Doukhabor

I never know what I will learn when I read Chesterton: today I started in the book he wrote with Perris and Garnett about Leo Tolstoy and the main discussion in Chesterton's introduction is about the so-called Doukhabors. This, apparently, was a sect of Russian Christian anarchists living in Canada who turned all their animals loose, 'on the ground that it is immoral to possess them or control them'. This group of people did not start with theology, 'but with the simple doctrine that we ought to love our neighbour and use no force against him, and they end in thinking it wicked to carry a leather handbag, or to ride in a cart.'
Tolstoy's character as a man, not as a writer, can be understood in similar terms of consistency, logic and fanaticism. One idea, in Tolstoy's case the 'utmost possible simplification of life', is logically carried to its extremes. Religion is not the cause, it could as well have been any other kind of theory that forms a consistent and logic basis and can be driven to mad extremes.

H.G. Wells & science

Two days after my post about science and religion, I read the following paragraph in 'Heretics', chapter 5:

Mr. Wells, however, is not quite clear enough of the narrower scientific outlook to see that there are some things which actually ought not to be scientific. He is still slightly affected with the great scientific fallacy; I mean the habit of beginning not with the human soul, which is the first thing a man learns about, but with some such thing as protoplasm, which is about the last. The one defect in his splendid mental equipment is that he does not sufficiently allow for the stuff or material of men. In his new Utopia he says, for instance, that a chief point of the Utopia will be a disbelief in original sin. If he had begun with the human soul - that is, if he had begun on himself - he would have found original sin almost the first thing to be believed in. He would have found, to put the matter shortly, that a permanent possibility of selfishness arises from the mere fact of having a self, and not from any accidents of education or ill-treatment. 

Science and religion

In Chesterton's time, the discussion about science and religion was not new; Darwin's theory, though, was fairly new, and people were thinking about its consequences. Chesterton wrote a short and simple essay, 'Science and religion', in which he discusses the question if science could ever prove religion wrong. First of  all 'To mix science up with philosophy is only to produce a philosophy that has lost all its ideal value and a science that has lost all its practical value'.
He proceeds by quoting from a work called "New Theology and Applied Religion", in which the authors state that, since we have found no scientific evidence for the Fall, Paul's theology in the New Testament, based as it is on the 'total depravity of man', cannot be true.
Chesterton points out that we have two completely different fields here. What kind of evidence could science ever find for the Fall? These modern writers forget the reason why men thought mankind wicked: 'because they felt wicked themselves'. I remember reading a similar argument before (perhaps in C.S.Lewis?); I do find it important to realize that whatever scientists say, they can never give us mere mortals 'primary purity and innocence'.

Superstitions & belief

'The incredulity of Father Brown' was published in 1926; I am not strictly reading Chesterton's works in order. One topic that I did not encounter before to such an extent is black magic: this bundle of stories is teeming with references to the supernatural.
In one particular story, 'The dagger with wings', Father Brown is confronted with some statements he supposedly believes: 'The man who is hounding us all to death is a hell-hound, and his power is from hell.'. Father Brown answers: 'All evil has one origin', but he does not go farther. Later, he confesses to believe in the Devil, but denies belief in some sort of witchcraft. At the end of the story, the confrontation becomes more intense; Father Brown is told 'You ought to stand for all the things these stupid people call superstitions', 'It's your business to believe things', and 'You do believe in everything'. On these assumptions, Father Brown can only say 'No', without further explanation.
The other stories in the bundle have similar cases, in which people tell Father Brown what he believes (or should believe). I can learn some things from the way this priest calmly states what he believes or not, even when people surrounding him suppose him to believe all kinds of nonsense.

Journalism

Chesterton was a journalist; several of his published books are actually collections of his journalistic articles. I am currently reading one of these, 'All things considered'. Interestingly enough, quite some of these articles are not only readable, they are even relevant in our times.
Today, I read two articles about journalism: 'Limericks and counsels of perfection' and 'Anonymity and further counsels'. In these articles, Chesterton gives some advice about how to 'reform the Press', or 'making journalism honest'. Apparently, even then, the papers were not always working with the highest ethical standards.
'First', Chesterton says, 'I would make it a law, if there is none such at the present, by which an editor, proved to have published false news without reasonable verification, should simply go to prison'. Deliberate false information should be legally punishable.
'Secondly', he states, we need 'a distinction, in the matter of reported immorality, between those sins which any healthy man can see in himself and those which he had better not see anywhere'. It should not be permitted to 'terrify and darken the fancy of the young with innumerable details' of 'some obscene insanity'.
The third point is anonymity: in general, unless we are speaking of a leading article representing the opinion of the newspaper itself, we should know who wrote the article. Furthermore, the name of the proprietor of the newspaper should also be 'printed upon every paper'. We should be able to know if 'any obvious interests' are being served.
Finally, Chesterton would like to see the editor's freedom in selecting and refusing letters 'of definite and practical complaint' curtailed: the paper should be 'a mode of the expression of the public', not his personal work of art.

The curse of the golden cross

Once again I started by watching a Father Brown video, and subsequently read the original story from 'The incredulity of Father Brown'. I really liked the story. As with 'The oracle of the dog', the video and text differed somewhat, and not only in the amount of 'direct action' versus conversation.
In the video, the vicar was behaving in a rather conspicuous way, which perhaps gave too much away at too soon a time. On the other hand, the clue about the crucifix was not foreseeable in the original text, which might have impaired the reader's ability to guess as to the cause of the falling lid (it is difficult for me to say, because I saw the video first and knew what the crux was). The dramatization at the end of the video, with a direct confrontation between Father Brown and the criminal, was, in my opinion, unnecessary.
This bundle of Father Brown stories seem to have a common theme (as indicated by the title): there are usually suspicions of something supernatural going on. A quick overview of the titles of the stories gives a 'resurrection', an 'oracle', a 'miracle', a 'curse', a 'doom' and a 'ghost'. So far, Father Brown's explanations are simply natural. As he says in 'The miracle of moon crescent': "By the way, don't think I blame you for jumping to preternatural conclusions. The reason's very simple, really. You all swore you were hard-shelled materialists; and as a matter of fact you were all balanced on the very edge of belief - of belief in almost anything." I have encountered this theme of the credulity of people who do not believe in the supernatural before, I hope to discuss it in more depth one time.

The oracle of the dog

After a slightly disappointing introduction to the Father Brown series earlier this week, I decided to reverse the order: this time I started by watching the movie and read the story later on. It was a better experience; I am surprised, though, by the differences between movie and text.
In the movie, we see a quite classic detective story: a man makes his will and is murdered shortly afterwards. All the suspects and Father Brown himself have been around in the house, no-one seems to have been close to the murder scene when it happened. A detective collects the different testimonies; Father Brown solves the mystery.
The book has a somewhat different set-up: Father Brown is never present in the house of the murder, but only hears about the case from an eye-witness. This witness gives perceptive descriptions, though he also has some perceptions of his own. From the witness's story, Father Brown is able to reconstruct what happened. We are particularly impressed by his insight in the character of man and animal (the dog of the title).
The story did not have much direct action (it consists mainly of dialogue), which is one reason that the whole scene is changed in the movie. The surroundings are quite different too, and there are some differences in the characters (one nephew instead of two, a fidgeting or non-fidgeting lawyer).
Though I did like this movie, I still prefer the stories: the brilliant Chesterton-sentences are one of the chief delights of Father Brown's conversation, and these are not always easily adapted on the screen. His analysis of the behavior of the dog: "A dog is a devil of a ritualist. He is as particular about the precise routine of a game as a child about the precise repetition of a fairy-tale. In this case something had gone wrong with the game. He came back to complain seriously of the conduct of the stick. Never had such a thing happened before. Never had an eminent and distinguished dog been so treated by a rotten old walking-stick."