The Literary Criticism of G. K. Chesterton

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to show that Chesterton's literary criticism is not a thing distinct from his thought as a whole, but is rather a by-product, a necessary extension of his philosophical concepts. In order to do this, Chesterton's philosophy as a whole will have to be examined, though it be only roughly. This will be dealt with in the following chapter. The contention will be made in that chapter that the Chestertonian philosophy hinges on three very basic notions: the notion of wonder at the universe; that of gratitude for existence, both personal and general; and that of appreciation of things as things.

In Chapter III, Chesterton's literary criticism itself will be examined with the purpose in mind of demonstrating that this criticism is in no way different from the philosophy examined in Chapter II--except through application. It will be shown that the three key notions--wonder, thanks, and appreciation--are also key notions, indeed the same notions, in his literary criticism. The next four chapters, Chapters IV through VII, will be devoted to showing Chesterton's theory of criticism at work. Each chapter will deal with one of his more ambitious works of criticism: those on Chaucer, Browning, Dickens, and Steven- son. Chapter VIII will sum up what has been attempted and what, it is hoped, has been demonstrated.

This writer feels that it is fairly general knowledge that Chesterton's early work differs hardly at all from his middle and later work--this in spite of the fact that he has converted to Roman Catholicism quite late in life. It is true that his later years produced books of sound Catholic theology, but it is also true that his early work, such as Orthodoxy, is also sound, if rather boisterous, theology. It may be that he grew more profound in later years; it may be that he became more lucid; but the message is essentially the same. This really curious consistency is either explicitly mentioned by his commentators, or tacitly admitted by an ignoring of it amounting to an assumption of it. It has even been a criticism that he kept saying the same thing over and over; this, it will be pointed out, is quite true. Says Kenner:

"There is a penultimate state of disillusion in the study of Chesterton wherein he seems merely to be saying the same things over and over again; the ultimate stage is to realize that he says it so often because it can never really be said; in fact, because there is nothing else to say."1

And Chesterton himself, reviewing his intellectual life in his autobiography, says:

"... I recognize a sort of symbol in all that I happen to like in imagery and ideas. All my life I have love edges; and the boundary-line that brings one thing sharply against another. All my life I have loved frames and limits; and I will maintain that the largest wilderness looks larger seen through a window. To the grief of all grave dramatic critics, I will still assert that the perfect drama must strive to rise to the higher ecstasy of the peep-show. I have also a pretty taste in abysses and bottomless chasms and everything else that emphasises a fine shade of distinction between one thing and another; and the warm affection I have always felt for bridges is connected with the fact that the dark and dizzy arch accentuates the chasm even more than the chasm itself ... And I believe that in feeling these things from the first, I was feeling the fragmentary suggestions of a philosophy I have since found to be the truth."2

The writer mentions this consistency because he thinks that without the existence of it certain objections might be raised against the procedure of this paper. For example, it might be objected that the present writer recklessly quotes the early works in one breath and the later works in the next--and that this is unwise in the case of a free-thinker turned Catholic. The same objection may be raised against nearly all of Chesterton's critics; but the very real consistency invalidates it. The doubting reader may consult the early chapters of Maisie Ward's biography, Belloc's small but penetrating book on Chesterton's place in English letters, or Chesterton's autobiography. Or he may make the longer and perhaps more interesting experiment of perusing Chesterton's hundred odd volumes.

1. Hugh Kenner, Paradox in Chesterton, p. 9. 2. G.K. Chesterton, Autobiography, pp .25-26.