We are indebted to Chesterton, Belloc and others
for defending and preserving
the priceless treasure of legends.

Legends and
the Chester-Belloc

by William C. Van Breda

n When the New Mass and the revised Divine Office were promulgated in 1969 and 1970 respectively, one of the striking features of this renewal was the radical reduction of the feasts of Saints and Blessed. Then, in the wake of the disappearance of so many celestial patrons from the liturgical calendar there followed, as we have witnessed, the mass exodus of statues from our churches and the sweeping removal of sacramental ornaments. The egress of the Saints from the Sacred Liturgy and from places of worship has certainly not served to arouse a deeper devotion and to kindle a more profound piety in the hearts of the faithful. In the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours, as it is now called, the hagiographies of the small number of Saints that are retained, formerly referred to as the second lessons of the Matins, were simply discarded. They were replaced by mini-introductions to the lives of the Saints consistent with the critical modern historical methodology and no longer constituting a part of the Divine Office proper. As a rule, anything that could not be historically documented or could only be traced to some pious legend was thoroughly eliminated by the post-conciliar Commission for the Sacred Liturgy.

In all this, the impression is conveyed that the modern academe greatly underestimates the literary excellence and the historical merit of legend and folklore. A legend as a matter of fact ought to be treated more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority in the village who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad.1 Chesterton remembers a curious number of cases in which mere sentimental gossip surrounded his childhood and serious historical scholarship surrounded his manhood and that the sentimental gossip was right. Traditions of this kind may have come down through a long line of nurses and grandmothers who were not paid to tell lies whereas historians were paid to tell them.2

Authors and scholars however have their own ideas about what exactly is considered to be a legend. In a certain sense quot homines tot sententiae (Terence, Formio II 4, 14) seems to prevail. Dictionaries sometimes relate the legend to the myth which they describe as a narrative about heavenly beings, about gods and about demons. To the legend they attribute usually a core of truth: truth and fiction are seen as intertwined. Belloc describes a legend as a story told for beauty and edification. He maintains that nearly all legends contain a valuable core of historical truth. A myth he holds to be a false story which is put forward as truth.3 Watts, on the other hand, defines myth as a complex of stories which are regarded as demonstrations of the inner meaning of the universe and of human life.4 Chesterton emphatically sets forth the truth of legends. It was popular sentiment that created the characters of legends, and this sentiment embraced a tradition of truth. The pedantic cynicism however which destroyed the legends often holds out a deliberate perversion of truth.5 For true history nothing is indeed more valuable than the legend. So it is for instance through legends that during the so-called Dark Ages historic truth has been preserved.6

Impartiality and prejudice

There prevails of course among historians a deep-seated anti-Catholic bias.7 What is really working in the world today is anti-Catholicism and nothing else. It is so that the professed impartiality of certain academic historians stinks with their buried prejudice.8 What is taught in textbooks for schools is often anti-Catholic propaganda imposed by a modern system of compulsory examination.9 Chesterton mentions the instance where historians kept silent about the fact that Henry VIII brought ferocious mercenaries from abroad to put down a religious revolt.10 Then there is H.C. Lea who spread his falsehoods and damnatory views about the Mediaeval Inquisition to European and American universities.11

So many dreary attempts are made in modern times to represent the mediaeval society as utterly servile or brutal or bigoted, in particular when all this nonsense is supported by detailed or laborious learning.12 So, false views and warped ideas about the Catholic Church are preserved and are presented in the textbooks of our institutes of learning.13

Tradition and documents

In their scientific pursuit scholars depend especially for ancient and mediaeval history upon documents and specifically on chronicles. But some of these chronicles are nameless and all of the chroniclers are now dead and therefore they cannot in any case be cross-examined or in some cases be corroborated.14 Historical conclusions however must include more than documents, much more than recorded statements. Where legends are involved you may not have contemporary documents, but you may have a most powerful tradition. The burden of proof in such cases does not rest upon those who rely upon tradition but on their opponents. Tradition is sincere where the written evidence of one witness often is not. There persists nevertheless the irrational concept that a document alone is important and that tradition may be neglected. It remains always a safe rule in history to lean strongly on the side of tradition.15

In this context it should be mentioned too that in general, as can be expected, the secular press around us is manifestly anti-Catholic. The solidity of a sound tradition which should be maintained in a dissolving world is certainly not upheld by the press. On sexual matters moreover it does not defend the standards of decency and sound morals; it does not show that true authority is distinguished from mere force.16

Contradictory reasons

Where modern historians have eliminated legends from Catholic hagiography and from liturgical texts, the opposite trend in a certain sense is taking place in current scriptural exegesis. What was traditionally understood in the Sacred Scriptures to be history is in so many instances no longer perceived as such. The school of Rudolf Bultmann which has also many disciples among Catholic exegetes has effectively explained away the true message of the Gospel. They perceive the writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles not as history, but as Jewish apocalyptic mythology combined with Hellenic and Gnostic myths.17 It should be understood that Bultmann, steeped in Heideggerian concepts and thought forms, naturalized the New Testament by removing the divine and the supernatural. This leads, in the thinking of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to a definite disintegration of hermeneutics.18 Demythologization, the term used in this respect, could easily be misunderstood by the unprofessional and uninitiated. Dehistorization would be a more proper name here, even though it does not cover all the facets of the process. In this matter we ought to heed foremost C.S. Lewis's warning that anyone who turns to modern scholars must remember that he goes as a sheep among wolves. He stresses that, whatever else the Gospels are, they are not myths or legends. They are not artistic enough to be legends and from an imaginative point of view they are clumsy and don't work up to things properly.19 We ought to be reminded moreover that in the realm of the spiritual and the supernatural the learned have no advantage over the simple faithful.20

It can furthermore easily be understood, as has happened often in the past, in the presentation of history and in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures the Church is assailed for contradictory reasons. The Church is continuously attacked, as both Chesterton and Belloc maintain, from directions that are often flatly contradictory. The Church for instance has championed both celibacy and the family; she was charged fiercely therefore for having children and for not having children. The Church indeed is hated like nothing else because she is like nothing else. The unreasonable hatred against the Church is perpetually changing its reason.21

Legends as artwork

In conclusion it can be stated that a legend in its final form is a true work of art22 just as a painted portrait is a work of art. A legend is different from history as a painting differs from a photograph. A painting remains the creation of an artist where a photo as such is not. The painting artist has the freedom to sketch the salient features of the person he is working at and he is at liberty to delineate the man's characteristics, his virtues or vices, on the canvas. If the portrait is a real work of art it represents a true expression of the model but it is of course not a precise facsimile as a photocopy would be. In a similar way a legend is a work of art manifesting the prominent features of a Saint or hero, or revealing the striking phenomena of a certain event in the past. It does not state however the facts exactly as they happened. The modern scientific spirit takes its pride in so called Humanism while it scoffs at the same time at legend and dogmatic truth.23 It lost its sense of logic and thus stumbles into scientific blundering and floundering.24 That is why Chesterton, writing about myths and religions, in a moment of irritation alludes to the skeptical professors whose skulls are shallow as frying pans.25 We are indeed deeply indebted to Chesterton, Belloc and others for defending and preserving the priceless treasure of legends. It was indeed the wise Muse that inspired and enkindled these men to write their essays and stories. n

1 G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Image Books, Garden City, New York, 1959, p. 48.

2 G.K.C., All is Grist, Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1932, pp. 82, 84.

3 Hilaire Belloc, Essays of a Catholic, Tan Books, Rockford, IL, 1992, p. 115.

4 Alan W. Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity, Beacon Press, Boston, 1968, p. 7.

5 G.K.C., All is Grist, p. 182.

6 H.B., Europe and the Faith, Tan Books, Rockford, IL, 1992, p. 140.

7H.B., Essays of a Catholic, p. 98.

8G.K.C., Collected Works III, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990, pp. 349, 464; or The Well and the Shallows, Sheed and Ward, New York, 1935, pp. 13, 178.

9 H.B., How the Reformation Happened, Tan books, Rockford, IL, 1992, p. 85.

10 G.K.C., Collected Works III, p. 210; or The Thing, Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1930, p. 97; cf. also: G.K.C., Chaucer, Pellegrini and Cudahy, New York, 1932, p. 225.

11 Albert C. Shannon, O.S.A., The Medieval Inquisition, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, 1991, pp. 152-154; cf. also: G.K.C., Come to Think of It, Dodd, Mead and Co., New York, 1931, p. 27.

12 G.K.C., Chaucer, p. 195.

13 H.B., How the Reformation Happened, pp. 132, 140.

14 G.K.C., St. Francis of Assisi, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1960, p. 135.

15 H.B., The Crisis of Civilisation, Tan Books, Rockford, IL, pp. 13, 88.

16 H.B., Essays of a Catholic, pp. 132, 133.

17 Vincent Miceli, S.J., "Keepers of the Cosmic Cage" in L'Osservatore Romano, June 22, 1972, English edition, p. 4.

18 Cf. "Unlocking the Scriptures" in Inside the Vatican, August-September, 1994, p. 46.

19C.S. Lewis, Miracles, MacMillan, NY, 1976, p. 170. C.S.L., God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1977, p. 158.

20 C.S.L., The Problem of Pain, MacMillan, NY, 1976, p. 79.

21 G.K.C., Orthodoxy, p. 97. H.B., Europe and the Faith, p. 20. G.K.C., Collected Works III, p. 189; or The Thing, p. 69.

22 H.B., Essays of a Catholic, p. 117.

23 H.B., How the Reformation Happened, p. 22.

24 H.B., Essays of a Catholic, p. 164, p. 171.

25 G.K.C., Stories, Essays and Poems, M. Dent and Sons, London, 1939, p. 162.