nightshadejim on 12/4/2004 at 07:29

---

It is a mystery/adventure story which becomes quite allegorical by the end. It's been a while since I read it, but I've skimmed it again and here are my thoughts:

G. K. Chesterton regarded himself as a defender of Orthodoxy in a world swept by Modernism. Modernism (as an artistic philosophy) advocates a conscious and deliberate break with the past. It's basically the same idea of revolution that was being espoused at the time by bomb-throwing anarchists.

At the beginning anyway, the whole Orthodoxy vs. Modernism thing looks like a basic theme. Syme is a secret agent on the side of the law, and works to upset the plots of anarchists. At the first secret meeting, he beats them at their own game. You're probably more familiar with the details than I am.

With the "Council of the Days," the story starts to become more and more of a religious allegory. In some ways, this follows the whole "defense of Orthodoxy" theme, but it now expands to become more abstract and general.

According to Chesterton's own notion of Orthodoxy, the fact that people are naturally drawn to Revolution presents an apparent problem. Becuase, after all, there must be something good about it that people are reaching for. Perhaps to answer this, the story focuses on an apparent problem with religions such as Christianity, which profess the existence of an omnipotent God who is purely good. How does one reconcile this with the fact that there is suffering and evil in the world?

Well, er, for the following I'll speak from a Christian viewpoint.

Syme and the other Weekdays are ordinary people. The present age is imperfect. We do not see what is in each other's hearts. This leads to all kinds of suspicion, misunderstandings, arguments, war, etc. Sometimes it seems that the whole world is against us, and that the forces of evil will always triumph.

But after we die, we are born into eternal life. In the next age, all will be made perfect. We will understand each other and the universe, and rejoice in it. Everything will be hunky-dory.

This leads to the obvious question: what exactly is the point of the whole imperfect thing? Why didn't God just make everything perfect in the first place?

The obvious, but not terribly enlightening answer is: because God wanted it that way.

Now, I don't think The Man Who Was Thursday even tries to answer the second question. (It's kinda hard to answer anyway, since presumably an answer would need to consider all other possible universes.) But it does make a good attempt at filling in some of the mystery of the first question.

The idea is that living in this imperfect world allows us to better glorify God and all of creation. We suffer through life, and if we treat it correctly, the experience strengthens and purifies us. This is a familiar concept in the physical world.

(My rendering of this may sound kind of dry and weak, but that is the point of Chesterton writing the allegory... to clarify and to make more immediate the underlying truth.)

In some ways, this understanding of suffering is not unlike the street cred of persecution boasted by anarchists a hundred years ago, or by terrorists today. In fact, this is not surprising at all, because the physical world is designed to be allegorical and to teach us about greater truths. But the example of Gregory (like Satan in Paradise Lost) tells us not to store up suffering as a kind of acid to be thrown at people, but instead to understand it as an expiation.

As for the final quotation: "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink
of?" If you can't figure out what that relates to, I hear that Mel Gibson has made a movie that he'd like you to see. (hint, hint)

The last two paragraphs imply that the foregoing was more real than a dream. But they do reassure us that the Gregory in the previous part is not an actual person. The real Gregory is evidently a nice guy. Syme has received the "good news" and is blessed by the presence of the Holy Spirit. (viz. the "unnatural buoyancy in his body" and "crystal simplicity in his mind that seemed to be superior to everything that he said or did.")

So anyway, that's my interpretation, for what it's worth. Here's a few relevant quotations: