![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have finished my Chesterton sorbet and done some sorting out.
Firstly, Chesterton was anti-Semitic to a degree; my reading of his fiction and of his essays was correct. He believed very much that a small coterie of people were after world domination and that this evil group were Jewish, and nothing anyone said to him (there was a particular protest in the US during one of his visits) could sway him to examine the evidence. He had written his "New Jerusalem" and was past the subject and had, in his mind, been fair and that was that.
I have to grant him this, if there are millions of people who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real, now, after proof of their forgery has been announced over and over again, it would have only taken a small amount of credulity round then to trust them and the related books. Anyone who believes this stuff now, of course, needs a history lesson and to learn how to use Google and maybe to import a few brain cells - but Chesterton was articulating his views primarily from 1900 to the late 1930s, which was the bad period of anti-Semitism leading to the Holocaust. I think I will blame lack of intellectual sophistication and lack of interest in checking the subject out fully rather than anti-Semitism - it makes more sense for the writer and for the man.
He didn't believe that this was the sum total of Jewish experience on the planet, and this is a big mark in his favour. In fact, he defended Jews who were deprived of basic liberties (eg ghettos) and he was very proud of being one of the earlier members of the British literary set to speak out against Hitler.
So he both carried and cemented a popular piece of bigotry and respected Jews. Two views at once.
This fits much better in with Chesterton the Catholic and Chesterton of the Big Heart than my previous thoughts about him. He might still not have invited me to dinner, because I am not one of his persecuted sub-classes and so he might mistake me for one of those supposed "oligarchic" Jews. There is also the fact that he and HG Wells didn't get on and Wells' politics are more my own than Chesterton's.
My second piece of useful information is that the priest who officiated at his conversion was the same one who Chesterton used as a model for the Father Brown stories. Since that priest became a bishop, I have visions of Pope Innocuous (carrying a big umbrella and a brown paper parcel) if Chesterton and his mentor had both lived longer.
Finally, in the spirit of synchronicity that persuaded me to blog Chesterton originally, here is a present for Deb Biancotti. The book is "Chesterton as seen by his contemporaries" and it is by Cyril Clemens. In it, James Branch Cabell is quoted of writing about Chesterton that he "enjoyed all the works of Chesterton's early and middle period. I admit that of his publications during, let us say vaguely, more recent years, I prefer to say nothing".
Now for the bon-mot. Chesterton existed for bon-mots, so I can't finish my Chesterton posts without one. He said of Mussolini "He was indeed a jolly card." (well, I found it amusing, mainly because Mussolini said very rude things about Chesterton's French.)
PS I just re-read this and realized how very 1930s my writing has suddenly become. Such long sentences! Such an expository style! Watch this space for me to unintentionally echo the next writer I read.
PPS Deb and I seem to have talked about Chesterton on both her blog and on mine, so you might want to check her blog for missing links in the thought process. James Branch Cabell, for instance, entered the conversation on her blog, and I think it was there we talked about the nature of prejudice. And before you ask, I am not gathering it together into one place - I am too lazy.
Firstly, Chesterton was anti-Semitic to a degree; my reading of his fiction and of his essays was correct. He believed very much that a small coterie of people were after world domination and that this evil group were Jewish, and nothing anyone said to him (there was a particular protest in the US during one of his visits) could sway him to examine the evidence. He had written his "New Jerusalem" and was past the subject and had, in his mind, been fair and that was that.
I have to grant him this, if there are millions of people who believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real, now, after proof of their forgery has been announced over and over again, it would have only taken a small amount of credulity round then to trust them and the related books. Anyone who believes this stuff now, of course, needs a history lesson and to learn how to use Google and maybe to import a few brain cells - but Chesterton was articulating his views primarily from 1900 to the late 1930s, which was the bad period of anti-Semitism leading to the Holocaust. I think I will blame lack of intellectual sophistication and lack of interest in checking the subject out fully rather than anti-Semitism - it makes more sense for the writer and for the man.
He didn't believe that this was the sum total of Jewish experience on the planet, and this is a big mark in his favour. In fact, he defended Jews who were deprived of basic liberties (eg ghettos) and he was very proud of being one of the earlier members of the British literary set to speak out against Hitler.
So he both carried and cemented a popular piece of bigotry and respected Jews. Two views at once.
This fits much better in with Chesterton the Catholic and Chesterton of the Big Heart than my previous thoughts about him. He might still not have invited me to dinner, because I am not one of his persecuted sub-classes and so he might mistake me for one of those supposed "oligarchic" Jews. There is also the fact that he and HG Wells didn't get on and Wells' politics are more my own than Chesterton's.
My second piece of useful information is that the priest who officiated at his conversion was the same one who Chesterton used as a model for the Father Brown stories. Since that priest became a bishop, I have visions of Pope Innocuous (carrying a big umbrella and a brown paper parcel) if Chesterton and his mentor had both lived longer.
Finally, in the spirit of synchronicity that persuaded me to blog Chesterton originally, here is a present for Deb Biancotti. The book is "Chesterton as seen by his contemporaries" and it is by Cyril Clemens. In it, James Branch Cabell is quoted of writing about Chesterton that he "enjoyed all the works of Chesterton's early and middle period. I admit that of his publications during, let us say vaguely, more recent years, I prefer to say nothing".
Now for the bon-mot. Chesterton existed for bon-mots, so I can't finish my Chesterton posts without one. He said of Mussolini "He was indeed a jolly card." (well, I found it amusing, mainly because Mussolini said very rude things about Chesterton's French.)
PS I just re-read this and realized how very 1930s my writing has suddenly become. Such long sentences! Such an expository style! Watch this space for me to unintentionally echo the next writer I read.
PPS Deb and I seem to have talked about Chesterton on both her blog and on mine, so you might want to check her blog for missing links in the thought process. James Branch Cabell, for instance, entered the conversation on her blog, and I think it was there we talked about the nature of prejudice. And before you ask, I am not gathering it together into one place - I am too lazy.