Is heaven a bribe?

In the tenth chapter, “Heaven,” from The Problem of Pain (1940), C. S. Lewis writes:

We are afraid that heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man’s love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition; seeks to enjoy its object.

The circle of the Tao

Vitruvian man.jpg

Leonardo da Vinci, “Vitruvian Man” (c. 1492)

Louis Markos is a professor of English at Houston Baptist University. In his book Restoring Beauty: The Good, The True, and The Beautiful in the Writings of C. S. Lewis, he gives the reader a helpful picture of the relationship between man and the Tao—a Chinese term that C. S. Lewis used in The Abolition of Man to describe “Natural Law or Traditional Morality.” Lewis said the Tao is “the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

Picture, if you will, the figure of a man with his arms and legs spread outward in two large Vs (rather like the famous “Vitruvian man” of Leonardo). Now imagine that man inscribed completely within a circle that presses down on him from all sides, even as he presses outward with his hands and feet. The forces that press down on him from the outside are the forces of fate, of duty, of honor, of responsibility: in short, all those “oughts” and “musts” that fix his identity and limit his actions and desires. The forces that flow outward from the man are the forces of free will, of choice, of self-assertion and personal autonomy: in short, all those individual passions and volitions that make each of us so radically unique. At times the external forces seem ready to crush the trapped figure inside; at times the internal forces seem ready to shatter the circle. But always the man holds up under the weight, and always the circle maintains its shape and integrity. The apostle Paul expresses it this way: “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8-9).

Each of us lives out our lives within that circle, now succumbing to its weight, now resisting it with all our willpower. The struggle is a hard one, and there are times when we are all tempted to step outside the circle. But this is the one thing we cannot do. For the circle is what defines us as human beings, what supplies us with our meaning and purpose, what keeps us centered, focused, and safe. Were we ever to find a way to step outside the circle, we would find that we had gained our freedom at the expense of our humanity. If we wanted to give that circle a name, we might call it, simply, the “Tao.” Or, if we wanted to give it a more specifically biblical name, we might call it the “fear of the Lord.”

In canto 3 of the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch with horror and fascination as the souls of the damned gather round the boat of Charon, eager to be ferried across the river into hell. Dante asks who these souls are and how they came to this terrible place, and Virgil replies that all souls congregate here who in life lost the fear of God. The Old Testament tell us (many times) that the fear (or reverential awe) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. It is that which keep us on track, which allows us to discern between the good and the bad, the virtuous and the vicious. When we lose that fear, we go off course, and our discernment grows dark and dull. Yes, we do, in one sense, become free, but it is a freedom that is finally self-destructive and dehumanizing. For the most we cut ourselves loose from the oughts and the imperatives of God (and the Tao), we become enslaved to our own base, animal instincts.

Such is the fate of a man who steps outside the circle.

Such will be the fate of a society that attempts to do the same.

The last two-and-a-half centuries have witnessed numerous attempts by whole societies to step outside the circle: attempts to build a new, man-made utopia free from the oppressive weight of the Tao. In most cases, these would-be utopias ultimately metamorphosed into dystopias that bound rather than freed the dreams of their builders and reduced rather than expanded the human potential of those trapped within them. Indeed, I would argue, and I think that Lewis would agree, that all dystopic, totalitarian states (from Stalinist Russia to fascist Germany to Maoist China to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and France under Robespierre) are built and led by rulers who have put themselves outside the Tao and have seduced their people to do the same. This moving of an entire state or culture outside the Tao is generally accomplished in one of two ways: either one part of the Tao is sacrificed in order to fulfill another part, or the Tao is rejected altogether and replaced by a new morality.

Whichever path is chosen on this dual road to dystopia, the end is always the same: death, despair, and dehumanization.  

Saint Francis and the grammar of gratitude

St-Thomas-Aquinas-and-St-Francis-of-Assisi.jpgG. K. Chesterton’s Saint Francis of Assisi is the best biography that I have read because the author captures what is nearly impossible to capture: the spirit of a man and the spirit of his age. Here are some excerpts that are worth passing along.

On how Francis saw the world:

If a man saw the world upside down, with all the trees and towers hanging head downwards as in a pool, one effect would be to emphasize the idea of dependence. There is a Latin and literal connection; for the very word dependence only means hanging. It would make vivid the Scriptural text which says that God has hung the world upon nothing. If St. Francis had seen, in one of his strange dreams, the town of Assisi upside down, it need not have differed in a single detail from itself except in being entirely the other way round. But the point is this: that whereas to the normal eye the large masonry of its walls or the massive foundations of its watchtowers and its high citadel would make it seem safer and more permanent, the moment it was turned over the very same weight would make it seem more helpless and more in peril. It is but a symbol; but it happens to fit the psychological fact. St. Francis might love his little town as much as before, or more than before; but the nature of the love would be altered even in being increased. He might see and love every tile on the steep roofs or every bird on the battlements; but he would see them all in a new and divine light of eternal danger and dependence. Instead of being merely proud of his strong city because it could not be moved, he would be thankful to God Almighty that it had not been dropped; he would be thankful to God for not dropping the whole cosmos like a vast crystal to be shattered into falling stars. Perhaps St. Peter saw the world so, when he was crucified head-downwards (247-48).


This sense of the great gratitude and the sublime dependence was not a phrase or even a sentiment; it is the whole point that this was the very rock of reality. It was not a fancy but a fact; rather it is true that beside it all facts are fancies. That we all depend in every detail, at every instant, as a Christian would say upon God, as even an agnostic would say upon existence and the nature of things, is not an illusion of imagination; on the contrary, it is the fundamental fact which we cover up, as with curtains, with the illusion of ordinary life. That ordinary life is an admirable thing in itself, just as imagination is an admirable thing in itself. But it is much more the ordinary life that is made of imagination than the contemplative life. He who has seen the whole world hanging on a hair of the mercy of God has seen the truth; we might almost say the cold truth. He who has seen the vision of his city upside-down has seen it the right way up (250-251). 

On the transition from a good man to a saint:

The transition from the good man to the saint is a sort of revolution; by which one for whom all things illustrate and illuminate God becomes one for whom God illustrates and illuminates all things. It is rather like the reversal whereby a lover might say at first sight that a lady looked like a flower, and say afterwards that all flowers reminded him of his lady. A saint and a poet standing by the same flower might seem to say the same thing; but indeed though they would both be telling the truth, they would be telling different truths. For one the joy of life is a cause of faith, for the other rather a result of faith. But one effect of the difference is that the sense of a divine dependence, which for the artist is like the brilliant levin-blaze, for the saint is like the broad daylight (249).

On the key of asceticism:

It is the highest and holiest of the paradoxes that the man who really knows he cannot pay his debt will be for ever paying it. He will be for ever giving back what he cannot give back, and cannot be expected to give back. He will be always throwing things away into a bottomless pit of unfathomable thanks. Men who think they are too modern to understand this are in fact too mean to understand it; we are most of us too mean to practice it. We are not generous enough to be ascetics; one might almost say not genial enough to be ascetics. A man must have magnanimity of surrender, of which he commonly only catches a glimpse in first love, like a glimpse of our lost Eden. But whether he sees it or not, the truth is in that riddle; that the whole world has, or is, only one good thing; and it is a bad debt (252-53).


The whole point about St. Francis of Assisi is that he certainly was ascetical and he certainly was not gloomy. As soon as ever he had been unhorsed by the glorious humiliation of his vision of dependence on the divine love, he flung himself into fasting and vigil exactly as he had flung himself furiously into battle. He had wheeled his charger clean round, but there was no halt or check in the thundering impetuosity of his charge. There was nothing negative about it; it was not a regimen or a stoical simplicity of life. It was not self-denial merely in the sense of self-control. It was as positive as a passion; it had all the air of being as positive as a pleasure. He devoured fasting as a man devours food. He plunged after poverty as men have dug madly for gold. And it is precisely the positive and passionate quality of this part of his personality that is a challenge to the modern mind in the whole problem of the pursuit of pleasure. There undeniably is the historical fact; and there attached to it is another moral fact almost as undeniable. It is certain that he held on this heroic or unnatural course from the moment when he went forth in his hair-shirt into the winter woods to the moment when he desired even in his death agony to lie bare upon the bare ground, to prove that he had and that he was nothing. And we can say, with almost as deep a certainty, that the stars which passed above that gaunt and wasted corpse stark upon the rocky floor had for once, in all their shining cycles round the world of laboring humanity, looked down upon a happy man. (253-254).

On how Francis saw nature and man:

The hermit might love nature as a background. Now for St. Francis nothing was ever in the background. We might say that his mind had no background, except perhaps that divine darkness out of which the divine love had called up every coloured creature one by one. He saw everything as dramatic, distinct from its setting, not all of a piece like a picture but in action like a play. A bird went by him like an arrow; something with a story and a purpose, though it was a purpose of life and not a purpose of death. A bush could stop him like a brigand; and indeed he was as ready to welcome the brigand as the bush. In a word, we talk about a man who cannot see the wood for the trees. St. Francis was a man who did not want to see the wood for the trees. He wanted to see each tree as a separate and almost a sacred thing, being a child of God and therefore a brother or sister of man. But he did not want to stand against a piece of stage scenery used merely as a background, and inscribed in a general fashion: “Scene; a wood.” In this sense we might say that he was too dramatic for the drama. The scenery would have come to life in his comedies; the walls would really have spoken like Snout the Tinker and the trees would really have come walking to Dunsinane. Everything would have been in the foreground; and in that sense in the footlights. Everything would be in every sense a character (258-59). 


I have said that St. Francis deliberately did not see the wood for the trees. It is even more true that he deliberately did not see the mob for the men. What distinguishes this very genuine democrat from any mere demagogue is that he never either deceived or was deceived by the illusion of mass-suggestion. Whatever his taste in monsters, he never saw before him a many-headed beast. He only saw the image of God multiplied but never monotonous. To him a man was always a man and did not disappear in a dense crowd any more than in a desert. He honoured all men; that is, he not only loved but respected them all. What gave him his extraordinary personal power was this; that from the Pope to the beggar, from the sultan of Syria in his pavilion to the ragged robbers crawling out of the wood, there was never a man who looked into those brown burning eyes without being certain that Francis Bernardone was really interested in him; in his own inner individual life from the cradle to the grave; that he himself was being valued and taken seriously, and not merely added to the spoils of some social policy or the names in some clerical document. Now for this particular moral and religious idea there is no external expression except courtesy. Exhortation does not express it, for it is not mere abstract enthusiasm; be conveyed by a certain grand manner which may be called good manners. We may say if we like that St. Francis, in the bare and barren simplicity of his life, had clung to one rag of luxury; the manners of a court. But whereas in a court there is one king and a hundred courtiers, in this story there was one courtier, moving among a hundred kings. For he treated the whole mob of men as a mob of kings. And this was really and truly the only attitude that will appeal to that part of man to which he wished to appeal. It cannot be done by giving gold or even bread; for it is a proverb that any reveller may fling largesse in mere scorn. It cannot even be done by giving time and attention; for any number of philanthropists and benevolent bureaucrats do such work with a scorn far more cold and horrible in their hearts. No plans or proposals or efficient rearrangements will give back to a broken man his self-respect and sense of speaking with an equal. One gesture will do it (266-67).

On the mysticism of Francis:

St. Francis was a mystic, but he believed in mysticism and not in mystification. As a mystic he was the mortal enemy of all those mystics who melt away the edges of things and dissolve an entity into its environment. He was a mystic of the daylight and the darkness; but not a mystic of the twilight (259).

On the art of living:

As he saw all things dramatically, so he himself was always dramatic. We have to assume throughout, needless to say, that he was a poet and can only be understood as a poet. But he had one poetic privilege denied to most poets. In that respect indeed he might be called the one happy poet among all the unhappy poets of the world. He was a poet whose whole life was a poem. He was not so much a minstrel merely singing his own songs as a dramatist capable of acting the whole of his own play. The things he said were more imaginative than the things he wrote. The things he did were more imaginative than the things he said. His whole course through life was a series of scenes in which he had a sort of perpetual luck in bringing things to a beautiful crisis. To talk about the art of living has come to sound rather artificial than artistic. But St. Francis did in a definite sense make the very act of living an art, though it was an unpremeditated art. Many of his acts will seem grotesque and puzzling to a rationalistic taste. But they were always acts and not explanations; and they always meant what he meant them to mean. The amazing vividness with which he stamped himself on the memory and imagination of mankind is very largely due to the fact that he was seen again and again under such dramatic conditions. From the moment when he rent his robes and flung them at his father’s feet to the moment when he stretched himself in death on the bare earth in the pattern of the cross, his life was made up of these unconscious attitudes and unhesitating gestures (260-61). 

On the character of Francis:

There was so much about him of the spirit of the morning, so much that was curiously young and clean, that even what was bad in him was good. As it was said of others that the light in their body was darkness, so it may be said of this luminous spirit that the very shadows in his soul were of light. Evil itself could not come to him save in the form of a forbidden good; and he could only be tempted by a sacrament (282). 

On Francis as a mirror of Christ:

St. Francis is the mirror of Christ rather as the moon is the mirror of the sun. The moon is much smaller than the sun, but it is also much nearer to us; and being less vivid it is more visible. Exactly in the same sense St. Francis is nearer to us, and being a mere man like ourselves is in that sense more imaginable (284). 

On the needful ignorance and innocence of Francis:

It is perhaps the chief suggestion of this book that St. Francis walked the world like the Pardon of God. I mean that his appearance marked the moment when men could be reconciled not only to God but to nature and, most difficult of all, to themselves. For it marked the moment when all the stale paganism that had poisoned the ancient world was at last worked out of the social system. He opened the gates of the Dark Ages as of a prison of purgatory, where men had cleansed themselves as hermits in the desert or heroes in the barbarian wars. It was in fact his whole function to tell men to start afresh and, in that sense, to tell them to forget. If they were to turn over a new leaf and begin a fresh page with the first large letters of the alphabet, simply drawn and brilliantly colored in the early mediaeval manner, it was clearly a part of that particular childlike cheerfulness that they should paste down the old page that was all black and bloody with horrid things (314). 


By this thesis, in short, the coming of St. Francis was like the birth of a child in a dark house, lifting its doom; a child that grows up unconscious of the tragedy and triumphs over it by his innocence. In him it is necessarily not only innocence but ignorance. It is the essence of the story that he should pluck at the green grass without knowing it grows over a murdered man or climb the apple-tree without knowing it was the gibbet of a suicide. It was such an amnesty and reconciliation that the freshness of the Franciscan spirit brought to all the world. But it does not follow that it ought to impose its ignorance on all the world. And I think it would have tried to impose it on all the world. For some Franciscans it would have seemed right that Franciscan poetry should expel Benedictine prose. For the symbolic child it was quite rational. It was right enough that for such a child the world should be a large new nursery with blank white-washed walls, on which he could draw his own pictures in chalk in the childish fashion, crude in outline and gay in color; the beginnings of all our art. It was right enough that to him such a nursery should seem the most magnificent mansion of the imagination of man. But in the Church of God are many mansions (315-316).

On the grammar of gratitude:

He was above all things a great giver; and he cared chiefly for the best kind of giving which is called thanksgiving. If another great man wrote a grammar of assent, he may well be said to have written a grammar of acceptance; a grammar of gratitude. He understood down to its very depths the theory of thanks; and its depths are a bottomless abyss. He knew that the praise of God stands on its strongest ground when it stands on nothing. He knew that we can best measure the towering miracle of the mere fact of existence if we realize that but for some strange mercy we should not even exist. And something of that larger truth is repeated in a lesser form in our own relations with so mighty a maker of history. He also is a giver of things we could not have even thought of for ourselves; he also is too great for anything but gratitude. From him came a whole awakening of the world and a dawn in which all shapes and colors could be seen anew. The mighty men of genius who made the Christian civilization that we know appear in history almost as his servants and imitators (318).


Favorite Shakespeare film adaptations

Shakespeare’s Globe offers excellent videos of theatrical productions. Here are my favorite screen adaptations.

  1. The Merchant of Venice (2004), directed by Michael Radford, featuring Al Pacino as Shylock and Jeremy Irons as Antonio.
  2. Titus (1999), directed by Julie Taymor, featuring Anthony Hopkins as Titus Andronicus and Jessica Lange as Tamora.
  3. Romeo + Juliet (1996), directed by Baz Luhrmann,  featuring Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo and Claire Danes as Juliet. Runner-up: Romeo & Juliet (1968) directed by Franco Zeffirelli. shakespeare.gif
  4. Much Ado About Nothing (1993), directed by Kenneth Branagh, featuring Emma
    Thompson as Beatrice and Kenneth Branagh as Benedick. Runner-up: Much Ado About Nothing (2012), directed by Joss Wheldon.
  5. Macbeth (2015), directed by Justin Kurzel, featuring Michael Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth. Runner-up: Macbeth (1971), directed by Roman Polanski.
  6. Hamlet (1996), directed by Kenneth Branagh, featuring Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet. Runners-up: Hamlet (1948), directed by Laurence Olivier, featuring Laurence Olivier as Hamlet. Hamlet (1990), directed by Franco Zeffirelli, featuring Mel Gibson as Hamlet.
  7. King Lear (1971), directed by Peter Brook, featuring Paul Scofield as King Lear.
  8. The Tempest (2010), directed by Julie Taymor, featuring Helen Mirren as Prospera.
  9. Henry V (1989), directed by Kenneth Branagh, featuring Kenneth Branagh as Henry V.
  10. Richard III (1995), directed by Richard Loncraine, featuring Ian McKellan as Richard III. Runner-up: Looking for Richard (1996), directed by Al Pacino.
  11. Coriolanus (2011), directed by Ralph Fiennes, featuring Ralph Fiennes as Coriolanus.
  12. Julius Caesar (1953), directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, featuring Marlon Brando as Caesar.
  13. Othello (1995), directed by Oliver Parker, featuring Laurence Fishburne as Othello and Kenneth Branagh as Iago. Runner-up: Othello (1952), directed by Orson Welles, featuring Orson Welles as Othello.
  14. Twelfth Night (1996), directed by Trevor Nunn, featuring Helena Bonham Carter as Olivia and Imogen Stubbs as Viola.


Binge-watching “House of Cards”

When Netflix introduced its show “House of Cards” in 2013, a neologism from the 1990s rocketed into our everyday lexicon.

binge-watch, verb:
to watch multiple episodes of a television program in rapid succession, typically by means of DVDs or digital streaming. [ORIGIN 1990s: from binge + watch, after binge-eat, binge-drink.]

The word binge-watch has been used in the circles of television fandom since the late 1990s, but it has exploded into mainstream use in 2013. The original context was watching programs on full-season DVD sets, but the word has come into its own with the advent of on-demand viewing and online streaming. In 2013, binge-watching got a further boost when the video-streaming company Netflix began releasing episodes of its serial programming all at once.

Oxford English Dictionary shortlisted binge-watch for its 2013 Word of the Year. Selfie defeated binge-watch. But don’t shed any tears. Only two years later, Collins English Dictionary awarded binge-watch its Word of the Year.

Not surprisingly, Kevin Spacey, who plays the villainous protagonist in “House of Cards,” advocates gluttonous television. At the 2013 MacTaggart Lecture, he implored television executives to give audiences “what they want, when they want it. If they want to binge then we should let them binge.” I admit that “House of Cards” has made me a binge-watcher because all of its episodes are released at once rather than over a season. The only thing stopping me is a hoary virtue called self-control.

From the beginning, I was ambivalent about “House of Cards,” simultaneously attracted to the story and repelled by its cynicism. But I am hooked. From an early age, the theater of politics has fascinated me. If you are familiar with “House of Cards,” the videos below are worth watching.

Providence and fate

In Book IV of The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius finds himself stuck in “a morass of difficulties – the singleness of providence, the vicissitudes of fate, the haphazardness of events, God’s plan, predestination, free will.” Lady Philosophy tries to dislodge him from this morass by, first, distinguishing providence from fate and then, second, picturing their relationship geometrically. While it may be imprudent for a Christian thinker to baptize the pagan idea of fate, I nonetheless appreciate the rigor of thinking below, which employs definitions, mathematical axioms, and logical syllogisms.

Providence is divine reason itself, established by the highest ruler of all things, the reason that orders everything that exists. But fate is the disposition that is inherent in each of these things, through which providence binds all things together, each in its proper order. Providence embraces all things together, even though they are infinite in number and different from one another, but fate arranges the motions of separate things, distributed in various places, forms, and times. The unfolding of the order of time is united in the foresight of the mind of God, but that unity when distributed among things in the unfolding of time is what the ancients called fate.

*  * *

Some things are immovable and fixed, ordered by providence directly, and above the course of fate. These are things that are close to God and beyond the realm of fate’s movable nature. Think of a number of spheres revolving about a central point: the innermost point is a kind of pivot for the rest and it has the simplicity of centrality, moving the least, while those farther out move more, traveling over a greater circumference and separated from the immovability and indivisibility of the central point. Anything located at the center is less movable. Those things that are farther out and further separated from the divine mind are more subject to the complications of fate. As a thing gets closer to the center, it is less and less subject to fate. If it reaches the center, it is not subject to fate at all but it clings to the divine mind, which is motionless and above the vicissitudes of fate. So, as reasoning is to understanding, and as becoming is to being, and as time is to eternity, or the circle is to its center, so is the motion of fate to the unmoving simplicity of providence.