Showing posts with label Inklings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inklings. Show all posts

06 June 2012

Skiathan Addendum & Immoderate Quotation

I realised there were two more things I’d like to post but which didn’t really fit with today’s earlier post (even though one concerns Papadiamandis) and weren’t likely to fit with anything else anytime soon either.

First, I would like to post something I came across some time ago but of which I was only recently reminded. Concerning Papadiamandis, George Pappageotes tells us that the Skiathan ‘became a very competent translator of French and English, although he could not speak either language’. [1] The ‘Biographical Note’ in Boundless Garden gets more specific though:

Many of these hours [working for various newspapers] were spent in translating major European novels, such as Crime and Punishment, Quo Vadis, Dracula, and The Manxman, which appeared in daily instalments, as well as numerous short stories by such writers as Chekhov, Bret Harte and Jerome K. Jerome, in addition to translating works of non-fiction. [2]

Papadiamandis translating Crime & Punishment, Dracula, and Jerome K. Jerome? [3] This has thrilled me to no end since I first discovered it!

The other thing I wanted to post was something I just came across the other day. I finally got round to reading C.S. Lewis’s essay, ‘The Literary Impact of the Authorised Version’, and was encouraged by the following comments:

It would seem to me reasonable to say, for example, that my own habit of immoderate quotation showed the influence of Hazlitt, but not the influence of the authors I quote; or that Burton’s [4] habit of immoderate quotation might be influenced by Montaigne, not by the authors he quotes. Frequent quotation is itself a literary characteristic; if the authors whom we rifle were not themselves fond of quotation, then, in the very act of quoting, we proclaim our freedom from their influence. [5]

I was touched to see Lewis admitting to a ‘habit of immoderate quotation’, a habit to which I realise that I too am prone, but then to find him placing the two of us, himself and me, into the midst of such further distinguished company, nearly brought a tear to my eye. As Lewis himself has written of the ‘typical expression of opening Friendship’, ‘What? You too? I thought I was the only one.’ [6]



[1] Pappageotes, George C., The Story of Modern Greek Literature: From the 10th Century to the Present (NY: Athens, 1972), p. 168.

[2] Kamperidis, Fr Lambros, & Denise Harvey, ‘Biographical Note’, The Boundless Garden, by Alexandros Papadiamandis, ed. Fr Lambros Kamperidis & Denise Harvey (Limni, Evia, Greece: Denise Harvey, 2007), p. xi.

[3] I have fond memories of reading Three Men in a Boat—mostly in the toilet—at the behest of my Oxonian neighbour in Greece, who was also incidentally the translator of a couple of books by Elder Paisios the Athonite as well as the big collection of homilies by Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra.

[4] I have had a hankering for a copy of Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy ever since first reading about it in the Eighth Day Books catalogue, but alas! I have yet to acquire one, and have to be satisfied with the excerpts printed in Seventeenth-Century Prose & Poetry, 2nd ed., ed. Alexander M. Witherspoon & Frank J. Warnke (NY: Harcourt, 1963), pp. 132-95, and Seventeenth-Century Verse & Prose, Vol. 1: 1600-1660, ed. Helen C. White, Ruth C. Wallerstein, & Ricardo Quintana (NY: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 169-82.

[5] C.S. Lewis, The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version, rev. ed., Facet Books Biblical Series—4 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), p. 16. Thank you to my good friend, Lee Webb of OCU’s Dulaney-Browne Library, for furnishing me with this little gem!

[6] C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (Orlando: Harcourt, 1988), p. 65.

08 April 2012

The 'Problem of Problems' or 'No Problem at All': The Grace & Free Will Post




Although it's the only blow-by-blow theological commentary on Lord of the Rings that I'm aware of, I find myself constantly annoyed by Fleming Rutledge's The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien's Divine Design in The Lord of the Rings. There are the constant comparisons with the films (Rutledge seems unusually concerned about the casting, and even in one case, the costumes), there are the constant references to things that seem foreign to Tolkien (the CEO of the Herman Miller Company, Protestant hymns and prayers), and, most of all, the heavy-handed predestinationalism that is Rutledge's fundamental interpretive lens. He even has the gall to pen the following footnote:


There are technical names for these two differing interpretations of humanity's relation to God. In oversimplified terms, the position emphasizing the human decision ('free will') is called Pelagianism or Arminianism (semi-Pelagianism), after a British monk named Pelagius and a seventeenth-century Protestant called Jacobus Arminius. The other position, which gives priority to the divine will, was held by the apostle Paul. It is called Augustinianism after its defender Augustine of Hippo. Pelagianism is officially a heresy, but it has always been pervasive in the Church, never more so than in America where Free Will is a sacred doctrine. [1]



Of course, anticipating that it will be pointed out that Tolkien himself speaks of 'free will', Rutledge has already told us that the author 'underestimates the consistency of his own narrative', and 'has illustrated the dilemma of the bound will much more powerfully than he himself realized', managing to 'seem more "Protestant" than most Protestants'. [2] It would be wonderful to hear Tolkien's reaction to this!

But I'm afraid that to the extent that all of this is the case, that is, to the extent Tolkien really does illustrate 'the dilemma of the bound will' (nevermind the extent to which he realises it), it is likely because there is nothing specifically Protestant about the will being 'bound' or specifically Catholic about it being 'free'. Is it not both? Does any traditional Christian really believe that fallen human beings act without any sort of constraint or influence upon their wills? Does any believe that human beings are merely robots, being saved or damned merely due to God's 'programming' and without any personal moral responsibility whatsoever?

I recall last summer how much I appreciated it when I read the following passage in N.T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said:





Classically, this doctrine [of justification] ever since Augustine has been concerned with warding off some version or other of the Pelagian heresy. Different people have meant different things by that heresy, and the sharp-eyed have spotted it, sometimes, even in those who thought they were opposing it root and branch. I must insist, right away, that if you come upon anyone who genuinely thinks that they can fulfill Pelagius' programme, in whichever form or variation you like, you should gently but firmly set them right. There is simply no way that human beings can make themselves fit for the presence or salvation of God. What is more, I know of no serious theologian, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, who thinks otherwise; indeed, one of the best expositions of the Augustinian or Lutheran or Calvinist doctrine of justification I have ever heard was given by a Jesuit, Father Edward Yarnold, in an ecumenical meeting. If Pelagius survives at all today, it is at the level of popular secular moralism, which is in any case becoming harder and harder to find in the Western world. [3]




In this light, surely any reasonable person can see how much it begs the question simply to assert that St Paul is the firm opponent of anything that might be called 'Pelagianism', 'semi-Pelagianism', or 'Arminianism', or that St Augustine was purely and simply the defender of St Paul's theology. Nevertheless, this claim continues to be asserted–even the editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture volume on Romans insists that of the Fathers, 'Only Augustine (354-430) was prepared to accept the logical consequences of Paul's teaching on this matter [of grace and free ​will], and this led to his famous quarrel with Pelagius.' [4]

Really? Only St Augustine actually accepted St Paul's teaching? Or perhaps only St Augustine, in his zeal to correct Pelagius, levelled out the paradox of grace and free will that all of the other Fathers saw, even in St Paul himself? Fr Georges Florovsky, for instance, has quoted one of my favourite passages from Romans–chapter 12, verse 2: 'Be not conformed to this age but be transformed by the renewing of the mind in order to prove [that you may prove] what [is] that good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God' (words in brackets are Florovsky's)–commenting:





Taken by itself and out of context this language could be misinterpreted as Pelagian, for here it is man who is transforming the mind, man who is commanded to activate the spiritual life. Such an interpretation is, of course, incorrect but it reveals what one can do to the totality of the theological thought of St Paul if one does not understand the balance, if one does not understand that his view is profoundly synergistic. Synergism does not mean that two energies are equal. Rather it means that there are two wills–one, the will of God which precedes, accompanies, and completes all that is good, positive, spiritual and redemptive, one that has willed that man have a spiritual will, a spiritual participation in the redemptive process; the other is the will of man which must respond, cooperate, 'co-suffer'. [5]




The funny thing is, of course, that even the demons understand this. As Screwtape writes:





Why [God] leaves room for their free will is the problem of problems, the secret behind the Enemy's nonsense about "Love". How it does so is no problem at all; for the Enemy does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded Now. And obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it. [6]




Addendum: As it has been some time since I read Ralph Wood's excellent The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle-earth, I had forgotten that Wood too mentions this issue in Tolkien's work. He writes:





Tolkien is close to Paul and Augustine and their long train of followers who argue that real freedom is the liberty to choose and do the good, and that to do evil is to act unfreely, to exercise an enslaved will. These theologians all insist that God's grace enables our right response to it. For this venerable theological tradition, it is better to say that we are the product of the gifts we have graciously received rather than the sum of the decisions we have bravely made. [7]




It certainly sounds here as though Wood is trying to make the same point that Fleming Rutledge has so strongly emphasised. But perhaps it's just because I've met him a couple of times, read some of his other work, seen him speak, and just generally like the guy, but I'm inclined to note that Wood has put all of this much more carefully than Rutledge has. While he refers to the Augustinian approach as a 'venerable theological tradition', he does not say that all else is heresy, or that all of the other Fathers have balked at following St Paul. He says 'it is better to say' rather than 'we must say'.

This is not surprising when one considers, of course, that the context of Wood's comments is an analysis of the moral conflict between vices and virtues in the work. How can one speak of virtue at all if our choices are not really ours at all? Thus, notably, we find Wood later on striking a rather different chord:





God is utterly unlike Melkor and Sauron because he never coerces. We are never forced but always drawn to faith, as God grants us freedom from sin's compulsion. We are invited and persuaded to this act of total entrustment through the witness to the Gospel made by the church. [8]




Furthermore, I note later on that Wood strikes a very un-Augustinian chord indeed when he actually uses the word 'synergism' (à la Fr Florovsky) to describe the relationship between the divine will and those of the characters: 'The synergism of the holy and the human–as the divine and the hobbitic prove to be complimentary rather than contradictory–is disclosed most plainly when Frodo first encounters the Ring-wraiths.' [9] So, naturally, I find Wood to be an ally rather than an opponent on this question.


[1] Fleming Rutledge, The Battle for Middle-earth: Tolkien's Divine Design in The Lord of the Rings (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 67-8, n. 28.

[2] Ibid., p. 11.

[3] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 116.

[4] Gerald Bray, 'Introduction to Romans', Romans, Vol. VI of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998), p. xix.

[5] Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, 'The Ascetic Ideal & the New Testament: Reflections on the Critique of the Theology of the Reformation', Byzantine Ascetic & Spiritual Fathers, Vol. 10 in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. Haugh, tr. Raymond Miller, Anne-Marie Dollinger-Labriolle, & Helmut Wilhelm Schmiedel (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), p. 34.

[6] C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters with Screwtape Proposes a Toast (NY: Harper, 2001), p. 150.

[7] Ralph C. Wood, The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle-earth (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), p. 70.

[8] Ibid., p. 119.

[9] Ibid., p. 122-3.

23 February 2012

Coleridge's 'Imagination' Revisited


Two and a half years ago I posted an excerpt from my master's thesis in which I tried to show that the 'imagination' that the Fathers have tried to warn us about and the 'imagination' that the Romantic poets have made into a divine faculty are not, as I have heard and seen argued, two totally different things. In other words, some would follow Samuel Taylor Coleridge's (and subsequently, Wordsworth's) distinction between 'Imagination' conceived as this divine power, and 'Fancy', the mere ability to form 'mental images of things not actually present', offering the latter as the proper object of the patristic warning.


The linking point for me on this issue was J.R.R. Tolkien's essay 'On Fairy-stories'. Tolkien has a very great esteem for the power of the imagination, but without naming Coleridge, the great philologist finds 'the verbal distinction philologically inappropriate, and the analysis inaccurate': 'The perception of the image, the grasp of its implications, and the control which are necessary to a successful expression, may vary in vividness and strength: but this is a difference of degree in Imagination, not a difference in kind.' [1]



At one point since the original post, I heard a lecture by a Coleridge buff in which it was claimed that Coleridge's 'primary Imagination' was actually more akin to the 'nous' of patristic psychology, and was thus very much higher indeed than the image-making faculty. When I raised the question of Tolkien's dismissal of the Imagination/Fancy distinction, my question was not really addressed. (To be fair, I later heard the lecturer admit that he was prone to be a bit sloppy in his identifications of such things.)



So then, just last Monday, I was reading Shadows of Ecstasy, the first attempt at a novel by oddball Inkling, Charles Williams. I had the impression that Williams was likely much more of a Coleridgean than Tolkien, and my lecturer friend even suggested that 'Ecstasy' might be a reference to 'STC'. Well, imagine my astonishment when I read the following exchange:





'I hope they'll use imagination [in their government propaganda],' Sir Bernard said. '[Acknowledging] One or two planes destroyed on our side would make the bulletins credible.'



'I do wish you wouldn't say "imagination",' Roger complained. 'It isn't, you know; only the lowest kind of cunning fancy.'



'I've never been clear that Coleridge was right there,' Caithness said meditatively. 'Surely it's the same faculty--the adaptation of the world to an idea of the world.' [2]




Naturally, this got me very excited once again about the whole issue. I even recalled that I had recently purchased the critical edition of Tolkien's essay that came out four years ago. Rushing to consult that to see whether there was any discussion of Coleridge's place in Tolkien's thoughts on imagination, I was disappointed to find no mention of the Romantic in the notes on that passage of the essay (surely an oversight, one would think!). I did however find the two very interesting notes which follow:





--Fancy...the older word Fantasy. Tolkien's discussion here and in the succeeding paragraphs is essentially an expanded paraphrase of definition 4 under the entry for 'Fancy' (a contraction of 'Fantasy' as noun and adjective) in the first edition of The Oxford English Dictionary. Since he drew on it so heavily, the entire definition merits inclusion here: 'In early use synonymous with Imagination: the process and faculty of forming mental representations of things not present to the senses; chiefly ​applied to the so-called creative or productive imagination, which frames images of objects, events, or conditions that have not occurred in actual experience. In later use the words "fantasy" and "imagination" (esp. as denoting attributes manifested in poetical or literary composition) are commonly distinguished: "fancy" being used to express aptitude for the invention of illustrative or decorative imagery, while "imagination" is the power of giving to ideal creations the inner consistency of realities.'



--'the power of giving to ideal creations the inner consistency of reality'. See the preceeding entry. It is worthy of note that Tolkien changes the final word from 'realities' to 'reality', thus shifting the reference from plural phenomena to a singular concept, an abstraction. The phrase 'inner consistency' is used by Aristotle in his Poetics, but not in relation to 'ideal creations'.



--a cancelled early version of Tolkien's discussion from MS C reads: I propose to use Fantasy phantasia a making visible to the mind of the operation whereby mental images 'of things not actually present' are expressed, shown forth, created. The faculty of conceiving the images is properly called Imagination. But in recent times (in technical not normal language) Imagination has often been held to be something higher than Fantasy (or the reduced and depreciatory form Fancy); to be 'the power of giving to ideal creations the inner consistency of reality'. That distinction seems to me confused. The mental part of image-making is one thing, and should naturally be called Imagination. The grasp, and vivid perception of the image, a necessary preliminary to its successful expression, is a difference not of kind but of degree. The achievement of that expression which gives, or seems to give, 'the inner consistency of reality'--that is, commands Secondary Belief--is indeed another thing: the gift of Art, the link between Imagination and the final marvel of Subcreation: Fantasy, the showing forth, that power which the Elves have to the highest degree. (Bodleian MS.Tolkien 14, folio 160 verso) [3]




On a final note, since I wrote the passage of my thesis found in the original post on Coleridge and the imagination, I've had a look at C.M. Bowra's 1948-1949 Harvard lectures, The Romantic Imagination. Although he is more concerned with the poetry itself than with analysing works like the Biographia, Bowra makes the striking point that 'Coleridge does not go so far as Blake in the claims which he makes for the imagination.' [4] To wit, 'For Blake the imagination is nothing less than God as He operates in the human soul. It follows that any act of creation performed by the imagination is divine and that in the imagination man's spiritual nature is fully and finally realized.' For Coleridge on the other hand, the imagination, while 'of first importance', merely 'partakes of the creative activity of God.' [5]






[1] J.R.R. Tolkien, Tolkien On Fairy-stories: Expanded Edition, with Commentary & Notes, ed. Verlyn Flieger & Douglas A. Anderson (London: HarperCollins, 2008), p. 59.



[2] Charles Williams, Shadows of Ecstasy (Vancouver: Regent College, 2003), p. 167.



[3] Tolkien, pp. 110-1, n. 65.



[4] Bowra, C.M., The Romantic Imagination (London: Oxford U, 1969), p. 17.



[5] Ibid., pp. 3-4.

14 July 2010

Disenchantment with Modernity: Tolkien, Lovecraft, & G.H. Dorr, Ph.D.



At the Mythopoeic Society conference I attended last weekend, the Inklings—and it seemed Tolkien especially—were naturally first and foremost in the attendees’ thoughts, writings, and conversation. But at least once or twice, perhaps largely at my instigation, the name of H.P. Lovecraft was also mentioned. In a paper I heard on the to me previously unknown works of our Author Guest of Honour, Tim Powers, a plot description at one point reminded me slightly of Lovecraft’s masterpiece, ‘The Call of Cthulhu’. When I ventured later to ask the author himself about this, receiving confirmation of the accuracy of my ‘Lovecraft antennae’, I also asked his opinion whether Powers thought that Charles Williams might have been able to convert the notorious atheist Lovecraft to Christianity. An affirmative reply led to more discussion later in the evening.

At any rate, all of this is merely to preface an extraordinary discovery I made just today. Amy Sturgis, whose name I thought I recalled coming across at MythCon and who edited the book Past Watchful Dragons: Fantasy & Faith in the World of C.S. Lewis, published by The Mythopoeic Press, has a fascinating article on her website entitled, ‘The New Shoggoth Chic: Why H.P. Lovecraft Now?’. [1] Although it does not mention him in the title, Tolkien is also a major subject of the article, which is essentially a comparison and contrasting of the two authors.

To get to the point, the most interesting point of comparison to me was the basically anti-modern posture they shared. Sturgis writes:


Modernity, that nebulous and abstract force of the dawning 20th century, meant various things to Lovecraft and Tolkien at different times in their lives. One thing remained constant: both were against it. To Lovecraft, modernity primarily meant entropy, the gradual decay of time-honored habits, traditions, and even people into confusion and decrepitude. . . . His racial and nationalistic assumptions fueled his disgust with the way in which industrialization and urbanization threw unlike people together in the most squalid conditions, ensuring (to his mind at least) that their most negative traits would come to the fore. He found an example of his worst fears realized when he lived, for a short time only, in New York City.

On this subject, Sturgis then quotes the semi-autobiographical story ‘He’:


But success and happiness were not to be. Garish daylight showed only squalor and alienage and the noxious elephantiasis of climbing, spreading stone where the moon had hinted of loveliness and elder magic; and the throngs of people that seethed through the flumelike streets were squat, swarthy strangers with hardened faces and narrow eyes, shrewd strangers without dreams and without kinship to the scenes around them, who could never mean aught to a blue-eyed man of the old folk, with the love of fair green lanes and white New England village steeples in his heart. [2]

Sturgis then comments:


Though charged with what we today would call racism and xenophobia, Lovecraft’s description implies more than simple fear or dislike of the Other: these others are overcrowded, literally ‘teeming’, unattached to their setting or community, isolated and atomistic, uncommunicative and ‘hardened’. Lovecraft contrasted such scenes with his native Providence, Rhode Island, where generations remained in the same place and were known by their family name and traits, and where the community as a whole tended to share what Augustine called ‘loved things held in common’. [3] Lovecraft feared a humanity cut adrift from such grounding tradition and identity, left vulnerable to outside forces of superior power and unwholesome design.

For Tolkien, modernity primarily meant technology—‘The Machine’, as he called it—and its triumph at the expense of nature. Where Lovecraft idealized his hometown of Providence, Tolkien revered the English countryside, and believed the growth of cities and factories to be a direct threat to its survival. By creating the fictional Shire and the Hobbits who populate it, Tolkien praised the rural values of decentralization, artisanship, stability, and familiarity over the urban qualities of centralization, mass production, disposability, and anonymity.

Sturgis then quotes ‘On Fairy-Stories’, calling it ‘as anti-modern’ as Lovecraft:


Not long ago—incredible though it may seem—I heard a clerk at Oxenford declare that he ‘welcomed’ the proximity of mass-production robot factories, and the roar of self-obstructive mechanical traffic, because it brought his university into ‘contact with real life.’ He may have meant that the way men were living in the twentieth century was increasing in barbarity at an alarming rate, and that the loud demonstration of this in the streets of Oxford might serve as a warning that it is not possible to preserve for long an oasis of sanity in a desert of unreason by mere fences, without actual offensive action (practical and intellectual). I fear he did not. [4]

Sturgis continues:


Both authors’ anti-modernism, as well as other intellectual ideas and personal traits, led them to feel out of place in a world of tremendous change and upheaval, economic depression and world war. For his part, H.P. Lovecraft felt himself to be an old man in a young man’s body, and, to use his words from ‘The Outsider’, ‘a stranger in this century’. Tolkien’s similar certainty that he was not at home came as much from his religious perspective as his disgust with all things ‘progressive’. . . .

. . .

It would be a mistake to assume that the two men were similar only in their dislikes and disappointments. Although they looked to the future with no little trepidation, they looked to the past with real fascination and affection. Lovecraft and Tolkien shared a fervent kind of antiquarianism. Lovecraft’s self-confessed ‘love of the ancient and permanent’ can best be seen in his absorption with and knowledge of early American architecture, which he used to great effect in his precise and evocative descriptions. . . . Tolkien nurtured his own love of ancient texts and national epics from Beowulf and the Kalevala to the Icelandic Eddas and family sagas. He studied the original languages of the stories and incorporated ingredients of the tales into his own work. . . .

In short, both Lovecraft and Tolkien were on a quest for something permanent, meaningful, and binding in a changing modern world, fueled by a desire for identity and community in a time in which they felt displaced and marginalized, and a thirst for structure and civilization in the face of what they saw as entropy and barbarism. Paradoxically, these concerns, while isolating each author to a certain degree, also made Lovecraft and Tolkien exemplars of their age, men of remarkable insight and sensitivity who articulated the concerns of an entire era with unusual eloquence and urgency.

Reading these comments today, I am also curiously reminded of Tom Hanks’s charactre in the Coen Brothers remake of The Ladykillers: the Southern dandy, Goldthwaite Higginson Dorr, Ph.D. One evening, Dorr’s black landlady, Mrs Munson, says to him, ‘You are a readin’ fool, aren’t you, Mr Dorr?’ Dorr responds:


Yes, I must confess I often find myself more at home in these ancient volumes than I do in the hustle-bustle of the modern world. To me, paradoxically, the literature of the so-called ‘dead tongues’ holds more currency than this morning’s newspaper. In these books, in these volumes, there is the accumulated wisdom of mankind which succours me when the day is hard and the night lonely and long.

Things take a closer turn toward the Lovecraftian when Mrs Munson remarks, ‘Wisdom of mankind, huh? What about the wisdom of the Lord?’, and Dorr replies:


Oh yes, the ‘Good Book’, hm? I have found reward in its pages. But to me there are other ‘good books’ as well: heavy volumes of antiquity, freighted with the insights of man’s glorious age. And then, of course, I just love love love the works of Mr Edgard Allan Poe.

Mrs Munson says, ‘Oh, I know who he was—kinda spooky!’ But Dorr laughs and ‘corrects’ her, in words reminiscent of Lovecraft’s ‘Randolph Carter’ stories: ‘No, my, no, no! Not of this world, it is true. He lived in a dream, an ancient dream.’ Dorr then quotes the first two stanzas of ‘To Helen’:


Helen, thy beauty is to me
Like those Nicean barks of yore,
That gently, o’er a perfumed sea,
The weary, way-worn wanderer bore
To his own native shore.

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece
And the grandeur that was Rome. [5]

Somewhat alarmed at Dorr’s enraptured delivery of these lines, Mrs Munson asks, ‘Who was Helen? Some kind of whore of Babylon?’ To which, slightly angered, Dorr replies, ‘One does not know who Helen was! But I picture her as very very . . . extremely . . . pale.’


[1] Originally published in Apex Science Fiction & Horror Digest, 1.4 (December 2005).

[2] H.P. Lovecraft, ‘He’, The Tomb & Other Tales (NY: Del Rey, 1987), pp. 58-9. I was astonished how much this last line reminded me of Tolkien!

[3] St Augustine, de civ. Dei XIX, 24; cf. The City of God, tr. Marcus Dods (NY: Modern Library, 1950), p. 706: ‘But if we discard this definition of a people, and, assuming another, say that a people is an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we have only to observe what they love.’

[4] J.R.R. Tolkien, ‘On Fairy-Stories’, The Tolkien Reader (NY: Ballantine, 1966), pp. 80-1.

[5] Edgar Allan Poe, ‘To Helen’, The Complete Tales & Poems of Edgar Allan Poe (NY: Modern Library, 1965), p. 1017.

07 June 2010

Tolstoy, Lewis, Fr Alexander, & St Augustine on Cœlestial Hierarchy


I was recently looking back at Tolstoy’s famous diatribe, What is Art?, and came across the following passage, typical not only of Tolstoy but of a whole strain of post-Reformation thinking about the ‘hierarchies’ of mediaeval Christianity:

And this ecclesiastic Christianity which is quite distinct from the other, began, on the basis of its doctrine, to change the apprication of men’s sentiments and the productions of the arts which conveyed them. This ecclesiastic Christianity not only did not recognize the fundamental and essential propositions of true Christianity,—the immediate relation of each man to the Father, and the brotherhood and equality of all men, resulting from it, and the substitution of humility and love for all kinds of violence,—but, on the contrary, by establishing a celestial hierarchy, similar to the pagan mythology, and a worship of this hierarchy, of Christ, the Holy Virgin, the angels, apostles, saints, martyrs, and not only of these divinities, but also of their representations, established as the essence of its teaching blind faith in the church and its decrees. [1]

The use of the word ‘hierarchy’ of course, and particularly with the modifier ‘celestial’, reminds us quite naturally of the inventor of the word himself, St Dionysius the Areopagite. Thus, while it is disappointing, it is not surprising to find C.S. Lewis describing Dionysian teaching in terms less stringent but hardly more approving than Tolstoy:

. . . [P]seudo-Dionysius is as certain as Plato or Apuleius that God encounters Man only through a ‘mean’, and reads his own philosophy into scripture as freely as Chalcidius had read his into the Timaeus. He cannot deny that Theophanies, direct appearances of God Himself to patriarchs and prophets, seem to occur in the Old Testament. But he is quite sure that this never really happens. These visions were in reality mediated through celestial, but created, beings ‘as though the order of the divine law laid it down that creatures of a lower order should be moved God-ward by those of a higher’ (iv). That the order of the divine law does so enjoin is one of his key-conceptions. His God does nothing directly that can be done through an intermediary; perhaps prefers the longest possible chain of intermediaries; devolution or delegation, a finely graded descent of power and goodness, is the universle principle. The Divine splendour (illustratio) comes to us filtered, as it were, through the Hierarchies. [2]

While I can’t say I was ever seriously troubled by the Dionysian hierarchies, it’s true that at one point they appeared to me to differ from what I took to be St Gregory Palamas’s emphasis on the direct experience of God’s uncreated energies. Any questions I had on that score, though, were more than answered by a brilliant article from the pen of Hieromonk Alexander (Golitzin)—‘Dionysius Areopagites in the Works of St Gregory Palamas: On the Question of a “Christological Corrective” and Related Matters’ (available here). I urge all to read the article in full, but the turning point for me was the following statement:

As Romanides pointed out some years ago, neither Palamas nor Dionysius believed that the great theophanies of either the past (to the saints of Israel), or of the present (to the saints of the New Covenant) took or take place through angelic mediation, but rather that the angels served both then and now to explain and interpret the visio dei luminis.

The point was made even more vivid and convincing to me, however, when Fr Alexander went on to compare the angelic mediators to monastic elders:

More specifically, however, as the vocabulary which Dionysius deploys for the angels’ mediatory function should suggest to us—mystagogues, teachers, guides and directors (hêgoumenoi—in short, abbots!)—his own presumption is clearly of a monastic setting. We are reminded in fact, and not accidentally, of the spiritual fathers and elders who appear so prominently in our earliest monastic texts, as in, for example, the Vitae of Anthony and Pachomius, the Gerontikon, the Historia monachorum in Aegypto, the works of Evagrius Ponticus, and others. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere [here, that is], the geron or spiritual father is to a striking degree assimilated to the figure and role of the angelus interpres of the ancient apocalypses in both this earliest monastic literature, and thereafter to the present day.

But when I finally started reading St Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana for the first time the other day, I was surprised to find a response to a similar problem. In the Preface, the Bishop of Hippo is dealing with those who object to his producing a book on techniques for exegesis on the grounds that God Himself illuminates the exegete. They are particularly troubled at the notion of being instructed by a human being, and St Augustine seems to assume that they would not be as troubled as Lewis at the mediation of angels. Nevertheless, his arguments are very much relevant to the issues raised by Tolstoy. Responding to these objectors, St Augustine writes:

Let us beware of such arrogant and dangerous temptations, and rather reflect that the apostle Paul, no less, though cast to the ground and then enlightened by a divine voice from heaven, was sent to a human being to receive the sacrament of baptism and be joined to the church (Acts 9:3-8). And Cornelius the centurion, although an angel announced to him that his prayers had been heard and his acts of charity remembered, was nevertheless put under the tuition of Peter not only to receive the sacrament but also to learn what should be the objects of his faith, hope, and love. All this could certainly have been done through an angel [or through God Himself, I would add], but the human condition would be wretched indeed if God appeared unwilling to minister his word to human beings through human agency. It has been said, ‘For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are’ (I Cor. 3:17): how could that be true if God did not make divine utterances from his human temple but broadcast direct from heaven or through angels the learning that he wished to be passed on to mankind? Moreover, there would be no way for love, which ties people together in the bonds of unity, to make souls overflow and as it were intermingle with each other, if human beings learned nothing from other humans. [3]

Already this last statement, which almost seems to anticipate Charles Williams, ought to overturn the Russian novelist's whole take on things. But the final clincher for Tolstoy comes a bit further down. Recall that he essentially made himself the guru of a new religion, accepting disciples and so on. Furthermore, the 2008-2009 Annotated Bibliography in the Tolstoy Studies Journal, Vol. XXI (2009), lists an article by one Pål Kolstø I’d very much like to obtain called ‘The Elder at Iasnaia Poliana: Lev Tolstoi & the Orthodox Starets Tradition’. [4] Consider the synopsis of Kolstø’s argument in light of Fr Alexander’s thesis:

Tolstoy was familiar with and fascinated by the institution of starchestvo, a peculiar Orthodox form of piety. He trasnferred the principles into his own practice of spiritual guidance while at the same time changing the foundation to serve his own purposes. Tolstoy acted as a heterodox starets, the rôle into whichc he was at first forced by his adherents and which he considered a natural burden. The article gives an account of starchestvo in Orthodox theology and practice, discussing Tolstoy’s attitude toward this institution as reflected in his life and works. [5]

Thus, St Augustine’s words very much apply to the ‘elder at Iasnaia Poliana’: ‘But if he reads and understands without any human expositor, why does he then aspire to expound it to others and not simply refer them to God so that they too may understand it by God’s inner teaching rather than through a human intermediary?’ [6] The answer was aptly given by St Ambrose of Optina after his 1890 visit with the writer: ‘He is very proud’. [7]


[1] Count Lev N. Tolstoy, Resurrection, Vols. I-II, What is Art?, The Christian Teaching, tr. Leo Wiener (Boston: Dana Estes & Co., 1904), pp. 188-9.

[2] C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval & Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge U, 2002), pp. 72-3.

[3] St Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Teaching, tr. R.P.H. Green (Oxford: Oxford U, 1999), pp. 5-6.

[4] Pål Kolstø, ‘The Elder at Iasnaia Poliana: Lev Tolstoi & the Orthodox Starets Tradition’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian & Eurasian History 9:3 (2008), pp. 533-554.

[5] Joseph Schlegel, Olha Tytarenko, & Irina Sizova, ‘Annotated Bibliography for 2008-2009’, Tolstoy Studies Journal, Vol. XXI (2009), p. 76.

[6] St Augustine, p. 6.

[7] Qtd. in Leonard Stanton, The Optina Pustyn Monastery in the Russian Literary Imagination: Iconic Vision in Works by Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy, & Others (NY: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 206.

31 May 2010

Points of Interest in Kermode & Lewis


Although there is no connection between them that I can think of, I’d like to post about some brief comments in two different books I’ve been reading the past couple of days. The first was a rather disappointing error. At the Half Price Books 20%-off Memorial Day sale, I picked up a copy of The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction with a New Epilogue, the published edition of the 1965 Mary Flexner Lectures at Bryn Mawr College given by Frank Kermode. Having always enjoyed Kermode’s work, I felt let down when I noticed the words ‘Greek Orthodoxy’ while skimming through and stopped to read the following: ‘The Book of Revelation made its way only slowly into the canon—it is still unacceptable to Greek Orthodoxy—perhaps because of learned mistrust of over-literal interpretation of the figures.’ [1] I guess I thought it was a matter of common knowledge that, first, Revelation can be seen as part of the Eastern canon as early as St Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter in 367, and, second, the only reason one might think otherwise is that it was never included in the Eastern lectionary.

The other thing I came across was of a happier sort. In a piece written as an introductory chapter to a book that was never completed, ‘De Audiendis Poetis’, C.S. Lewis is arguing against the view that the power of the wondrous tales—which he calls ‘ferlies’—found in Mediæval literature is always derived from primitive myths and rituals in which the tales had their origin. In response to this view, Lewis writes:

The myth or rite does not always (it may sometimes) seem to me superior or equal in interest to the romancer’s ferly. The cauldron of the Celtic underworld seems to me a good deal less interesting than the Grail. The tests and ordeals—often nasty enough—through which savages, like schoolboys, put their juniors interest me less than the testing of Gawain in Gawain & the Green Knight. In tracing the ferly’s imaginative potency to such origins you are therefore asking me to believe that something which moves me much is enabled to do so by the help of something which moves me little or not at all. If after swallowing a quadruple whiskey I said ‘I’m afraid I’m rather drunk’, and you replied, ‘That’s because, while you weren’t looking, someone put half a teaspoonful of Lager beer into it’, I do not think your theory would be at all plausible. [2]

I thought Lewis’s analogy with the quadruple whiskey simply wonderful.


[1] Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction with a New Epilogue (Oxford: Oxford U, 2000), p. 7.

[2] C.S. Lewis, Studies in Medieval & Renaissance Literature, collected by Walter Hooper (Cambridge: Cambridge U, 2008), pp. 14-5.

25 April 2010

Sidney & Lewis on Cœli enarrant


C.S. Lewis once wrote of that Psalm numbered 19 in the Authorised Version and 18 in the Septuagint, ‘I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world.’ (Indeed, Michael Ward sees the Chronicles of Narnia almost as a kind of interpretation of this Psalm.) It’s one that I admit I have not contemplated much, in part because like so many others it is so familiar. So I thought it would be worthwhile to post Sir Philip Sidney’s metred translation, in hopes that the unfamiliar wording might cause us to chew on this Psalm a bit more.

Psalm 19: Cœli enarrant

The heavenly frame sets forth the fame
Of him that only thunders;
The firmament, so strangely bent,
Shows his handworking wonders.
Day unto day doth it display,
Their course doth it acknowledge,
And night to night succeeding right
In darkness teach clear knowledge.
There is no speech, no language which
Is so of skill bereaved,
But of the skies the teaching cries
They have heard and conceived.
There be no eyen but read the line
From so fair book proceeding,
Their words be set in letters great
For everybody’s reading.
Is not he blind that doth not find
The tabernacle builded
There by His Grace for sun’s fair face
In beams of beauty gilded?
Who forth doth come, like a bridegroom,
From out his veiling places,
As glad is he, as giants be
To run their mighty races.
His race is even from ends of heaven;
About that vault he goeth;
There be no realms hid from his beams;
His heat to all he throweth.
O law of His, how perfect ’tis
The very soul amending;
God’s witness sure for aye doth dure
To simplest wisdom lending.
God’s dooms be right, and cheer the sprite,
All His commandments being
So purely wise it gives the eyes
Both light and force of seeing.
Of Him the fear doth cleanness bear
And so endures forever,
His judgments be self verity,
They are unrighteous never.
Then what man would so soon seek gold
Or glittering golden money?
By them is past in sweetest taste,
Honey or comb of honey.
By them is made Thy servants’ trade
Most circumspectly guarded,
And who doth frame to keep the same
Shall fully be rewarded.
Who is the man that ever can
His faults know and acknowledge?
O Lord, cleanse me from faults that be
Most secret from all knowledge.
Thy servant keep, lest in him creep
Presumtuous sins’ offenses;
Let them not have me for their slave
Nor reign upon my senses.
So shall my sprite be still upright
In thought and conversation,
So shall I bide well purified
From much abomination.
So let words sprung from my weak tongue
And my heart’s meditation,
My saving might, Lord, in Thy sight,
Receive good acceptation!

Here then are Lewis’s ‘reflections’ on this Psalm:

The actual words supply no logical connection between the first and second movements. In this way its technique resembles that of the most modern poetry. A modern poet would pass with similar abruptness from one theme to another and leave you to find out the connecting link for yourself. But then he would possibly be doing this quite deliberately; he might have, though he chose to conceal, a perfectly clear and conscious link in his own mind which he could express to you in logical prose if he wanted to. I doubt if the ancient poet was like that. I think he felt, effortlessly a nd without reflecting on it, so close a connection, indeed (for his imagination) such an identity, between his first theme and his second that he passed from the one to the other wihtout realising that he had made any transition. First he thinks of the sky; how, day after day, the pageantry we see there shows us the splendour of its Creator. Then he thinks of the sun, the bridal joyousness of its rising, theunimaginable speed of its daily voyage from east to west. Finally, of its heat; not of course the mild heats of our climate but the cloudless, blinding, tyrannous rays hammering the hills, searching every cranny. The key phrase on which the whole poem depends is ‘there is nothing hid from the heat thereof’. It pierces everywhere with its strong, clear ardour. Then at once, in verse 7 he is talking of something else which hardly seems to him something else because it is so like the all-piercing, all-detecting sunshine. The Law is ‘undefiled’, the Law gives light, it is clean and everlasting, it is ‘sweet’. No one can improve on this and nothing can more fully admit us to the old Jewish feeling about the Law; luminous, severe, disinfectant, exultant. One hardly needs to add that this poet is wholly free from self-righteousness and the last section is concerned with his ‘secret faults’. As he has felt the sun, perhaps in the desert, searching him out in everynook of shake where he attemptedto hide from it, so he feels the Law searching out all the hiding-places of his soul.

17 April 2010

'Theologian & Collector of Oddments'—St Isidore of Seville


Today, 4 April on the Church’s calendar, we celebrate the memory of St Isidore (c. 560-636), Archbishop of Seville. An article on the Orthodox Saints of Spain (here) notes that he was ‘venerated as a miracle-worker’ in his lifetime. In Dante’s Paradiso X, the ‘flame’ of St Isidore is pointed out by Thomas Aquinas in the fourth circle, that of the sun, among ‘the ardent souls’ renowned for wisdom [1] and Anthony Esolen calls him a ‘theologian and collector of oddments of knowledge and folklore, whose Sentences and Etymologies enjoyed wide repute in the Middle Ages’. [2] According to Thomas Owen Clancy and Gilbert Márkus, St Isidore was ‘a gifted student and writer known for his generous almsgiving’, and as a bishop was ‘an able administrator’. [3] Here is the account of St Isidore’s life from the Oxford Dictionary of Saints:

Born at Seville of a noble family from Cartagena, Isidore was educated mainly by his brother Leander, a monk, but did not become one himself. From this monastic formation he acquired and communicated an encyclopedia knowledge in his books, which became most influential in medieval clerical and monastic education. His importance as archbishop was also considerable. He ruled for thirty-six years, succeeding his brother Leander, and energetically completing his work of converting the Visigoths from Arianism and organizing the Church in Spain through synods and councils. The most notable were the councils of Seville (619) and Toledo (633), over both of which he presided in person; one of their achievements was the decree (centuries before Charlemagne’s similar one) that a cathedral school should be established in every diocese. Besides being a successful and influential educator, Isidore completed the Mozarabic missal and breviary and was notable for his abundant charity to the poor. Soon before his death, he had himself clothed in sackcloth and ashes. . . .

His reputation is due principally to his writings. Bede, at the time of his death, was working on a translation of extracts from Isidore’s book On the Wonders of Nature (De natura rerum), [4] but the Etymologies is his most famous work. This is a kind of encyclopedia which contains elements of grammar, rhetoric, theology, history, mathematics, and medicine, presented in the form of etymologies, which are in fact often erroneous. His Chronica Majora, which covers the years from the Creation to 615, is an influential compilation from various other church historians, but with special information on Spanish history. Other works include biographies of famous men (completing Jerome’s work), a summary of Christian doctrine, rules for monks and nuns, and the History of the Goths. From the time of Bede onwards the writings of Isidore figure in medieval library lists almost as frequently as those of Gregory the Great, with whom he shares the unofficial title of ‘Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages’. [5]

A glance at the Catholic Encyclopedia (here) reveals that Farmer’s statement that St Isidore was educated by his brother, while true, is slightly misleading. J.B. O’Connor’s article notes that he ‘received his elementary education in the Cathedral school of Seville’ where ‘the trivium and quadrivium were taught by a body of learned men, among whom was the archbishop, Leander’—his brother. (O’Connor also tells us that St Isidore had ‘mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew’.)

Concerning St Isidore’s most famous book, the Etymologies, the full title of which is Originum seu Etymologiarum libri XX, Frederick Copleston tells us:

In this work Isidore deals with the seven liberal arts, as also with a great number of scientific or quasi-scientific facts and theories on subjects from Scripture and jurisprudence and medicine to achritecture, agriculture, war, navigation, and so on. He shows his conviction about the divine origin of sovereignty and the paramount authority of morality, law and justice in civil society, even in regard to the conduct and acts of the monarch. [6]

The other Frederick, Artz, gives us a very detailed outline of the work in his Mind of the Middle Ages:

Books I through III are devoted to the seven liberal arts; Book IV is on medicine, V on law and on divisions of time, VI on the Bible and church services, VII concerns God, angels, and saints, VIII the church and sects, IX languages, reces, kingdoms, armies, X is a miscellaneous etymological word list, XI concerns men and fabulous monsters, XII animals, XIII the universe, XIV the earth and its parts, XV buildings and lands, XVI stones, minerals, and metals, XVII agriculture and botany, XVIII wars and games, XIX ships, building materials, dress, and, finally, XX food, drink and furniture. [7]

C.S. Lewis considers the Etymologies an important part of the background of mediæval and Renaissance literature—indeed, St Isidore is a perfect illustration of Lewis’s observation that ‘Distinction, definition, tabulation’ were the ‘delight’ of mediæval man [8]—but rather downplays St Isidore’s achievement a little unkindly:

As the title implies his ostensible subject was language, but the frontier between explaining the meaning of words and describing the nature of things is easily violated. He makes hardly any effort to keep on the linguistic side of it, and his book thus becomes an encyclopaedia. It is a work of very mediocre intelligence, but often gives us scraps of information we cannot easily runt to ground in better authors. [9]

Similarly, Artz notes, ‘The spell of words on Isidore is strong; he strings them along and one wonders how much he understood some of his own vocabulary.’ But overall Artz is a bit more positive in his assessment, noting what an ‘enormous task’ such a book must have been considering the availability of books in 7th-c. Spain, and concluding, ‘It remained, however, until Vincent of Beauvais composed his Speculum in the thirteenth century, the most accessible book in which one could find information about many subjects—a sort of “old lumber room in which had been stored away many of the cast off clothes of antiquity”.’ [10]

To turn our attention to St Isidore’s other works, De natura rerum, ‘On the Nature of Things’, is ‘a synthesis in forty-eight chapters of the wisdom of his age about time (days, night, weeks, months and years), cosmology (earth, sky, planets, water, sun, moon and stars), climate, plague and one or two other natural phenomena’. [11] Copleston mentions two others as well—the Libri tres sententiarum, ‘a collection of theological and moral theses taken from St Augustine and St Gregory the Great’, and a ‘treatise on numbers, Liber Numerorum, which treats of the numbers occurring in the Sacred Scriptures’ and ‘is often fanciful in the extreme in the mystical meanings which it attaches to numbers.’ [12]

Clancy and Márkus note the presence of both the Etymologies and the De natura in the library of Iona monastery. They write, ‘His numerous writings were seized on with delight by Irish writers, and exercised an immediate and lasting influence. . . . The Irish were fascinated by Isidore’s works on nature . . . .’ [13]

In conclusion, I would just point out that after writing all of the above, I discovered online (here) a pdf of an entire book on St Isidore: Ernest Brehaut’s An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages: Isidore of Seville. Brehaut writes:

His many writings, and especially his great encyclopedia, the Etymologies, are among the most important sources for the history of intellectual culture in the early middle ages, since in them are gathered together and summed up all such dead remnants of secular learning as had not been absolutely rejected by the superstition of his own and earlier ages; they furnish, so to speak, a cross-section of the debris of scientific thought at the point where it is most artificial and unreal. [14]

Here, finally, is part of the chapter on angels in Book VII of St Isidore’s Etymologies, as extracted in Brehaut’s book:

Chapter 5. On angels.

2. The word angel is the name of a function, not of a nature, for they are always spirits, but are called angels when they are sent.

3. And the license of painters makes wings for them in order to denote their swift passage in every direction, just as also in the fables of the poets the winds are said to have wings on account of their velocity . . . .

4. The sacred writings testify that there are nine orders of angels, namely, angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, virtues, principalities, powers, cherubim and seraphim. And we shall explain by derivation why the names of these functions were so applied.

5. Angels are so called because they are sent down from heaven to carry messages to men. . . .

6. Archangels in the Greek tongue means summi nuntii in the Latin. For they who carry small or trifling messages are called angels; and they who announce the most important things are called archangels. . . . Archangels are so called because they hold the leadership among angels. . . . For they are leaders and chiefs under whose control services are assigned to each and every angel.

17. Certain functions of angels by which signs and wonders are done in the world are called virtues, on account of which the virtues are named.

18. Those are powers to whom hostile virtues are subject, and they are called by the name of powers because evil spirits are constrained by their power not to harm the world as much as they desire.

19. Principalities are those who are in command of the hosts of the angles. And they have received the name of principality because they send the subordinate angles here and there to do the divine service. . . .

20. Dominions are they who are in charge even of the virtues and principalities, and they are called dominions because they rule the rest of the hosts of the angels.

21. Thrones are the hosts of angels who in the Latin are called sedes; and they are called thrones because the creator presides over them, and through them accomplishes his decisions.

22. Cherubim . . . are the higher hosts of angels who, being placed nearer, are fuller of the divine wisdom than the rest. . . .

24. The seraphim in like manner are a multitude of angels, and the word is translated from the Hebrew into the Latin as ardentes or incendentes, and they are called ardentes because between them and God no other angels stand, and therefore the nearer they stand in his presence the more they are lighted by the brightness of divine light.

25. And they veil the fact and feet of God sitting on his throne, and therefore the rest of the throng of angels are not able to see fully the essence of God, since the seraphim cover him.

28. To each and every one, as has been said before, his proper duties are appointed, and it is agreed that they obtained these according to merit at the beginning of the world. That angels have charge over both places and men, an angel testifies through the prophet, saying: ‘Princeps regni Persarum mihi restitit’ (Dan. x. 13).

29. Whence it is evident that there is no place that angels have not charge of. They have charge also over the beginnings of all works.

30. Such is the order or classification of the angels who after the fall of the wicked stood in celestial strength. For after the apostate angels fell, these were established in the continuance of eternal blessedness.

32. As to the two seraphim that are read of in Isaiah, they show in a figure the meaning of the Old and New Testament. But as to their covering the face and feet of God, it is because we cannot know the past before the universe, nor the future after the universe, but according to their testimony we contemplate only the intervening time. [15]


[1] Dante Alighieri, Paradise, tr. Anthony Esolen, illust. Gustave Dore (NY: Modern Library, 2007), p. 107.

[2] Dante, p. 428, and n. to p. 107, l. 131.

[3] Thomas Owen Clancy and Gilbert Márkus, OP, Iona: The Earliest Poetry of a Celtic Monastery (Edinburgh: Edinburgh U, 1995), p. 220.

[4] This strikes me as a poor rendering of the Latin title, and is not followed in any of the other sources I consulted. In Studies in Words, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge U, 2002), C.S. Lewis points out that De Natura Rerum is a whole genre of ancient writing. He writes, ‘In the fifth century we have that [philosophical poem] of Empedocles About the Phusis tôn ontôn (the Phusis of the things that are)’ (p. 35). On the next page, he notes Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura, and then speculates:

Both could mean ‘What things are like’, and both would be simply two more instances of phusis and natura in the sense of ‘character, sort’. . . . Men begin by asking what this or that thing is like, asking for its phusis. They then get the idea of asking what ‘everything’ or ‘the whole show’ is like. The answer will give the phusis of everything. (p. 36)

Certainly Lewis calls our usual sense of ‘nature’, ‘the natural world’, which the translation given in Farmer is apt to imply, ‘of all the senses of all the words treated in these pages . . . the most dangerous, the one we are readiest to intrude where it is not required’ (p. 37).

[5] David Farmer, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford U, 2004), p. 264.

[6] Frederick Copleston, SJ, Mediæval Philosophy, Part I: Augustine & Bonaventure, Vol. 2 of A History of Philosophy (Garden City, NY: Image, 1962), p. 120.

[7] Frederick Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ages: An Historical Survey, AD 200-1500, 3rd rev. ed. (Chicago: U of Chicago, 1980), p. 193.

[8] C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval & Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge U, 2002), p. 10.

[9] Ibid., pp. 90-1.

[10] Artz, p. 193.

[11] Clancy & Márkus, p. 221.

[12] Copleston, p. 120.

[13] Clancy & Márkus, pp. 220, 221.

[14] Ernest Brehaut, An Encyclopedist of the Dark Ages: Isidore of Seville (NY: Columbia U, 1912), p. 8. My page numbering follows that of the pdf of Brehaut, which seems to differ from that of the printed edition.

[15] Ibid., pp. 123-4.

16 April 2010

'That Brilliant Young Star'—George Herbert


A recent and brilliant post by Felix Culpa analysing the poem ‘Church-monuments’ by the dear English poet George Herbert made me realise I had been forced to skip posting on his birthday because of the coincidence this year of that day with Holy Saturday. It is a shame, because Herbert approaches more closely to sanctity than almost any of the writers I plan to post on, he is one of my own favourite poets, and as Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna has written, Herbert is ‘a genius who is too often ignored today’. [1] So while it is rather late, here is a modest post on George Herbert, whom Alexander Witherspoon and Frank Warnke call ‘a towering figure in Baroque poetry and . . . perhaps the finest devotional poet in our language’, [2] and Charles Williams ‘that brilliant young star, the Public Orator of Cambridge, Mr George Herbert, who (in a sedate Anglican manner) renounced the world for God’. [3] To begin with, I offer Dame Helen Gardner’s brief biographical note on the poet in her Penguin Classics anthology, The Metaphysical Poets:

George Herbert, 1593-1633 (p. 20). [Born in Montgomery, Wales,] George Herbert was the fifth son of Richard and Magdalen Herbert and was only three years old when his father died. He was brought up wholly by his mother, who did not marry her second husband, Sir John Danvers, until 1609. Herbert was educated at Westminster and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was elected Fellow before taking his MA in 1616. He was made Reader in Rhetoric in 1618 and was Public Orator from 1620 to 1627. Like Donne, Herbert looked towards the Court and it was only with the death of his ‘Court hopes’ that he decided to ‘lose himself in an humble way’ and take Orders, an unusual step for a man of family at this period. He was ordained deacon some time in 1626 and spent the next years in retirement. In April 1630 he was presented with the living of Bemerton, near Salisbury, and was ordained priest in September. Less than three years after, he died. Herbert wrote no secular verse; in his first year at Cambridge he sent two sonnets to his mother, promising to consecrate his ‘poor Abilities in Poetry’ to God’s glory. The Temple was published a few months after his death and was constantly reprinted through the century. Walton’s Life of Herbert (1670) was not based on personal acquaintance but on good hearsay. [4]

It may not, however, be quite clear from the above how well educated Herbert was, a point that deserves note because of how often the poet’s ‘simplicity’ is insisted upon. Isaac Walton’s Life of Mr George Herbert insists that he ‘was blest with a high fancy, a civil and sharp wit, and with a natural elegance, both in his behaviour, his tongue, and his pen’, [5] but also ‘well instructed in the rules of grammar’, and that ‘he came to be perfect in the learned languages, and especially in the Greek tongue, in which he after proved an excellent critic.’ [6] In fact, we still possess a number of pieces that he composed in ‘the learned languages’, frequent speeches in Latin having been one of the requirements of the Public Orator position at Cambridge. In the words of Walton, ‘And in Cambridge we may find our George Herbert’s behaviour to be such that we may conclude he consecrated the first-fruits of his early age to virtue and a serious study of learning.’ [7] No less than in his poetry, this virtue and learning are thus on (modest) display in Herbert’s other writings: The Country Parson, his Character, & Rule of Holy Life, his letters, Brief Notes on Valdesso’s Considerations, and his orations.

But of course, Herbert is also a Christian of a very high sort (indeed, I understand he is venerated as a Saint by some Anglicans!). Speaking of how many of his favourite writers and poets even as a young atheist were thoroughly imbued with Christianity, C.S. Lewis has written:

Most alarming of all was George Herbert. Here was a man who seemed to me to excel all the authors I had ever read in conveying the quality of life as we actually live it from moment to moment, but the wretched fellow, instead of doing it all directly, insisted on mediating it through what I still would have called ‘the Christian mythology’. On the other hand most of the authors who might be claimed as predecessors of modern enlightenment seemed to me very small beer and bored me cruelly. [8]

Similarly, just before he begins an argument that those elements of the Anglican church under the Stuarts that were sometimes mistaken for ‘Romish and papistic’ were rather ‘patristic’, Samuel Taylor Coleridge says of Herbert:

G. Herbert is a true poet, but a poet sui generis, the merits of whose poems will never be felt without a sympathy with the mind and character of the man. To appreciate this volume, it is not enough that the reader possesses a cultivated judgment, classical taste, or even poetic sensibility, unless he be likewise a Christian, and both a zealous and an orthodox, both a devout and a devotional Christian. But even this will not quite suffice. He must be an affectionate and dutiful child of the Church, and from habit, conviction, and a constitutional predisposition to ceremoniousness, in piety as in manners, find her forms and ordinances aids of religion, not sources of formality; for religion is the element in which he lives, and the region in which he moves. [9]

The context of Coleridge’s comment brings me to one aspect of Herbert that is particularly likely to appeal to Orthodox Christians: his devotion to the Fathers. Archbishop Chrysostomos refers to ‘a Patristic profundity to the insights and experiences of his soul’. [10] Herbert himself recommends to the country parson the study of the Fathers as essential to the understanding of Scripture:

As he doth not so study others, as to neglect the grace of God in himself, and what the Holy Spirit teacheth him; so doth he assure himself, that God in all ages hath had his Servants, to whom he hath revealed his Truth, as well as to him; and that as one Country doth not bear all things, that there may be a Commerce; so neither hath God opened, or will open all to one, that there may be a traffic in knowledge between the servants of God, for the planting both of love and humility. [11]

Robert Willmott quotes a remark of Herbert’s first editor, Barnabas Oley, ‘He that reads Mr Herbert’s poems attendingly, shall find the excellence of Scripture Divinity, and choice passages of the Fathers bound up in the metre.’ Willmott then comments:

Herbert did not forget to consult, for his outpourings of heart-praise and love, that commonplace book of Greek and Latin theology which the Country Parson is recommended to collect and ponder. Many of his curiosities of fancy have a Patristic, rather than a poetic ancestry, and are to be sought in Chrysostom or Cyprian, instead of in Donne, or Marini. [12]

Willmott is referring, of course, to the next chapter of Country Parson, where Herbert insists:

The Country Parson hath read the Fathers also, and the Schoolmen, and the later Writers, or a good proportion of all, out of all of which he hath compiled a Book and Body of Divinity, which is the storehouse of his Sermons, and which he preacheth all his Life; but diversely clothed, illustrated, and enlarged. [13]

In light of Coleridge’s and Willmott’s observations, I can’t help but wonder at the frequent and superfluous references to Herbert’s Protestantism in what is otherwise one of my favourite articles on Herbert: ‘“Brittle Crazy Glass”: George Herbert’s Devotional Poetics’, by an acquaintance who taught at my alma mater in my undergraduate days, Mark A. Eaton, now of Azusa Pacific University:

To a Protestant poet like Herbert, the very activity of writing poetry entails a self-assertion authorized only insofar as it succeeds in directing our gaze past the poetry toward God.

. . . Of course, Protestant exegesis of Scripture provided a simple interpretive procedure: God could be found behind every text, when read properly. [14]

The obvious place for a Protestant Christian to search for God is in the Bible. More often than not, biblical exegesis as it appears in Herbert’s poetry is typological. Reformation typology evolves from medieval exegesis and looks back across the centuries to St Augustine. [15]

[And quoting Barbara Lewalski,] . . . ‘typology permitted Protestants to identify their own spiritual experience much more closely with that of the Old Testament types. [16]

In short, I see nothing specifically Protestant in any of this. As Coleridge notes, it is patristic, and while English Protestants may have attempted a fidelity to the Fathers in the seventeenth century, they certainly did not continue such an attempt consistently, nor did the early Reformers themselves. Fr Andrew Louth reminds us, ‘Luther . . . was fundamentally and deeply opposed to allegory and to the concomitant idea of the multiple senses of Scripture . . . (not that this prevented Luther from having resort to allegory on other occasions).’ Fr Louth goes on to quote John Keble’s observation, ‘During the struggle of the Reformation, men had felt instinctively, if they did not clearly see, that the Fathers were against them’. [17]

Herbert even goes against the Protestant grain in his admiration for asceticism. L.R. Lind considers him exemplary of ‘a return to asceticism’ which ‘characterized some of the best English poetry’ of the time. [18] This is illustrated beautifully by Herbert’s encomium on Egyptian monasticism in these lines of ‘The Church Militant’, quoted by Coleridge as evidence of his veneration of the Fathers:

To Egypt first she came, where they did prove
Wonders of anger once, but now of love.
The ten Commandments there did flourish more
Than the ten bitter plagues had done before.
Holy Macarius and great Anthonie
Made Pharaoh Moses, changing th’ historie.
Goshen was darknesse, Egypt full of lights,
Nilus for monsters brouth forth Israelites.
Such power hath mightie Baptism to produce,
For things misshapen, things of highest use. [19]

It is interesting indeed that Herbert, when naming the ‘lights’ that shown forth from Egypt, chooses the desert ascetics, Ss Macarius and Anthony, rather than the great Doctors of the Church, Ss Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria.

But one thing that interests me in Herbert above all is what Ann Pasternak Slater calls his ‘abiding theme’: ‘that man’s soul is God’s temple’. [20] It may sound at first like a simple commonplace—we are all familiar with St Paul’s question in I Corinthians, ‘What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own’ (I Cor. 6:19)? But the Fathers discovered in this verse a very profound mystical doctrine, one which informed their reading of Scripture, their experience of liturgy, and their practice of prayer. Consider this passage from the Mystagogy of the Church of St Maximus the Confessor: ‘And again from another point of view he used to say that holy Church is like a man because for the soul it has a sanctuary, for mind it has the divine altar, and for body it has the nave.’ [21] Then compare the analogous interiorisation of the altar in Herbert’s poem (I apologise that I do not know how to reproduce the deliberate ‘altar’ shape of the lines in the printed texts—see the image to the left):

The Altar

A broken Altar, Lord, thy servant reares,
Made of a heart, and cemented with teares: [22]
Whose parts are as thy hand did frame;
No workmans tool hath touch’d the same.
A heart alone
Is such a stone,
As nothing but
Thy pow’r doth cut.
Wherefore each part
Of my hard heart
Meets in this frame,
To praise thy name:
That, if I chance to hold my peace,
These stones to praise thee may not cease.
O let thy blessed Sacrifice be mine,
And sanctifie this Altar to be thine. [23]

Mary Ellen Rickey argues persuasively that the poem is a sanctification of a classical pattern, but at any rate the echo of a patristic theme only confirms her judgement that it is certainly ‘no mere quaint vagary of a naïve sensibility, as for two centuries it was mistakenly thought to be, or even an eccentricity redeemed by its skillful combination of Biblical allusions’. [24]

I have said or quoted a great deal about Herbert, but offered very little by way of his own words. I refer readers to a number of previous posts, here (where I also mention the study of Herbert by the late Mother Thekla of the former Dormition Monastery in Whitby, Yorkshire), here, here, here, and here. But I shan’t miss the opportunity to post just two more.

First, Michael Ward suggests that Lewis’s depiction of the descent of the planetary gods in That Hideous Strength may have been influenced by the following lyric of Herbert’s, where the line ‘The starres were coming down to know / If they might mend their wages, and serve here’ is underlined in Lewis’s copy at the Wade Center: [25]

Whitsunday

Listen sweet Dove unto my song,
And spread thy golden wings in me;
Hatching my tender heart so long,
Till it get wing, and flie away with thee.

Where is that fire which once descended
On thy Apostles? thou didst then
Keep open house, richly attended,
Feasting all comers by twelve chosen men.

Such glorious gifts thou didst bestow,
That th’ earth did like a heav’n appeare;
The starres were coming down to know
If they might mend their wages, and serve here.

The sunne, which once did shine alone,
Hung down his head, and wisht for night,
When he beheld twelve sunnes for one
Going about the world, and giving light.

But since those pipes of gold, which brought
That cordiall water to our ground,
Were cut and martyr’d by the fault
Of those, who did themselves through their side wound,

Thou shutt’st the doore, and keep’st within;
Scarce a good joy creeps through the chink:
And if the braves of conqu’ring sinne
Did not excite thee, we should wholly sink.

Lord, though we change, thou art the same;
The same sweet God of love and light:
Restore this day, for thy great name,
Unto his ancient and miraculous right. [26]

The other poem—‘The Windows’—is partially quoted by Archbishop Chrysostomos, in his enthusiastic review of Jane Falloon’s Heart in Pilgrimage: A Study of George Herbert. [27] It is also a major subject of Dr Eaton’s article. Slater takes the window to be the minister’s preaching, [28] but Eaton astutely goes a bit further, seeing in it an unmistakable reference to Herbert’s own poetry. [29]

The Windows

Lord, how can man preach thy eternall word?
He is a brittle crazie glasse:
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.

But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.

Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw: but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring. [30]

In conclusion, I highly recommend Felix Culpa’s meditation on ‘Church-monuments’ (here). But there are also many other good sources on Herbert online, including the Herbert page at the Luminarium (here), the Cambridge Author page (here), and a dissertation—‘The Dwelling Place of God: The Significance of Structure in “The Temple” by Lillian Myers (here). By all means, read more of and about this brilliant and pious man who ‘occupies a permanent and central position in our understanding of the development of English poetry and is recognized as one of the chief poets of the seventeenth century’. [31]


[1] Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, Review of Heart in Pilgrimage: A Study of George Herbert by Jane Falloon, Orthodox Tradition XXVI.3, 2009, p. 58.

[2] Alexander M. Witherspoon & Frank J. Warnke, eds., Seventeenth-Century Prose & Poetry, 2nd ed. (NY: Harcourt, 1963), p. 842.

[3] Charles Williams, The Descent of the Dove: A Short History of the Holy Spirit in the Church (Vancouver: Regent, 2002), p. 195.

[4] Dame Helen Gardner, ed., The Metaphysical Poets (London: Penguin, 1985), p. 313.

[5] Isaac Walton, ‘The Life of Mr George Herbert’, The Complete English Works, by George Herbert, ed. Ann Pasternak Slater (NY: Knopf, 1995), p. 346.

[6] Ibid., p. 340.

[7] Ibid., p. 344.

[8] From Surprised by Joy, qtd. in Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life & Imagination of C.S. Lewis (SF: Harper, 2005), p. 126.

[9] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Notes & Lectures on Shakespeare & Some of the Old Poets & Dramatists, Vol. 2, ed. Mrs H.N. Coleridge (London: William Pickering, 1849), p. 255.

[10] Archbishop Chrysostomos, p. 58.

[11] George Herbert, The Works of George Herbert in Prose & Verse, ed. Robert Aris Willmott (NY: D. Appleton & Co., 1857), p. 223.

[12] Robert Aris Willmott, ‘Introduction’, Herbert, p. xxii.

[13] Herbert, p. 224.

[14] Mark A. Eaton, ‘“Brittle Crazy Glass”: George Herbert’s Devotional Poetics’, Christianity & Literature 43.1, Autumn 1993, p. 6.

[15] Ibid., p. 7.

[16] Ibid., p. 9.

[17] Fr Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Wichita, KS: Eighth Day, 2007), p. 98.

[18] L.R. Lind, ed., Latin Poetry in Verse Translation (Boston: Houghton, 1957), p. 393.

[19] Herbert, p. 203.

[20] Ann Pasternak Slater, Introduction, The Complete English Works, p. xv.

[21] St Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings, tr. George C. Berthold (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1985), pp. 189-90.

[22] Although Herbert refers to the ‘heart’ where St Maximus has ‘mind’ (nous), recall Columba Stewart’s observations that in the ‘Evagrian’ tradition these two faculties are often directly identified, and are at any rate closely related in the patristic tradition as a whole. See Columba Stewart, OSB, Cassian the Monk (Oxford: Oxford U, 1998), pp. 42 & 166, n. 13.

[23] Herbert, p. 18.

[24] Mary Ellen Rickey, Utmost Art: Complexity in the Verse of George Herbert (Lexington: U of Kentecky, 1966), p. 15.

[25] Michael Ward, Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford U, 2008), p. 37.

[26] Herbert, pp. 54-5.

[27] Archbishop Chrysostomos, p. 58.

[28] Slater, p. xii.

[29] Eaton, p. 6.

[30] Herbert, p. 63.

[31] John R. Roberts, George Herbert: An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism, 1905-1974 (Columbia, MO: U of Missouri, 1978), p. x.

08 April 2010

Lewis & Inklings Conference, 'A Speaker's Prayer'


I must apologise, dear readers. This week has not allowed much time for posting, and this weekend promises to be even worse. But part of the reason for that is the C.S. Lewis & Inklings Society Conference which I will be attending at my alma mater, Oklahoma City University, tomorrow and Saturday. Indeed, while I will be vastly overshadowed by Michael Ward and Diana Glyer, tomorrow I will in fact be presenting a paper, entitled ‘“were Ceremonie slaine”: C.S. Lewis’s Preface to Paradise Lost as a Contribution to the Ethics of Genre’. In a nutshell, I use Lewis’s account of the ‘specific delight’ of epic poetry as a corrective to Mikhail Bakhtin’s uncompromising championing of the novel, and try to relate both to our theology and life as Christians. Although I will not be speaking as an apologist, thank God, I thought mutatis mutandis some of Lewis’s sentiments in ‘The Apologist’s Evening Prayer’ were rather appropriate for my situation:

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die. [1]

The good news is that next week I should have some more time for blogging. No feastdays, no conference, no tutoring. Just me and my Logismoi.

[1] C.S. Lewis, Poems, ed. Walter Hooper (San Diego: Harcourt, 1992), p. 129.