Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER TWO :THE FOUNDATION OF CHESTERTON’S DRAMATOLOGY
Introduction to Chapter Two
AL ftaycock (1963:79) points out that “[t]he difficulty in trying to write anything about Chesterton is that there is so much of him. Any sentence that one writes about him could be expanded into a paragraph; any paragraph into an essay; and any essay into a book”. In short, Chesterton deals in big ideas and any attempt to present a neat summary of his thought through essentialised reductionisms can only fail to capture the many subtleties and nuances of his expansive philosophy. A further difficulty in trying to write about Chesterton’s work lies in deciding upon a suitable point of entry for introducing the larger context within which Chesterton understands the place of people in the world. It has already been noted that Chesterton paints his ideas in detailed pictures rather than simplistic patterns or diagrams and, as Patrick Baybrooke (1922) suggests, is often deliberately obscure in his complexity. With this in mind, and in agreement with Aidan Nichols (2009), Alison ftilbank (2009a) and Ralph Wood (2011) among others, I have decided to present Chesterton’s ideas within a theological framework, since I believe that it best reflects his own sensibilities. After all, while Chesterton’s work covers innumerable subjects and literary genres, it always somehow includes his own interest in Christian orthodoxy (ftaycock 1963:46).
One of the critiques of Chesterton’s work has been his tendency to drag religion into everything (Clark 2006:174). It is an odd critique, because it seems that it was hardly ever Chesterton’s aim to do anything else. He is clear on the fact that any reference to someone’s work should emphasise what he most values, and it seems obvious that what he most values is the relationship of his own faith and convictions to the world he encounters (ST:192).1 He therefore strongly defends his use of propaganda in his work: “Personally, I am all for propaganda, and a great deal of what I write is deliberately propagandist. But even when it is not in the least propagandist, it will probably be full of the implications of my own religion, because that is what is meant by having a religion” (TH:56).2 Obviously, one of the implications of his religion worth discussing is the way that it guides interpretive understanding. As I have already mentioned, however, this study does not concern Chesterton’s place in history as a theologian among theologians; nor does it deal with the reliability or doctrinal specifics of his theological claims. I am simply interested in the ideas that he writes about and the implications that these ideas would have on interpretive experience. In other words, it is not my intention to debate the literal or allegorical correctness of Chesterton’s ideas as they relate to a larger historical, theological or philosophical framework, but rather to examine the reasonable implications of his worldview on his dramatology.
The central aim of this study is to examine this dramatology, which is the name I give to Chesterton’s “dramaturgical hermeneutics” (Reyburn 2011:51). The goal of this particular chapter is to provide the foundation required for achieving that aim. Consequently, I have chosen to begin by highlighting and explaining three particular facets of Chesterton’s philosophy, namely his cosmology, epistemology and ontology. Each of these facets has a dramatic relationship with the other facets in that they overlap, intertwine and inform each other, thereby revealing Chesterton’s recognition of his own horizon of understanding. fty primary reason for examining each of these as distinct is to demonstrate that they operate in conversation with one another; the parts are presented only so that the whole may be better understood. ftoreover, each of the facets of Chesterton’s philosophy are dramatic within their own structures. His cosmology sees the universe as a drama, his epistemology considers human understanding in relation to this cosmological drama, and his ontology understands being as a dramatic event around, through and within a larger drama. In other words, being has a dramatic, metareferential relationship to Being.3 The result of this picture of Chesterton’s philosophy is that interpretation itself may be understood as a dramatic process that is part of the very drama that it seeks to interpret.
Chesterton’s cosmology
Chesterton’s love for drama is evident in a number of obvious ways in his life and especially in the fact that he attended, acted in and wrote for theatre (AU:276-279; Ker 2011:342). However, it is not only in this literal sense that he is fond of drama, for he sees drama as a metaphor for the whole of life (WW:129). From his perspective, life is not a random collection of accidents, coincidences and indecipherable illogicalities, but a coherent drama full of meaning. It is, as this whole study suggests, something to be read, interpreted and responded to. This sense of the ubiquity of meaning deeply affects Chesterton’s philosophical approach, which I take here to include his theological cosmology, epistemology, and ontology. All of these are interwoven to inform his dramatology.
Chesterton’s conviction that life itself is a drama is rooted in his understanding that everything and everyone is an actor or agent in a theatrical production initiated by the Divine Playwright: “God had written … a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it” (HO:282).4 This statement is in fact taken as the premise for Chesterton’s posthumously published play The surprise (1952); and, as simple as it may first appear, it coherently presents three key ideas that I take to be foundational to Chesterton’s worldview. Thus, below it is my aim to exegete this statement in relation to Chesterton’s cosmology.5 In doing so I am following Nichols’ (2009:57) lead since he argues that Chesterton’s metaphysical realism is directly linked to the doctrine of creation, which I consider under three themes — the Creator, Creation and the Fall, and re-creation — with reference to The surprise and with the wider framework of Chesterton’s philosophy in mind. Following this exegesis, I unpack how this cosmology forms the basis of Chesterton’s epistemology and his ontology.
The Creator
Chesterton’s dramatic cosmology begins with “God …” (HO:282). He writes that no one is able to understand his own Catholic philosophy apart from the realisation that “a fundamental part of it is entirely the praise of Life, the praise of Being, the praise of God as the Creator of the World.Everything else follows a long way after that …” (ST:98). Naturally, Chesterton is referring to a very specific “personal God” as encountered and understood in the historic, orthodox Christian tradition (HO:347). He recognises this God as “the highest truth of the cosmos” (HO:389), implying thattruth is directly related to the personality of this God and to those who bear his image. This is to say that truth is not bound up in mere propositions, but in the very person of God. It is clear that while other traditions present similar conceptions of the nature of God as the Supreme Being, as in the cases of Allah and Brahma for instance, Chesterton’s God is not entirely like these. Chesterton acknowledges that the word God “is by its nature a name of mystery” (Eft:24), and yet this mystery is not entirely inaccessible or incomprehensible . Thus, God may be understood as the originator and sustainer of all things, but he is first and foremost the Creator. Chesterton writes that “[t]here is no greater thing to be said of God Himself than that He makes things” (AU:51).
At the forefront of Chesterton’s mind is his understanding that the Creator God is, in his very nature, good. He is certainly not like the vindictive, lightning-bolt hurling, tantrum-throwing Jupiter that inhabits some ancient superstitions (Eft:117). Because of this understanding of the nature of God, Chesterton presents his readers with a cosmological perspective that places goodness both at the centre and the circumference of the created order. In fact, it is precisely the presence of order in creation that points to the goodness of the Creator, for we cannot know the good Creator apart from the order that may be perceived in his creation.
The goodness of the Creator is reflected by analogy in the opening of The surprise, which concerns a brief interaction between a Franciscan friar and a character known to the audience as the Author. To begin with, the Author explains that he is the “ftaster Puppet-ftaker of the World, who has marionettes to move without wires and speak human speech as melodiously as a musical-box” (SU:13). He goes on to point out to the friar that his puppets operate in a world in which all creatures are virtuous and magnanimous, and where “heroic virtue always conquers” (SU:13). The insistence here is that the good, creative mind of the Author is reflected in the goodness of his created world. After their brief discussion, the Author and the friar leave the stage so that the play may continue with them hidden behind the curtain. The audience is then left with an awareness of the presence of the Author in his apparent absence. This confirms Chesterton’s idea that the absence of God is not a negation, but a void (Eft:92), and it is precisely in this void and the presence of the text that the Author’s voice is heard. The audience has been enlightened as to the nature of the Author so as to be better informed of the nature of his work; it has been privy to the character of God in order to better understand the dignity of man.
Declaration
Summary and key terms
Acknowledgements and dedication
List of figures
Abbreviations of books by GK Chesterton
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context and background information
1.2 Aim, objectives and preliminary outline of the study
1.3 Literature review
1.4 Theoretical paradigm and research philosophy
PART ONE: DRAMATOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
CHAPTER TWO: THE FOUNDATION OF CHESTERTON’S DRAMATOLOGY
2.1 Introduction to Chapter Two
2.2 Chesterton’s cosmology
2.2.1 The Creator
2.2.2 Creation and the Fall
2.2.3 Re-creation
2.3 Chesterton’s epistemology
2.3.1 Divine knowledge
2.3.2 Human knowledge and non-knowledge
2.3.3 Re-membering
2.4 Chesterton’s ontology
2.4.1 The riddle of being
2.4.2 The answer of being
2.4.3 The romance of being
CHAPTER THREE: THE TASK OF CHESTERTON’S DRAMATOLOGY
3.1 Introduction to Chapter Three
3.2 In defense of the common man
3.3 In defense of common sense
3.4 In defense of democracy
CHAPTER FOUR: THE ELEMENTS OF CHESTERTON’S DRAMATOLOGY
4.1 Introduction to Chapter Four
4.2 Analogy
4.3 Paradox
4.3 Defamiliarisation
PART TWO: DRAMATOLOGICAL APPLICATION
CHAPTER FIVE: MYSTERY
5.1 Introduction to Chapter Five
5.2 Finding mystery in The tree of life
CHAPTER SIX: REVELATION
6.1 Introduction to Chapter Six
6.2 Finding revelation in The tree of life
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION
7.1 Summary of chapters
7.2 Contribution of the study
7.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for further research
SOURCES CONSULTED
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
