Catholic Thought discussion
Brideshead Revisited
>
Book 2, Chapters 1 & 2
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
"Take yesterday. He seemed to be doing very well. He learned large bits of the catechism by heart, and the Lord’s Prayer, and the Hail Mary. Then I asked him as usual if there was anything troubling him, and he looked at me in a crafty way and said, ‘Look, Father, I don’t think you’re being straight with me. I want to join your Church and I’m going to join your Church, but you’re holding too much back.’ I asked what he meant, and he said: ‘I’ve had a long talk with a Catholic—a very pious, well-educated one, and I’ve learned a thing or two. For instance, that you have to sleep with your feet pointing East because that’s the direction of heaven, and if you die in the night you can walk there. Now I’ll sleep with my feet pointing any way that suits Julia, but d’you expect a grown man to believe about walking to heaven? And what about the Pope who made one of his horses a Cardinal? And what about the box you keep in the church porch, and if you put in a pound note with someone’s name on it, they get sent to hell. I don’t say there mayn’t be a good reason for all this,’ he said, ‘but you ought to tell me about it and not let me find out for myself.’ ”
“What can the poor man have meant?” said Lady Marchmain.
“You see he’s a long way from the Church yet,” said Father Mowbray.
“But who can he have been talking to? Did he dream it all? Cordelia, what’s the matter?”
“What a chump! Oh, mummy, what a glorious chump!”
“Cordelia, it was you.”
“Oh, mummy, who could have dreamed he’d swallow it? I told him such a lot besides. About the sacred monkeys in the Vatican—all kinds of things.” (pp. 223-224)
Waugh has this ability to be both serious and comedic at the same time.
I agree, the instruction of Rex and his total gullibility is quite funny. Loved it.
Mod
Next morning I said to Sebastian: “Tell me honestly, do you want me to stay on here?”
“No, Charles, I don’t believe I do.”
“I’m no help?”
“No help.”
So I went to make my excuses to his mother.
“There’s something I must ask you, Charles. Did you give Sebastian money yesterday?”
“Yes.”
“Knowing how he was likely to spend it?”
“Yes.”
“I don’t understand it,” she said. “I simply don’t understand how anyone can be so callously wicked.”
She paused, but I do not think she expected any answer; there was nothing I could say unless I were to start all over again on that familiar, endless argument.
“I’m not going to reproach you,” she said. “God knows it’s not for me to reproach anyone. Any failure in my children is my failure. But I don’t understand it. I don’t understand how you can have been so nice in so many ways, and then do something so wantonly cruel. I don’t understand how we all liked you so much. Did you hate us all the time? I don’t understand how we deserved it.”
I was unmoved; there was no part of me remotely touched by her distress. It was as I had often imagined being expelled from school. I almost expected to hear her say: “I have already written to inform your unhappy father.” But as I drove away and turned back in the car to take what promised to be my last view of the house, I felt that I was leaving part of myself behind, and that wherever I went afterwards I should feel the lack of it, and search for it hopelessly, as ghosts are said to do, frequenting the spots where they buried material treasures without which they cannot pay their way to the nether world.
“I shall not go back,” I said to myself.
A door had shut, the low door in the wall I had sought and found in Oxford; open it now and I should find no enchanted garden.
I had come to the surface, into the light of common day and the fresh sea-air, after long captivity in the sunless coral palaces and waving forests of the ocean bed.
I had left behind me—what? Youth? Adolescence? Romance? The conjuring stuff of these things, “the Young Magician’s Compendium,” that neat cabinet where the ebony wand had its place beside the delusive billiard balls, the penny that folded double, and the feather flowers that could be drawn into a hollow candle.
“I have left behind illusion,” I said to myself. “Henceforth I live in a world of three dimensions—with the aid of my five senses.”
I have since learned that there is no such world, but then, as the car turned out of sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me at the end of the avenue.
(Waugh, Evelyn. Brideshead Revisited (p. 193-5). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.)
It’s a remarkable description of a loss of innocence. After the rejection of Sebastian’s friendship, after the crises of being reprimanded by his mother, Charles gives provides a metaphor of rising from under the ocean and poking up over the water’s surface and finding the “light of common day.” The enchanting magic of youth, the illusion of wonder disintegrates as he looks back at that romantic castle for the last time. The magic is gone and the common is about him.
Mod
To me it was more of a general turning point where one aspect of Charles's life is over and another about to open up. Sebastian had been drifting away from their close friendship for some time now underscored by his drinking. At Brideshead this rift really comes to the forefront and I am guessing Charles would have put more distance between them regardless of his run-in with Lady Marchmain.
I am not sure if "loss of innocence" is the term I would use, but maybe it fits. It is certainly the first time we see Charles having to face moral responsibility in a clear way. Even though he knew that he was asked not to supply Sabastian with money or alcohol for his own good, even though he recognized the harmful effect alcohol was having on Sabastian's life, he gave him the money. Whether we attribute his motivation to the inability to resist peer pressure or the desire to be liked by his friend or a moral laziness that took the easy way out in the situation, he did what he knew would harm his friend and the family that was offering him hospitality. Unlike the self justification or righteous indignation of a child when punished for an offense, this time, he understood the magnitude of his offense.
Mod
How else to read that but loss of innocence?
Mod
I get where you see that Irene, but I'm not so sure that's how Waugh intended it. I'm not sure Charles feels he was all that wrong to give Sebastian money for drink. Even Cordelia later gets him alcohol.
What I think Charles feels is that it has been a no win situation. If he didn't give Sebastian money, then his friendship might have ended. If he does, he upsets Sebastian's family. If he lets Sebastian drink, Sebastian is hurt from the alcohol. But if he doesn't then Sebastian is hurt emotionally, maybe spiritually. This impossible situation I think is why he feels a loss of innocence.
At least that's how I read it, but this is a very hard novel to feel confident in one's reading.
Mod
How else to read that but loss of innocence?"
Looking at it later in life, that's how Charles puts it. But I think it goes deeper. When you're young and/or innocent you live in the present moment, you go from moment to moment with very little concern of the past or future. These moments can be intense at times or they can be like endless summer days enjoyed to the full. Life is vivid and full of wonder. When we move into adulthood these moments become rarer and we feel a loss.
Spiritually speaking, God can only be experienced in the present moment. He is the one who makes life vivid and full of wonder. So when we are preoccupied with extraneous stuff we miss the voice of God and feel the loss - whether or not we are aware of it.
Manny wrote: ""I had left behind me—what? Youth? Adolescence? Romance?" “I have left behind illusion," "I have since learned that there is no such world." How else to read that but loss of innocence?"
Well, prima facia is it disillusionment. He had been seeking for something not real. (C.S.Lewis talks about something similar -- the desire for membership, to being part of in-crowd -- finding the low door in the wall, the private entrance allowed only to the privileged few.)
Is disillusionment equivalent to loss of innocence? Are only the innocent subject to illusions and the desire for illusionary things? Is innocence equivalent to living in an illusionary state? I don't find myself ready to come down one one side of that question or the other. It seems perhaps to identify innocence too much with lack of knowledge.
But I wonder if it is helpful here to interpret disillusionment as loss of innocence? Lewis and Tolkien, I suspect, might demure. They might see in it an unhealthy obsession with being grown up. Do we gain any understanding beyond the literal statement that Waugh makes that Charles was disillusioned?
But we should take very careful note of how Waugh goes on. Charles then says: “I have left behind illusion,” I said to myself. “Henceforth I live in a world of three dimensions—with the aid of my five senses.”
In other words, Charles at this point believed himself to be disillusioned. But he had also entered into the disenchanted world of Hooper and Rex Motram, where the limit of experience is what is provided by the five senses. This is not progress. This belief in his disillusionment is a piece of self deception. He will later be converted again out of his Hooper/Motram state of disillusionment.
And in this sense, this is not a moment of loss of innocence, but a plunge back into it. A plunge into the innocence of Rex Motram (as exposed by Cordelia's teasing of him). Charles has been shown a glimpse of a wider, richer, stranger world, but he has not comprehended it and now the door is closed to it, and will remain closed for some time. His life after this becomes something hollow and meaningless -- his marriage to Celia, his valueless imposture of an art collection (as exposed by Anthony Blanch). But the door will open for him once again, as we find out at the very end.
I find this business of Charles being expelled for giving Sebastian drink (or the means to obtain it) particularly interesting because he uses this device again in the Sword of Honor trilogy when Guy Crouchback sneaks whiskey to Apthorpe in hospital, leading to Apthorp's death and blotting Crouchback's copybook with the Halbediers. In both cases, exile from the desired and long sought place of inclusion and enchantment, comes as a result of enabling a drunkard to get drunk.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Is it the case of a great artist reusing old material, the way Bach so often reused musical themes in multiple compositions? Does it reflect some incident in his own life? Is it purposeful repetition or accidental?
And what is it saying. The fact that he uses the same device twice suggests that it is not some throwaway plot device. The act would seem to have some significance for Waugh.
Is this Waugh doubling down on the theme that physical and psychological health are of little consequence compared to spiritual health? Is he suggesting that giving drink to an alcoholic is an act of mercy, rather than one of cruelty? (I don't find this an unthinkable idea, BTW. Even on the ordinary human level, if you conclude that the condition is incurable, why deny comfort to the addict?)
Excellent points, Mark. Thanks so much. I would just like to attempt an answer to your last question. Giving a drink to an alcoholic out of compassion is called “enabling” in AA. Alcoholism is not incurable. Indeed, alcoholism will kill the alcoholic if there is no intervention.Enabling behavior can be observed in many life situations — raising children comes to mind. Allowing oneself to be rejected for the good of another by saying “no, you cannot do that,” takes maturity, but it is the unselfish — and, ultimately, most merciful — thing to do.
Frances wrote: "Excellent points, Mark. Thanks so much. I would just like to attempt an answer to your last question. Giving a drink to an alcoholic out of compassion is called “enabling” in AA. Alcoholism is not ..."Thanks, Frances. I'm aware of the concept of enabling. What I am trying to puzzle out here is what Waugh was trying to say on the subject. He makes both Charles and Guy enablers. Both suffer exile because of it, and neither is repentant for it. What causes him to repeat this motif in his two greatest works?
Mark, your question calls for a thoughtful answer, so please excuse me if I respond with the two words that popped — unbidden and without reflection — into my mind: “wish fulfillment?”
Mod
How else to read that but loss of innoce..."
Good point there is a distinction between disillusionment and loss of innocence. Disillusionment is Charles' word. That's not necessarily Waugh speaking, but the character. Perhaps the scene is no longer fresh in my mind, but what exactly is he disillusioned from? That Sebastian was his friend? Possibly.
I used "loss of innocence" based on this:
I had left behind me—what? Youth? Adolescence? Romance? The conjuring stuff of these things, “the Young Magician’s Compendium,” that neat cabinet where the ebony wand had its place beside the delusive billiard balls, the penny that folded double, and the feather flowers that could be drawn into a hollow candle.
“I have left behind illusion,” I said to myself. “Henceforth I live in a world of three dimensions—with the aid of my five senses.”
Leaving behind youth is leaving behind innocence. And he has a progression: youth, adolescence, romance. Is Charles over ruling that first thought or amplifying it? Living in a "world of three dimensions" implies a hard reality of life has hit him. I think that is a loss of innocence. So while disillusionment and loss of innocence are not completely synonymous, I think Charles means both. I think he means he has lost his sense of innocence and the means of that loss is disillusionment.
Mod
Is this Waugh doubling down on the theme that physical and psychological health are of little consequence compared to spiritual health?"
It could be yes. But it also strikes me as the author's values are not in line with general society. Was Waugh an alcoholic himself? I don't know. I have seen places where he drank heavily. It could be that his view of alcohol was different than his general society. I'm not speaking of our society's view today. I don't get the feeling that Waugh sees drinking to being drunk as a negative thing. Sort of like in Hemingway.
My other thought on that is that he's playing off a Catholic trope of the time. Catholics were supposed to be free in taking alcohol while Protestants restrained. In fact Baptists ban it outright even today. Prohibition in the US was pushed by Protestant groups. You see this in Hemingway too. I think this was mentioned in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises.
Mod
Mod
To me the scene where Charles gives Sebastian money to buy himself a drink had the overtones of being indulgent. He knows it isn't good for Sebastian, but he doesn't want to be pushed into the role of enforcer. Sebastian is his friend, he is not his father. Charles's relationship to Sebastian would irrevocably change if he became another enforcer, and it is a risk he is not willing to take.
Manny, I introduced the term “enabling” to describe action defined as “allowing someone to continue with abusive or harmful behavior by failing to challenge them or by protecting them.” Although Waugh doesn’t use the word, he does depict the behavior, which is timeless and transcultural. Mature love, unselfish love, recognizes what might harm our child or friend and is willing to do whatever needs to be done because it seeks the best for others, even at the cost of the relationship. But as Kerstin said, at this moment in their young lives, having his relationship with Sebastian change is not a risk Charles is willing to take.
Manny wrote: "but what exactly is he disillusioned from? That Sebastian was his friend? Possibly."He is disillusioned from the world of the low door:
" the low door in the wall I had sought and found in Oxford; open it now and I should find no enchanted garden."
He had gone to Oxford hoping to find this world of enchantment -- of which Sebastian's friendship is clearly a central part -- and now, though Oxford remains, the enchantment of it is lost to him.
"I had left behind me—what? Youth? Adolescence? Romance? The conjuring stuff of these things, “the Young Magician’s Compendium,” that neat cabinet where the ebony wand had its place beside the delusive billiard balls, the penny that folded double, and the feather flowers that could be drawn into a hollow candle."
But my point is that this is a Hooperish, a Motramish disillusionment. Even if Charles might have thought of it as loss of innocence, Waugh is presenting it as a transition to a different and grimmer kind of innocence. This, I think, is the main dramatic function of Hooper and Rex Motram, to make it clear that this disenchanted view of the world (contra the zeitgeist) is not the superior one, and that those to hold to is are incomplete men, blind to what matters in creation. Charles hovers between the world of Sebastian and the world of Rex and Boy Mulcaster (even to the point of marrying Boy's sister). This is the moment in which he steps out of the world of Sebastian and Brideshead and into the world of Hooper, Motram, and Mulcaster. The world in which his marriage is a sham and his art an imposture. The half-real world of living "in a world of three dimensions—with the aid of my five senses.”
What Charles has sought through that low door at Oxford was a childish version of enchantment. What is shown to him, but he cannot see, at this point, is the thing for which his childish search for enchantment is but a poor substitute: the supernatural world. It is there at Brideshead. It is there in Sebastian, in the delight he takes in believing all the lovely elements of the faith that Charles finds ridiculous. Charles has approached the mystery, has had it shown to him, and missed it. He retreats, instead, into feeling more grown up by rejecting the trivial enchantment that he had sought as magician's tricks. He reject the fake and misses the real thing. But a twitch upon the thread will bring him back, though he wanders to the end of the earth. (Waugh is such a consummate craftsman in setting all this up.)
So, while Charles sees this as progress, as growing up, as loss of innocence even, Waugh presents it as a retreat into a more primitive innocence, the materialist innocence of Hooper and Rex Motram. Charles calls it disillusionment, but it is really a fall backwards into a more primitive illusion of a merely material world, a more primitive innocence that is simply unaware of so much of what exists and is worthwhile in creation.
Kerstin wrote: "Charles's relationship to Sebastian would irrevocably change if he became another enforcer, and it is a risk he is not willing to take."Yes, and he makes that precise argument to Lady Marchmain -- that he can hold Sebastian to merely social drinking if Sebastian does not see him as having betrayed him. Charles is clearly wrong about this, but it is not an unreasonable thing for him to believe and argue at the time.
Mod
Manny, I have had the same experience, sometimes by accident discovering posts I’d missed.
Same here. But I got notifications for both these posts, so maybe they fixed it?
That happened to me before, and I went to "settings" and changed the notifications. I'm getting the email notifications now, but some have come later than they should have.
I suspect we all have had this issue from time to time. Often my daily digest of posts stops arriving for days. I usually can go to settings, re-save my settings, and they will start again. I don't know what the technical issue is.
Book 2, Chapter 1
Part 1: Samgrass and Sebastian have returned from the Levant and after Christmas Samgrass provides the family a projection presentation of the photographs. In time it is revealed that Sebastian escaped Samgrass at the Levant to drink away most of moths there. It is also revealed that Sebastian escaped Samgrass again once in England over Christmas, again to soak in alcohol. The family plans to fox hunting one day, and Sebastian rides off escaping the hunt by drinking at an inn with money given to him by Charles. Charles is found out and leaves Brideshead in disgrace.
Part 2: Back in Paris returned to his art studies, Charles has Rex suddenly turn up at his apartment. He had been taking Sebastian to Zurich to a doctor but Sebastian had given him the slip. Rex and Charles go out to dinner to discuss the events at Brideshead. Lady Marchmain has forgiven Charles since Cordelia herself snuck drink to Sebastian. Rex and Julia have become engaged and have made plans to marry. Later Charles learns that they have married in a manner opposite to their plans.
Book 2 Chapter 2
Charles as narrator, from a vantage point of many years later, informs the reader of the events of Julia’s history from those Oxford days to her marriage. He starts with the difficulties of Julia making a proper marriage given her class and Catholicism. Despite his unsuitability, Julia found herself attracted to Rex Mottram, and after some crafty and perhaps dishonest courting from Rex, the two were engaged, despite significant opposition from Julia’s mother. After the secret engagement went public, Lady Marchmain forbid the marriage and was going to take Julia away, when Rex contacted Lord Marchmain for his permission which was granted. Rex decides he will convert to Catholicism for the grand wedding and for the family and takes on instruction in the faith. Just as the wedding is weeks away, Bridey finds out that Rex has been married before and divorced and so cannot marry in a Catholic Church. What was planned to be a semi-royal wedding devolved into a rushed and “squalid” one.
Charles has learned of all this from Julia, who at some point in the future from the Oxford days had confided to Charles all her nitty personal details.