On “The Man Who Was Thursday” by G.K. Chesterton.
I haven’t completely digested this fantastic story yet. I actually think I’d have to read it a dozen times before the main ideas would even begin to settle in to my brain.
Here are some of my initial thoughts:
The book centers around the subject of anarchy. There seem to be two forces at work in the world, the first being Law and the second being anarchy (lawlessness). Those on the side of Law believe there is an order to everything in life. To a person of Law the world is “concrete”; there is a right and a wrong, there is a natural and a spiritual, black and white, etc.
The anarchist lives in an abstract world—there is no “right” or “wrong.” In their opinion, it is impossible to differentiate between reality and fantasy. Everything is “gray.” Anarchists do not want Law and claim they want no leadership. (The interesting thing (something Chesterton points out) is that anarchists always have a leader—usually a very dominate leader to lead them in their fight against leadership.)
People of Law believe in good and evil; people of anarchy believe that the only evil is the belief that there is good and evil.
People of Law seek, for the most part, to protect humanity. Anarchists earnestly desire to annihilate much of it by destroying anyone who clings to a philosophy and theology which contradict their “cause.”
The main characters in this story were passionate men, most on the side of Law (though for a long time they didn’t realize they were on the same side) and their mission in life was to save and defend the essence of Law. Not laws but Law. I found it interesting that the men of Law were extremely concerned with human life. They did everything they could to save the people they knew the anarchists were determined to destroy. Their mission was to defend Law, not for the sake of Law but for the sake of humanity. To them, one human life was important. In contrast, 5,000 human lives meant nothing to the anarchists. They would do anything for their cause—even murder.
The personal philosophies of the men of Law varied according to their life experience and personalities, but their passion was the same. They all desired light (truth) and they not only sought for more of it, they sought to save it.
The anarchists in the story sought to destroy both Law and Religion which they considered to be their “enemy.” There was a lot of interesting dialogue where ideas that are popular even today are mentioned—Nietzsche, etc. {It is important to keep in mind that this novel was written around the same time or a little after WWI. Chesterton observed what was going on in his society and obviously sought to communicate his ideas about it in the best way he knew how: through a novel.}
{As I was reading I remembered that Jesus said that in the last days “lawlessness” (anarchy) will increase. He also said that as a result, “the love of many will grow cold.” The battle is strong!)
More on the men of Law:
Everything they fought to save and defend was brought into question time and time again. As time went on, they each discovered that things were not always as they appeared. What seemed to be evil often ended up being good in disguise (a good reason for us to be very careful about the judgments we make). The “enemy” often ended up the true friend and brother (how short-sighted and blind we often are!). Each man wrestled with fear, perplexity, doubt, temptation, even loneliness, but through it all they showed incredible perseverance. They stayed true to their principles, walked in the light they knew, and thus were given more light. They refused to fight for the “darkness” (or what appeared to be darkness) for even a moment. What faith! (Interesting to note that they were not all religious. They were philosophers and poets who were honestly searching for truth and light.)
This story was intriguing, inspiring, and incredibly thought provoking. It emphasized that there are, indeed, forces of good and evil at work in this world, and that it is the job of every true man or woman to side with Law to fight the evil (Law being light and truth and the protection of human life, not always political leaders).
It also made the point that things are not always as they appear. The battlefield is hazy and confusing and at times it can be difficult to determine who or what is actually the enemy. Perseverance and a love for the truth is key to winning the battle. Even a short-sighted, flawed man or woman will serve a useful purpose in the fight against evil, as long as they stay true to the cause: overcoming that evil (hate, murder, covetousness, etc.)
Some other things I gleaned from the book:
A man must stay true to his principles—even if those principles need to be “refined” so-to-speak. The honest seeker ultimately finds the truth.
Someday everything, even the most confusing things in life, will be explained.
Good wins.
Moving on to another, and to me the most powerful point in the story (there is SO MUCH I could write!):
God is both the God of the light AND of the darkness. The moon is a reflection of the son. There is a purpose for everything—including the gift of free will. “All His works are done in faithfulness.” The struggles of humanity will ultimately result in all of us becoming who we were originally intended to be. The struggle is part of the purpose (Romans 8:18-23—creation is subjected to futility in order that one day they will find freedom)—without struggle we would never completely appreciate good or understand evil. As the first man and woman discovered: sometimes it takes a walk in the dark for one to understand and appreciate the light.
Random things I marked while reading:
“Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stopping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front.”
“You’ve got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a take in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists, as you can see from the barons’ wars.”
“They had all become inured to things going roughly; but things suddenly going smoothly swamped them.”
“It is always the humble man who talks to much; the proud man who watches himself too closely.”
“We say that the most dangerous criminal is the educated criminal.”
“We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men.
“. . . my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential idea of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. Bu philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people’s.”
“The evil philosopher is not trying to alert things, but to annihilate them.”
“There was a second thought that never came to him. It never occurred to him to be spiritually won over to the enemy.”
“When duty and religion are destroyed, it will be by the rich.”
“I have been used so long to uncomfortable adventures that comfortable adventures knock me out.”
Love that last quote…
I highly recommend this book!
S
www.stephaniestaples.com
