All posts by Daniel J. Heisey

Paul VI, Duns Scotus, and Dramatic License

Fifty years ago, on 14 July, 1966, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Letter, Alma parens, marking the 700th anniversary of the birth of John Duns Scotus.  Although Scotus’ argument in favor of belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary influenced Pope Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution of 1854 defining that dogma, Alma parens was the first papal document on Scotus.

On 20 March, 1993, Pope John Paul II beatified Scotus, and on 7 July, 2010, at a Wednesday audience, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about Scotus.  In these and other writings and speeches about Scotus, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI quoted from Paul VI’s Alma parens.  Thus, papal teaching about Scotus has developed, by Church standards, rapidly, and Scotus has been proposed to the faithful as a model of holiness and as a reliable intercessor.

Scotus (1266-1308) was contemporary with Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) and Marco Polo (1254-1324), but he remains less well-known.  A Franciscan priest, he was born in southeastern Scotland and taught at universities in Paris, Oxford, and Cologne, where he died and is entombed.  Even for students of philosophy, his philosophical writings are difficult, and he worked within the Augustinian intellectual tradition while drawing upon empirical Aristotelianism.  Some later medieval thinkers used Scotus’ ideas to develop a form of voluntarism, a philosophical approach placing the will above the intellect.  For an extreme voluntarist, emotion becomes superior to reason.

Since the will is related to the capacity to love, Scotus himself took a more careful line, one of several refinements that led to him being dubbed “the Subtle Doctor.”  According to James Hitchcock’s indispensable History of the Catholic Church (2012), Scotus gave the will “primacy over the intellect:  the mind informed the will, but the will first determined the perceptions of the mind.”  Reason can inform our choices, but our choices influence our reasoning.

Pope Paul VI’s letter anticipated scholarly conferences to be held in mid-September, 1966, at Oxford and Edinburgh to commemorate Scotus’ 700th birthday.  Since most of the scholars attending those conferences would be Christians from various churches and confessions, Paul VI suggested that they use Scotus’ writings as a basis for future ecumenical discussion.  He noted that Scotus was part of the Augustinian heritage shared by Christians on both sides of the Reformation.

As with other authoritative writings by that saintly Pope, Alma parens seems to have fallen on deaf ears.  Catholic scholars of the Thomist school shy away from Scotus, despite his personal orthodoxy, as a first step towards Protestantism and Modernism, and Protestant scholars and also some Catholics wonder why Scotus, now obscure in all senses, would be a better source for ecumenical dialogue than Augustine of Hippo himself or even C. S. Lewis.

An unexpected cultural development since Alma parens has been an award-winning film about Scotus.  The sketchiness of Scotus’ biography allows for dramatic license, and so in 2010 an Italian television network, TVCO, produced Duns Scoto.  Under the title Blessed Duns Scotus:  Defender of the Immaculate Conception, it is commercially available on DVD from Ignatius Press.  Italian mime and actor Adriano Braidotti portrayed Scotus.  In 2011 this movie won Best Film and Best Actor at the Vatican’s second annual Mirabile Dictu International Catholic Film Festival.

Beautifully filmed and well-acted, Blessed Duns Scotus depicts Scotus’ prayer life, his teaching, and his courage.  The film begins with Scotus going into exile from Paris to Oxford because he refused to sign a document issued by France’s King Philip IV condemning Pope Boniface VIII.  The film culminates with Scotus engaging Dominican theologians in a public disputation about Mary’s Immaculate Conception.  A lesser creative team would have made such a film tedious at best.  Instead, they raise it above the earnest and sugary fare of a few other religious movies one could name.

An unusual aspect of this film is the screen credits at the end of the movie explaining that a scene in which Scotus speaks about the Eucharist derives from a meditation by Chiara Lubich (1920-2008).  Although Scotus had comments about the Eucharist, they are dense and philosophical, not the best text for a television movie.

In the days of Aquinas and Scotus, reference to “the council” meant Lateran IV, held in Rome in 1215.  That council used a new term, transubstantiation, to sum up Church teaching on the Eucharist.  The council thus definitively rejected the teaching of Berengar of Tours (c. 1010-1088), that, using Aristotelian terminology, accidents and substance cannot be separated, and so for Berengar the Eucharist was merely a memorial meal, spiritually symbolic but not the Body and Blood of Christ.

Like Aquinas, Scotus argued for transubstantiation.  Nevertheless, Scotus put emphasis on God’s freedom, while acknowledging that God cannot attempt a logical impossibility, such as trying to create a round square.  A student of the works of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), Scotus was wary of Anselm positing that God was required to do something.

So, for Scotus the big question became:  Could God have chosen to commune with believers by some means other than transubstantiation?  Scotus argued that God could have chosen to leave the accidents and substance of the bread and wine yet include Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity (consubstantiation), but He chose to remove the substance of the bread and wine and replace it with Christ’s own substance (transubstantiation).  Since the council of 1215, to believe otherwise is not to be Catholic.

In the film, Scotus speaks of the Eucharist as the source of unity amongst Catholics.  He explains to a young friar that by partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood, we become part of His mystical body and thus become united with each other in Him.  Scotus then describes how through the Eucharist the Holy Spirit makes possible the spousal relationship between Christ the bridegroom and His bride, the Church.  It is excellent theology, but it comes from the twentieth century.

In the spirit of Alma parens, the film Blessed Duns Scotus presents Scotus as a sympathetic character, worthy of further attention.  While it conveys his brilliance as an academic theologian, it also presents a real man with real struggles who preferred virtue to vice and is on the path to sainthood.  The film shows Scotus as a holy man, as a teacher, and as a champion of unpopular beliefs.  All the better that it can do so while letting piety infuse fine style.

Pete Hegseth’s In the Arena

In the late ninth century, in his preface to his translation of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, England’s King Alfred the Great wrote that a king must have the support of men who pray, men who fight, and men who work.  He meant the clergy, soldiers, and farmers, merchants, and artisans.  Those ideals of faith, fighting, and productivity were extolled by Theodore Roosevelt and have a new champion in Pete Hegseth.

Only in his mid-thirties, Hegseth has had a full life:  from a small town in Minnesota, where his father was a public school teacher and his mother worked at home and at several part-time jobs; to studies at Princeton and Harvard; a job at Bear Stearns; service in the United States Army National Guard, taking him on tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.  He has married twice, the first ending in divorce, and he has three sons.  Incisive and articulate, he shares his intelligence and experience in articles for National Review and television appearances on Fox.

This book derives from the inspiration Hegseth finds in a quotation from a speech made in April, 1910, at the Sorbonne by former president Theodore Roosevelt.  The quote:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Throughout his three deployments, Hegseth carried a black framed copy of that quote in his duffle bag.  In this book’s eight chapters, Hegseth looks at major themes found in Roosevelt’s speech, “Citizenship in a Republic,” the full text of which appears as an appendix.

Clear and direct, Hegseth is aware of Roosevelt’s flaws and his own.  Regarding Roosevelt, he says, “While I proudly count Roosevelt as my fellow countryman, I recognize his unfortunate political metamorphosis.”  As for himself, he is candid without indulging in the sort of details lapped up by people who used to watch Oprah:  “I have failed—professionally and personally—at every turn of my life; saved only by the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ.”

As that confession indicates, Hegseth is a man of faith as well as a man of action, but he wants his readers to avoid “misplacing their moral energy toward smaller, self-righteous, and socially conservative causes, rather than mustering the courage to fight the larger battles for goodness and truth.”  To that end, he says, “Give me a cursing, drinking, and mistake-making sinner willing to fight for America over a self-important, insular, and irrelevant saint any day of the week.”

It is a sentiment worthy of hearty applause.  Within a monastic context, sometimes one hears of a young monk who decides that the fast-track to sanctity is to go barefoot and never wear a watch, never to shower or shave, and always to try to talk in a dreamy tone of voice in words reminiscent of a pastel holy card.  It was the sort of superficial and self-absorbed piety (really, vanity) disapproved of even in the fourteenth century by the now anonymous author of The Cloud of Unkowing.

Like that anonymous spiritual writer, Hegseth encourages steady growth (and regular pruning) in virtue.  Despite his seemingly dismissive use of the phrase, there is much in this book for a social conservative to endorse.  Like Roosevelt, Hegseth sees good character as the basis for good citizenship and thus for the strength of a republic.  “Courage, faith, honor, self-restraint, common sense, individual responsibility, and resolve,” Hegseth writes, “all are used by Roosevelt to describe character, and all are in shorter supply in today’s America.”

Those characteristics are running low, Hegseth, believes, because, “From fifth-place trophies to . . . helicopter parents . . . we are raising a society of entitled, coddled, sheltered, feeble, and emasculated future citizens.”  He notes that fathers and mothers used to teach their children “to be virile, to value strength, vigor, and victory.”  Lest he be mistaken for a chest-thumping lout, he defines his terms.  “Being a virile people,” he explains, “doesn’t mean being brutes or barbarians—it means raising citizens physically and morally capable of defending the freedom they’ve inherited.”

Once again following Roosevelt’s lead, Hegseth finds four “root causes” for the current social weakening.  Roosevelt addressed an audience of thousands at Paris’s foremost university, and he meant his message as a warning not only for the French republic, but also for his own.  While Hegseth’s book is addressed primarily to Americans, the four root causes he diagnoses can also apply elsewhere.  They are:  “Rights overtaking duties, the destructive pursuit of utopia, pervasive moral relativism, and class warfare.”  Two symptoms of society going askew, says Hegseth, are students, such as his little brother, being taught “their Native American ‘spirit names,’ but not the names of their American founders.”  Likewise, something has gone wrong when “Earth Day is a huge deal, D-Day not so much.”

That Hegseth’s brother, a descendant of Norwegian immigrants, could have a Native American “spirit name” is doubtful.  To teach him that name and not those of the Founding Fathers is as absurd as if a Catholic college were to sponsor a Hijab Day so students could learn about Muslim traditions, when it would be considered retrograde to hold a Mantilla Day to teach them about Catholic traditions.

Whatever one’s place on the political spectrum, Hegseth’s book challenges on every page.  As he says of Roosevelt’s speech, Hegseth’s book is “largely about cultivating good and gutsy citizenship in order to maintain a robust and free republic.”  Since human nature never changes, it is a universal and enduring ideal.  Even beyond republics, a Christian king like Alfred the Great wanted integrity and self-discipline to enliven his praying, fighting, and working people.

Richard Weaver, American Literacy, and Louis L’Amour

Richard M. Weaver, in the Introduction to Ideas Have Consequences (1948), doubted the value of universal literacy.  “It is not what people can read,” he said, “it is what they do read, and what they can be made, by any imaginable means, to learn from what they read, that determine the issue of this noble experiment.”

The phrase “noble experiment” alluded to Herbert Hoover, who used it to describe the failed federal policy of Prohibition.  For Weaver, promoting universal literacy was futile, since Western culture had degraded almost to the point of no return.  As proof, he contrasted ancient Greece with modern America.

Regarding an ancient Athenian, Weaver claimed in Chapter 6 that “Privations of the flesh were no obstacle to his marvelous world of imagination.”  One example was ancient and modern theatre.  “The Athenians sat outdoors on stone to behold their tragedies,” wrote Weaver, whereas “the modern New Yorker sits in an inclined plush armchair to witness some play properly classified as amusement.”

Weaver overlooked the fact that when not undergoing the catharsis of tragedy, Athenians enjoyed bawdy comedies by Aristophanes, and in Weaver’s day New York theatre-goers were buying tickets to lengthy tragedies by an American Nobel laureate, Eugene O’Neill.  Moreover, O’Neill saw his work in continuity with his ancient literary ancestors, hence a title like Mourning Becomes Electra.

Nevertheless, for Weaver, as America approached the middle of the twentieth century, it had all been downhill.  With reference to Midwestern towns in the satiric novels of Sinclair Lewis, another American winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, Weaver mockingly declared, “[H]ow many Americans have returned from Europe with terrible tales of the chill and draftiness of medieval castles and Renaissance palaces, with stories of deficient plumbing and uncomfortable chairs! . . . Yet it is just such people who will remain indifferent to the drabness of Gopher Prairie and Zenith and find their mental pabulum in drugstore fiction.”

Weaver’s book, snobbish at times, remains important, offering an astute critique of the lasting cultural and intellectual consequences of Nominalism, advanced in the fourteenth century by William of Occam.  Nominalism’s philosophical error is best characterized by Humpty Dumpty, who told Alice in Through the Looking Glass (1871), “When I use a word, . . . it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”  Weaver’s book appeared the same year as George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, and in those books both men exposed how willful abuse of language could serve a socialist regime’s tyranny.

As for literacy, Weaver’s snide remark about drugstore fiction begs the question what free people ought to read.  By the end of this century, for the reading public twentieth-century American fiction will mean books by Ray Bradbury and Louis L’Amour.

Bradbury (1920-2012) became synonymous with science fiction, and his obituary in The Wall Street Journal explained, his “science fiction and fantasy stories helped establish those pulp magazine genres as literature.”  L’Amour (1908-1988) likewise began his writing career contributing to pulp magazines, and in 1953 he developed his first novel from one of his short stories, “The Gift of Cochise.”  John Wayne had read and liked the story so much he turned it into a movie, Hondo.  L’Amour’s collected short stories fill seven volumes, and among his eighty-six novels is a seventeen-volume saga of the Sackett family.

Both Bradbury and L’Amour have had their work transformed into other media, and both men were highly honored in their lifetimes.  Among their many honors, in 2004 Bradbury received from George W. Bush the National Medal of Arts, and in 1984 Ronald Reagan presented L’Amour with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  In 1982 L’Amour became the first novelist to receive the Congressional Gold Medal; the only other man of letters to receive that award was Robert Frost.

Serious literary critics will sniff and say that at least in Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (1950), Fahrenheit 451 (1953), and Dandelion Wine (1957) one finds modern parables dealing with deep issues.  Bradbury used Mars and a mythical Midwestern town, Green Town, as settings for looking into questions of unchanging human nature confronted with the surreal.  A lover of books and public libraries, he also imagined a future state where firemen burn books, lest the ideas in them make people unhappy.

In contrast, critics still tend to relegate L’Amour to the disposable realm of cheap magazines.  Although his lean prose is less lyrical than Bradbury’s, one finds the same strengths as Bradbury’s in the stories of Louis L’Amour.  While he is best known for Westerns, L’Amour’s fiction has a wide range, from detective stories to tales of merchant seamen and prizefighters.

If latter-day Weavers doubt whether popular fiction can convey traditional values, they ought to delve into the many volumes by Louis L’Amour.  Despite their rough settings and rough characters, his tales avoid using rough language.  Most of his novels and short stories depict men and women minding their own business until crossed by strangers who are greedy and violent.  Amid the taut adventure created by that tension, L’Amour’s protagonists must face questions of loyalty and integrity, of keeping one’s word and doing one’s duty.

Leaving school at fifteen, L’Amour undertook difficult and dangerous jobs, including lumberjack and professional boxer, yet all the while he read voraciously.  Like his passion for boxing, his love of books and self-education features throughout his writing.  L’Amour’s frontier characters echo Alexis de Tocqueville, who said in Democracy in America (1840) that the first time he read William Shakespeare’s Henry V was in an American’s log cabin.

In L’Amour’s novel Flint (1960), the enigmatic main character, an ailing Gilded Age businessman variously named James T. Kettleman or Jim Flint, visits a ranch house in New Mexico and appreciates the small library there:  Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope, Walter Scott, Washington Irving, William Shakespeare, David Hume’s History of England.  “He was not surprised by the quality of the authors,” explains the narrator, “for he had read the journals of the trappers who came west, and he had known many western men, and knew of the books they read.  They could carry few, so they carried the best.”

In another novel, To Tame a Land (1965), L’Amour’s main character and narrator is a young man, Ryan Tyler, orphaned and alone.  He soon gains a mentor, who gives the boy a copy of Plutarch’s Lives and tells him to read it five times, assuring him, “You’ll like it better each time.”  When the boy says that he is a slow reader, the older man says, “This is a book to be read that way.  Taste it, roll the flavor on your tongue.”

Later, the young narrator recounts, “Beside campfires under the icy Teton peaks, I read of Hannibal and of Cato.”  Eventually in his travels he visits a family, “the first time I’d been inside a house in over a year,” and there he gravitates to the bookcase, with its editions of “Tacitus, Thucydides, Plato, and a dozen others that were mostly history.”

In The Proving Trail (1978), L’Amour returned to this theme.  This time the narrator is eighteen year-old Kearney McRaven, who comes into town and learns that his widower father has been shot and killed.  Accounts of the killing differ, and the young man must discover the truth before he meets the same obscure end.  He befriends a widow and her daughter, and on his first call at their cabin, he enjoys his coffee and lingers over a shelf of books.  “There were a couple of novels by Sir Walter Scott,” he recalls, “Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens, and Vivian Grey by Benjamin Disraeli.”

Missing from all these lists is one book Tocqueville saw in every American bookshop, the Bible.  Its absence from the shelves perused by L’Amour’s characters is best explained by the likelihood that those settlers kept their Bibles beside their beds.  Gentlemen would not have seen that part of the house, and all L’Amour’s heroes are gentlemen.

Whether L’Amour’s stories motivate someone to read Plutarch or Dickens, Tacitus or Trollope, his fiction reflects virtues they admired.  For Richard Weaver universal literacy was worthwhile only if people learned from their reading.  If Mars and Green Town, not to mention Narnia and Middle Earth, are not one’s cup of tea, the realistic world of Louis L’Amour’s pioneers and detectives, sailors and boxers could be just the place for learning more about courage, prudence, and fidelity.

Ten Years of American Conservatism

An essayist’s governing principle is that more can be said in a thousand words than in a thousand pages.  Ten years ago ISI Books published American Conservatism:  An Encyclopedia, a thousand pages containing 626 entries varying in length from 250 to 2500 words.  In that hefty volume comes together the best of both worlds.

Time after time, critics of conservatism variously mock it or vilify it, declaring it to be moronic, insane, or evil, or somehow a monstrous mutant combining all three.  In this book’s Introduction, the editors, Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson, explain that they and the 216 contributors to American Conservatism focus on conservatism as a formidable intellectual movement in the United States since the Second World War.

That movement’s intellectual ancestors could be traced back to Moses, Plato, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke, but the editors decided to go back only to the mid-eighteenth century.  To the extent that this intellectual movement, launched mainly by Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences (1948) and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind (1953), has influenced or been influenced by political campaigns and decisions, the editors included such political figures as Dwight Eisenhower and Antonin Scalia, as well as earlier American conservatives, such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

The editors then explain by what criteria they selected people, institutions, and ideas for American Conservatism.  The editors had a preferential option for “politicians and pundits” who have had a “deep and lasting influence on conservatism,” and foreign thinkers and politicians and ones from before 1945 who “had a significant bearing on conservatism in America since the end of World War II.”  For folks who gasp at conservatives as the barbarians at the gates, or more locally, as cranky Uncle Henry who must be kept away from the guests at Topher and Tiffany’s wedding reception, this book should serve to open eyes, if not minds.

In this encyclopedia one will learn the difference between neoconservatives and palaeoconservatives, fusionists and libertarians, the Heritage Foundation and the John Birch Society.  From 1966 to 1999 William F. Buckley, Jr., hosted Firing Line, a weekly television show on PBS in which he interviewed prominent people from across the political spectrum.  In that spirit, American Conservatism included not only reserved and reticent Republicans in dark grey suits, men like Calvin Coolidge and Robert Taft, but also such Democrats as Thomas Jefferson and Stephen Douglas, William Jennings Bryan and George Wallace.

As that brief list suggests, in these pages one may sample the rich diversity within American conservatism.  Here one finds entries on Clare Boothe Luce and Gertrude Himmelfarb, Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Sowell.  One imagines a luncheon conversation among them and such featured religious leaders as Richard John Neuhaus, James Dobson, and Will Herberg.

In addition to succinct biographical sketches of hundreds of influential conservatives, there are entries on issues important to conservatives, but on which they disagree:  issues ranging from abortion to welfare policy, capital punishment to supply-side economics.  Other issues find conservatives of all stripes in agreement:  family and private property are good; Marxism and totalitarianism are bad.  Also presented are legal cases in which conservatives took intense interest, from the trial of Alger Hiss to the Supreme Court case involving Pennsylvania’s Grove City College.

As one would expect, there are entries on conservative heroes like Edmund Burke and Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher, but the encyclopedia has its surprises.  Continental Europe is represented by Switzerland’s Jacob Burckhardt, Germany’s Wilhelm Röpke, and France’s Alexis de Tocqueville.  Noteworthy are European émigrés such as Ludwig von Mises, Leo Strauss, Edward Teller, and Eric Voegelin.  There are three Jesuits (Francis Canavan, John Courtney Murray, and James V. Schall) and one Benedictine (Stanley L. Jaki); a saint (John Paul II) and two on the path to sainthood (John Henry Newman and Fulton Sheen).  There are the perennially odious (Ayn Rand and Richard Nixon) and the now obscure (Revilo P. Oliver and Frank Chodorov).

Literary figures abound, from Robert Frost and Nathaniel Hawthorne to C. S. Lewis and George Orwell, from T. S. Eliot and Flannery O’Connor to Agnes Repplier and Walker Percy.  Historians appear as well, from Henry Adams and Christopher Dawson to Daniel J. Boorstin and Francis Parkman.  Less narrative are numerous economists, from Friedrich von Hayek to Adam Smith.  There are journalists such as H. L. Mencken, Walter Lippmann, and William Safire, and journals such as First Things, National Review, and The Weekly Standard.

The book also has its quirks.  Given the editorial criterion of significant Anglo-American influence, one is baffled by an entry on Dinesh D’Souza but not John Foster Dulles; Dan Quayle but not Winston Churchill.  Whereas one expects the entry on G. K. Chesterton, absent is Malcolm Muggeridge.  Although, by wise editorial choice, Grant Wood’s painting “Stone City” graces the front cover of America Conservatism, the text itself passes over the visual arts.  True, there are entries on a few American art critics, and there is an entry on “media, conservative,” about conservative newspapers, magazines, blogs, talk radio, and Fox News.

Nevertheless, what conservatives seek to conserve is not only an overflowing bookcase.  For instance, an encyclopedia focusing on conservative intellectuals ought to acknowledge the media phenomenon that was Kenneth Clark’s television series and book Civilisation (1969).  Countless people still relish his lush display of masterpieces of Western art and architecture.  Put another way, American Conservatism could have done without an entry on a marginal lunatic, Ezra Pound, and had one on Grant Wood.

After all, more Americans have developed or reinforced conservative political and cultural ideals from admiring Wood’s paintings and those of Norman Rockwell, and from watching the films of Frank Capra and Cecil B. DeMille, than from studying Pound’s cantos or dozens of philosophical works competing in the final round for Most Boring Book Since Boethius.  (Yes, I know, long after we are dust, people will still be reading Boethius, who will still be boring.)

In 2012 the publishers of Encyclopaedia Britannica announced that the 2010 edition would be the last to appear in print.  Henceforth that great work, begun in 1768, would be available only on-line.  Bibliophiles must face the sad fact that the encyclopedia as codex has gone the way of the papyrus scroll.  However, American Conservatism is a durable amphibian, after ten years still remaining in print, on paper and also in electronic format.

Pieces of Western Culture

Around 1766 a new form of fun began, so 2016 is as good a time as any to commemorate it.  While for centuries people with mathematical minds had been amusing themselves with chess and cards, 250 years ago people with more pictorial minds got their turn.  By 1766 John Spilsbury, a young printer and map maker in London, had invented “dissected maps, for teaching geography,” what we now call jigsaw puzzles.

According to Linda Hannas’ The English Jigsaw Puzzle (1972), the immediate antecedent was a game based on a map.  In 1759 John Jeffreys, a writing master and geographer in Chapel Street, Westminster, created a game on a piece of canvas in which the players, as travelers, moved around a map of Europe, each turn determined by throwing dice.  He called it A Journey through Europe, or The Play of Geography.  Modern English-language board games, such as Monopoly, trace their origins back to it.

Also in Westminster, in Charing Cross, was Thomas Jeffreys, possibly related to John Jeffreys, who was an engraver and cartographer.  He was also designated Geographer to the King.  Hannas speculated that Thomas Jeffreys may have doubted whether “the King’s geographer [ought] to turn his attention to adapting the serious trade of cartography to the entertainment of children,” but she noted that, whatever his misgivings, in 1770 he published a comparable game.

One of Thomas Jeffreys’s apprentices was John Spilsbury, having begun his apprenticeship at age fourteen.  The middle of three sons, he hailed from Worcester, where his parents, having buried their first spouses, had been married in the cathedral.  Again a widow, Spilsbury’s mother accompanied her teenage sons to London.  In 1760, at twenty-one, John Spilsbury completed his apprenticeship, and the following year he married Sarah May, originally from Newmarket, Suffolk.  By 1762 he had set up his own print and map shop in Covent Garden, in Russell Court, off Drury Lane.  An enterprising young man, Spilsbury also sold silk head scarves printed with road maps of England and Wales.

Hannas reproduced one of Spilsbury’s “trade cards,” part business card and part advertisement, and according to it, Spilsbury sold some thirty different “dissected maps.”  They included maps of Europe and various countries, from Scotland to Turkey, Portugal to Russia; maps of North America and South America; and maps of the ancient world.  Of points in the Western hemisphere, only Jamaica had its own dissected map.  Spilsbury mounted each map on thin mahogany and cut them into several dozen pieces, selling each dissected map in a square box.

Spilsbury made his name with his new invention, but he died young, on 3 April, 1769, not yet thirty.  Among the scarce documentation for his brief life are church records.  He and his wife, his brother and their mother, attended services at a local Moravian church, although only his brother joined.  Instead, John Spilsbury, transplanted Shropshire lad, died an Anglican and was buried from his parish church, Saint Mary-le-Strand.

What began as an educational tool for children became a diversion for adults as well.  By the early nineteenth century, printers had gone beyond dissected maps and had cut up mounted prints depicting historical persons, famous places, and scenes from literature.  Soon jigsaw puzzles featured prints of current events, such as the coronation of Queen Victoria.

Today’s jigsaw puzzles expand the range of images available and tend to come in 500 or 1000 pieces.  Jigsaw puzzles now reproduce works by famous artists, whether Michelangelo or John James Audubon, Claude Monet or Norman Rockwell.  In addition to the traditional square or rectangular shapes, there are round or triangular puzzles, as well as reversible puzzles and three-dimensional puzzles, often of landmarks like the Eiffel Tower or the Chrysler Building.  A recent development in jigsaws has been as therapy for Alzheimer’s and dementia patients; some companies design for them puzzles of twelve large pieces forming cheerful images, such as roses or kittens.

Of course, for some people, even jigsaw puzzles become a political statement.  Suns Out, founded in 1994, of Costa Mesa, California, on its web site prominently declares that its puzzles are “eco-friendly” and are “Never in Walmart.”  Other jigsaw puzzle companies draw less attention to their use of lead-free ink and recycled cardboard, and they cast a wider retailing net.  For example, one of the oldest surviving makers of jigsaws, Ravensburger, began in 1883 in Upper Swabia and now sells its puzzles anywhere in the world.

Two other puzzle companies deserve special mention.  Master Pieces (motto: “Having fun one piece at a time!”), founded in 1995 and based in Oro Valley, Arizona, produces the standard range of images but also markets jigsaws promoting seventeen entities, from Major League Baseball to Warner Brothers, Nestlé to the United States Army.  Cobble Hill, founded in 2005 and located in Victoria, British Columbia, offers jigsaws of paintings by an array of excellent contemporary artists, including Canadians Robert Bateman and Douglas Laird.

Unwittingly, a Thomistic philosopher has described the experience of losing oneself in a jigsaw.  For Josef Pieper, in Leisure, the Basis of Culture (1952), leisure is not a break from work but “a receptive attitude of mind, a contemplative attitude, and it is not only the occasion but also the capacity for steeping oneself in the whole of creation.”

Along those lines, Margaret Drabble, in her meandering memoir, The Pattern in the Carpet (2009), described long hours doing jigsaws with her Aunt Phyllis.  “[W]e were never of the wilfully austere school that does not look at the picture on the box,” wrote Drabble.  “Looking at the picture was part of the pleasure.  Doing a jigsaw was not an intelligence test, or a personality assessment programme; it was a pursuit that lay somewhere between creation and imitation and discovery and reverie.  And it was not, for us, a form of competition.”

Some competitive and calculating people, brooding over timed chess moves or shrewdly watching the croupier deal, might not understand folks who prefer quiet evenings at home assembling jigsaw puzzles.  Nevertheless, what began as a didactic instrument still teaches patience and perseverance, seeing a task through to the end.  Granted, that steady determination easily becomes stubborn obsession.  Despite frustration and the growing suspicion that, even with a new puzzle, pieces are missing, someone finishes a jigsaw with a sense of accomplishment, a brief triumph before taking it apart and putting the pieces back in the box.

A Century on Spoon River

In 1916 Edgar Lee Masters, then forty-eight, published an expanded version of his collection of poems, Spoon River Anthology.  Still in print, it consists of 244 short free verse poems, each standing as an epitaph for someone buried in the hillside cemetery of the fictional town of Spoon River.  Nearly all the poems are in the first person and are addressed to the reader, who is given the role of visitor to the cemetery.

West of Peoria, Illinois, flows the real Spoon River, a tributary of the Illinois River.  The eponymous town Masters imagined along it contained a wide variety of inhabitants, some more admirable than others.  According to Masters, writing in The American Mercury of January, 1933, he arranged the poems to align with the Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven of Dante’s Divine Comedy:  “the fools, the drunkards, and the failures came first, the people of one-birth minds got second place, and the heroes and the enlightened spirits came last.”

The first person we meet is Hod Putt, convicted and hanged for murder.  His grave is near that of a man who had become wealthy trading with Indians.  Putt had “grown tired of toil and poverty” and so “robbed a traveler one night near Proctor’s Grove,/Killing him unwittingly while doing so.”  For that crime he was tried and executed.

Further on, we meet the Circuit Judge, no name given.  He heard Putt’s case, although the judge says he reached all his verdicts by “deciding cases on the points the lawyers scored,/Not on the right of the matter.”  For such serial injustice, he now acknowledges that “even Hod Putt, the murderer,/Hanged by my sentence,/Was innocent in soul compared with me.”

Likewise unnamed is the Village Atheist, found near the end of our tour through the cemetery.  He had been “talkative, contentious, versed in the arguments/Of the infidels.”  Then he fell ill and “read the Upanishads and the poetry of Jesus.”  They “lighted a torch of hope and intuition” in him which not even the shadow of death could put out.  His conclusion was that “immortality is an achievement” possessed only by “those who strive mightily.”

In contrast to the paradoxical atheist’s Pelagianism, six graves (or pages) away there lies Lydia Humphrey.  She was a spinster who went back and forth to church, “with my Bible under my arm/Till I was gray and old.”  Although she lived alone, she found “brothers and sisters in the congregation,/And children in the church.”  She kept her dignity even though she was painfully aware that to them she was an eccentric and ridiculous figure:  “I know they laughed and thought me queer.”

One of the last voices that we encounter from the grave is that of Jeremy Carlisle.  He tells us, “Passer-by, sin beyond any sin/Is the sin of blindness of souls to other souls.”  It was a sin long besetting him, and he confesses “a lofty scorn/And an acrid skepticism.”  Gradually he came to see that “joy beyond any joy is the joy/Of having the good in you seen, and seeing the good/At the miraculous moment!”  The faces and goodness of others grew clearer to him, until “We were ready then to walk together/And sing in chorus and chant the dawn/Of life that is wholly life.”

Someone who does not speak his own epitaph is Father Malloy, whose Christian name we are not told.  “You are over there, Father Malloy,/Where holy ground is, and the cross marks every grave.”  Separate from the hillside graves we have seen stands the small town’s Catholic cemetery.  Unlike the tee-totaling Calvinists active, if not dominant, in the town, the Irish priest was “so human, . . . /Taking a friendly glass sometimes with us.”  The core of this tribute needs to be quoted in full:

You were like a traveler who brings a little box of sand

From the wastes about the pyramids

And makes them real and Egypt real.

You were part of and related to a great past,

And yet you were so close to many of us.

Quietly exotic, his appeal to some of the Protestants of Spoon River came from his steady realism:  “You faced life as it is,/And as it changes.”

In the 14 December, 1927, issue of The Commonweal (the definite article has since been dropped) Masters wrote about “Father Malloy.”  Masters noted that in the midst of the daily conflict between “the prudent and the shiftless,” Father Malloy “kept his way in a high tranquility at the parish house at the edge of town” beside his church, which “had nothing to do with all this village turmoil.”  Father Malloy’s forays into the town square were “to get his mail, or to attend to the errands of the day, or to visit with the men with whom Peter would have fished.”  Then he left them to the arguments that seemed so important to them, went home, and “calmly celebrated the Mass.”

Primarily among the intelligentsia along the eastern seaboard, Spoon River Anthology at once won high praise.  Editors sought permission to reprint poems from it, and the book became a staple in high school English classes.  Students learnt that Masters based his anthology on an ancient text, The Greek Anthology, and probably more than one bespectacled boy walked across his own Spoon River sort of town to check out the older anthology from the public library.

Masters went on to write other poems, as well as essays and novels, but he knew he would be remembered only for his anthology, so he called his autobiography Across Spoon River (1936).  Whenever Masters wrote about the real-life models for Spoon River’s cast of characters, he described several small Midwestern towns from his boyhood.  He sketched their settlers as contrasting kinds of Protestant, conservatives from New England (such as his mother’s family) and liberals from Virginia (his father’s family).

He admitted that the former lot and “Tories everywhere” disliked Spoon River Anthology, and yet no less a champion of evangelical Protestantism than William Jennings Bryan, recalled Masters, “bestowed a wry smile of congratulation upon me, having read the book at the home of a Presbyterian preacher who was keeping it hidden from his children.”  Masters left unsaid what Bryan thought of the description of the town’s Catholic priest, but Catholic priests and seminarians especially would do well to meditate upon Masters’ poetic portrait of Father Malloy.

A Presidential Speech

With presidential primaries occurring and the incumbent retiring, it is a good time to study a particular presidential speech, one delivered on the 17th of January.  A short speech, it took around fifteen minutes for the President to deliver.  A part commentators seem to have missed requires close attention:


[There] has been the technological revolution during recent decades.  In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly.  A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.  In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.  Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.  For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.  The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


The President’s concern bears careful pondering.  Just as some cynics assume every politician is bought and paid for by a couple of major campaign donors, so do others assume that scientists are in the back pocket of whoever gives them a grant.  Just as some people wonder whether the federal government manipulates scientific research, others distrust what the President called “a scientific-technological elite.”

As the President indicated, that elite resides primarily in universities.  The President effectively called out that elite, saying that he has been aware of the danger from gurus of science and technology, especially academics, forming a clique to dominate society.  Apparently the President was worrying about a kind of Gnosticism, esoteric knowledge open to only a few initiates.

If these presidential concerns and warnings do not sound familiar, it could be because that part of the speech, coming roughly ten minutes into it, got overlooked.  After all, by that point in a speech or sermon, nearly everyone’s attention wanders.  Besides, few people can remember every bit of a political speech.  Students used to have to memorize Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but committing to memory anything beyond a password seems to have gone out of vogue.

Another reason this presidential speech could be eluding anyone’s memory is that it was delivered to the nation on 17 January, 1961.  This speech is generally known as the Farewell Address of President Dwight Eisenhower.  In the paragraph before the three quoted above is what has become the most famous line of the speech:  “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

That line seems to be the only one people recall from this brief presidential speech.  Nevertheless, a few paragraphs earlier, near the beginning of the speech, President Eisenhower said:


Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations.  To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.  Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice, would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world.  It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings.  We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.


These remarks stand between Woodrow Wilson’s ideal that “the world must be made safe for democracy” and Ronald Reagan describing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as “an evil empire.”

Because of this threat to American security and freedom, President Eisenhower insisted that America’s armed forces remain strong.  “A vital element in keeping the peace,” he said, “is our military establishment.”  Therefore, he went on, “Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”  Eisenhower’s caution regarding “the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex” must be read in this context.

Notice that he spoke of “unwarranted influence.”  For America to stay vigilant and militarily prepared, there must be close co-operation between the federal government and the industries making weapons for the military to use in the national defense.  Those industries benefit from the research of scientists and the inventions of experts in technology, makers of those “hundreds of new electronic computers” replacing the blackboard.

In this speech President Eisenhower used the word “balance” ten times.  Rhetorically he balanced his wariness of “unwarranted influence” acquired by “the military-industrial complex,” with uneasiness about such influence being wielded by the “scientific-technological elite.”

Eisenhower gave this final speech as President not only to the country at large, but also as public advice to his successor.  Three days after this speech, John F. Kennedy took the oath of office and was inaugurated as the next President.  Kennedy was twenty-seven years younger than Eisenhower, and necessarily he brought to the presidency that much less life experience.

In the paragraph after President Eisenhower warned that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,” he made an observation that was the older generation speaking to the younger.  “It is the task of statesmanship,” he said, “to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system, ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

In the popular imagination Eisenhower beams as a genial, grandfatherly presence, amiable but dim.  During his eight years in office, so the mythology goes, he passively presided over Americans getting on with their lives, an era of domestic prosperity amid the tensions of the Cold War, tensions ably conjured with by his wily but grim Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles.  Eisenhower’s Farewell Address reminds us of his shrewd and resolute character:  Grandfather, a retired general, staring down the unruly kids.

An Archaeologist’s Fables

In the early 1980s, when compiling for Penguin Books The Portable Conservative Reader, Russell Kirk included a short story by a British archaeologist, Jacquetta Hawkes.  It was from her collection, Fables, published in 1953 in London and also in New York the same year, although under the title A Woman as Great as the World and Other Fables.  Hawkes (1910-1996) and her second husband, a left-wing novelist and playwright, J. B. Priestley, supported the United Nations and opposed nuclear weapons and otherwise mixed and mingled with North Atlantic champagne socialists, so inclusion in a conservative anthology may have come as a surprise to her.

Such convergence of opposites begs the question what Hawkes and Kirk could have in common.  One clue comes from the sort of archaeologist she admired.  In 1982 Hawkes published a biography of her friend and mentor, Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1890-1976), who for much of the twentieth century bestrode the British archaeological world like a colossus.  According to Hawkes, Wheeler was a heroic figure in an age increasingly unappreciative of heroes.  “Our small children,” Hawkes observed, “are no longer encouraged to have dreams of lordliness or of great deeds, and their educators normally avoid talk of honour, pride, or rulership.”

She was used to the company of prominent men.  Her father, Frederick Gowland Hopkins, was a cousin of Gerard Manley Hopkins and was a Cambridge biochemist honored with a Nobel Prize, a knighthood, and membership in the Order of Merit.  In his reserved and reticent way, he encouraged his daughter’s love of books.  By age nine the precocious Jacquetta Hopkins knew she wanted to be an archaeologist when she grew up, and eventually she studied archaeology at Cambridge and began excavating and writing.  On one of her early digs she met a young Englishman, an archaeologist who would become her first husband, Christopher Hawkes.

Jacquetta Hawkes combined her analytical skills with a gift for lucid prose, and she became a prolific and popular author.  She wrote regularly on archaeology for The Times of London, and her books ranged from archaeology and history to poetry and fables.  In 1951 she wrote A Land, a book accompanying the Labour government’s Festival of Britain; she baffled librarians by calling it a memoir, because it was part history, part personal reflection, part national propaganda.  Throughout her career, her literary talents made her suspect amongst many of her colleagues, men already dubious about a woman in their corner of academia.

From his home in rural Michigan, Russell Kirk had no such qualms.  Of the eighteen stories in Hawkes’s Fables, Kirk chose “The Woodpeckers and the Starlings.”  It tells of two woodpeckers, “easily the most splendid birds in the Plantation.”  They were admired by all the other birds “not only for their appearance and lordly ways, but also for their unique skill as carpenters.”  Then starlings attacked the woodpeckers’ nest, killed the offspring, and drove the aristocratic woodpeckers from the Plantation.  “To justify themselves,” the murderous, thieving starlings “babbled about equality and the evils of privilege.”

The fable giving its title to the American edition of the book, “A Woman as Great as the World,” is a brief creation story.  The Woman “was of a placid disposition, and, knowing everything, had no cares.”  Ravished by the Wind, she brought forth fish and reptiles and birds.  Then, one day she gave birth to “ugly little mommets who walked clumsily on two legs and presently began to hang themselves with leaves and skins.”  Before long “they were spoiling her physical beauty even while they were destroying her age-long peace of mind.”  At first the torment was too much, driving her into spasms of mad laughter, but then “she was at peace once more, knowing everything and caring not at all.”

Then there is “Death and the Standard of Living.”  It traces the development of a simple country girl into a sophisticated urban intellectual.  There is an echo of Hawkes herself, poised, formal, austere; Hawkes’s dignified bearing, marked by tweeds and scarves, often frightened but then fascinated anyone first meeting her:  “[A]n extraordinary vitality inspired her face,” Hawkes wrote of the girl, “and she was possessed of an aloofness, an ability to retreat into mysterious and private territories, that made her irresistibly attractive.”

Until about age eighteen the girl in the fable believed in God and was a faithful church-goer.  Then she fell in love with a new schoolmaster, who introduced her to the allurements of the world outside her village.  She moved away, found a job, studied philosophy, and indulged in the finer things of life.  Before long, the schoolmaster left her, and another relationship to fall by the way was with God.  “Having lost the love of God, nature, and man,” we are told, “work became her distraction and the accumulation of material goods her obsession.”

From the early 1980s into the early 1990s, Russell Kirk (1918-1994) delivered some fifteen lectures at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D. C., and in three of them he referred to or quoted from another of Hawkes’s fables, “The Unites.”  At seventy-seven pages, it is nearly as long as the other seventeen fables combined, and it depicts a dystopian future society in which citizens belong (as slaves belong to their masters) to a world government of state planning and collective uniformity, where everyone must be useful and everyone must be equal, even in death:  the state enforces euthanasia on everyone at age sixty-six.  As a prophecy of utilitarian and egalitarian horrors, it ranks with Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984.

In contrast to a nightmarish police state of the future, Hawkes mused in her other books on Britain’s prehistory.  She studied archaeological finds from the time of Stonehenge and earlier, when families of farmers first cleared and tilled the rolling fields of Shakespeare’s “other Eden,” and she meditated upon the organization and energy that went into building megalithic structures, some subterranean, for worshipping ancient gods.

As she wrote in A Land, those “massive communal vaults” were dedicated to “the myths of the goddess and the dying god.”  Here she touched upon the permanent and transcendent, ideas conservatives like Kirk have long defended.  Hawkes saw the faith symbolized by those colossal stones as representing “the timeless unity of the tribe, of its members, dead, living, and unborn, all enclosed within their common matrix, the rock and the earth.”



Daniel J. Heisey, O. S. B., is a Benedictine monk of Saint Vincent Archabbey, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where he is known as Brother Bruno.  He teaches Church History at Saint Vincent Seminary.


Eric Sloane’s Lost World

Certain phrases meant to be dismissive make no sense.  For example, “comfort food,” a far from complimentary reference to food beneath the notice of people who apparently prefer food that makes them uncomfortable.  It simply leaves more bacon and Guy Kibbee eggs for the rest of us.  Another example is “calendar art,” a smug judgment handed down by people who find excellence in a painting that could have been splashed about by a juvenile chimpanzee.  Or a mature one, come to think of it.

All by way of calling to mind an American artist who died suddenly thirty years ago, Eric Sloane.  He was eighty and collapsed from a massive heart attack.  A barrel-chested man fond of bow ties, he was noted for his drawings and oil paintings of Taos pueblos and of barns and covered bridges in New England and eastern Pennsylvania.  He had a special talent for depicting clouds, and the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D. C., commissioned him to paint an enormous mural of clouds for its lobby.  Alas, for all his loyal admirers, others relegate him to the tradesman’s entrance with the withering label “calendar art.”

Sloane (1905-1985) came from a well-off family in New York City, and although born Everard Hinrichs, he took the name Eric Sloane to honor his teacher, John Sloan.  Eric, he said, he took from America.  John Sloan was a leader of the Ashcan School, a group of artists based in New York whose paintings were often gritty street scenes, such as garbage cans in an alley.  It was a new direction in realistic or even impressionistic painting, when artistic giants like John Singer Sargent were doing portraits of the great and the good or capturing the gardens of Paris or the canals of Venice.

Eric Sloane took that training from John Sloan in everyday representational art literally into another field.  He saw beauty in the proportions and materials used by early American (broadly defined) farmers.  Whether a stone springhouse in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, or an adobe kiva in Taos, New Mexico, Sloane loved that it was on a human scale and fit aesthetically into the terrain.  Sunlight on a faded wooden door in Taos or autumn shadows on a lonely farmstead in Vermont fired Sloane’s creative sensitivity.

Sloane was also fascinated by old American tools, and he collected hundreds of handmade axes and adzes, saws and sickles.  He regarded them as works of art, as much early American masterpieces as paintings by Benjamin West or Edward Hicks.  Sloane used the tools he had collected as models for his paintings and drawings, but even more, he felt a mystical bond with them.  “Closing your hand around a worn wooden hammer handle,” he wrote, “is very much like reaching back into the years and feeling the very hand that wore it smooth.”

That observation comes from the preface to one of Sloane’s most memorable books, Diary of an Early American Boy, first published in 1962 and still in print.  It is Sloane’s edition of a diary by a fifteen year-old boy, Noah Blake; written in 1805, the diary ended up in Sloane’s possession, found by him in an old house.  Sloane interspersed the diary’s laconic entries with his own narrative to explain various points and pen and ink drawings to illustrate them visually.

Noah Blake lived with his parents, Izaak and Rachel, and Noah was attracted to the neighbor’s servant girl, Sarah Trowbridge.  Along with entries about back-breaking farm work, Noah’s diary has a subplot of his furtive desire for a shy girl he got to see about once a week.  Usually he saw her at church, a plain form of Protestant worship he simply referred to as “meeting.”  Shortly before Christmas, Noah took a bold step and slipped Sarah a note; instantly he worried about its propriety and urged her not to open it till she got home.

His possible indiscretion was having copied out for her these words:  “And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another” (2 John 5).  That a teenage boy’s nervous romantic advances took the form of a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible says as much about that lost world of 1805 as does Noah Blake’s record of making ink or cutting hay, of picking apples for cider or splitting firewood by hand.

Sloane’s books and paintings take us into an America almost entirely gone.  Few of us grew up with a seventeenth-century translation of Scripture or a year whose rhythm was marked by planting and harvesting and preserving.  Very likely today only Amish children or those of wild-eyed survivalists think of June as the time when Mother makes strawberry jam or August as the time for canning peaches, green beans, and corn.  Likewise, few kids now think of winter as a seemingly endless daily loop of carrying firewood inside and ashes outside.

By age fifty, Sloane was alarmed at the fast pace of change in America.  He made his case in a slim book (all his books are brief), Our Vanishing Landscape (1955), briskly readable and richly illustrated with his pen and ink drawings of barrels and barns, fences and churches, weathervanes and mills.  As well as being a description and depiction of rural and small-town life that was even then giving way to suburban development and urban sprawl, it is a lament for a disappearing way of life and its values.

With help from the Stanley tool company, Sloane set up a museum near his home in the Housatonic valley.  Sloane’s museum comprises his collection of early American tools, recreates his studio, and displays his paintings.  He is buried on the grounds of the museum.  For his fans unable to get to the sloping woods of western Connecticut, there is Michael Wigley’s invaluable coffee-table volume, Eric Sloane’s America:  Paintings in Oil (2009), with a foreword by Sloane’s widow, Mimi.

While, like many others, Sloane regretted the loss of the family farm and the family shop, his calling was elsewhere.  Farming and shop-keeping were not his vocation.  Artist and writer, Sloane’s gift was that of an historian, showing us the spirit of Americans like the Blakes, whose family life was close to the land and closer to God.


Daniel J. Heisey, O. S. B, is a Benedictine monk of Saint Vincent Archabbey, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where he is known as Brother Bruno.  He teaches Church History at Saint Vincent Seminary.


Keeping Silence with Patrick Leigh Fermor

T. S. Eliot’s humor best comes across in his poems about cats, but some of his plays have lines meant to amuse. In The Elder Statesman (1959), a retired politician is being shown around the care home he has just entered. “And remember,” says his guide, “when you want to be very quiet/There’s the Silence Room.  With a television set./It’s popular in the evenings.  But not too crowded.”

In August, 1961, editors at The Times of London had in mind a series of one-page articles about the Seven Deadly Sins, and the editors asked Eliot and six others to choose a sin and write about it.  Joining Eliot in the task, and choosing to write about gluttony, was Patrick Leigh Fermor (1915-2011), bon vivant, war hero, and travel writer who in 1957 published a slim volume about his visits to Christian monasteries.  That book, A Time to Keep Silence, remains in print, and a couple of years ago copies of it were prominently displayed next to the till at Hatchard’s bookshop in Piccadilly.

Along with Wilfred Thesiger (1910-2003), Fermor is one of the most fascinating Englishmen of the twentieth century.  Both wrote page-turning accounts of their epic travels, both distinguished themselves for bravery during the Second World War, and late in life both were knighted.  Although they were drawn to times of solitude and silence, Thesiger sought peace in the deserts of Arabia or the wilds of Africa, while Fermor went to monasteries, usually Benedictine.

Patrick Michael Leigh Fermor was born in London, in a neighborhood between the British Museum and Euston Station.  His father was a geologist based in India, but the boy was sent to live with a family in Northamptonshire.  Brilliant yet unsuccessful at school, from 1933 to 1935 Fermor undertook his first great journey, walking from Rotterdam to Istanbul, along the way reading the poems of Horace in Latin and in the end participating in a cavalry charge in defense of the Greek monarchy against republican rebels.  In 1977 appeared the first of his three volumes recounting these adventures, A Time of Gifts.

At the beginning of World War II he became a captain in the Irish Guards, but his knowledge of Greek got him assigned to military intelligence and parachuted into Crete, by then occupied by the Germans.  There he led a daring raid that kidnapped the German general in command of the island.  That astonishing episode became the subject of a movie starring Dirk Bogarde as Fermor, Ill Met by Moonlight (1957).

According to Artemis Cooper’s biography of Fermor, from boyhood Fermor was athletic and interested in religion.  He surprised his schoolmasters with his skill at boxing and rowing, and also for returning from the playing fields lustily singing “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.”  His school was in Canterbury, the cathedral’s history increasing his spiritual longing.  “Catholicism and the Latin Mass,” wrote Cooper, “exerted a strong appeal, as did the candles and bells, incense and statues of the Roman tradition.”  Although he never converted, on official forms he identified himself as “R. C.”

As he grew older, his religious fervor subsided.  Still, he went to Rome for the funeral of Pope Pius XII and the ensuing papal conclave, and he avoided the false gods of the era.  In the 1930s he became aware of the murderous horrors of Soviet socialism, saying it “inoculated me against Communism.”

Like Caesar’s Gaul, Fermor’s A Time to Keep Silence is divided into three parts.  First is a sketch of his visits to a French Benedictine abbey, St Wandrille, founded in the seventh century near Rouen.  Next, he contrasts another French Benedictine abbey, Solesmes, with the strict Cistercian abbey of La Grande Trappe.  Finally, he recounts a tour of the abandoned monasteries carved into the conical rock formations of Cappadocia.  From Normandy to Turkey in ninety-five pages:  it says as much about Fermor’s cultural and geographical range as about his concise, yet lyrical and evocative, prose.

Along with the hours of silence between the Hours of prayer, an aspect of these monasteries that Fermor appreciated and even savored was their relationship with time.  “Time passes in a monastery,” he observed, “with disconcerting speed.”  Only the changing seasons and the Church’s feast days serve as landmarks along the way.  He noted that the monks were well aware of this swift passage of time:  “[S]ix months, a year, fifteen years, a lifetime, are soon over.”

Time slipping by somehow gave the monks continuity with their monastic ancestors.  As he listened to the monks chanting the Liturgy of the Hours “in the language of fifth- or sixth-century Western Christendom,” Fermor marveled that “one can forget the alterations of the twentieth [century] and feel that the life-line of notes and syllables between the Early Church and today is still intact.”  Timeless prayer helped him lose himself and imagine back to the late 500s, when Benedictine monks first came to England from Rome, singing these same canticles and Psalms.

Fermor’s retreats at Benedictine abbeys occurred also in England.  He seems to have preferred staying at the Benedictine abbey at Farnborough, oddly secluded amid trees on the outskirts of a town now noted for its annual air show.  In 1881 the exiled Empress Eugénie founded the monastery at Farnborough, and entombed in the crypt of the abbey church are her husband, Napoleon III, and their son, Louis, killed in 1879 while serving in the British army during the Zulu War.  In due course the empress joined them.

Monastic retreats aside, Fermor and his wife divided their time between Gloucestershire and Greece, where he was known as Mihali, Patrick having no easy Greek equivalent.  They entertained friends, and he amused himself by translating P. G. Wodehouse into Greek.  Appropriately, in London he had a pied-à-terre in the Traveller’s Club.  Fermor and his wife are buried at their village church in rural England.

At least since the days of Herodotus, people have had a craving for traveler’s tales, but they have also felt a need for times of silence and reflection.  Managers of a busy bookshop in a bustling part of London knew their customers would want Fermor’s A Time to Keep Silence.  Curling up with a cup of tea by a sunny window and reading that book will be more enriching, though less ironic, than a retirement home’s Silence Room and its television set.


Daniel J. Heisey, O. S. B., is a Benedictine monk of Saint Vincent Archabbey, Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where he is known as Brother Bruno.  He teaches Church History at Saint Vincent Seminary.