Magic: A Fantastic Comedy In a Prelude and Three Acts

by G.K. Chesterton, Michael W. Perry (Foreword)

Chesterton's classic three-act fantasy play. This play was originally presented under the management of Kenelm Foss at The Little Theatre, London, on November 7, 1913.

Genres: Plays, Fantasy, Classics, Fiction, Drama, Theatre, Catholic

88 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1913

About the author

Gilbert 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.

Reviews

[[Name Redacted] · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a delightful read. The end is a bit abrupt -- its only weakness -- but the overall play includes some of Chesterton's funniest lines (the whole exchange about Militant Vegetarians had me laughing out loud in the middle of my girlfriend's church) and some excellent observations on human nature.

Particular favorites:

"The Duke is the kindest of men, and always trying to please everybody. He generally finishes by pleasing nobody."

"Killed a policeman? How Vegetarian! Well, I suppose it was, so long as they didn't eat him..."

DUKE: "Are you interested in modern progress?"
CONJURER: "Yes. We are interested in all tricks done by illusion."

"It takes some time to prepare an impromptu."

"Fairy tales are the only democratic institutions. All the classes have heard all the fairy tales."

"Why should sham miracles prove to us that real Saints and Prophets never lived? There may be sham magic and real magic also."

"There may be turnip ghosts precisely because there are real ghosts. There may be theatrical fairies precisely because there are real fairies. You do not abolish the Bank of England by pointing to a forged bank-note."

CONJURER: "I suppose you know there are things men never tell to women. They are too horrible."
PATRICIA: "Yes. And there are things women never tell to men. They also are too horrible. I am here to hear them all."

"I am a man. And you are a woman. And all the elves have gone to elfland, and all the devils to hell."

"And she might have grown pearls, by consenting to be an oyster."

"We can’t turn life into a pleasure. But we can choose such pleasures as are worthy of us and our immortal souls."

"There is no bigot like the atheist."

"Does it never strike you that doubt can be a madness, as well as faith? That asking questions may be a disease, as well as proclaiming doctrines? You talk of religious mania! Is there no such thing as irreligious mania?"

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH: A comedy full of sparkling serious dialogue about truth and lies, matter and spirit, fantasy and real life, agnosticism and faith.

I noticed a huge similarity between the character of the Duke and Arthur Brooke, Dorothea's uncle in Middlemarch, especially as represented by Robert Hardy in the BBC adaptation of the novel.

This play can be read in a very short time and grasps the reader's attention. I have read it twice over, and would like seeing it acted.

ESPAÑOL: Una comedia llena de chispeantes pero graves diálogos sobre la verdad y la mentira, la materia y el espíritu, la fantasía y la vida real, agnosticismo y fe.

Noté una gran semejanza entre el personaje del Duque y Arthur Brooke, el tío de Dorothea en Middlemarch, especialmente como lo representa Robert Hardy en la adaptación de la novela por la BBC.

Esta obra se puede leer en un tiempo muy corto y capta la atención del lector. La he leído dos veces seguidas y me gustaría verla representar.

[Mariangel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play is short but packs some interesting dialogue on doubt and faith, and an unexpected ending.

[Annika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Supposedly George Bernard Shaw, who was not only a great playwright but also a close friend of Chesterton’s, pestered Chesterton for years to write a play, and Magic was the eventual result. It’s a short play dealing with doubt, faith, skepticism, opposing ideologies, one’s profession, and, of course, magic. The question I found myself asking at the end was, which character am I? Am I the arrogant American who is convinced all spirituality is bunk, the clergyman who is facing his own doubts, the skeptical doctor trying to care for a family he believes is mad, the girl who is thought crazy for believing in fairies, the conjurer who recognizes some magic is real but also terrifying, or the duke who tries to please everybody and thus pleases no one? Chesterton does not leave any character in peace as he reveals the weaknesses of each, flipping things on their heads and showing that perhaps “madness” is not as obvious as we assume. I’m still not sure which character I am, and I have probably been each at different points in my life, but I think it’s a good question to ponder.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suspect G.K. Chesterton of being the most versatile writer ever to walk the planet. There doesn't seem to have been any literary genre or format he wasn't capable of mastering. MAGIC is an excellent philosophical play about a conjuror whose tricks throw an entire household into turmoil. Chesterton poses this fundamental question: Who is the bigger zealot? Someone who believes in miracles, or someone who goes to whatever lengths necessary not to?

[Andrew Orange · Rating 5 out of 5]

A sharp and vibrant work.

[Catherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chesterton may call his play a comedy, but the climax is brilliantly suspenseful, and almost downright chilling. All the elements of a good story are found here; Chesterton masterfully balances humor with solemnity, romance with despair, and questions with answers. This play is full of mystery, and becomes only more enthralling as you read on.

[Lancelot Schaubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

I once wanted to write a play and discovered Chesterton had already written it. This is that play: it is both a horrifying and compelling answer — or series of possible answers — to the question of whether the supernatural truly exists.

[Érica · Rating 3 out of 5]

No estoy segura de qué es lo que esperaba cuando comencé a leer este libro, pero no creo que fuera lo que encontré. Tardó mucho en capturar realmente mi interés (casi al 50% de la historia) y solo duró un ratito antes de volver a desaparecer. En general, me dejó bastante fría, pero eso no quiere decir que lo considere un mal libro.

La obra está compuesta de conversaciones interesantes, debates atrapantes y bromas ingeniosas. La religión y la fe (o la falta de) toman un gran papel aquí, pero las observaciones de Chesterton se llevan los aplausos. Valió la pena la lectura solo por las hermosas piezas reflexivas.
Por poner un ejemplo, mi línea favorita fue: "¿Han matado a un policía? ¡Eso sí es vegetariano!". Amé.

Por lo demás, los personajes son olvidables y el final se ve venir. Bonita lectura para pasar el rato.

[Lauren Ducommun · Rating 5 out of 5]

G. K. Chesterton wrote a fantastic short play surrounding the subject of magic. It may be short, but it is full of humor, good thoughts, and plots twists.

Midsummer Night’s Dream vibes 👉🏼 “Old women have taught you that the fairies are too small to be seen. But I tell you the fairies are too mighty to be seen… And you look for them in acorns and on toadstools and wonder that your never see them.”
✨
“You were saying that these modern conjuring tricks are simply the old miracles when they have once been found out. But surely another view is possible. When we speak of things being sham, we generally mean that they are imitations off things that are genuine.”
✨
“I am going to ask the God whose enemies I have served if I am still worthy to save a child.”

#laurensbookreads #gkchesterton

[William Riverdale · Rating 5 out of 5]

A haunting play. Full of Chesterton’s trademark wit, humor, and satire; but with also a real haunting, nightmarishly so. Any plot detail I might give might be going too far for how lean this play is. But because it is so lean, one can read it in one sitting and make their own verdict. Mine’s made. It’s magic.

[Jaide · Rating 2 out of 5]

As always with Chesterton, the dialogue is witty, funny and intriguing. The mixture of religion and a magic-caused-by-devils left me very confused, however. Hopefully one day I’ll find a Chesterton story to adore, because I love his wit. As for this one, I’m not entirely sure what I just read.

[Connor Kmiecik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it! Funny, lovely, and charming play. The way that Chesterton writes about the supernatural has been so impactful to me and changed the way that I view the world, and it is on full display here. Now I just need to gather some friends and do a live reading of this in my living room!

[Leslie Moellering · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short fun play. Chesterton is a master of subtle humor and uses words with skill.

[Jeremy Johnston · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is Chesterton's first play. Although it has obvious weaknesses, it is a startlingly fresh, humourous, and piercing play. GKC presents the paradoxes of scientific "believers" and the supernatural "doubters." This is a parable that says far more than the characters say themselves. It is also a realistic fairy-tale that satisfies our deepest longings... a fairy-tale that we hope is true, and it turns out to be true. I would love to see this short play staged!

[Mary Catelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

A play -- unusually for him, especially since it's not just a play format, but to be acted.

It's at the home of this marvelous Duke. A doctor came to consult, and to ask the Duke to subscribe to his campaign against the proposed model public house. A clergyman, new to town, came to asked him to subscribe to his campaign for it. Result?

Smith. [Turning eagerly to the Doctor.] But this is rather splendid. The Duke's given £50 to the new public-house.

Hastings. The Duke is very liberal.

[Collects papers.

Doctor. [Examining his cheque.] Very. But this is rather curious. He has also given £50 to the league for opposing the new public-house.

Hastings. The Duke is very liberal-minded.

And he has a niece who sees fairies, however much the doctor objects to her doing it in England instead of her native Ireland, and a nephew, her brother, who just returned from America. The Duke decides to bring in a conjuror to entertain them. And from that, the action of the play springs, turning on a mistaken identity, the nephew's certainty that he knows all the tricks, something the conjuror was messed up with in the past, a problem in the family, and much more.

A number of startling revelations.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reread for Chestertober, October 2024. Full review here.

Read some years ago during a pretty hard time of my life. Posted a few thoughts about it and Chesterton's introduction to the Book of Job on my blog today (March 29, 2018).

[Marty Reeder · Rating 4 out of 5]

I stumbled across a trailer for a movie called Magic and, after watching it, I saw that it was based on a play by G.K. Chesterton. Really?! Always on the lookout for new plays to read, and seeing that this one was written by one of my new go-to authors … done deal.

And Chesterton delivers. Magic is supposedly a comedy, and it is funny … but not uproariously so. Instead, it is another place for Chesterton to explore his fascinating philosophies and debates over religion, faith, atheism, capitalism, and human nature. The characters are interesting only so much as the ideas that they represent (with the possible exception of the silly awkwardness of the Duke, who is the main source of humor in the play). But those ideas are so subtly thoughtful, cognizantly abstruse, and trivially wise that the lack of depth in the characters only helps to focus on the action in this comfortable philosophical arena.

The simple premise is that a conjurer is coming to do a show at a Duke’s house, a Duke who is annoyingly (though amusingly) neutral when it comes to any and all opposing ideologies. Meeting in his home at the same time is a well-meaning preacher whose faith may not exactly match his purported purpose, a doctor whose faith relies on the reasoning of science, the Duke’s nephew who has come from America representing the atheist capitalist (as an American, I say, ouch), and the Duke’s niece who is a steadfast believer in fairy tales and romanticism. Everyone has strong opinions about the conjurer and his tricks, no one more so than the American. Their differing world views are reflected in their conversations around the conjurer’s presence and then each other’s reactions to it. Eventually, passions heat up and the conjurer’s tricks escalate to the point where some drastic inexplicable events take place. What do we want to believe?

Perhaps our own reaction to the events towards the end of the play tells us far more about ourselves than about any of these characters. I can say that I’m personally satisfied with Chesterton’s explanation (or lack thereof) … but the beauty here is that there are other options that certain characters in the play might eagerly accept. That is the wisdom of Chesterton’s offering.

In the same way, I hope there are other Chesterton play options. This is an engaging sage that I’d like to spend more time with.

[Grace Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Regardless of its 1913 publication date, this play is timeless.
To be written on a dare and contain discussions on agnosticism, belief in fairies, religion, politics, devils, miracles, sleight of hand . . . G.K. Chesterton truly was a genius.

I grew up hearing about his works in discussions of C.S. Lewis and other writers, but I forgot about him until I read Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch, which is dedicated to G.K. 'a man who knew what was going on,' and he really did.

"Why should sham miracles prove to us that real Saints and Prophets never lived? There may be sham magic and real magic also . . . There may be turnip ghosts precisely because there are real ghosts. There may be theatrical fairies precisely because there are real fairies. You do not abolish the Bank of England by pointing to a forged bank-note."

I wish it had been a novel because the ending was very abrupt. Other than that and the one slightly offensive comment made by the Doctor when referring to Native Americans (and he isn't exactly portrayed as the most morally superior character, but still), it was definitely a fairytale for grownups, and I'm glad I read it. I'll definitely be reading more G.K. this coming year!

[Bbrown · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you’ve read a lot of Chesterton then you’ve read this story before, a story set in the English countryside where the characters with modern sensibilities are too modern for their own good, and of course there’s a dash of romance. A theme liberally sprinkled throughout Chesterton’s work is encapsulated in a monologue by Reverend Smith; “Does it never strike you that doubt can be a madness, as well be faith? That asking questions may be a disease, as well as proclaiming doctrines? You talk of religious mania! Is there no such thing as irreligious mania?” On the negative side, the play ends in an unsatisfying manner, the climax essentially occurring off-stage. On the positive side, the play format is a novelty for Chesterton, and one particular stage direction between the Conjurer and Patricia amused me to no end: [Doing whatever passionate things people do on the stage.] Oh Chesterton, for the little touches like that I’ll gladly read your lesser known works, even if, like this play, they are more curiosity than quality.

[Adam Carnehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Magic was originally a short-story which Chesterton re-worked into a full-length play of three acts, first performed in 1913. It is delightfully reminiscent of Oscar Wilde without being quite so cheeky, and it is almost in the vein of Shaw without being so laboriously homiletical. Nevertheless, Chesterton does put his philosophy in the mouths of two or three characters while placing the philosophies of his opponents in the mouths of the other characters. In a drama, such clear moralizing works very well, as I believe characters in a play must be larger than life with beliefs more clear, more startling, more black-and-white than we find in novels because the audience only has their dialogue to follow, and the playwright only has a few acts to make his or her point. Chesterton accomplishes this quite well, and shows the audience (or reader) at the end how the denial of magic can be more superstitious than the recognition of it.

[Alexandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this gem.

CONJURER: Good-bye.
PATRICIA: I shall not say good-bye.
CONJURER: You are great as well as good. But a saint can be a temptress as well as a sinner. I put my honour in your hands ... Oh, yes, I have a little left. We began with a fairy tale. Have I any right to take advantage of that fairy tale? Has not that fairy tale really and truly come to an end?
PATRICIA: Yes. That fairy tale has really and truly come to an end.
[Looks at him a little in the old mystical manner.] It is very hard for a fairy tale to come to an end. If you leave it alone it lingers everlastingly. Our fairy tale has come to an end in the only way a fairy tale can come to an end. The only way a fairy tale can leave off being a fairy tale.
CONJURER: I don't understand you.
PATRICIA: It has come true.

CURTAIN

[Thomas Rau · Rating 4 out of 5]

At the age of seventeen, on Wednesday, November 21, 1984 I stumbled on a tv play on German daytime televison. Black and white, originally produced in 1965. I liked it very much.

25 years later I found out that play had been was a version of Chesterton's "Magic"; by then I had read quite a few of his novels and stories. Now that I finally read the play: Four stars. Less funny and more serious than much of Chesterton's other work, more concise, and effectively spooky. But that may have been because I kept thinking of that excellent old tv production. Hasn't been on since then, apparently.

[Rex Libris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This actually a script to a stage play. A young woman likes to believe in faeries and other such things; but the rest of her family is far too practical for such things. So the family hires a conjurer to fool the young woman and then show her the truth of the matter. As the ruse goes there is a bantering back and forth between a minister and a doctor on the nature of belief. The play ends on a very interesting twist that calls into question the dogmatism of the sceptic.

[Lusionnelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Toujours un plaisir de découvrir de nouvelles pièces de théâtre. Inédite en français, celle-ci m'a permis de découvrir la plume de Chesterton, son humour ciselé, la finesse des dialogues, entremêlant fantastique et rationalisme. On se prend au jeu de l'atmosphère explosive, des personnages fantasques et très attachants. Intéressantes réflexions sur la croyance sous toutes ses formes et l'art de créer, de raconter, d'inventer.

[Alejandro G. Barroso · Rating 2 out of 5]

Una obra entretenida y corta. Al no tener disquisiciones de calado en sus diálogos ni provocar grandes reflexiones al lector debería dejarle cierto regusto simpático si no fuera porque el autor es Chesterton. Al cual le exijo algo más que el borrador del guión de un capítulo de una sitcom sobrenatural.

[Alias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glorious Chestertonian goodness! I've missed reading Chesterton and am happy to be back at it again! Magic and myth and madness-- honestly this book has everything I could wish for from a Chesterton story, with the added bonus of probably being more straightforward and comprehensible. Anyway, it was perfectly lovely.

[Karla · Rating 2 out of 5]

Chesterton has his own way of writing, where he presents an idea and then turns it a little bit. To make it a little odd. This play fit that. It was ok. I listened to an audio rendition (it included narrator's notes, etc.) which helped it to flow. The ending worked out, but it was a bit of a silly read.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cute entertaining listening 🔰😀

Another will written British romantic comedy by G. K. Chesterton about magic and how it effects each individual. I would recommend this novella to anyone looking for a quick something different read. Enjoy the adventure of reading 👓 or 🎶 listening to 👍novels 🔰🏡🏰😃 2022

[Chris Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Typical of Chesterton, this was a delightful and fully entertaining read which highlighted belief in the spiritual and supernatural side of life with a good dose of the wit and humour that he has so beautifully utilized throughout his works. I was able to partly predict the ending which still ended up thoroughly entertaining me. This is a good day read with plenty of chuckles along the way.