What do you think?
Rate this book
The Victorian Age in Literature
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
85 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1913
144 people are currently reading
711 people want to read
About the author
G.K. Chesterton
4,643 books5,749 followersGilbert Keith Chesterton was an English writer, philosopher, lay theologian, and literary and art critic.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
He was educated at St. Paul’s, and went to art school at University College London. In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.
Chesterton was equally at ease with literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
March 11, 2020
Chesterton, monstrorum artifex
Brillante come sempre, geniale come sempre, appassionato come sempre, indisciplinato come sempre, vulcanico come sempre, scapestrato come sempre, stupefacente come sempre. Solo un genio come Chesterton poteva indurmi a leggere un saggio sull’età vittoriana nella letteratura.
Questo breve saggio non è una vera e propria storia della letteratura vittoriana, è piuttosto una esposizione dei punti di maggior interesse di quel periodo espressa in modo molto libero e personale dall’autore, che è sì un critico competente, ma soprattutto un uomo appassionato, entusiasta.
Un elenco di autori, più o meno noti, vengono presi in considerazione; l’elenco è dettagliato, ma non sistematico: non ci sono biografie, contestualizzazione storica, “istruzioni per l’uso”. A Chesterton queste cose non interessano: lui non calcola, non misura e noi lettori non ci aspettiamo da lui logica e rigore, ma il colpo di genio, lo spunto inatteso, acuto, sorprendente. E in questo lui non ci delude mai.
Rinnovata la mia sterminata ammirazione per GKC e rinnovato anche l’invito a tutti di leggere qualcosa di questo autore, devo solo aggiungere che mi sarà impossibile ripensare a questo libro senza ricordare la Battaglia di Hastings. Che c’entra la battaglia di Hastings? Assolutamente niente, nel libro non è nemmeno nominata.
http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/medie...
Brillante come sempre, geniale come sempre, appassionato come sempre, indisciplinato come sempre, vulcanico come sempre, scapestrato come sempre, stupefacente come sempre. Solo un genio come Chesterton poteva indurmi a leggere un saggio sull’età vittoriana nella letteratura.
Questo breve saggio non è una vera e propria storia della letteratura vittoriana, è piuttosto una esposizione dei punti di maggior interesse di quel periodo espressa in modo molto libero e personale dall’autore, che è sì un critico competente, ma soprattutto un uomo appassionato, entusiasta.
Un elenco di autori, più o meno noti, vengono presi in considerazione; l’elenco è dettagliato, ma non sistematico: non ci sono biografie, contestualizzazione storica, “istruzioni per l’uso”. A Chesterton queste cose non interessano: lui non calcola, non misura e noi lettori non ci aspettiamo da lui logica e rigore, ma il colpo di genio, lo spunto inatteso, acuto, sorprendente. E in questo lui non ci delude mai.
Rinnovata la mia sterminata ammirazione per GKC e rinnovato anche l’invito a tutti di leggere qualcosa di questo autore, devo solo aggiungere che mi sarà impossibile ripensare a questo libro senza ricordare la Battaglia di Hastings. Che c’entra la battaglia di Hastings? Assolutamente niente, nel libro non è nemmeno nominata.
http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/medie...
January 7, 2015
At sixth form we came across a teacher who, direct from completing his PhD thesis on literature in the Victorian Age, had for some reason known only to him, come to teach English in a secondary school. Thank goodness he did. From dry & uninspired scene by scene, line by line, or chapter by chapter, ‘analysis’ of texts in order to pass exams, we were suddenly shifted into an approach where books & ideas studied at school were seen to be exciting & worth knowing for themselves, and into discussions & questioning & background well beyond the scope of exam fodder. I’ve always been very grateful to him for that.
One of the many books he recommended for additional reading was this one, which I bought second-hand when I was 17, but unlike many things he recommended it has sat unread on my shelves ever since. 39 years later I once again find myself thanking Richard Starkey (for obvious reasons 'Ringo') for another great read.
Going by the title, the book could have been a brief lit. crit. survey of the authors and works of the period, which was, I suppose, what I expected, also maybe why it sat so long untouched on the shelves. However, Chesterton’s intention was rather to examine the cultural and intellectual background of the Victorian Age as revealed through literature of the time. And what a uniquely entertaining job he did.
The edition I read was published in the OPUS series the stated purpose of which was “…to provide authoritative introductions to most of the important branches of humanities & sciences.” If “authoritative” rests on being commanding and self-confident then Chesterton fulfilled his contract to the publishers of the series well beyond the call of duty. He’s a master of concise sweeping statements with which he sums up whole regions, nations, national spirits, cultures, classes & philosophies:
“The one civilized element that the German classicist forgot to put into their beautiful balance was a sense of humour.”
My favourite was when he lumped together the entire South (south of where? Of G K Chesterton seems to be the most likely answer) within his couple of pages on D G Rossetti:
“The first broad fact about the artistic revolution Rossetti wrought is written when we have written his name. But if the South lets in warmth and heat, it also lets in hardness. The more an orange tree is luxuriant in growth, the less it is loose in outline.”
You catch glimmers of something recognizable in what he’s saying with such authority of tone, but never a sense that he’s delivering anything other than his own, individual view and response. If authoritative is also that which is recognized as true or dependable, then the authority of his writing is lessened unless we mean true to himself, his own beliefs, and the large, bluff image that he would project – something akin to Teddy Roosevelt, the main difference being that Chesterton shoots with the pen rather than the elephant gun.
Judgements of individuals can be delightfully scathing:
“If Newman seemed suddenly to fly into a temper, Carlyle seemed never to fly out of one, but Arnold kept that smile of broken-hearted forbearance as if of the teacher in an idiot school, that was enormously insulting.”
But there is an underlying humour that makes him entertaining and endearing rather than simply overbearing. One example only from many, when dealing with the proposition that some had put forward about George Eliot’s novels i.e. that they were written not by her, but instead by George Lewes, he states that:
“I will cheerfully answer for the fact that, if they had been written by George Lewes, no one would have ever read them. Those who have read his book on Robespierre will have no doubt about my meaning. I am no idolater of George Eliot; but a man who could concoct such a crushing opiate about the most exciting occasion in history certainly did not write Mill on The Floss.”
I have no doubt that Chesterton is now dismissed in many quarters for misogyny (witness: “There are moments when Ruskin turns into a governess, without even the excuse of sex.”), for xenophobia, for Roman Catholic bigotry, and probably many other sorts of political incorrectness; but it’s refreshing to read a book that so unashamedly puts the authors point of view and judgements in such delightful prose.
He sums up the basis of the views he gives very nicely:
“The nearest that any honest man can come to the thing called ‘impartiality’ is to confess that he is partial.”
And he confesses that implicitly with almost every sentence he writes.
One of the many books he recommended for additional reading was this one, which I bought second-hand when I was 17, but unlike many things he recommended it has sat unread on my shelves ever since. 39 years later I once again find myself thanking Richard Starkey (for obvious reasons 'Ringo') for another great read.
Going by the title, the book could have been a brief lit. crit. survey of the authors and works of the period, which was, I suppose, what I expected, also maybe why it sat so long untouched on the shelves. However, Chesterton’s intention was rather to examine the cultural and intellectual background of the Victorian Age as revealed through literature of the time. And what a uniquely entertaining job he did.
The edition I read was published in the OPUS series the stated purpose of which was “…to provide authoritative introductions to most of the important branches of humanities & sciences.” If “authoritative” rests on being commanding and self-confident then Chesterton fulfilled his contract to the publishers of the series well beyond the call of duty. He’s a master of concise sweeping statements with which he sums up whole regions, nations, national spirits, cultures, classes & philosophies:
“The one civilized element that the German classicist forgot to put into their beautiful balance was a sense of humour.”
My favourite was when he lumped together the entire South (south of where? Of G K Chesterton seems to be the most likely answer) within his couple of pages on D G Rossetti:
“The first broad fact about the artistic revolution Rossetti wrought is written when we have written his name. But if the South lets in warmth and heat, it also lets in hardness. The more an orange tree is luxuriant in growth, the less it is loose in outline.”
You catch glimmers of something recognizable in what he’s saying with such authority of tone, but never a sense that he’s delivering anything other than his own, individual view and response. If authoritative is also that which is recognized as true or dependable, then the authority of his writing is lessened unless we mean true to himself, his own beliefs, and the large, bluff image that he would project – something akin to Teddy Roosevelt, the main difference being that Chesterton shoots with the pen rather than the elephant gun.
Judgements of individuals can be delightfully scathing:
“If Newman seemed suddenly to fly into a temper, Carlyle seemed never to fly out of one, but Arnold kept that smile of broken-hearted forbearance as if of the teacher in an idiot school, that was enormously insulting.”
But there is an underlying humour that makes him entertaining and endearing rather than simply overbearing. One example only from many, when dealing with the proposition that some had put forward about George Eliot’s novels i.e. that they were written not by her, but instead by George Lewes, he states that:
“I will cheerfully answer for the fact that, if they had been written by George Lewes, no one would have ever read them. Those who have read his book on Robespierre will have no doubt about my meaning. I am no idolater of George Eliot; but a man who could concoct such a crushing opiate about the most exciting occasion in history certainly did not write Mill on The Floss.”
I have no doubt that Chesterton is now dismissed in many quarters for misogyny (witness: “There are moments when Ruskin turns into a governess, without even the excuse of sex.”), for xenophobia, for Roman Catholic bigotry, and probably many other sorts of political incorrectness; but it’s refreshing to read a book that so unashamedly puts the authors point of view and judgements in such delightful prose.
He sums up the basis of the views he gives very nicely:
“The nearest that any honest man can come to the thing called ‘impartiality’ is to confess that he is partial.”
And he confesses that implicitly with almost every sentence he writes.
January 6, 2022
These sections reminded me of something I've been trying to put into my own words recently. It's strange that these days many of the most sympathetic, creative, quintessential girls think of themselves as unfeminine or identify as men. The whole process of questioning and inventing identities in the first place is so feminine. The last sentence hits hard, because this is what I say constantly and get ripped to pieces for. Our creativity is channeled into such stupidity when it could be used for so much good.
"This is the first fact about the novel, that it is the introduction of a new and rather curious kind of art; and it has been found to be peculiarly feminine, from the first good novel by Fanny Burney to the last good novel by Miss May Sinclair. The truth is, I think, that the modern novel is a new thing; not new in its essence (for that is a philosophy for fools), but new in the sense that it lets loose many of the things that are old. It is a hearty and exhaustive overhauling of that part of human existence which has always been the woman's province, or rather kingdom; the play of personalities in private, the real difference between Tommy and Joe. It is right that womanhood should specialise in individuals, and be praised for doing so. [...]
What the novel deals with is what women have to deal with; the differentiations, the twists and turns of this eternal river. The key of this new form of art, which we call fiction, is sympathy. And sympathy does not mean so much feeling with all who feel, but rather suffering with all who suffer."
"The very promising domestic channel dug by the Victorian women, in books like Cranford, by Mrs. Gaskell, would have got to the sea, if they had been left alone to dig it. They might have made domesticity a fairyland. Unfortunately another idea, the idea of imitating men's cuffs and collars and documents, cut across this purely female discovery and destroyed it."
***
For years I thought this was by C. S. Lewis, which would explain why I could never find it again.
"This is the first fact about the novel, that it is the introduction of a new and rather curious kind of art; and it has been found to be peculiarly feminine, from the first good novel by Fanny Burney to the last good novel by Miss May Sinclair. The truth is, I think, that the modern novel is a new thing; not new in its essence (for that is a philosophy for fools), but new in the sense that it lets loose many of the things that are old. It is a hearty and exhaustive overhauling of that part of human existence which has always been the woman's province, or rather kingdom; the play of personalities in private, the real difference between Tommy and Joe. It is right that womanhood should specialise in individuals, and be praised for doing so. [...]
What the novel deals with is what women have to deal with; the differentiations, the twists and turns of this eternal river. The key of this new form of art, which we call fiction, is sympathy. And sympathy does not mean so much feeling with all who feel, but rather suffering with all who suffer."
"The very promising domestic channel dug by the Victorian women, in books like Cranford, by Mrs. Gaskell, would have got to the sea, if they had been left alone to dig it. They might have made domesticity a fairyland. Unfortunately another idea, the idea of imitating men's cuffs and collars and documents, cut across this purely female discovery and destroyed it."
***
For years I thought this was by C. S. Lewis, which would explain why I could never find it again.
April 18, 2020
Some interesting reflections on the era and its themes in literary history. As usual, much interest in their philosophies.
November 8, 2015
First off, the 2-star rating does not reflect the quality of the writing or anything to do with GK Chesterton's opinions; it only reflects my enjoyment of the book itself. I don't know why I do things like this to myself: this is not something I would have picked up on its own, but - as it is part of the material collected in The Everyman Chesterton (one of the books I'm reading parts of in-between other books), then I said to myself, 'Hey, why not this?'
Reading Chesterton requires one to be in a certain mood, especially because he cannot be read passively. Also, the topic of this super long essay is something I know extremely little about. So I can't even agree or disagree with him. He sure seemed convincing. My interest in the topic has not changed; I'm just glad it was only 80 pages long!
...And that's the whole story. I read it just because it was there, and I'm confident I'll never read it again.
Reading Chesterton requires one to be in a certain mood, especially because he cannot be read passively. Also, the topic of this super long essay is something I know extremely little about. So I can't even agree or disagree with him. He sure seemed convincing. My interest in the topic has not changed; I'm just glad it was only 80 pages long!
...And that's the whole story. I read it just because it was there, and I'm confident I'll never read it again.
February 22, 2019
It might look a bit more disordered than your classic anthology of authors, but it surely serves right to have an idea of the mindset of the age, how historiography, and biography obsession to the point of ignoring context, and philosophical categorizations ultimately cannot describe man in its entirety.
Praise for novelists, singularly female ones, an admission of the limitations of the scope and the expected humor and sanity that have made of Chesterton "the apostle of common sense" are to be found here too. There are poets as well, though I was surprised by the lack of emphasis on plays.
Most interestingly, the last part is a political commentary, which also proves useful for it shows that capitalism, imperialism, utilitarianism, Anglicanism and paganism were chief mistakes of the age. I enjoyed the bits about Newman, and his expert eye, as well as valued the list of resources to deepen study at the end, which does away with the ridiculous editor's note that tried to distance themselves from this publication by calling it subjective, as if literature did not talk about human subjects.
I do not find myself agreeing with him in all his judgements of Wilde, for example, or his assesment that Victorians trusted the supernatural the most when it came from below, yet I recognize brilliance when I see it. Making a list of the authors mentioned makes you have a good idea of what he aimed to do.
Favorite quotes:
Any one who knows a free woman (she is generally a married woman) will immediately be inclined to ask two simple and catastrophic questions, first: "Why should woman be civilised?" and, second: "Why, if she is to be civilised, should she be civilised by man?"
"The tragedy of the modern woman is not that she is not allowed to follow man, but that she follows him far too slavishly."
Praise for novelists, singularly female ones, an admission of the limitations of the scope and the expected humor and sanity that have made of Chesterton "the apostle of common sense" are to be found here too. There are poets as well, though I was surprised by the lack of emphasis on plays.
Most interestingly, the last part is a political commentary, which also proves useful for it shows that capitalism, imperialism, utilitarianism, Anglicanism and paganism were chief mistakes of the age. I enjoyed the bits about Newman, and his expert eye, as well as valued the list of resources to deepen study at the end, which does away with the ridiculous editor's note that tried to distance themselves from this publication by calling it subjective, as if literature did not talk about human subjects.
I do not find myself agreeing with him in all his judgements of Wilde, for example, or his assesment that Victorians trusted the supernatural the most when it came from below, yet I recognize brilliance when I see it. Making a list of the authors mentioned makes you have a good idea of what he aimed to do.
Favorite quotes:
Any one who knows a free woman (she is generally a married woman) will immediately be inclined to ask two simple and catastrophic questions, first: "Why should woman be civilised?" and, second: "Why, if she is to be civilised, should she be civilised by man?"
"The tragedy of the modern woman is not that she is not allowed to follow man, but that she follows him far too slavishly."
June 21, 2019
Bumping this up to 5 stars upon completion. Such keen understanding of each author as person, a thorough, meaningful familiarity with their works... easily connecting each to each other and intertwining all with their times. It's really an extraordinary thing. Delivered so easily and lightly that one almost misses the achievement. And yet, it is not a light read, requiring sincere attention.
September 7, 2025
Well this was fun. Chesterton’s perspective on the Victorian period is—shocker!—exceedingly insightful. (Not to mention he actually lived through it, so he is an eyewitness.) His gift for telling truth bombs and jokes alike with a twinkle in his eye is, of course, as delightful and present as ever.
I will never understand how Chesterton in the 1910s managed to write things so poignant in the 2020s. Dude. He points out, for example, how Victorian rationalism set the stage for Darwin. He also links the start of vaccinations to modern eugenics… If that doesn’t intrigue you, I’m not sure what will!
I will never understand how Chesterton in the 1910s managed to write things so poignant in the 2020s. Dude. He points out, for example, how Victorian rationalism set the stage for Darwin. He also links the start of vaccinations to modern eugenics… If that doesn’t intrigue you, I’m not sure what will!
September 6, 2024
Per capire appieno l' umorismo e l' arguzia di Chesterton in questo libro, bisogna conoscere gli autori di cui parla.
Mi sono resa conto di aver non avere idea di chi fosse la maggior parte degli autori citati, purtroppo. Me la sono passata solo quando ha parlato di Wilde e Kipling, praticamente
Mi sono resa conto di aver non avere idea di chi fosse la maggior parte degli autori citati, purtroppo. Me la sono passata solo quando ha parlato di Wilde e Kipling, praticamente
June 26, 2023
If this were my introduction to Chesterton it would have gotten a higher rating, because I love Chesterton. But for Chesterton, this is a fairly average book. Meaning it's full of great stuff, but doesn't hang together terrifically well. And while most Chesterton I've read, you really don't need to know much going in to "get it," this one is definitely enhanced if you're familiar with the authors and artists he's talking about. I didn't recognize every name, but I did many of them. And I'm not sure I've ever agreed with him more than I did with this passage on Aubrey Beardsley (who was an artist, not an author):
"… there is a certain brief mood, a certain narrow aspect of life, which [Aubrey Beardsley] renders to the imagination rightly. It is mostly felt under white, deathly lights in Piccadilly, with the black hollow of heaven behind shiny hats or painted faces; a horrible impression that all mankind are masks. This being the thing Beardsley could express (and the only thing he could express), it is a solemn and awful fact that he was set down to illustrate Malory's Morte d'Arthur. There is no need to say more; taste, in the artist's sense, must have been utterly dead. They might as well have employed Burne Jones to illustrate Martin Chuzzlewit. It would not have been more ludicrous than putting this portrayer of evil puppets, with their thin lines like wire and their small faces like perverted children's, to trace against the grand barbaric forests the sin and sorrow of Lancelot."
Yes, exactly. Also loved his comments on the idiots who claimed that George Eliot's novels were really written by George Lewes. Chesterton often "kills with kindness," but in this book he sometimes goes straight for the burn.
Chesterton makes no attempt to examine Victorian literature by timeline or popularity, but rather "by schools and streams of thought," which didn't work for me that well on the whole, however I adored the chapter on novels even though I questioned some of his choices. Whatever he was hired to do, Chesterton always does his own thing, which is both his charm and why he can be an exasperating read. You can start a paragraph thinking you know where he's headed, and by the end of the paragraph you're in completely unexplored -- and, if it were a book by anyone else, unrelated -- territory. But for the most part, Chesterton makes it work and things hold together reasonably well.
The price of admission is worth it for phrases like "the exquisite Elizabethan perversity of Coventry Patmore." What that means, I have no idea, and yet it feels true and accurate somehow. There is something Elizabethan about Coventry Patmore, and he was in a certain sense perverse as well, if only in his peculiar blindness when it came to women. What Chesterton meant by the phrase is hard to pin down, particularly since he promptly buzzes off in another direction, but the phrase both amused me and makes me think, and that's the charm of the man.
"… there is a certain brief mood, a certain narrow aspect of life, which [Aubrey Beardsley] renders to the imagination rightly. It is mostly felt under white, deathly lights in Piccadilly, with the black hollow of heaven behind shiny hats or painted faces; a horrible impression that all mankind are masks. This being the thing Beardsley could express (and the only thing he could express), it is a solemn and awful fact that he was set down to illustrate Malory's Morte d'Arthur. There is no need to say more; taste, in the artist's sense, must have been utterly dead. They might as well have employed Burne Jones to illustrate Martin Chuzzlewit. It would not have been more ludicrous than putting this portrayer of evil puppets, with their thin lines like wire and their small faces like perverted children's, to trace against the grand barbaric forests the sin and sorrow of Lancelot."
Yes, exactly. Also loved his comments on the idiots who claimed that George Eliot's novels were really written by George Lewes. Chesterton often "kills with kindness," but in this book he sometimes goes straight for the burn.
Chesterton makes no attempt to examine Victorian literature by timeline or popularity, but rather "by schools and streams of thought," which didn't work for me that well on the whole, however I adored the chapter on novels even though I questioned some of his choices. Whatever he was hired to do, Chesterton always does his own thing, which is both his charm and why he can be an exasperating read. You can start a paragraph thinking you know where he's headed, and by the end of the paragraph you're in completely unexplored -- and, if it were a book by anyone else, unrelated -- territory. But for the most part, Chesterton makes it work and things hold together reasonably well.
The price of admission is worth it for phrases like "the exquisite Elizabethan perversity of Coventry Patmore." What that means, I have no idea, and yet it feels true and accurate somehow. There is something Elizabethan about Coventry Patmore, and he was in a certain sense perverse as well, if only in his peculiar blindness when it came to women. What Chesterton meant by the phrase is hard to pin down, particularly since he promptly buzzes off in another direction, but the phrase both amused me and makes me think, and that's the charm of the man.
August 17, 2019
ENGLISH: A complete history of British Victorian Literature in Chesterton's inimitable style. The only names I missed were Samuel Butler, Captain Marryat, Ballantyne and Ryder Haggard. Notice that children literature is not excluded from his analysis: he tackles Kingsley's "Water Babies" and Stevenson's "Treasure Island". I also missed a little more detailed study of Elizabeth Gaskell (he just mentions Cranford).
As usual, Chesterton's quotes are full of food for the mind. Let's look at a couple:
I have little doubt that when St. George had killed the dragon he was heartily afraid of the princess.
There had begun that easy automatic habit, of science as an oiled and smooth-running machine, that habit of treating things as obviously unquestionable, when, indeed, they are obviously questionable. (This quote made me think about current theories of Multiverse).
ESPAÑOL: Una revisión bastante completa de la literatura victoriana británica, escrita con el estilo inimitable de Chesterton. Los únicos nombres que eché de menos son Samuel Butler, el Capitán Marryat, Ballantyne y Ryder Haggard. Téngase en cuenta que la literatura infantil no está excluida de este análisis, que aborda "Water Babies" de Kingsley y "La Isla del Tesoro" de Stevenson. También eché de menos un estudio algo más detallado de Elizabeth Gaskell (solo menciona "Cranford").
Como de costumbre, las citas de Chesterton están llenas de contenido ingenioso. Veamos un par:
Tengo pocas dudas de que, después de que San Jorge mató al dragón, se asustó mucho de la princesa.
Ahí comenzó esa costumbre automática facilona, que ve la ciencia como una máquina bien engrasada, en suave funcionamiento; esa costumbre de tratar las cosas como si fueran obviamente incuestionables, cuando, en realidad, son obviamente cuestionables. (Esta cita me hizo pensar en las teorías actuales sobre el multiverso).
As usual, Chesterton's quotes are full of food for the mind. Let's look at a couple:
I have little doubt that when St. George had killed the dragon he was heartily afraid of the princess.
There had begun that easy automatic habit, of science as an oiled and smooth-running machine, that habit of treating things as obviously unquestionable, when, indeed, they are obviously questionable. (This quote made me think about current theories of Multiverse).
ESPAÑOL: Una revisión bastante completa de la literatura victoriana británica, escrita con el estilo inimitable de Chesterton. Los únicos nombres que eché de menos son Samuel Butler, el Capitán Marryat, Ballantyne y Ryder Haggard. Téngase en cuenta que la literatura infantil no está excluida de este análisis, que aborda "Water Babies" de Kingsley y "La Isla del Tesoro" de Stevenson. También eché de menos un estudio algo más detallado de Elizabeth Gaskell (solo menciona "Cranford").
Como de costumbre, las citas de Chesterton están llenas de contenido ingenioso. Veamos un par:
Tengo pocas dudas de que, después de que San Jorge mató al dragón, se asustó mucho de la princesa.
Ahí comenzó esa costumbre automática facilona, que ve la ciencia como una máquina bien engrasada, en suave funcionamiento; esa costumbre de tratar las cosas como si fueran obviamente incuestionables, cuando, en realidad, son obviamente cuestionables. (Esta cita me hizo pensar en las teorías actuales sobre el multiverso).
November 5, 2012
Classic GKC..
January 5, 2018
I am not certain who wrote the remarkably tepid and apologetic summary for this book, but they clearly did not know a good thing when they read it.
April 12, 2025
Only Chesterton could make me read a whole book on a subject about which I know nearly nothing, and all that because of a short quote of his that I read somewhere online. This is a great example of loving criticism, since it is very clear throughout the book that Chesterton would gladly go out for a beer with any of the writesrs that he so bluntly criticised. No pompous words, no illusion of scietific impartiality or of a snobbish arrogance - he could say a lot of things with which he disagreed with a certain writer, yet he would always have the humility to give credit where it is due. And if there is nothing in that writer that he could praise, he would talk about how that writer influenced the public of his time, talking as a person for whom there are no uninteresting people.
It's great book, and should be read if not for the literary aspect, than at least as an example of friendly and humble criticism.
It's great book, and should be read if not for the literary aspect, than at least as an example of friendly and humble criticism.
December 2, 2024
Carrellata di nomi piuttosto inutile
December 15, 2017
An apology for a much maligned age
Never having had any interest in the Victorian Ages, neither in culture nor literature, I'm not certain why I picked this book up other than because it was from Chesterton. Though I am glad that I did. This book does for Victorian Literature what Chesterton's Heretics did for Victorian culture. It provides an interesting justification and deconstruction of an era which has long been dismissed as stagnant, conservative, boring, frivolous, and superficial.
It is a fast, light, fun read of some various trends in Victorian literature and it gives insight into the history, culture and politics of some more famous of the characters. Even if one is not interested in Victorian Lit (such as myself), the book is worth a read purely for the Chesterton quotes and insights:
"Roman Britain or Mediaeval England are still not only alive but lively; for real development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing life from them, as from a root." (p. 12)
"Macauley it is said, never talked about religion: but Huxley was always talking about the religion he hadn't got." (p. 40)
"Dogma does not mean the absence of thought, but the end of thought." (p. 43)
"the theory that Newman went over to Rome to find peace and an end of argument, is quite unquestionably wrong. He had far more quarrels after he had gone over to Rome. "(p. 46)
"He was a man at once of abnormal energy and abnormal sensibility: nobody without that combination could have written the Apologia. If he sometimes seemed to skin his enemies alive, it was because he himself lacked a skin." (p. 46-47)
"if the Utilitarian spirit reached its highest point in Mill, it certainly reached its lowest point in Malthus." (p. 57)
"[regarding Kipling] The fallacy of this whole philosophy is that if God is indeed present at a modern battle, He may be present not as on Gilboa but Golgotha." (p. 60)
"the poor are always at the tail end of the procession, and that whether they are morally worse or better depends on whether humanity is proceeding towards heaven or hell. When humanity is going to hell, the poor are always nearest to heaven." (p. 80-81)
"This is the first fact about the novel, that is the introduction of a new and rather curious kind of art; and it has been found to be particularly feminine, from the first good novel by Fanny Burney to the last good novel by Miss May Sinclair." (p. 93)
"the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil and the refined word is the word that excuses." (p. 101)
"Dickens did not merely believe in the brotherhood of men in the weak modern way; he was the brotherhood of men, and knew it was a brotherhood in sin as well as in aspiration." (p. 123)
"[Thackeray] was a Radical like Dickens; all really representative Victorians, except perhaps Tennyson, were Radicals. But he seems to have thought of all reform as simple and straightforward and all of a piece...[like all] were parts of one almost self-evident, evolution of enlightnement." (p. 129)
"They might have ghost stories but not saints' stories" (p. 131)
"Both writers, [Meredith and Hardy] doubtless, disagreed with the orthodox religion of the ordinary English village. Most of us have disagreed with that religion until we made the simple discover that it does not exist." (p. 138)
"I have no doubt that when St. George killed the dragon he was heartily afraid of the princess." (p. 148)
"It is still impossible to say absolutely that England is a Christian country or a heathen country" (p. 204)
"History is full of forgotten controversies; and those who speak of Socialism now have nearly all forgotten that for some time it was an almost equal fight between Socialism and Anarchism for the leadership of the exodus from Capitalism." (p. 233)
"the Reformation was not larger, but much smaller that Langland. It was simply the victory of one class of his foes, the greedy merchants, over another class of his foes, the lazy abbots." (p. 242)
"[regarding Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde] they think that the book means that man can be cloven into two creatures, good and evil. The whole stab of the story is that man can't: because while eveil does not care for good, good must care for evil." (p. 246)
"The nearest that any honest man can come to the things called 'impartiality' is to confess that he is partial" (p.250)
Never having had any interest in the Victorian Ages, neither in culture nor literature, I'm not certain why I picked this book up other than because it was from Chesterton. Though I am glad that I did. This book does for Victorian Literature what Chesterton's Heretics did for Victorian culture. It provides an interesting justification and deconstruction of an era which has long been dismissed as stagnant, conservative, boring, frivolous, and superficial.
It is a fast, light, fun read of some various trends in Victorian literature and it gives insight into the history, culture and politics of some more famous of the characters. Even if one is not interested in Victorian Lit (such as myself), the book is worth a read purely for the Chesterton quotes and insights:
"Roman Britain or Mediaeval England are still not only alive but lively; for real development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing life from them, as from a root." (p. 12)
"Macauley it is said, never talked about religion: but Huxley was always talking about the religion he hadn't got." (p. 40)
"Dogma does not mean the absence of thought, but the end of thought." (p. 43)
"the theory that Newman went over to Rome to find peace and an end of argument, is quite unquestionably wrong. He had far more quarrels after he had gone over to Rome. "(p. 46)
"He was a man at once of abnormal energy and abnormal sensibility: nobody without that combination could have written the Apologia. If he sometimes seemed to skin his enemies alive, it was because he himself lacked a skin." (p. 46-47)
"if the Utilitarian spirit reached its highest point in Mill, it certainly reached its lowest point in Malthus." (p. 57)
"[regarding Kipling] The fallacy of this whole philosophy is that if God is indeed present at a modern battle, He may be present not as on Gilboa but Golgotha." (p. 60)
"the poor are always at the tail end of the procession, and that whether they are morally worse or better depends on whether humanity is proceeding towards heaven or hell. When humanity is going to hell, the poor are always nearest to heaven." (p. 80-81)
"This is the first fact about the novel, that is the introduction of a new and rather curious kind of art; and it has been found to be particularly feminine, from the first good novel by Fanny Burney to the last good novel by Miss May Sinclair." (p. 93)
"the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil and the refined word is the word that excuses." (p. 101)
"Dickens did not merely believe in the brotherhood of men in the weak modern way; he was the brotherhood of men, and knew it was a brotherhood in sin as well as in aspiration." (p. 123)
"[Thackeray] was a Radical like Dickens; all really representative Victorians, except perhaps Tennyson, were Radicals. But he seems to have thought of all reform as simple and straightforward and all of a piece...[like all] were parts of one almost self-evident, evolution of enlightnement." (p. 129)
"They might have ghost stories but not saints' stories" (p. 131)
"Both writers, [Meredith and Hardy] doubtless, disagreed with the orthodox religion of the ordinary English village. Most of us have disagreed with that religion until we made the simple discover that it does not exist." (p. 138)
"I have no doubt that when St. George killed the dragon he was heartily afraid of the princess." (p. 148)
"It is still impossible to say absolutely that England is a Christian country or a heathen country" (p. 204)
"History is full of forgotten controversies; and those who speak of Socialism now have nearly all forgotten that for some time it was an almost equal fight between Socialism and Anarchism for the leadership of the exodus from Capitalism." (p. 233)
"the Reformation was not larger, but much smaller that Langland. It was simply the victory of one class of his foes, the greedy merchants, over another class of his foes, the lazy abbots." (p. 242)
"[regarding Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde] they think that the book means that man can be cloven into two creatures, good and evil. The whole stab of the story is that man can't: because while eveil does not care for good, good must care for evil." (p. 246)
"The nearest that any honest man can come to the things called 'impartiality' is to confess that he is partial" (p.250)
September 20, 2019
Imagining a literary critic, is like a zoologist, expounding ideas on his penchant for exotic animals. An ordinary one might point to an African hippo, manifesting the things we can see with our own eyes without exhibiting the difference between this hippo and the other. "This is his tail, and this is how he drinks water." But How does this hippo shines out among his peers?
Chesterton, poised on the edge of wildness, is an exhibitor from "Alice in wonderland," in trying to describe how each animal stood to each other, renders not the outlines of the shapes, but the peculiarity in the outlines.
"This gimob is no ordinary; he roars as he wags his bottom like a sensualist." Even the reader does not know what animal a gimob is, or any aminals he is talking about, effortlessly, Chesterton makes we want to do homework volunteraily. Sometimes we might get lost in his allegory and paradoxical labyrinth, but it is rather common to get lost in the wilderness.
In Chesterton's writing, we have a perpetually wondrous view of the wildness through a kaleidoscope; it is accurate in the sense of patterns and colors, but his childlike wonder can make him go past the glasses and forget to give us a map.
Chesterton, poised on the edge of wildness, is an exhibitor from "Alice in wonderland," in trying to describe how each animal stood to each other, renders not the outlines of the shapes, but the peculiarity in the outlines.
"This gimob is no ordinary; he roars as he wags his bottom like a sensualist." Even the reader does not know what animal a gimob is, or any aminals he is talking about, effortlessly, Chesterton makes we want to do homework volunteraily. Sometimes we might get lost in his allegory and paradoxical labyrinth, but it is rather common to get lost in the wilderness.
In Chesterton's writing, we have a perpetually wondrous view of the wildness through a kaleidoscope; it is accurate in the sense of patterns and colors, but his childlike wonder can make him go past the glasses and forget to give us a map.
August 18, 2014
It's not uncommon for "public intellectuals" to give the impression they know everything about everything, except perhaps when it comes to sports. But I've never seen anyone give this impression more convincingly than Chesterton.
THE VICTORIAN AGE IN LITERATURE is as dense as it is brilliant. But you definitely need a good understanding of Victorian writers before even attempting this, otherwise most of the names and books Chesterton references won't mean a darn thing to you (just as they didn't to me).
THE VICTORIAN AGE IN LITERATURE is as dense as it is brilliant. But you definitely need a good understanding of Victorian writers before even attempting this, otherwise most of the names and books Chesterton references won't mean a darn thing to you (just as they didn't to me).
January 7, 2014
This is a comprehensive, informed and personal decrypting of the age, from someone who considered literature as voices of men, rather than of literary entities. Chesterton gives a rounded view of the greatest of the period, including commentary on style, depth, pertinence to the times, influences from and to, religious and political beliefs and so on.
Read
December 5, 2019“The Victorian Age made one or two mistakes, but they were mistakes that were really useful; that is, mistakes that were really mistaken. They thought that commerce outside a country must extend peace: it has certainly often extended war. They thought that commerce inside a country must certainly promote prosperity; it has largely promoted poverty. But for them these were experiments; for us they ought to be lessons. If we continue the capitalist use of the populace—if we continue the capitalist use of external arms, it will lie heavy on the living. The dishonour will not be on the dead.”
Excerpt From
The Victorian Age in Literature
G. K. Chesterton
Excerpt From
The Victorian Age in Literature
G. K. Chesterton
December 31, 2019
I like Chesterton's writing style, but I think his works of non-fiction would benefit from being annotated. While I understood his comments on many of the Victorian authors, I wasn't familiar with all of them. That caused me to zone out more than I would like, especially on the last section (though I loved his depiction of Oscar Wilde leading both of the conflicting sides coming out of the Victorian Age).
August 10, 2020
No me ha gustado tanto como otros de Chesterton, creo que nada superará a Herejes. Pero como siempre tiene muchas cosas interesantes ¡Es Chesterton! Siento que lo hubiera disfrutado más si hubiera sabido un poco más de la literatura Victoriana yo creía que sabía pero me he dado cuenta que no tanto como creía.
June 5, 2022
This book was intended, as I understood it, to be a critical comparison of authors' styles within Victorian-era literature. The probable difficulty with many of these types of comparisons is to separate Chesterton's biases and intentions. In this case, I thought the author stated them well. As I read the book, I added many books to my digital library for reading.
June 18, 2017
So this book was a little short and wasn't all that interesting or informative. I was't much information and I didn't like it all that much. I would have though the Victorian Age would have more to it.
January 24, 2021
Siempre es una delicia leer a Chesterton, aunque creo que me ha faltado un poco de conocimiento de base para poder llegar a disfrutarlo plenamente. En mi opinión, el traductor ha sabido capturar a la perfección el estilo claro, agradable y agudo de Chesterton. Ya me gustaría a mí.
January 25, 2021
What a whopping perspective
Chesterton takes a look at Victorian writers, poets and novelists and he doesn't hold back his likes and dislikes.Rather hard to get through, but there are some real gems.
Chesterton takes a look at Victorian writers, poets and novelists and he doesn't hold back his likes and dislikes.Rather hard to get through, but there are some real gems.
November 27, 2017
Marvelous. It is not always easy to understand what Chesterton is trying to say in his bizarre aphoristic style, or rather one is sometimes inclined to think that he is not saying anything at all but just emitting beautiful sentences.
His subject is Victorian Literature. And he handles it as only he can, contrasting Thackery with Dickens and then goes on to say Trollope is the lesser Thackery whereas Collins is the lesser Dickens. All with tremendous force.
“It has been said that if God had not existed it would have been necessary to invent him. But it is not often, as in Mr. Hardy’s case, that it is necessary to invent Him in order to prove how unnecessary (and undesirable) He is.” He seems to be not too fond of “Mr. Hardy”.
As always, he has some prejudices against infidels. He pours his sarcasm on many worthy men - and women. E.g. on Tennyson that he literally did not know one word what he was talking about.
Nice on Huxley (although he thinks that Darwin is “now very much the reverse of secure”).
“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a double triumph; it has the outside excitement that belongs to Conan Doyle with the inside excitement that belongs to Henry James.” The allusions in newspapers, he says misunderstand it. Evil does not care for good, good must care for evil. (9/10)
His subject is Victorian Literature. And he handles it as only he can, contrasting Thackery with Dickens and then goes on to say Trollope is the lesser Thackery whereas Collins is the lesser Dickens. All with tremendous force.
“It has been said that if God had not existed it would have been necessary to invent him. But it is not often, as in Mr. Hardy’s case, that it is necessary to invent Him in order to prove how unnecessary (and undesirable) He is.” He seems to be not too fond of “Mr. Hardy”.
As always, he has some prejudices against infidels. He pours his sarcasm on many worthy men - and women. E.g. on Tennyson that he literally did not know one word what he was talking about.
Nice on Huxley (although he thinks that Darwin is “now very much the reverse of secure”).
“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a double triumph; it has the outside excitement that belongs to Conan Doyle with the inside excitement that belongs to Henry James.” The allusions in newspapers, he says misunderstand it. Evil does not care for good, good must care for evil. (9/10)
June 18, 2015
a chesterton book and it's filled with great descriptions of a lot of cool people. i loved it. as a carlyle fan i really enjoyed this part, which you would now find in the "quotes about him" section of his wikiquotes page if you looked there :D
"The next group of reactionaries or romantics or whatever we elect to call them, gathers roughly around one great name. Scotland, from which had come so many of those harsh economists who made the first Radical philosophies of the Victorian Age, was destined also to fling forth (I had almost said to spit forth) their fiercest and most extraordinary enemy. The two primary things in Thomas Carlyle were his early Scotch education and his later German culture. The first was in almost all respects his strength; the latter in some respects his weakness. As an ordinary lowland peasant, he inherited the really valuable historic property of the Scots, their independence, their fighting spirit, and their instinctive philosophic consideration of men merely as men. But he was not an ordinary peasant. If he had laboured obscurely in his village till death, he would have been yet locally a marked man; a man with a wild eye, a man with an air of silent anger; perhaps a man at whom stones were sometimes thrown. A strain of disease and suffering ran athwart both his body and his soul. In spite of his praise of silence, it was only through his gift of utterance that he escaped madness. But while his fellow-peasants would have seen this in him and perhaps mocked it, they would also have seen something which they always expect in such men, and they would have got it: vision, a power in the mind akin to second sight."
"The next group of reactionaries or romantics or whatever we elect to call them, gathers roughly around one great name. Scotland, from which had come so many of those harsh economists who made the first Radical philosophies of the Victorian Age, was destined also to fling forth (I had almost said to spit forth) their fiercest and most extraordinary enemy. The two primary things in Thomas Carlyle were his early Scotch education and his later German culture. The first was in almost all respects his strength; the latter in some respects his weakness. As an ordinary lowland peasant, he inherited the really valuable historic property of the Scots, their independence, their fighting spirit, and their instinctive philosophic consideration of men merely as men. But he was not an ordinary peasant. If he had laboured obscurely in his village till death, he would have been yet locally a marked man; a man with a wild eye, a man with an air of silent anger; perhaps a man at whom stones were sometimes thrown. A strain of disease and suffering ran athwart both his body and his soul. In spite of his praise of silence, it was only through his gift of utterance that he escaped madness. But while his fellow-peasants would have seen this in him and perhaps mocked it, they would also have seen something which they always expect in such men, and they would have got it: vision, a power in the mind akin to second sight."
August 20, 2009
My previous knowledge about Victorian literature was a scattered collection of names and some few novels. After reading this very enjoyable book my knowledge on that subject is a big, scattered collection of names and some few novels.
Chesterton was a genius. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to read and to laugh with a book about old, dead writers, particularly if those writers' names are just a short reference on my own brainpedia, or even less. But, at the same time, Chesterton was not a literary critic, either a philosopher nor an Arts scholar: if you are looking for a good overview on Victorian literature, this is not the book you need to read. But if you are looking for an absurd chatting, plenty of puns and jokes, written in that nostalgic style of people who really miss Victorian times or even Georgian times, this is a book addressed to you.
By the way, it is very worthy the Chesterton definition of a "novel", and I also found very precise the depictions of Stevenson and Dickens.
Chesterton was a genius. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to read and to laugh with a book about old, dead writers, particularly if those writers' names are just a short reference on my own brainpedia, or even less. But, at the same time, Chesterton was not a literary critic, either a philosopher nor an Arts scholar: if you are looking for a good overview on Victorian literature, this is not the book you need to read. But if you are looking for an absurd chatting, plenty of puns and jokes, written in that nostalgic style of people who really miss Victorian times or even Georgian times, this is a book addressed to you.
By the way, it is very worthy the Chesterton definition of a "novel", and I also found very precise the depictions of Stevenson and Dickens.
December 31, 2014
In 1913 G.K. Chesterton’s published The Victorian Age in Literature in which he expressed his opinions about several dozen writers of the Victorian period. These authors were fresh on the minds of his readers so he assumes much and explains little. Also, this is not a treasure trove of the theological and philosophical maxims that make Chesterton’s writings popular even today.
Even though I can’t heartily recommend the book, I enjoyed his many references to beloved authors and he piqued my interest in several names with which I was unfamiliar.
At his suggestions, I read a dozen new-to-me Victorian authors. Except for a couple of them, it was obvious why the likes of Molesworth and Oliphant have fallen out of favor. Their writing just hasn't held up over time.
Even though I can’t heartily recommend the book, I enjoyed his many references to beloved authors and he piqued my interest in several names with which I was unfamiliar.
At his suggestions, I read a dozen new-to-me Victorian authors. Except for a couple of them, it was obvious why the likes of Molesworth and Oliphant have fallen out of favor. Their writing just hasn't held up over time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews