Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith), 1874-1936 -- Criticism and interpretation
The great and grave changes in our political
civilization all belong to the early nineteenth
century, not to the later. They belong to the
black-and-white epoch, when men believed fixedly
in Toryism, in Protestantism, in Calvinism, in
Reform, and not infrequently 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. . . . 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 them all is that
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 Graham, Bernard
Shaw, and Auberon Herbert, who between them, with
bowed, gigantic backs, bore up the throne of the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is on these grounds that we must believe that, even as the Church
survives, and prevails, in order to get a hearing when the atheist and
the New Theologian have finished shouting themselves hoarse at each
other, so must political creeds be in conformity with the doctrines of
the Church. Such is the foundation of democracy, according to
Chesterton. Will anybody revise his political views on this basis?
Probably not. Every Christian believes that his political opinions are
thoroughly Christian, and so entire is the disrepute into which atheism
has fallen as a philosophy of life, that a great many atheists likewise
protest the entire Christianity of their politics. We are all democrats
to-day, in one sense or another; each of us more loosely than his
neighbour. It is strange that by the criterion of almost every living
man who springs to the mind as a representative democrat, Chesterton is
the most undemocratic of us all. This, however, needs a separate chapter
of explanation.
VII
THE POLITICIAN WHO COULD NOT TELL THE TIME
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account