton is talking about his own Catholic Christianity (the Ballad is set centuries before there was such a thing as a “Calvinist” by the way). And what the truth about God is, ie what is true Christianity, is the fundament of divisions in Christianity. Just as what the good is is a fundamental division between different schools of moral philosophers. It is not daft to disagree with a group that disagrees with you, obviously. But you appear to be talking about Christianity as an extrinsic social category, which is not what Chesterton is talking about. Recall that Christianity is distinguished from say nationalities in that it is a system that makes truth claims about the world. So to say a particular Christian doctrine is not true Christianity is like saying miasma theory is not true epidemiology. It is not like saying no true Scotsman drinks milk or whatever.
Don't torture the language. Christianity means a worshipper of Jesus of Nazareth and this is the standard global definition. I have no doubt it has always been the standard global definition outside of Christians bickering amongst themselves. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. (Edit: This was wrong. There is no "standard global definition" of Christianity)
> Christianity means a worshipper of Jesus of Nazareth and this is the standard global definition. I have no doubt it has always been the standard global definition outside of Christians bickering amongst themselves.
You seem remarkably ignorant of the history of early Christianity if you think this matter is that cut-and-dry.
I'm deeply aware of the history of early Christianity. I've studied it extensively.
And yet all that study hasn't helped you any. Sad!
If the Christians who knew Jesus personally didn't know about the Athanasian Creed or Nicean Creed, why should any Christian know or care about them to be a "real" Christian? Or St. Augustine or Thomas of Acquinas or Luther or whomever. I'm not saying Augustine and Acquinas had nothing of value to teach, but that their definitions of Christianity hold no special weight. Behind (almost) every medieval doctrinal controversy was a squabble over tithes and administrative authority. Yawn. (Edit: I still stand by this but I was wrong about there being a "standard" definition of Christianity)
> Christianity means a worshipper of Jesus of Nazareth and this is the standard global definition.
So is your position that I'm committing NTS if I say Arians weren't Christians?
Hey, if you say Deists and Muslims aren't Christians, you're No True Scotsmanning because that's only internal squabbles about obscure points that really mean power and money, according to our friend here.
Whoever created this lovely image of inter-faith friendship, for instance, must be a Christian by that "standard global definition":
https://krishna.org/christ-and-krishna-the-name-is-the-same/
"When an Indian person calls on Krishna, he often says, Krsta. Krsta is a Sanskrit word meaning attraction. So when we address God as Christ, Krsta, or Krishna we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name, the name of God was Krsta or Krishna."
See? That's "worshipping Jesus of Nazareth" right there, isn't it? Only "a squabble over tithes and administrative authority. Yawn." is the basis for any "doctrinal controversy" if we should say "er, no, Krishna and Christ are not the same".
Krishna.org is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since it is no final authority on Hinduism or what Indians mean when they say Krishna. They sound like cranks. Try again.
Welp, you got me. I cannot with any certainty say that Arians are Christians. So my definition of Christianity was wrong. Upon reflection, I feel there are multiple definitions for “Christian” and no “standard global definition.”
I appreciate your willingness to change your mind, but you kind of lose a lot of credibility when you claim you’ve studied early Church history and yet aren’t familiar with Arianism. A lot of early Christians actually called Islam a form of Arianism, because Muslims think Christ a prophet but not a God.
I didn't study it recently. Temporarily forgot about the details of that so called heresy. my hard drive got full and that info was backed up into the cloud for later access. I wouldn't say that Arians aren't christians. My response would be “it depends on who you ask.” I'm certainly not going to rely on a VOX POPULI argument to define Christianity. The Bible is PACKED with verses indicating that the majority does not rule when it comes to spiritual truth. When he came down from Mt. Sinai, Moses didn't say “majority rules” and start calf-worshipping with the majority of the Hebrews.
Ah, yes: nobody can really say who is or isn't a Christian. Gosh, I never heard that one before! But people seem to be very sure they can say who is or isn't a Democrat, a Republican, a good person or a racist fascist bigot.
Donald Trump is a Democrat so you blues should vote for him. It's daft for anyone to say otherwise about an established political party!
"I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in miracles, I don't believe in the soul, but you can't tell me I'm not a Christian!" Er, yes, I can.
Calvinists don't believe in God or Jesus?
I didn't mean Calvinists specifically there, there are a lot of "I'm a Christian and nobody can say otherwise" types floating around who deny everything in traditional Christianity. J redding would seem to incline towards "they're Christian if they say they're Christian, regardless of what they actually believe".
One example from a couple of years back was Ann Holmes Redding, an ordained Episcopalian lady priest who *also* was a practicing Muslim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Holmes_Redding
"Anne Holmes Redding (born October 22, 1951) is a former Episcopal priest, who was defrocked in April 2009 for having become a Muslim in March 2006.
...Redding identifies with both faiths "100 percent", explaining that this is possible in the same way that she can be both an African American and a woman. Her remarks have evoked excitement and controversy among both the Episcopal and Muslim communities. She continues to worship in the Episcopal Church, as well as with Al-Islam Center of Seattle."
Now, "Christians bickering amongst themselves", as our friend J redding puts it, might demur at "well isn't there a bit of a teeny-weeny difference between believing Jesus is True God and True Man, Second Person of the Trinity, Son of God and believing Him to be a great prophet, a mighty servant of God, but never God?" but we're not as smart and broad-minded as Anne and J redding!
(Hmm - Anne Holmes Redding and J redding? Any relation, I wonder?)
"They're Christian if they say they're Christian, regardless of what they actually believe." Another caricature of my position. At least you said "inclined to," which is good, but your characterization of my position is still false.
I would say that there is a difference between personal belief and presenting oneself as a cleric of a particular Church, which seems a bit too far. Regardless, the problem is that there isn't a recognized authority who has the credibility to define who or what is a Christian and who isn't, so there are a number of edge cases.
I myself don't see the *point* of proclaiming oneself a Christian if one isn't a follower of Jesus in some fashion. In the case of Islam, IIRC you have to proclaim that Mohamed is the superior prophet to Jesus, which would seem to be a game-killer. Other religions might blend more easily: nothing in Tao necessarily prevents you from worshiping Jesus as the Son of God, for example.
Don't torture the language. Christianity means a worshipper of Jesus of Nazareth and this is the standard global definition. I have no doubt it has always been the standard global definition outside of Christians bickering amongst themselves. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.
As far as "you blues," your truly arguing with someone in your head, not me. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, and I have no plans to start doing so.
Deism is a time-honored spiritual belief system that was held in respect by many of our Founding Fathers, whether they were Deists or not.
(Edit: I was wrong. The word Christian has multiple meanings)
"Christianity means a worshipper of Jesus of Nazareth and this is the standard global definition."
Oh, really? What sense do you mean "worship"? Believe that He was God? There are those calling themselves "Christian" who don't hold to that. Let's look at the early version of the creed, which is a statement of belief and what it means to be a Christian.
Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. from the First Council of Nicea:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"
Deism can be what it damn well likes, but don't *you* serve me up dogshit and tell me it's chocolate mousse. The existence of creeds is to delineate between what is Christianity, and those who run around claiming to be Christian while inventing their own belief system.
Deists believe in some form of Supreme Being, and Christian Deists honour Christ but don't believe He was divine. That is not, whatever way you want to torture the language, "worshipping Jesus of Nazareth", hence by your own definition, they're not Christians.
If "Standard global definition outside of Christians bickering amongst themselves" is how I'm meant to accept your notions, then I too can say you're a Democrat. You deny it? Well that's just interparty bickering amongst yourselves, from my outside standard global definition, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
You say I must hold to your definition of what it means to be a Democrat, while at the same time I must hold to your definition of anyone can call themselves Christian. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, J redding!
Since you're so irenic about "Everyone's a Christian", here's a bunch that I don't hold with, but I'll be ecumenical in following your example, and see their view of Deism. This is a ministry founded by a Reformed/Presbyterian (so Calvinist) preacher:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/field-guide-on-false-teaching-deism
"Deism is a religious philosophy that flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but its effects linger into our present age. Deism teaches that all people can know and believe in a Supreme Being—the prime mover of all things—merely through the vehicle of reason. Historically, deists often held to a modified form of Christianity that emptied the faith of any supernatural elements while allowing its moral instruction to remain. Though it is more of a philosophical and religious set of ideals than an organized religion, deism offers an antisupernatural worldview as an alternative to Christian theism."
They consider it false teaching and non-Christian. Well, I guess they must be right, because as you say, everyone can decide for themselves who is Christian!
I do not accept the authority of the Nicene creed and I don't know why I should. Because the Nicenes (mostly) successfully suppressed their competitors?
So no, adherence to the Nicene Creed is not necessary to be a Christian. But don't ask me what IS necessary. It and t to be a matter of great controversy. I don't know which competing definition of Christianity is "best."
Provided, of course, that Chesterton got the differences right. I'm not certain that he did--certainly his descriptions of Eastern religions are more reflective of his cultural biases than real. I would not be surprised if he was equally cavalier in his analysis of Calvinism.
🤔 I am pretty sure that Chesterton knows the theological basis of the difference between Catholicism and Calvinism, and he’s not alone. He’s talking about the difference in attitudes to free will.
Obscure theological differences are not lived religion. He's claiming that the adherents of Eastern religions and historical European pagans really lived their lives without hope in the sense he means that word. Which is nonsense, as anyone who has ever met a Muslim or a Buddhist could tell you.
Chesterton is an interesting case of someone who is, objectively speaking, almost entirely wrong, but emotionally he's right. The kind of hope he describes is life changing, and uncommon. It's just that the way he goes about illustrating the differences hasn't aged well.
I do like how you repeat the very tropes Chesterton was describing in his essay about "the usual thing".
"Obscure theological differences are not lived religion".
If you genuinely believe you may be foreordained since the beginning of creation to be a damned soul, and there is nothing you can do about it, there is going to be a considerable difference in your 'lived religion'. I refer you to the novel exploring this very crux, "Confessions of A Justified Sinner":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Memoirs_and_Confessions_of_a_Justified_Sinner
"The plot concerns Robert Wringhim, a staunch Calvinist who, under the influence of the mysterious Gil-Martin, believes he is guaranteed Salvation and justified in killing those he believes are already damned by God. The novel has been classified among many genres, including gothic novel, psychological mystery, metafiction, satire and the study of totalitarian thought; it can also be thought of as an early example of modern crime fiction in which the story is told, for the most part, from the point of view of its criminal anti-hero."
Myself, I find that those who like to spout off about "obscure theological differences" generally are (1) not practicing Christians and (2) have a hazy notion that Christianity is really all about Being Nice. I don't believe your stupid dumb shit and I think you're an idiot for believing it, but you are obliged by your stupid dumb shit to be Nice to me, to be Tolerant, to agree with everything I want to do (because it would be Intolerant and Not Nice to say you don't approve of X, Y or Z that I do).
Muslims are post-Christianity, and Islam was once considered less a faith of its own than a Christian heresy. The 'hope' you speak of is not meant as "well things will generally be okay", it's not the same as Islamic fatalism where all destiny is set by Allah who alone can decide the course of human life and the world, and we have no influence over that. In that, there is a resemblance to Calvinism:
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fatalism
"FATALISM in the Islamic Period. The concept of fatalism as commonly used in Islamic philosophy and Persian literature denotes the belief in the pre-ordained Decree of God (qażā wa qadar), according to which whatever happens to human beings or in the whole universe has been pre-determined by the will and knowledge of the Almighty, and that no changes or transformations in it can be made through the agency of the human will.
...Thus human destiny is pre-determined and whatever happens in the world follows a pre-ordained course which cannot be altered except by the will of God (Faḵr al-Dīn Rāzī, XXX, p. 78, XXXI, p. 129; Meybodī, X, pp. 186-87, p. 446). This belief, couched in a variety of ways, is reflected in many aspects of Persian culture including literature, mystical writings, folklore, and popular expressions. The reliance on auguries, religious vows and pledges and supplicatory gifts, can be regarded as strategies for ameliorating the inherent harshness of such beliefs and the paralyzing effect they can inflict on human endeavor, making any effort or struggle appear futile and worthless."
For Buddhism, the core tenet here is the inescapability of suffering. We are all bound to the Wheel of the Law, and as it turns, so it brings us along, life after life, to be born, live, suffer, die and return again. The only hope is to achieve enlightenment and escape from this eternal cycle, and how do you do that?
Yes, in day-to-day practice, ordinary Muslims and Buddhists (I exclude the trendy Westerners) have worked around such extremes, because that is what 'lived religion' does. But at base, compare the societies which were formed by Christianity and by Islam and by Buddhism, and see which one is more influential in the world today. Western liberal secularism may be predominant, and Western-style forms of government, business, clothing, cities, and the like are the model, but we forget at our peril that the foundation of the West *is* influenced by Christian thought, and more than just "let's all be Nice".
Alfred could make peace with Guthrum because he came out of a culture whose belief system was "Love your enemies". I presume Buddhism could agree here on the grounds of compassion for all and the principle of non-violence. I'd happily stand with the Buddhists on this, rather than those asking "Why didn't Alfred just Final Solution the Danes?"
I would like to note that I am in fact a practicing Christian, though not a Catholic. Also, my comment was referencing Muslims and European pre-Christian pagans, not Calvinists. Finally, I was questioning the reality of lived hopelessness, not self-serving in-group bias.
Still, you make a point. Perhaps "objectively speaking, almost entirely wrong" was over-stating the case. He was merely mostly wrong.
> He's claiming that the adherents of Eastern religions and historical European pagans really lived their lives without hope in the sense he means that word.
I was replying only to his understanding of Calvinism which isn’t the least bit obscure to anybody who understands the slightest bit about western religion and the reformation.
I said "provided, of course, that Chesterton got the differences right." You are claiming that he did--that's fine, I'm no expert on the lived experiences of Calvinism.
I am, however, expressing skepticism that official doctrine is a very reliable guide to what most Calvinists actually experience. Are you certain that Calvinists do not find solemnity in their daily lives? That they find existence boring? How do you know this?
So you came into this discussion with no actual knowledge of what Chesterton was talking about, which is utterly essential to understanding what he meant, whether I agree with or not. Your original uninformed post, and all subsequent posts show not just an ignorance of these basic theological concepts but no ability to learn what you didn’t know.
I didn’t argue about whether Chesterton was right or wrong in any of my replies by the way, I’m just pointing out the need to know what you are talking about when commenting. If you didn’t know the theological differences between pre destination and free will, the passage wouldn’t have made sense to you.
This might have been a time to revise your original opinion, or correct it, or admit previous ignorance but unlike Keynes who opined that he changed his mind when the facts changed, you like to come to arguments unarmed with knowledge and to remain impervious to it.
I think you are confusing "not understanding" with "not agreeing." I am saying that his expertise on doctrinal differences, while perfectly correct for all I know, doesn't support his conclusion, which isn't about doctrine, but about what other human beings feel. It isn't that he doesn't understand Islam, it's that he doesn't understand Muslims. Those two are not the same thing at all.
Then who’s the Eastern Chesterton? If you had to pick a country other than your current one in which to live forever, how many of your top choices would be in the Islamic world or Southeast Asia? The idea that every culture and religion is same is simply belied by actual facts on the ground, and even some of the most militant atheists (Harris) recognize this.
I'm fascinated by the idea of an "Eastern Chesterton", but I can't quite figure out what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Anyway, I wasn't denying the existence of any differences at all between religions, merely the ones that Chesterton asserted in the essay under discussion. He defined "Hope", in contrast to faith, as the conviction to go on trying in the face of overwhelming odds, without guarantee of ultimate victory. He seems to sincerely believe that only Christians experience this emotion, and that Muslims do not. Which is nonsense.
I have personally met a number of Christians who do not seem to experience that state of mind at all, and a number of Muslims who do.
BTW--Knowing what I know, had I not been born and raised a Christian, I would have no problem being an American Muslim.
Right - you assert, quite casually, that the theological differences don’t dictate any actual distinction in the lived religious lives of individual believers based on your personal interactions with the latter. Yet you dodge my question by saying you’d rather be an American Muslim. That wasn’t what I asked, though. I asked if you’d prefer to live in the West, distinctly shaped by Christian culture and leadership, or non-Christian East.
I find that I can't separate myself from my upbringing, which has prepared me to flourish in a Western (American) setting. But that has little to do with religion.
To quote the man himself, from "The Usual Article":
"It is appropriately described as "A Woman's Cry to the Churches." And I beg to announce that, though I am of a heavy and placid habit, and have never been accused of any such feminine graces as hysteria, yet, if I have to read this article three more times, I shall scream. My scream will be entitled, "A Man's Cry to the Newspapers."
I will repeat somewhat hurriedly what the lady in question cried; for the reader knows it already by heart. The message of Christ was perfectly "simple": that the cure of everything is Love; but since He was killed (I do not quite know why) for making this remark, great temples have been put up to Him and horrid people called priests have given the world nothing but "stones, amulets, formulas, shibboleths." They also "quarrel eternally among themselves as to the placing of a button or the bending of a knee." All this gives no comfort to the unhappy Christian, who apparently wishes to be comforted only by being told that he has a duty to his neighbour. "How many men in the time of their passing get comfort out of the thought of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Predestination, Transubstantiation, the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the belief that Christ will return on the Seventh Day?" The items make a curious catalogue; and the last item I find especially mysterious. But I can only say that, if Christ was the giver of the original and really comforting message of love, I should have thought it did make a difference whether He returned on the Seventh Day. For the rest of that singular list, I should probably find it necessary to distinguish. I certainly never gained any deep and heartfelt consolation from the thought of the Thirty-Nine Articles. I never heard of anybody in particular who did. Of the idea of Predestination there are broadly two views; the Calvinist and the Catholic; and it would make a most uncommon difference to my comfort, if I held the former instead of the latter. It is the difference between believing that God knows, as a fact, that I choose to go to the devil; and believing that God has given me to the devil, without my having any choice at all. As to Transubstantiation, it is less easy to talk currently about that; but I would gently suggest that, to most ordinary outsiders with any common sense, there would be a considerable practical difference between Jehovah pervading the universe and Jesus Christ coming into the room."
If it's all the one to you whether there is or isn't a personal god, an impersonal force pervading the cosmos, every stone and tree and river has its own particular spirit, or Gaia is an entire super-organism, then yeah you're going to go "fine shades of difference between 'does God choose people to be damned from before they came into existence or do we have free will?' is No True Scotsman", but it makes a damned (literally) big difference to me.
At the point where he was writing, Christian denominations considered themselves much more different than they actually do today. I actually read somewhere that it's only relatively recently that they would identify themselves primarily as a christian, rather than a catholic or whatever.
I'm not a Calvinist, but as an evangelical, I've generally been told that "hope" in the Bible means something more like "certainty" or "confident expectation".
It does seem like there's a pretty stark difference there.
On "master without a masterpiece": According to a review
https://www.newspapers.com/article/news-journal-chesterton-master-without/155699081/
the description was used by Alzina Stone Dale in her 1983 book 'The Outline of Sanity: A Life of G.K. Chesterton'. A newspapers.com search also shows it being used about Normal Mailer in 1972.
I think this might be my personal winner right here. Excellent review.
To have faith is to rely on some device, be it God, a social network, an airplane or a calculator, trusting that it will NOT be the cause of your failures. If you get a question wrong on a math exam, you can be sure the calculator is not to blame. Not only do we rely on faith, the faith has to be bottomless. Because you are one individual person, you can't personally verify the whole chain of evidence and reasoning behind each one of the devices you put your faith in. You can only investigate a miniscule part of the whole, and must lean on faith for the rest. There is no escaping that. Faith is necessary, but it becomes a virtue when you allocate your faith and misfaith wisely.
Hope is a counterbalance to our negativity bias, a metaheuristic that says that if we are good people with good goals, then we're more likely to be able to achieve them than we tend to think. That's why it doesn't make sense to think of Hitler as a "hopeful" person as he contemplated the final solution: he was a bad person with bad goals, and he was far less likely to achieve them than he thought (or projected that he thought). In other words, hope is a virtue if your hopes are virtuous. It often is not obvious how exactly your hopes will be realized, and you must have faith that the devices of the world will support you in your endeavors.
Love is where the goodness of your good goals comes from. If you love others and love the world, then your goals will tend to be loving goals, ones that you can hope to realize.
I'm an atheist, and tend to parse these ideas through the lens of economics. But I've spent enough time around Christians to think this would probably pass most of their ideological Turing tests!
As a Christian, I think this is close, but I would quibble with the phrase that "the devices of the world will support you in your endeavors". That sounds too impersonal.
Anything meaningful that we accomplish comes ultimately from God choosing to work through us, and not from our own efforts. Perhaps we could define hope as the virtue by which we willingly put ourselves in situations where that can happen.
Liked this better than other poetry review submissions to date (Njal's Saga notwithstanding). Sometimes I wonder how much the Creepy Cool Crosses trope is used specifically as a license to inject Hope And Fighting Against Fate into stories where that otherwise wouldn't make sense. And similarly whether the (ongoing?) fad of pushing Mindfulness(tm) and other whitewashed Eastern religion possibly carries a cost of agency, control...being 0k with the quotidian doesn't exactly inspire one to heroic action and revolution to secure the future.
Would appreciate a future rule that every book review starts with a one-liner clearly identifying the work and the author. Everybody Knows who (G. K.) Chesterton is...if they hang around the ratsphere long enough, or related scenes. Fresh eyes would be confused and mildly inconvenienced though. Same goes for several other reviews this cycle; I don't remember it being such an issue in prior years.
>To the Buddhist or the eastern fatalist existence is a science or a plan, which must end up in a certain way. But to a Christian existence is a story, which may end up in any way.
This claim would come as quite a surprise to John Calvin, I think. What is predestination if not the belief that you are fated to end up a certain way?
(I'm not an expert on Buddhism, but I feel like this claim would come as a surprise to Buddhists, as well. Buddhism teaches you to approach problems in a kinda stoic way, but that's different from teaching that the universe is deterministic!)
The question of whether or not John Calvin is a Christian, or rather if his theology is Christian, is one I will not fight out here 😁
It would also come as a surprise to a Buddhist.
I am, in this, somewhat unusual, not being a Christian, but I've always found that there is a real, practical virtue of Hope for everyone, which is to actually take actions with positive EV that in the normal case will fail and leave you miserable and looking like an idiot - to take the decisions with a 19/20 chance of losing you a dollar and a 1/20 chance of making you 400 dollars. To keep on rolling the die until it comes right side up, as Alfred does.
It's a useful poem, for that virtue.
The problem with Chesterton's view of history and faith is that life in medieval Europe sucked. And I don't just mean materially, plague and poverty and death and all. I mean spiritually. Medieval people were horribly violent, regularly killing each other in fights none of the witnesses could explain, beating their wives and children, beating their animals, launching pogroms against their neighbors, rioting against their political rivals, etc. Their death rate from violence was much higher than that of 20th-century people. Despite the whole society being saturated with Christianity, people were constantly cursing god and the saints (even though this got them hauled before the church courts), buying charms from cunning women, etc. People regularly just sort of lay down and died for no particular reason; contemporaries diagnosed this as "despair" and did not find it at all unusual. Hope was in short supply. Modern Catholics think their faith should lead to stronger communities and spiritually robust people but this absolutely does not describe medieval Europe as I understand it.
Gosh, wow, golly, you mean there were.... weeds? Human nature despite it all still breaks through? We're not perfect? There is no one shiny solution that fixes things for ever?
People in this very comment thread have been asking why didn't Alfred just do a general massacre of all the Danes instead of signing a peace treaty. Don't try telling me the people of the past were worse than us.
>Modern Catholics think their faith should lead to stronger communities and spiritually robust people but this absolutely does not describe medieval Europe as I understand it.
Well, we would need a control society to really know. It is possible that Catholicism did lead to a society that had “stronger communities and spiritually robust people” compared to a counterfactual medieval Europe without Catholicism. We’d want to compare medieval Europe to non-Christian societies around the same period, such as China, India, Central America, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Were people there more or less violent and crazy as the Europeans of the same period?
“The foundation of this building sucks,” declares man living in the penthouse. “Why do we even need it?”
The White Horse of Uffington looks like a particularly elaborate but narrow sand trap on a golf course.
Similarly, golf courses tend to lose their more unique design features over a half century or so without a lot of work to restore them. In the 21st Century, many old money country clubs have employed architects to restore their courses to their originals looks during the 1910s. Aerial photographs from around 1920 are particularly prized in the golf course restoration business.
Interesting, sounds like he's taking a strong stand against the (idealized) pagan-germanic 'master morality' of Nietzsche this blog has been discussing
"Change is inevitable. Change for the better is a full-time job."
--Adlai Stevenson
Not for the first time here, I'm going to offer an unpopular opinion! I'm kind of mystified by the extent of the Chesterton cult these days: everything he wrote was Christian propaganda, but I wouldn't mind that (so much) if it were agreeable to read. But the prose is pure bombast and posturing, and this ballad...well, our friend over at The Hinternet recently made a post entirely in words of Anglo-Saxon or Teutonic origin, eschewing the 'decadence' of Latin and Greek, and it was hard work even to read. Here Chesterton has affected a simplicity, Anglo-Saxon words of one syllable in the main, and it comes across as contrived; he's not going to use a range of voices, it's all what he imagines was authentic, whatever that meant. (King Alfred himself of course was fluent in a range of European languages: he either commissioned or himself translated Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy from Latin; he corresponded both with Rome and with the Greek courts.)
Now Chesterton wasn't alone at the time he wrote: a far better poet, A.E. Housman, in 1896, had published 'A Shropshire Lad,' which also affected a 'simplicity' of language, but was far more various in metre and voice. Yet even so, Housman's one-syllable moments attracted some excellent parodies, including this one by Hugh Kingsmill:
What - still alive at twenty-two,
A clean, upstanding chap like you?
Sure, if your throat is hard to slit,
Slit your girl's, and swing for it...
And the reason it's funny is that it up-ends Housman's affected 'plain man' style. I wish some good writer would do the same for Chesterton.
Ah now I recall, Max Beerbohm parodied Chesterton's prose at its most bombastic: 'Some Damnable Errors About Christmas':
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Garland/Some_Damnable_Errors_About_Christmas
Yes, I was thinking about the Beerbohm, which absolutely hits the spot. On the other hand, there is, I suppose, a spot to be hit; something of interest there (the prose, I mean, not the verse). As someone else in these comments has implied, at his best he stands for a Christianity that is humane, humble, and disdainful of power and wealth. (Compare with another much better writer, Waugh: I'd far rather Chesterton's version of catholicism. I'm pretty sure I'd have preferred him as a drinking companion).
It's perhaps a slightly odd comparison, but his writing vaguely reminds me of Bernard Levin, who I used to love as an impressionable teen.
It seems that those parodied appreciated the parodies, so it wasn't done in a mean spirit and certainly not as Ms. Stove seems to suggest, as a crushing mockery of the over-rated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Garland
"When A Christmas Garland first appeared in 1912 reviewers agreed that Beerbohm had not only captured the styles or "externals" of his subjects but had "unbared their brains and hearts". He seemed to have obtained "temporary loans of their very minds," from which he "worked outwards to the perfect jest." Henry James, the first author parodied, read A Christmas Garland with "wonder and delight" and called the book "the most intelligent that has been produced in England for many a long day."
"A Christmas Garland is surely the liber aureus of prose parody", said John Updike. "What makes Max, as a parodist, incomparable – more than the calm mounting from felicity to felicity and the perfectly scaled enlargement of every surface quirk of the subject style – is the way he seizes and embraces, with something like love, the total personality of the parodee. He seems to enclose in a transparent omniscience the genius of each star as, in A Christmas Garland, he methodically moves across the firmament of Edwardian letters."
There are mean-spirited parodies, and affectionate ones, and Beerbohm's seems to be the latter.
I am not a specialist here, and I honestly have trouble understanding how catholic predestination is compatible with free will.
I base my understanding on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Catholicism.
"Thomism ... has been declared the official school by Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris [and] is that, when God physically premoves the will to a certain good, the will still remains free, despite being certainly moved as efficacious grace is, in the divided sense, resistible, meaning if God had willed things to be different, it could have been resisted, but it never will be resisted, as it is in the composite sense irresistible."
That does not entirely clear things up to me.
My limited understanding is: Man is supposed to have free will, but god already knows how he will decide in each situation. If he wills something, that will is irresistable, so his plan will come to pass. Or if he wills something, he knows how Man will react to situation A or B, so he chooses for each man the situation that he knows will lead to the desired outcome.
But that, to me, makes free choice an illusion: An actor whose every decision is determined before he even acts may feel like he has free will, but does not have free will. He is like a computer, where every outcomes is sorely based on "if A, then B".
I also do not understand how free will is supposed to work with prophesy, which to my understanding requires a fixed future (unless prophesies can not come true, in which case they are just scenarios, not prophesies like we usually understand them).
It's a tricky one, because Catholicism tends more towards "if these six different interpretations can legitimately be held without any one of them being outright heretical, and there isn't one strong frontrunner to be The Official Position, then it's okay to hold any one of the six".
The old Catholic Encyclopedia on the controversies around grace:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm
"The famous work of the Jesuit Molina, "Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis" (Lisbon, 1588), brought in Spain the learned Dominican Bañez to the valiant defence of Thomism. In 1594 the dispute between the Thomists and the Molinists reached a fever heat. Pope Clement VIII in order to settle the dispute convened in Rome a Congregatio de Auxiliis (1598-1607), and to this the Dominicans and the Jesuits sent, at the pope's invitation, their ablest theologians. After the congregation had been in session for nine years without reaching a conclusion, Paul V, at the advice of St. Francis de Sales, permitted both systems, strongly forbidding the Jesuits to call the Dominicans Calvinists, or the Dominicans to call the Jesuits Pelagians."
Broadly, we hold to single predestination - that God can know/choose certain people to be saved. We don't hold to double predestination - that God also knows/chooses certain people to be damned, which is the point of contention with Calvinism, and also about irresistible grace (this brings in free will and how irresistable is irresistible grace?)
Again, very broadly, God may choose some people but that does *not* mean they are the *only* ones who can or will be saved. The rest of us have a chance. NOBODY is damned, we can't say it for sure about (pick your choice of Really Bad Guy). Grace is the means by which we gain the gift of faith, but our co-operation is necessary: we can always refuse the gift and choose our own way. God will not violate our free will.
Calvin came down strongly on God's absolute sovereignty, and that's where the dilemma comes in. If God can know that Bill will make the choices that eventually lead him to Hell, then God knows Bill is damned. And what God knows must be, so Bill must be damned. Bill can't repent or help himself, because that would be changing what God knows. If what God knows can be changed, then God is not omniscient. And so on and so forth.
So what God knows must be set in stone, and if God knows it, then God chooses it, thus God chooses Bill to be damned, and there is nothing Bill can do about it. No repentance, no good life, no saving faith.
Grace is a *very* complicated subject. The Calvinists come down hard on *irresistible* grace, i.e. if God chooses you to be saved, you can't reject that grace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
"Irresistible grace (also called effectual grace, effectual calling, or efficacious grace) is a doctrine in Christian theology particularly associated with Calvinism, which teaches that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to faith in Christ."
The opposing viewpoint to that is prevenient grace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace
"Prevenient grace (or preceding grace or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept that refers to the grace of God in a person's life which precedes and prepares to conversion.
...In Roman Catholic theology, it is a predisposing grace which helps to believe.
...The Second Council of Orange of 529 stated that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.
In canon 18 it is said "That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done [St. Prosper]." In canon 23 it is said that God prepares our wills that they may desire the good. Canon 25 states, "In every good work, it is not we who begin… but He (God) first inspires us with faith and love of Him, through no preceding merit on our part."
Prevenient grace was discussed in the fifth chapter of the sixth session of the Council of Trent (1545–63) which used the phrase: "a Dei per dominum Christum Iesum praeveniente gratia" rendered "a predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ". Those who turned from God by sins are disposed by God's grace to turn back and become justified by freely assenting to that grace.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) explains, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit. Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace."
However, if you ever hear Catholics talking about grace, it'll be about sanctifying grace 😁 (Mind you, it'll be a very rare and special event if you ever do hear Catholics talking about grace!)
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
"Grace, in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness. ...Christian grace is a fundamental idea of the Christian religion, the pillar on which, by a special ordination of God, the majestic edifice of Christianity rests in its entirety. Among the three fundamental ideas — sin, redemption, and grace — grace plays the part of the means, indispensable and Divinely ordained, to effect the redemption from sin through Christ and to lead men to their eternal destiny in heaven.
...But, in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace).
...Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace"."
I don't think I suggested Beerbohm was mean-spirited, and I don't think so. Thanks however Deiseach for engaging with my comment, I appreciate it.
My misunderstanding then, I was assuming you meant Beerbohm was skewering a celebrity in the vein of Jon Stewart's kind of take.
I don't know where you got this notion that Chesterton was trying to write in Ye Olde Pure Anglo-Saxon, but you are mistaken and I suggest you shoo that bee out of your bonnet.
Whoever tried writing "a post entirely in words of Anglo-Saxon or Teutonic origin, eschewing the 'decadence' of Latin and Greek" might have been making a joking reference to Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish Beholding":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncleftish_Beholding
"Written as a demonstration of linguistic purism in English, the work explains atomic theory using Germanic words almost exclusively and coining new words when necessary; many of these new words have cognates in modern German, an important scientific language in its own right. The title phrase uncleftish beholding calques "atomic theory."
I can't say, since I have no idea what you mean amongst the frothing about "affected simplicity". You don't like the poem? Go you, nobody is demanding you like it. But at least don't imply the man was trying to hint darkly at things that he wasn't doing.
And he himself wrote parodies of other poets' styles, so I don't think he would have minded Beerbohm Tree's effort.
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/kingcole.html
Old King Cole
Was a merry old soul
And a merry old soul was he
He called for his pipe
and he called for his bowl
and he called for his fiddlers three
after Lord Tennyson
Cole, that unwearied prince of Colchester,
Growing more gay with age and with long days
Deeper in laughter and desire of life
As that Virginian climber on our walls
Flames scarlet with the fading of the year;
Called for his wassail and that other weed
Virginian also, from the western woods
Where English Raleigh checked the boast of Spain,
And lighting joy with joy, and piling up
Pleasure as crown for pleasure, bade me bring
Those three, the minstrels whose emblazoned coats
Shone with the oyster-shells of Colchester;
And these three played, and playing grew more fain
Of mirth and music; till the heathen came
And the King slept beside the northern sea.
after W.B. Yeats
Of an old King in a story
From the grey sea-folk I have heard
Whose heart was no more broken
Than the wings of a bird.
As soon as the moon was silver
And the thin stars began,
He took his pipe and his tankard,
Like an old peasant man.
And three tall shadows were with him
And came at his command;
And played before him for ever
The fiddles of fairyland.
And he died in the young summer
Of the world's desire;
Before our hearts were broken
Like sticks in a fire.
after Walt Whitman
Me clairvoyant,
Me conscious of you, old camarado,
Needing no telescope, lorgnette, field-glass, opera-glass, myopic pince-nez,
Me piercing two thousand years with eye naked and not ashamed;
The crown cannot hide you from me,
Musty old feudal-heraldic trappings cannot hide you from me,
I perceive that you drink.
(I am drinking with you. I am as drunk as you are.)
I see you are inhaling tobacco, puffing, smoking, spitting
(I do not object to your spitting),
You prophetic of American largeness,
You anticipating the broad masculine manners of these States;
I see in you also there are movements, tremors, tears, desire for the melodious,
I salute your three violinists, endlessly making vibrations,
Rigid, relentless, capable of going on for ever;
They play my accompaniment; but I shall take no notice of any accompaniment;
I myself am a complete orchestra.
So long.
Interesting review! I'm left wondering why Chesterton thought Christianity was so unique in encouraging hope. Just his own bias?
'...fitting for a Viking. What myths and tales we have from the pagan Norse tell a story of fated destruction: that Ragnarok will come, and the gods will fight the giants, and they all will certainly die...'- this seems wrong. Ragnarok is both a death and a rebirth, with new gods and men coming after.
I wonder how the concept of "pagans believe in fate, catholics believe in free will" is supposed to align with the catholic doctrine of predestination.
Predestination, per se, is single predestination in Catholic theology. I think you may be thinking of Calvinist double predestination. So that's not a gotcha there.
Let's ask an online apologist, because they're the guys dealing with such queries daily:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination
"The Catholic Church permits a range of views on the subject of predestination, but there are certain points on which it is firm: “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end” (CCC 1037). It also rejects the idea of unconditional election, stating that when God “establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” (CCC 600)."
Free will permits co-operation or rejection of the Divine Plan. Fate, as Chesterton understood the pagan view of it, can't be escaped (see Oedipus and his family's and his attempts to avoid the prophecy, which yet came true despite all their efforts).
The number of people commenting here who are unfamiliar with basic aspects of Christian theology is kind of pathetic. Even in my edgy atheist days, I knew that Christians did not all adhere to Calvinism.
I have the White Horse of Uffington tattooed across my lower back. Probs the most obscure tramp stamp ever 😂
is there an annotated version of "the ballad of the white horse" that you would recommend?
This made me see something else in a different light. I heard quite some time ago that Jefferson had opined that we needed a revolution every generation, which always troubled me. It seemed excessively modest, even pessimistic, about the Founders' great accomplishment, as if a single generation would render it obsolete and irrelevant; I preferred Coolidge's assessment:
> About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
But in preparing to write this comment I actually went to the trouble of looking up exactly what Jefferson said, and in context it's much more in keeping with the lesson of the White Horse than I had believed -- more along the lines of his other remark that the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He was not saying that the system established by the Founders would not be appropriate a generation later, but rather that the system would not have a life of its own, but would require the later generation to rededicate themselves to it, as he and his colleagues had done.
I thank you for encouraging me to resolve this persistent black mark I did not want to make against Jefferson.
This was beautiful. There are a couple free versions on Librevox. It's nice to have someone read it to you as a ballad was meant to be experienced that way. But I did buy a copy of it for one of my sons to read to his kids.
This was a beautiful review that inspired me to buy and read the book. Thank you! After reading the original text, here’s my one critique of the review: I’m not sure the word “revolution” is what Chesterton was going for. Painting the fence or keeping the horse white are actually the unsexy, tedious, and unavoidable chores that must be done to preserve society over time. I loved the picture of modern people maintaining the horse. That is not a revolution. That is something far more rare and valuable: somehow they have found a way to pass down an unexciting but valuable tradition for thousands of years.