What’s Wrong with the World

If we're going to start a list of English literature written by Catholics, then let's start the list with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

Chesterton had a Catholic sensibility even before he officially converted into the Catholic faith.

And please, let's regard Shakespeare as a Catholic.

And please, let's regard Shakespeare as a Catholic.

Why?

I was going to say (without mentioning Shakespeare per se) that I think the recognition of the Protestantism of English literature is important for Catholics studying it. There is a temptation, even among fairly traditional students of English literature who happen to be something other than Protestant (e.g., Catholic or Orthodox) to exaggerate every little thing into crypto-Catholicism. For example, Spenser once has a character "bless himself" in the Faerie Queene. You wouldn't believe how many times this has been mentioned as some sort of heavy indication of Catholic sympathies on Spenser's part. Which, I'm sorry, is bosh. Spenser was solidly Anglican and for that matter, rather anti-Catholic, as Book V of FQ (by far the _worst_ book of FQ) shows. Donne was not a crypto-Catholic, etc.

Part of this temptation arises from the continual need in graduate school to be writing papers, the publish-or-perish situation for young faculty, and so forth. Part of it arises from boredom and the desire to say something different. But part of it arises from a discomfort with the fact of the Protestantism of England and the romance of saying that some author was _really_ sympathetic to one's own perspective though he kept this somewhat hidden, and only the enlightened can see it. I think this is a great mistake as an approach to literature.

Another influence, in my opinion, is the somewhat anachronistic recognition that contemporary evangelicals might be uncomfortable with Donne or Herbert (for example) if they really understood them. I've experienced this feeling myself, when told enthusiastically by a Baptist how much she loves Herbert's "Aaron," when it is obvious that she did not understand it at all, doubtless thinking it is about the "priesthood of all believers" instead of being about Herbert's own Anglican priesthood. But that's just because contemporary evangelicals are not Anglicans! That has nothing to do with any sort of proto-Catholicism in Herbert but merely with the fact that the Anglican compromise was a via media and had aspects that Puritans considered "papish."

along with those very few Englishmen who happened to be Catholic and alas, though by no means bad, are all second rate.

This seems like hyperbole. Shakespeare may or may not have been Catholic, but his writings show evident Catholic themes (e.g. purgatory in Hamlet) and well-intentioned Catholic characters (e.g. the priest in Much Ado About Nothing). At any rate, there is nothing distinctively Protestant about Shakespeare's writing. In what sense, then, ought his work to be cast in with the allegedly superior writings of English Protestants?

But let's focus for a moment on the confirmed English Catholic authors: Dryden, Chaucer, Hopkins, Newman, Belloc, More (some of his later work was written in English), Crashaw, Waugh, Norwich, Chesterton, Pope. Are these writers "second rate"?

English literature is substantially Protestant.

Can John Milton even properly be called a Protestant? Or are we including heretics under the Protestant category?

Dr. Senior would have been better to say, "English literature was, for the most part, written by non-Catholics." That would have been a fair statement.

This whole discussion is only relevant to literature produced after the 16th century.

Or, as we medievalists like to say, journalism.

For every John Donne, there is an Alexander Pope, or a Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Well, but...I like Pope and all, but...Donne can take on those two together with one hand tied behind his back. :-) Just my opinion.

It's noticeable, though of course perfectly explicable, that more of the uncontroversially Catholic writers you mention, Theodosius, are from more recent times. So you're going to end up comparing apples and oranges. Who really is comparable to Donne? The examples you give are of such different types of poetry that it's hard to know even how to do comparison, though I've given my biased opinion above, if the comparison can be made. Who really is comparable to Milton? (Yes, a heretic, but I think "Puritan Arian" about covers it, so I'm willing to have him lumped with the Protestants, esp. since he was secretary to Cromwell. [Ick])

I would take issue with a few things Dr. Senior writes:

1) Protestant books are not “indispensable” to understanding the Catholic faith, nor are they “indirectly requisite to the Kingdom of Heaven.”
2) Translations of Catholic works would not be necessary if boys were taught Latin, as they used to be.
3) As brilliant as it may be, Protestant literature is not Christian.
4) Protestantism does not stand between Catholicism and Judaism, but stands with Judaism opposed to Catholicism, the true faith.
5) If a book “is filled with outrageous lies about the Jesuits,” I find it hard to believe that it does not also contain outright blasphemies.
6) Chesterton sometimes got a little carried away with his paradoxes. I believe “healthy lie” is an instance of this.

I do admit, however, that one cannot master the English language without studying the Protestant authors.

Why? Try Catholic Theology in Shakespeare's Plays.

Chesterton sometimes got a little carried away with his paradoxes.

Actually, he got VERY carried away with it. It's the principal reason I can't stand to read more than a few pages of his stuff at a time.

The thousand good books which are the indispensable soil of the understanding of the Catholic Faith and indirectly requisite to the Kingdom of Heaven, are not Catholic but Protestant.

Ha, what a stretch! Senior's fascination with the 1000 good books is noted, and not entirely misplaced. But it is a serious error to equate the passing on of the Catholic Faith with the passing on to the next generation of the Anglo-Saxon-American cultural heritage. I grant you that the latter cannot be done readily without the 1000 good books. But the heroes of that cultural heritage, and the writers of those books, did not _all_ forge their grasp of that culture out of those books! Some of those books are not even English in origin. And culture can be passed on by being lived and being taught by word of mouth, as well as by being read about. So it cannot be the case that the literature-version of culture embodied in those books is necessary in any strong sense to passing that culture on.

All the more so with respect to the Faith. That faith was passed on and lived for ages among illiterates, and by Latins, Greeks, Franks, Irish, and so on, before 950 of those good books were written. Again, passing on the Faith is easier when the ground is fertilized with a healthy admixture of the history, mores, and perspective found in basically solid literature. Do you seriously mean to say that the French don't have good, solid, faith-supporting literature for young people? Or Germans?

It is indeed lamentable that English literature is nearly all Protestant, that there isn't more from Catholics. The reason is of course a purely historical accident: Modern English and wide-spread literacy came about nearly contemporaneously with English Protestantism, which religion was pushed on the nation by force. So naturally the literature produced in the modern tongue by Englishmen is Protestant.

Would Dr. Senior discount the classics of the ancients due to their ignorance of the faith? Whatever would Aquinas have done without Aristotle? Where would Augustine have been without Plato? Or Dante without Virgil? If there is something to be learned from these distant pagans, why must we ignore the protestants who are far closer to us in kin and ken.

Utter another denigration against Chesterton, Tony and George, and I'll ban you forthwith. :)

I would recommend Hugh Kenner's Paradox in Chesterton for a lively demonstration of the immense wisdom that grounded Chesterton's favorite literary device.

Tony, while your point is well taken that Senior overstates when he talks about English literature as requisite to the passing on of the Catholic faith (even I can see that as a Protestant, and C.S. Lewis would have a fit--he was always saying that people over-valued high culture in his own day), I hope you would agree that American and other English-speaking young people would be the poorer if not exposed to the great works of English literature. Moreover, I hope you would agree that an education that incorporates such exposure is likely to be the kind of education that enriches them across the board in ways helpful to their Christian faith. I would also say that (and I think this is part of Senior's point) since you are Americans, your heritage of high culture is bound up with Protestantism. In one sense, you can pass down "your culture" without English literature of Protestant origin but not in the sense of "culture" that includes, you know, the best that has been thought and said in your language and in the history that lies behind your country.

Hey everyone,

There seems to be some confusion caused by the fact that the reformation occurred soon after the printing press was invented. So, I propose that we take our investigations further back in history. Would anyone argue that Beowulf is any more Catholic than Protestant?

Jeremy

I hope you would agree that an education that incorporates such exposure is likely to be the kind of education that enriches them across the board in ways helpful to their Christian faith.

Okay, upon re-reading, I see that that was my own overstatement. It should be comparative--"more likely...than an education that doesn't." Unfortunately, there are bad ways of exposing students to great English literature. "Gay and Lesbian Themes in Shakespeare" is not the kind of thing I had in mind!

Jeremy,

Yes, I'd argue that Beowulf is more Catholic than it is Protestant. I'd argue that for *all* non-Lollard, non-Wycliffite English literature prior to the Reformation.

I like Pope and all, but...Donne can take on those two together with one hand tied behind his back. :-) Just my opinion.

Yes, and that's all it is.

Who really is comparable to Milton? (Yes, a heretic, but I think "Puritan Arian" about covers it, so I'm willing to have him lumped with the Protestants

So out of Protestant loyalty your tent suddenly gets really big?

Ned, there is a somewhat ad-hoc distinction made between the "Great Books" and the 1000 "good books". The Great Books are the greatest 110 or 120 works of Western man that are still extant, so acclaimed by generation after generation, and forming the intellectual backstop of western civilization as such. So they come from every sphere of western civilization, including the Greek plays and philosophers and geometricians, the Roman jurists and poets, the medieval philosophers and theologians, etc. The 1000 good books are a set of broadly recognized works of lesser quality but accessible to youth as well, which form a foundation of exposure to literature that (among other things) enable the youth to eventually tackle the Great Books with greater facility. In John Senior's context, the list of good books consists mainly of those ordinary solid English, American, and Canadian books that most families would want their kids to read somewhere along the way. (In my view, if our kids were usually bi- or tri-lingual, there would be an equal number of books in other languages on the list. Would that push the list to 2 or 3 thousand?)

Lydia, I agree that the inculturation I want for my English-speaking American kids includes huge amounts of reading in English literature, including Protestant literature. And it does: from Shakespeare (whom I am perfectly willing to call Protestant for this discussion, since he wrote in Elizabethan England without censure from gov't) to Tennyson and past. And I'll add the putatively "English" but actually Canadian and American sources as well, such staples of the "good books" as _Anne_of_Avonlea_ and _Little Women_ for example, which are clearly Protestant. I believe that reading these works forms the imagination and sensibilities in a wholesome manner, and provides the needed fodder for a broader tackling of the true liberal arts later, providing more life experience than one person can have when he has the opportunity to study in college.

But at the same time, I don't propose that reading these 1000 good books constitute an absolute sine-qua-non of someone who is an educated English-speaking cultured lady or gentleman. Had Milton read Tennyson? Had Tennyson read Eliot? Had Shakespeare read Shakespeare? Given the extreme rareness of books before the 1700's, few people (even those certainly educated) had read read more than a couple hundred books in their lives, and youth generally less. And yet they managed to pass on English culture, and certainly passed on the Faith. That's all my point was.

No, there's not much in English literature that rises to Milton's level -- perhaps only Spenser, and that only occasionally. Paradise Lost is the greatest English epic. Spenser's FQ might have been as good, had it been finished. By common consent, Milton's "Lycidas" is the greatest middle-length poem in the language. (I can produce the supporting critical quotations, if you insist.) I can think of few sonnets that surpass Milton's "Methought I saw" and his "When I consider." In other words, he's produced the greatest long poem, the greatest middle length poem, some of the best short poetry in the language. Beside which he also has written arguably the best defense of freedom of the press.

So out of Protestant loyalty your tent suddenly gets really big?

No, Bill, I'd say more because, speaking pedagogically, thinking of Milton as a Christian Puritan is the most helpful way to look at him. You can read all of his greatest work, including especially Paradise Lost, without reference to his Arianism. In fact, it's probably just distracting and literarily almost pointless to know about his Arianism when reading PL. On the other hand, knowing that he was against not only Catholicism but also Anglicanism--in other words, that he was a deep-dyed Puritan--is helpful for the historical sections of PL at the end as well as for understanding his tone in various places, his unhappiness at the Restoration, etc. One way of looking at it from the outset is that if the Puritans' big tent was big enough to include Milton (and it obviously was), and if Milton considered himself to belong with the Cromwellians, which he apparently did, then that's historically and literarily the most useful place to put him. When that proves to be true also to what is actually in the literature, then I think that bears out the wisdom of the historical rough-cut.

In some ways this is like thinking of the Arian Visigoths as "Christians" when thinking of the Battle of Chalon in the 400's--the Arians and the Romans vs. the Huns. Or present-day African Copts, who are I believe monophysites. But vis a vis the Muslims in Egypt, they are "Christians."

Sometimes the socio-political categorization is more enlightening for certain purposes than the doctrinal one. This is probably most often true when we're talking about really ancient heresies such as Arianism.

Let's be fair. Most of these works were not read for their overt religious content. In any case, did Catholics even have easy access to printing presses or channels of communication until fairly recently? I have little knowledge in this area. If this were true, perhaps it would explain why Catholics are under-represented until recently.

The Chicken

In England, Catholics were actively persecuted through the 17th century. In the 18th century, they began to be quietly tolerated but still were _formally_ barred from positions in the military and in various other places (e.g., I believe in the universities). I believe they didn't gain what we would call full civil rights until the 19th century. Others can do a more specific job than I of giving this history, but the short version, Chicken, is that yes, there are perfectly good historical reasons (and those, not much to the credit of the Protestants) for the underrepresentation of Catholics in this group. That doesn't change the fact, however, and it does mean that Catholics have to be willing to read a lot of literature by Protestants, some of it with overt anti-Catholicism, and concede its greatness, if they are to be well-read in the English language canon of Great Books. Them's the breaks. Some people it bothers more than others.

I was going to add to my comment to Bill: You might say that for most purposes it's best to say that all Puritans are Protestants, Milton was a Puritan, therefore, Milton was a Protestant. This way of carving things up does mean, however, that one will include in the ranks of Protestants some who were not Christians in the very important, doctrinal, trinitarian sense. Such are the vagaries of history.

That doesn't change the fact, however, and it does mean that Catholics have to be willing to read a lot of literature by Protestants, some of it with overt anti-Catholicism, and concede its greatness, if they are to be well-read in the English language canon of Great Books.

Greatness as literature, of course. Greatness as theology? Can something be great literature without being great theology? Of course. Something can also be great literature and be great theology or great theology and poor literature. Yes. I see no reason to assume that the one necessarily implies the other. The Greeks were pagans and they produced some impressive literature. Besides, much of the religion in these English works are really natural law religion and not so much partisan theological matches (spoken as a true dilettante).

I think the most charitable read would be to say that these are great pieces of literature by people who happened not to be Catholic :) Am I going to get in trouble for saying this? Note to those who are tempted to fillet me: I have tender skin. You must bread me first. Cooked Mask Chicken goes well with cheese sauce.

The Chicken

One of the most interesting points here is that Milton several times sounds like a trinitarian in Paradise Lost. That's usually when he's alluding to Scripture, in which he was steeped. Fortunately, since he was writing a poem and wasn't _always_ a windbag, he doesn't stop to give an Arian gloss on phrases about the Father's exact likeness expressed in the Son and stuff like that, so his literary sense saved him from dragging in the theological heresy. By and large, I think that theological _controversy_ isn't good for literature qua literature, though specific denominational _flavor_ can be very good for literature.

So far are English Protestant works from being "the greatest" and "required reading" that even translations of non-English works excel them.

I think it was C.S. Lewis himself who, in a letter, opined that the Divine Comedy, which he read in translation, surpassed Paradise Lost, literarily and theologically.

And was it not T.S. Eliot who wrote, "Dante and Shakespeare divide the modern world between them; there is no third"?

How is it, then, that the highest praise for achievement in the English language, from a man who ought to recognize such achievement, falls upon an Italian poet read in translation, and an Englishman, whose writing, if it can be categorized as anything, certainly cannot be categorized as Protestant?

Which brings me to this:

The recognition of this has led some well-meaning Catholic teachers to the recommendation of texts and reading lists of strictly Catholic authors, which can only be done by supplying large amounts of Latin, French, Italian and other foreign authors in translation[...]

What is the matter here? Let the students dabble in Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe on their own.

The essential reading is Smollet's Don Quixote , a decent translation of Montaigne's Essays, Dryden's Petrarch's Lives, and Longfellow's

Divine Comedy

Fascinating and informative discussion - and mostly over my head, since unfortunately I have never been a serious reader of classic literature. I posted this excerpt for its relevance, having no expertise myself.

Dr. Senior does indeed employ frequent hyperbole as a literary device. This is true throughout the book. It's not Chestertonian paradox and overstatement, but its own thing. So, when he says something like the canon of English classics is "indispensable" for the understanding the Catholic Faith in the English-speaking world, he really means something like "English speaking Catholics should make it a priority because it will deepen their understanding of the Faith". I thought this would be obvious in an extended section of his writing, but I guess it isn't.

George R. is way off base in saying that Protestant literature isn't Christian. Such an opinion is decidedly un-Catholic and radically at odds with the Magisterium - perhaps even a heresy itself. ( See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html )

Lydia McGrew writes:

I would also say that (and I think this is part of Senior's point) since you are Americans, your heritage of high culture is bound up with Protestantism. In one sense, you can pass down "your culture" without English literature of Protestant origin but not in the sense of "culture" that includes, you know, the best that has been thought and said in your language and in the history that lies behind your country.

Yes, precisely. And what is more, Catholics do not see "culture" in terms that starkly separate the Faith from a pre-existing cultural foundation. Indeed that kind of attitude is more Protestant than Catholic. In the United States our Protestant-tinged cultural foundation is, to paraphrase Dr. Senior, not an option but a fact.

The English literary and cultural heritage, without the Catholic Faith, is a tradition without a tradition-honoring Christian worldview to preserve it. I will go so far as to say that if British culture is to be saved at all, it will be Catholicism that saves it.

so his literary sense saved him from dragging in the theological heresy. By and large, I think that theological _controversy_ isn't good for literature qua literature, though specific denominational _flavor_ can be very good for literature.

And this is perfectly true. Theological controversy is not only not good for literature, it is deadly to it, as such controversy would be to a novel disguising a political agenda. I'd like to add something I'm not sure has been addressed, and that is that the Protestant-Catholic divide on this subject is like a dilemma without its horns. The truths of human nature, which it is the artist's job to reveal, are not the property of either. Jews can write great novels and poems. So can pagans. That the majority of English literature has Protestants as its authors is due to the fact that it became a Protestant nation at a certain point in history, and the printing press did the rest (which I think someone pointed out above). That the English Church was born of one man's rapacious will to power could not in a single stroke eradicate the Catholic parentage to the Protestant child, and did not even through many centuries. I see much in the piety of Donne, Herbert and Johnson that is indistinguishable from what came before. The echoes of the past were still quite evident even through the first half of the 20th century (though today in England it seems only the trappings remain). While calling themselves by different names and professing doctrines of sometimes quite subtle difference, English Catholics and Protestants - even as they killed each other - could not escape an essential cultural and religious heritage which united them in spite of themselves, and which depths informed all their literature. Shakespeare was undoubtedly the greatest among them, but whether he was Catholic or Protestant is to me a matter of no moment whatsoever. Would that God doled out His gifts by demonination, but this appears not to be the case. If a writer sets his ego and his agenda aside to tell me the truth, and moves me in the process, then I'll leave his religion to God.

Milton doesn't really set his theological agenda aside in Paradise Lost. As an Arminian, Arian, Protestant, he speaks against (1) Catholicism by labeling the demons in hell a "conclave" and a "synod" as they debate to appoint Satan their head and representative to subvert humanity. They build a "pontifical" structure to earth from hell in order to reach humanity and to get their demonic work done here. He has monks tumbling head over cowl in limbo (as I recall). Against (2) the Calvinists, he says that the devils in hell continue to debate foreknowledge, predestination, and free will in Satan's absence. Against the Trinitarians, he says that the Son of God was elevated to his position over the angels more by merit than by birthright.

I heartily second Bill Luse's comment.

You're right, Michael, that Milton didn't entirely set aside his theological agenda, but the parts you name aren't the best parts of the poem. It's a long poem. As I said above, it's precisely because he sets it aside and lets his scriptural allusions speak for themselves so much that his Arianism is _largely_ irrelevant to the poem. And a good thing, too.

Theodosius asks what's wrong with teaching students only Catholic literature (plus Shakespeare). What's wrong with it, Theodosius, is that they will be much the poorer, especially as English speakers, for having no acquaintance with Donne, Milton, Dickens, and T.S. Eliot (who was an Anglo-Catholic but not a Roman Catholic). (Also the Book of Common Prayer, though it's hard to know how to _teach_ this.) Not that this dictates at what time in their education these things should come up. Some won't be ready until college age and level for some of them. But they will need some guidance in them, which is why "let them dabble on their own" is not a good idea. Another reason is because they probably _won't_ read these things on their own, especially if you take such a dismissive attitude to them as your comment implies, if "let them dabble on their own" means "or not, as may be, I don't care."

I think anyone who has read both would agree that The Divine Comedy is incomparably the greater poem than Paradise Lost. So what? A Christian young person should read both at some point in his education.

There is, of course, two debates at once going on here. One is about the English authors who were Catholic or Protestant. The other is about works which are Protestant or Catholic works.

I agree more with Bill Luse's comment than with the opposing point of view: If a writer sets his ego and his agenda aside to tell me the truth, and moves me in the process, then I'll leave his religion to God.

And to descend to particulars, insofar as I have read in Shakespeare (about 12 of his plays, and a smattering of sonnets), there is very little there to call specifically Protestant or specifically Catholic. The same, I think, applies to Tolkien, at least the LOTR. Although there are some who say that LOTR reflects Tolkien's Catholicism, I don't see anything that is _definitively_ Catholic about it. I don't see a work that _couldn't_ have come from a Protestant pen. It is primarily a ripping good story concept carried out in brilliant prose. And as English as punting on the Thames. I honestly can't see a single reason why a Protestant should choose NOT to have his students read LOTR, any more than a Catholic should choose not to have his students read Hamlet or Macbeth.

All,

I don't have much to add, other than the fact I generally think Lydia's analysis has been spot on here. However, I did want to add a couple of points:

1) I thought Senior's analysis of Jews and Jesuits was fine as far as it went (i.e. Jews and Jesuits shouldn't be ashamed at honest criticism of their wayward brothers and sisters) but there was something somewhat nasty about listing specific Jewish crimes and just vaguely hinting at the Jesuit misdeeds. The reader comes away with a vivid picture of the bad Jews as "conspicuous usurers, pornographers and Communists" and when the same reader wants to conjure up a picutre of a bad Jesuit he will come up blank, because Senior decides to just give us the details on the Jews.

2) My own favorite poet is Wordsworth, who was enormously influenced by Milton and Spenser (not to mention the Bard); which simply re-enforces Lydia's notion that if you want to appreciate English literature you need to read Milton. Period.

George R. is way off base in saying that Protestant literature isn't Christian. Such an opinion is decidedly un-Catholic and radically at odds with the Magisterium - perhaps even a heresy itself.

Heresy?

My goodness. Let's see if I can somehow extricate myself from the charge.

Here is the relevant quote from the passage:

First of all, insofar as the literature is Protestant, it is Biblical and Christian; the existence of God, the Divinity of Christ, the necessity of prayer and obedience to the commandments is its very strong stuff for the most part and there is little anywhere in direct violation of the Catholic Faith…

First off, I have to say that Dr. Senior is speaking very imprecisely here. For the existence of God, the Divinity of Christ, etc. are not specifically Protestant tenets. Protestants may believe in God; but a man is not a Protestant because he believes in God, but because he rejects Catholic teaching. And Literature is Protestant for the same reason. Therefore, I assume that what Dr. Senior was trying to say was that Protestant literature often referred to religion approvingly without being overtly Protestant. In other words, he was trying to say the Protestant literature was not really Protestant. But contrary to his exact words, “insofar as literature is Protestant,” it simply cannot be Christian.

Or perhaps you would like to correct me on this point, Jeff. Which teachings that are properly called Protestant would you consider Christian? Rejection of the papacy? Rejection of purgatory? Rejection of the real presence? Or what literature that promotes these teachings would you consider Christian?

Now perhaps you might admit that, insofar as literature is Protestant, it is not Christian, but that it may be Christian notwithstanding, for other reasons, like because it promotes the common beliefs of Catholics and Protestants. This also I deny, because I consider the mixing of error and truth to be not Christian. If you consider that heresy, I'd love to hear your argument.

It's hard to imagine someone thinking of the Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, or Pilgrim's Progress as something other than distinctly Protestant -- as if properly understanding these theological works of verbal art can be carried on apart from the author's worldview and theological commitments.

Shorter George R.: Protestants are Christians insofar as they are Catholics. Ooo-kay.

Pilgrim's Progress, for sure. But then, PP contains huge amounts of theological controversy. To its detriment. I'll admit to a bit of trouble appreciating Pilgrim's Progress.

Jeff,

I think that perhaps you should go ahead with a larger review of Dr. Senior's work. It seems that some involved in this conversation are missing his larger point, that a robust Christian culture requires a great literature, and whatever deficiencies a protestant English literature might have, cultural greatness certainly isn't one of them.

But Senior's larger thesis concerns how we might live as Christians in a manner that makes it clear that the Mass is not merely at the center of our lives, but is both the source and summit of culture and civilization itself.

My pastor is one of Dr. Senior's godsons, and his pastorship is clearly marked by the program of The Restoration of Christian Culture. It gives me great Hope.

Ben, I have to admit that I'm still chuckling over your comment about journalism. And I'll bet J.R.R. Tolkien would have said something similar about Chaucer and Malory--they being "late" after the Norman Conquest and relatively easy to read without special linguistic training. :-)

Sorry Lydia, that was a different Ben.

I don't post here very often. But I've been reading Jeff's blog for years and I'm very interested both in Dr. Senior and this topic. I'm about to teach my homeschooled 16 year old Milton. Right now we are spending some time on Cromwell and the Civil War to provide some context.

I'll start signing my posts "ben in denver" to aviod this confusion going forward.

Shorter George R.: Protestants are Christians insofar as they are Catholics. Ooo-kay.

I do identify Christianity with Catholicism, Paul. But your summarization implies that my view is that one can be both Catholic and Protestant at the same time, which is absurd. I think you should know by now that, while I may be a religious bigot, I am not completely irrational.

As for any other liberal Catholics out there like Jeff Culbreath who want to accuse me of heresy, or apostasy, or witchcraft, or fornication with idols, or any other such thing because of my views on Protestant literature, if you want to spit into the wind of two thousand years of Catholic teaching, go ahead.

That has got to be the first time Jeff Culbreath has ever been accused of being a "liberal Catholic." :-)

Ben in Denver--

I'll do my part to avoid the confusion, too.

Lydia--

I'm glad you got a kick out of it.

but a man is not a Protestant because he believes in God, but because he rejects Catholic teaching.

George R, this may be true materially, but certainly not formally. The earliest Protestants assuredly were Protestant in virtue of hearing about Catholic teaching and refusing assent to some of them. But after 16 generations of Protestants, there are Protestants out there who have never made an act of rejection toward Catholic teachings, because they have never been exposed to them. (At least not in any form that a well-educated Catholic would recognize.) From that person's perspective, it is just as true of a Catholic that "he is Catholic because he rejects Protestant teaching."

I dare say that this way of looking at the distinction between the two could involve a lot of historical blindness. But neither Protestants nor Catholics have a corner on that market.

In both cases, the other group is that group of "Christians that hold stuff differently than I do." Unless the debate is directly on what that "differently" is, whether it constitutes a mere rejection of positive teachings of the other, or may also involve positive doctrine of my own that the other rejects, polite discourse would seem to require accepting the sheer difference is the critical point, not a characterization of that difference as a diminution of one point of view only.

Three cheers for Bill Luse's post! I would like to believe that if I'd had time and was not recovering from two weeks of drugs-for-pain, that's what I would have written. :)

By the way, Jeff, I hope you will do a comprehensive review of Dr. Senior's book. I have two of his works on my shelf (this is one of them) that I was unable to get to last summer and now must wait till school's out to try again. While I did not ever have a class from him, I had the fortune of being an English major in a program that was still very strongly influenced by him, including having professors who held similar values and beliefs (Classics and English being for practical purposes part of the same program, though I believe technically separate departments). I look forward to being taught by by him at last at this late date.

Lydia:

In my last post, I exaggerated the relative insignificance of the English Protestant literary canon vis-a-vis the mostly non-English Catholic canon. All I meant to say was that, in literary curricula for Catholic students, Catholic works should be given greater attention.

Why? Well, part of the reason is that Catholic students should be made familiar with the writings inspired by their own religion before being introduced to the writings inspired by Protestantism. This fosters an appreciation for Catholicism, reinforces its teachings, and provides examples of its influence and activity in the world.

It also, for example, keeps the student from taking the Pietist and philanthropic religion presented in the Christmas Carol for authentic Christianity.

My modest proposal, then, is that Protestant writing not exceed the status of suggested reading, throughout the course of a student's general education. In saying this, I do not mean to slight the likes of Milton, Donne, and Johnson, or to deny them literary merit. I only mean to put them in their place, and to say that, for the Catholic student, Catholic works should be given priority.

To George R.:

I can't decide whether you're pretending to be obtuse, just for fun, or if you really don't get that you have one definition of Protestant and the rest of us have another.

Which teachings that are properly called Protestant would you consider Christian?

The Incarnation. The Holy Trinity. The inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Etc. Obviously Dr. Senior (and myself) use the term "Protestant" to describe the historical content of Protestant religion, much of which is true. If you want to define "Protestant" solely and exclusively in terms of Protestant errors, go right ahead, but don't feign surprise when you're misunderstood.

Lydia McGrew wrote:

That has got to be the first time Jeff Culbreath has ever been accused of being a "liberal Catholic." :-)

Not quite the first, I'm afraid. There's a whole world out there of Feeneyite and Extra-SSPX-Nulla-Salus crankdom for whom my views are considered "liberal". And maybe they are. Interestingly, John Senior, with whom George R. disagrees so vehemently, reposes at the SSPX cemetery in St. Mary's, Kansas.

If you want to define "Protestant" solely and exclusively in terms of Protestant errors, go right ahead, but don't feign surprise when you're misunderstood.

Sure Protestants believe in things that Catholics believe; I explicitly said as much. But what distinguishes Protestants from Catholics is precisely what you yourself call their “errors.” Therefore, by logical extension, that which distinguishes Protestant literature as specifically Protestant can be nothing other than what you yourself call “Protestant errors.” Therefore, since insofar as literature is specifically Protestant it is erroneous, and insofar as it is erroneous cannot be Christian (which would be absurd), then insofar as it is specifically Protestant literature is not Christian.

Logic is a hard master, Jeff. But you have a choice: You can either submit to it or climb aboard the ding-a-ling express with everyone else.

NB: It’s the Catholics that are being illogical on the issue, not the Protestants.

Is it really true that the Dorothy Sayers translation is inferior in all respects to that of the great Milton? I couldn't bring myself to read his works as they were pretty heavy going. The Sayers translation has the great merit that she has added plenty of discursive asides and digressions laced with her English wit. I have not read the book right through as I lack discipline, but from snatches I read, it can be said that her translation was truer to the Christian vision of Dante than the other modern translations.

Ivan, I myself dislike the Sayers translation of Dante and favor most of all the prose translation of Sinclair. If you want a poetic translation, Ciardi's is best, IMO.

George R., the most interesting issue raised sort of indirectly by what you are saying is the notion of a Protestant _atmosphere_ in a work that does not otherwise address specific doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics. I think you are recking without the rather interesting issues posed by such an atmosphere. For example, there is nothing in Herbert's poem "Aaron" that is contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine, yet I doubt that a Catholic would ever have written it. Similarly, Southwell's "The Burning Babe" does not address specific theological issues between Protestants and Catholics but almost certainly would never have been written by a Protestant. I think myself that both Protestants and Catholics can be enriched by such works, and enriched by them in a way that recognizes the distinctive character that is owed historically to the other tradition, while not compromising on doctrinal issues.

I haven't read enough Dante to be able to judge translations, but Anthony Esolen's introduction to his recent translation is marvelous. No condescension re: Dante's "archaic" views there; as a traditional Catholic, Esolen's on the same page as the author theologically speaking.

What constitutes a “Protestant atmosphere,” Lydia, a partiality toward independence and rebellion? Such an atmosphere would be far more insidious than explicit doctrinal contradiction. Such an atmosphere, though, is quite American, isn’t it?

Maybe you should read some Herbert, George. Start with the poem I mention. :-) I get the feeling that you have no idea whatsoever what I'm talking about. Or for that matter, read the novel _Gilead_ that I keep recommending to people. It has a Congregationalist atmosphere even where it doesn't mention theology. Would you not agree that Dickens has a Victorian atmosphere? Well, I mean a "Protestant atmosphere" in something of the same sense. Something to do with simplicity, an emphasis (where doctrine is present at all) upon certain doctrines like Christ's righteousness as the foundation of our justification (that's found in the "Aaron" poem I mentioned). Direct address to God, as in the collects of the Book of Common Prayer. A plainness combined with a particular kind of beauty. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with it. If so, that's a shame.

Rob G., I haven't read but one other translation of Dante, but I do love Tony's. It also has the merit of having the Italian on the facing page so those with knowledge of the language can compare. And you are right, his introductions and his notes are excellent. Our majors are reading his translation of _Inferno_ in a special topics class right now, and he will be here the first week of March for a few days. We look forward to talking with him about the translation process and the choices he made in this.

It seems clear to me that the protestant reformation is a historical reality that we must deal with. We can't simply pretend that the culture we live in isn't profundly affected by this. We might prefer that Shakespeare, Johnson, Donne and Milton had been Catholic, but wishing doesn't make it so. Yet these men, and others like them, have built much of the cultural and moral vocabulary of our civilization, and to know our civilization well (which is fundamentally Christian), is to know these writers as our teachers. That they are not perfect in the eyes of Senior, Culbreath and myself, does not mean that their work is not of great value. After all, the pagan Virgil is an essential element of the Catholic Dante's achievement. And just as the myths of Virgil were a part and parcel of the thoroughly Catholic Renaissance Italy, how much more central a role might poems of the protestant Milton contribute to the Catholic culture we desire. We know not what future Catholic scibe might put Milton to use in guiding us through the endings of men like Virgil guided Dante.

"he will be here the first week of March for a few days. We look forward to talking with him about the translation process and the choices he made in this."

I heard him lecture on Dante last year at Grove City College. It was outstanding. You are in for a treat!

Cardinal Newman seems to agree with Dr. Senior's assessment: (I quote from his Idea of a University, but would recommend reading the relevant passages in their entirety. They are available online at newmanreader.org, and lie under the heading "Catholic Literature in the English Tongue," which is p. II, sect. III of the aforementioned book.)

On the Protestant nature of English literature, and of its quality:

How real a creation, how sui generis, is the style of Shakespeare, or of the Protestant Bible and Prayer Book, or of Swift, or of Pope, or of Gibbon, or of Johnson! Even were the subject-matter without meaning, though in truth the style cannot really be abstracted from the sense, still the style would, on that supposition, remain as perfect and original a work as Euclid's elements or a symphony of Beethoven. And, like music, it has seized upon the public mind; and the literature of England is no longer a mere letter, printed in books, and shut up in libraries, but it is a living voice, which has gone forth in its expressions and its sentiments into the world of men, which daily thrills upon our ears and syllables our thoughts, which speaks to us through our correspondents, and dictates when we put pen to paper. Whether we will or no, the phraseology and diction of Shakespeare, of the Protestant formularies, of Milton, of Pope, of Johnson's Tabletalk, and of Walter Scott, have become a portion of the vernacular tongue, the household words, of which perhaps we little guess the origin, and the very idioms of our familiar conversation. The man in the comedy spoke prose without knowing it; and we Catholics, without consciousness and without offence, are ever repeating the half sentences of dissolute playwrights and heretical partizans and preachers. So tyrannous is the literature of a nation; it is too much for us. We cannot destroy or reverse it; we may confront and encounter it, but we cannot make it over again. It is a great work of man, when it is no work of God's. I repeat, then, whatever we be able or unable to effect in the great problem which lies before us, any how we cannot undo the past. English Literature will ever have been Protestant.

On the relation of Protestant to Catholic literature:

One literature may be better than another, but bad will be the best, when weighed in the balance of truth and morality. It cannot be otherwise; human nature is in all ages and all countries the same; and its literature, therefore, will ever and everywhere be one and the same also. Man's work will savour of man; in his elements and powers excellent and admirable, but prone to disorder and excess, to error and to sin. Such too will be his literature; it will have the beauty and the fierceness, the sweetness and the rankness, of the natural man, and, with all its richness and greatness, will necessarily offend the senses of those who, in the Apostle's words, are really "exercised to discern between good and evil.

Thanks Lydia

George R., let's boil this down. You object to this passage of John Senior's ...

First of all, insofar as the literature is Protestant, it is Biblical and Christian; the existence of God, the Divinity of Christ, the necessity of prayer and obedience to the commandments is its very strong stuff for the most part and there is little anywhere in direct violation of the Catholic Faith…

... because in your view Protestant literature cannot be Christian:

But what distinguishes Protestants from Catholics is precisely what you yourself call their “errors.” Therefore, by logical extension, that which distinguishes Protestant literature as specifically Protestant can be nothing other than what you yourself call “Protestant errors.” Therefore, since insofar as literature is specifically Protestant it is erroneous, and insofar as it is erroneous cannot be Christian (which would be absurd), then insofar as it is specifically Protestant literature is not Christian.

But Protestantism is more than the sum of its errors, or "that which distinguishes Protestants from Catholics". When Dr. Senior writes that "insofar as the literature is Protestant, it is Biblical and Christian", he means to distinguish Protestant literature from that of pagans, secularists, Jews, Buddhists, and others who are not allies of the same truths. If you don't like this use of the word "Protestant", then it is up to you to suggest an alternative.

Of course there is no substitute, as you know perfectly well. Your goal seems therefore rather petty - to prevent the word "Protestant" from ever being used as an ally of things which are good and true.

It is as you say: mixing truth and error is not Christian. But the term "Protestant" in this case refers not to the mixing, but to the mix, and if the mix includes a definitive measure of Christian truth, then language must be found to express this. And we have the language. Classical Protestants are Christians. The Catholic Magisterium affirms this. Therefore we may refer to Protestant literature as Christian, Protestant civilization as Christian, Protestant this as Christian, and Protestant that as Christian, so long as the necessary distinctions are made.

Another book which illustrates quite powerfully the notion of Shakespeare's Catholicism is Shadowplay.

http://www.amazon.com/Shadowplay-Beliefs-Politics-William-Shakespeare/dp/1586483870/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266050641&sr=1-3

Recent discoveries of playful autographs at the Vatican library suggest that Shakespeare paid a visit in Rome.

For me, the evidence of Shakespeare's Catholicity is overwhelming, but others don't agree, but those that doubt it should examine the evidence before pronouncing a conclusion.

I always wondered why a Protestant English Shakespeare had so much intimate affection for all things Catholic in his plays. Other playwrites at the time did not. In fact, not at all. Not Marlowe, not Jonson, and so on.

Shakespeare loved word games and codes. Look up the 47th Psalm.

"Some believe that Psalm 46 may have been translated by Shakespeare. The King James version of the Bible was printed in 1611, when Shakespeare was 46 years old. It is a faint possibility, but no one knows for sure. James C. Humes notes that "The 46th word from the top of the 46th Psalm is "Shake" ("The earth doth shake."), and the 46th word from the bottom is "spear" ("God cutteth forth a spear")""

Just an accident or coincidence? I doubt it. It was exactly the sort of thing Will loved doing.

In fact, if you'll read the recent Catholic martyr premise of exegesis of the late poem, The Phoenix and the Turtle, a completely unedifying and incomprehensible poem becomes sensible.

Ah, Mark, I haven't checked out the numerological Shakespeare stuff, but I already went through it with Spenser, and for the most part, it's bunk. In Spenser, that is. Some sincere people doing it, but they have _no_ notion of what counts as "cherry picking" in arguing for numerological theories.

The KJV may have been printed in 1611, but when was it being prepared? Surely not that year alone. And, uh, was Shakespeare a Latin/Greek/Hebrew scholar to be translating Bible passages for Jamie? Was that ghost-writing on the side, or what?