Shallow Roots

 

In her book The Need for Roots, Simone Weil discusses the needs of the human soul. She says that a soul needs to be rooted, and that there are negative repercussions when it is not rooted. In the latter half of the book, she examines what it looks like to be uprooted, but in the first section she begins by examining the things the souls needs to be rooted. Society has become more and more rootless, and it is not only Weil who has observed this. In his book The Man Who Was Thursday, G.K. Chesterton observes a group as they wrestle with how to maintain stability in society. He follows them through their struggles and to their differing conclusions about the world and its meaning. Likewise, Evelyn Waugh in A Handful of Dust shows what a society is like without roots. He constructs a setting in which there are no truly connected and rooted people and demonstrates the effects that culture has on a society. Three of Weil’s needs of the soul that are very apparent both of these stories are the needs for Liberty, Honour, and Truth. Both stories show how a good society needs these things, and how important they are for its roots. Roots are integral to form a stable life for an individual and a society, and when roots vanish society crumbles. 

Weil first describes the ideas of Liberty. She says that Liberty, “consists in the ability to choose.” She acknowledges that rules limit choices. This is why she further says that, “They [rules] should form a source of authority which is not looked upon as strand or hostile, but loved as something belonging to those placed under its direction.” This allows the people under the rules to incorporate the rules into themselves. Someone who loves the rules does not have to fear breaking them, because to love them is to have an innate desire to follow them. Thus, those who do not love the rules cannot responsibly handle liberty. Weil says, “Those who are lacking in goodwill or who remain adolescent are never free under any form of society.” She argues that it is when choices are too broad that society falls apart. When people can choose from literally anything, they can injure the commonwealth, and then everyone ceases to enjoy liberty. It is necessary to limit the options, because if they are not limited then people will begin to think liberty is a bad thing. 

In The Man Who Was Thursday, Chesterton gives his reader a picture of a good liberty within boundaries. What makes this depiction so striking is how for most of the story it seems that the characters are trapped by Sunday. They realize that they are all policemen who have infiltrated the headquarters of the anarchist regime, and in the end it is revealed to them that Sunday has recruited them as policemen, lead them into the anarchist ring, lead them to chase each other around the continent, and finally lead them on a wild goose chase after himself. Understandably, many of the characters are confused and frustrated when these things are revealed. However, they are free to make a choice. In fact, they have been making choices all along the way. They were all approached and invited to join the police, Syme was invited to join Gregory, Syme chose to run for the post of Thursday, and he chose to chase the other members and Sunday. All along the way he was being given the choice to continue or turn back, and he chose to continue in his pursuit. 

In the end, Sunday reveals that he is the Sabbath of God, and the others are again given a choice to accept his rest or not. Some reject it, and some accept it. However, those that choose the rest, are those that find that they do not hate Sunday and his trials. They are learning to love the standard of Sunday, but that again is through their own choosing. 

However, when Gregory shows up again, he has no choice. He can only work inside of his anarchist paradigm, and is not offered rest. Gregory cannot attain rest, because he does not love the order of Sunday. He tells Syme, “The only crime of Government is that it governs. The unpardonable sin of the supreme power is that it is supreme I do not curse you for being cruel. I do not curse you (though I might) for being kind. I curse you for being safe!” Gregory curses government because it is safe. This safety comes in their love for the standard. Gregory wants to over throw the standard, because he hates it. This hatred leads him to anarchy and destruction. So here is a picture both of liberty expressed well by Syme and the others, and a rejection of liberty by Gregory. 

A Handful of Dust, demonstrates a privation of authority that leads to a destruction of liberty. Weil says that rules should come from a group that is not seen as hostile. She also says that, 

“Rules should be sufficiently sensible and sufficiently straightforward so that any one who so desires and is blessed with average powers of application may be able to understand, on the one hand the useful ends they serve, and on the other hand the actual necessities which have brought about their institution.” 

In A Handful of Dust, Waugh presents a society that is governed by rules where it cannot be seen what ends they serve, and where the rules address no necessities. Waugh is drawing off of the ideas of T.S. Elliot’s poem “The Waste Land” in which he critiques the way in which high society employs etiquette in a way that creates arbitrary rules and expectations, and how those rules lead to an unstable society. In Waugh’s story, he presents Beaver who is caught up in the etiquette of high society. He is often called upon to for events, but not because he is a person of note. Beaver is called to fill a seat when no one else is available. He is treated as an accessory, and as a result becomes more and more of an empty person. He’s not really allowed to choose where he goes, he is called upon.

Eventually, Beaver and Brenda end up having an affair. However, this affair is still part of social rules. Brenda is not attracted to Beaver necessarily, but having an affair is something that people in her society do when they are bored, so Brenda choses to have one with Beaver. Even inside of the affair, there are still rules that must be followed for it to meet the social requirements. Brenda has to educate Beaver on these rules. She asks him to dinner, but the whole time she is critiquing him on the way he should act as her lover: Beaver cannot kiss her just anywhere, and she is the older married woman so she pays for their dinner. Even in their “breaking” of the rules they are still actually a part of the rules, and Beaver is confused because the rules are so different from the normal ones. This is an example of arbitrary rules. These rules are in place not to serve a necessity, but to sustain a sense of excitement and wrong doing. They are rules designed to feel as though they are breaking rules.

Weil also describes honour in her book. She says that honour is a person being respected by those in society around him. However, Weil continues, “This need is fully satisfied where each of the social organisms to which a human being belongs allows him to share in a noble tradition enshrined in its past history and given public acknowledgement.” Honour comes, according to Weil, from being allowed into the historical tradition of society. She argues that every profession has a history that it wants to preserve as well as ideals that it wants to take into the future. She argues, however, that conquest destroys this history. She posits the example of Joan of Arc who was a hero to the French, but not the British. Weil says that if England had defeated France, then Joan of Arc would not be revered, because she was not a noble part of England’s history they wished to preserve. She says that it wrong to deprive a person of honour unless they are a criminal. However, she then makes the point that the punishment of a criminal should not be destroying his honour, but bringing him back to it.

In The Man Who Was Thursday, Chesterton presents several good examples of honour. The first example is the initial relationship of Gregory and Syme. When they two meet, they are having a philosophical debate over poetry and anarchy. Gregory is an anarchist, yet he is willing to talk to Gregory for hours about history and relationships of these two ideas. Then, Syme indicates that Gregory cannot be a real anarchist. This is Gregory’s sense of honour. He is an anarchist, and this is the history and traditions that he wishes to preserve, and he is greatly offended when Syme challenges the legitimacy of his anarchy. This attack of Syme’s on Gregory’s honour is actually what sets the story in motion. Then again, when Gregory and Syme journey to the meeting place of the anarchist their both of their honours are challenged again. Syme has promised Gregory that he will not go to the police with the information that he receives, and Syme eventually gets Gregory make the same promise to him. Syme reveals to Greggory that he is a police officer, and even though Gregory, as an anarchist, should have no respect for things like honour, he keeps his word. In fact, Syme calls Gregory to swear on whatever he believes in that he will not tell. This is essentially asking Gregory to swear on his honour. His belief is the society that will reprimand Gregory should he break his oath. Both men keep their oaths, and thus keep their honour. 

A second great image of honour in The Man Who Was Thursday, is the ending when all of the men come together to feast with Sunday. They are all robed and it is clear that the rooms and place settings have been prepared specifically for them. Sunday knows them individually by name. He has recruited them from their various pasts and brought them together into his sabbath rest. This is in a way bringing them into society. Sunday is the one they work for, and when they enter into his house they are judged according to his rules and beliefs. But, he gives to them good things. By doing so he has, quite literally, robed them in honour. They are welcomed into his society and this is what gives them their honour there. 

In A Handful of Dust, there are many examples of people without honour. One example for a lack of honour is again Beaver. Beaver is a pitiful man who is only invited into society when they have a use for him. The society does not see him as a part of them, and he is not affirmed by them. Their traditions and history are not his. This is seen when Beaver begins his affair with Brenda. One of the first things Marjorie says to Brenda when she takes up with Beaver is, “You know, you’re causing a great deal of trouble. You’ve taken London’s only spare man.” Beaver is not seen as part of society, so he cannot receive honour from them. Beaver’s utility, however, does help Brenda gain some honour for herself. By having the affair with Beaver, she gains the interest of her peers. In her class people like excitement and entertainment. There’s not much more exciting than a scandalous relationship, and by creating one Brenda is following the expectations of her society, which gains her honour in their eyes. 

When Brenda and Tony get their divorce, it is also done in such a way as to preserve both of their honour. When they file the divorce, they put it as infidelity on Tony’s part. In that time where no fault divorce did not exist, it was seen as much more humiliating to both parties if the woman was the one involved in the scandal. For this reason, Brenda asks Tony to take the blame, so it can be quick, easy, and clean. While Tony is upset that Brenda is divorcing him, he goes along with everything that she asks him until she asks for one thing. She asks him to sell Heaton. This is where Tony become angry. Heaton is his family home. His life revolves around Heaton, the idea of owning this historic estate, and the lifestyle that accompanies it. By asking him to sell it, she is asking him to get rid of his history and what he views as his entire society. She has attacked his honour and this is why he gets angry. Before what she asked him was inconvenient, but was not personal. In fact, it was actually a more convenient manner of dealing with the issue. Now she has asked him to get rid of his honour, and he does not want to do this. 

The third Need of the Soul that is exhibited in these two stores is the need for Truth. Weil says that this need is more sacred than any other need, but nobody ever talks about it. She notes that a normal person who reads in his spare time is not able to fact check everything that he reads. Even in a day and age when the internet is readily available nobody has the extra time to research everything in such detail. Weil notes that newspapers prey on this reality. Everyone knows to be wary of newspapers, but this does not save them from the lies. Lying seems like a crime that is impossible to punish. After all, sometimes false information is spread accidentally, or the statement is actually a matter of opinion. She suggests ways of placing people who can weed out false information. However, she rejects these methods, because there is no way to be sure that the fact checkers will be impartial. She says that to be able to be a true judge of truth one must receive a legal education and more essentially a spiritual education. They must love truth. Weil concludes this section by saying “There is no possible chance of satisfying a people’s need of truth, unless men can be found for this purpose who love the truth.” All people want truth, but there is no way of empirically determining what truth is.

In The Man Who Was Thursday truth is a tricky thing to find. The characters are lead to believe that they are surrounded by enemies, but the more they dig they find that it is only Sunday that is a true anarchist. After they look some more, they learn that Sunday is not only not an anarchist, but he is the man in the dark room who recruited them in the first place. The whole story is challenging what they believe is true. In the end, Sunday reveals himself to them, but the different characters take this news differently. This is their chance to determine what they believe is true. The characters struggle to believe Sunday when he tells them how he brought each of them to where they are. Once they accept Sunday’s story, many still can’t believe that Sunday is “the sabbath” or that he is benevolent. Here, according to Weil’s conclusion, Sunday does not force them to accept his truth. He gives it to them, but as previously noted they have liberty to decide for themselves what they will believe. In a sense, the whole story is one of a search for truth.

In A Handful of Dust the characters do not seem to care what is true. Brenda and Tony’s divorce is based off of lies and manipulation. Even Brenda’s relationship with Beaver is a lie. She strings him along to have her affair, but once she gets her divorce from Tony she drops him and gets married to another man. Her whole relationship with Beaver was a show to get attention, but she gets away with it.  She lied to Beaver, but he believed her lie. This shows how Liberty and Truth are often tied together. Beaver had a choice in having his affair with Brenda, and he chose poorly. While it is definitely wrong that Brenda used him the way that she did, she cannot be punished because Beaver went with her out of his own free will. 

Another incident in this story presents a negligence to seek out truth. After the divorce, Tony goes to Brazil. While he is there he comes across a Mr Last who lives in the jungle and is half forces Tony into staying with him. Some men come one day looking for Tony, but Tony is asleep and Mr Last leads the men to believe that Tony is dead. Rather than investigate further into the matter, the men are contented with the few things they see and return to England with the news that Tony is dead. These men derived a false truth from the truth that the observed. Nowhere does Mr Last say that he told them Tony was dead, but he shows them Tony’s watch and a cross on the ground. Mr Last has in essence lied to them, which is his fault in pursuing truth. Their fault is in their knowledge. As Weil said, not everyone can know everything about everything. These men could no know that Tony was asleep mere feet from them in a tent. They accepted what they saw as the truth, and missed the actual object of their search. If only they had searched further they might have found the truth.

Both Chesterton and Waugh have written stories that deal with the needs of the soul. They do an excellent job of providing examples of needs being met and needs remaining unmet. These stories lead readers to a realization of the dangers that lurk in the world, and ought to cause them to pause and reflect on the state of their own soul. Far too often, people fall into a false hope in society like in Waugh that can lead to the ruin of their soul. They will accept the false society standards that lead them from what is true into a lie. Often times as well, their whole world will be shaken, as in Chesterton, and they will be asked to make a decision of how they will move forward. They must learn what is true and beautiful, and pursue it rather than flee. Weil has observed and written many ways in which the souls needs to be nurtured, but reading these things is not enough. To live a healthy life, one must feed the needs of his soul.

__________________

Chesterton, G.K., The Man Who Was Thursday. New York: Penguin Books. 1986.

Waugh, Evelyn, A Handful of Dust. New York: Hachette Book Company. 2012.

Weil, Simone, The Need for Roots. New York: Routledge Classics. 2002.