As
you know from my
previous report, I spent several days at the Marion Wade Center
transcribing an unpublished play by Charles Williams. The play is
entitled The
Chapel of the Thorn,
and Williams completed it on August 24th, 1912. If you have any
questions about this play, please comment below or email me: iambic
dot admonit at gmail dot com.
So,
what's the play about?
The
Chapel of the Thorn is set in
Britian in an unspecified period that feels like the liminal
historical space after the withdrawal of Rome -- i.e., in the 500s,
right around the same time as the setting of Williams' later (highly
anachronistic) Arthurian poetry. The main plot takes place just
outside of the Chapel where the Crown of Thorns is kept--a very
precious Christian relic. Several people are vying for control of
this relic: the priest who keeps it, the Abbot, and King Constantine.
Some want to keep it where it is, some to build a wall around it,
some to move it to a nearby abbey for safe-keeping.
But
there's a catch. The local pagans also venerate this spot --
attending Christian services and participating in all Catholic rites
-- because their heroic semi-divine figure, Druhild of the Trees, is
buried right under the Chapel. These pagans first express a
willingness to fight against Abbot and King to preserve the Chapel in
its place; later, however, they withdraw their support.
Not
much happens by way of exterior action, as is common with Williams.
The drama is nearly all spiritual, as characters find their true
natures revealed through their responses to the Thorn and the
dispute. This is consistent with his use of other sacred or powerful
objects in his later fiction and poetry: in his published works, the
Grail, a magical stone, the Platonic archetypes, a verse play, or a
work of art serve as catalysts of spiritual revelation and change.
There
is one dynamic character, however, who serves as a source of real
drama in The Chapel of the Thorn.
His name is Michael, and he is an acolyte at the Chapel. He finds
himself torn between his priestly father, Joachim, and a pagan
priest-bard, Amael. Michael hates prayers and Christian rituals. In
the end, he leaves the Church and goes off to travel as Amael's
harp-bearer, embracing paganism and poetry.
This
leads to a discussion of the themes that pervade this early work.
First,
there are some themes that I was not surprised to find in an early
Williams work. There are hints of his later doctrines of
coinherence
and exchange. One character says that the priest, Joachim,grows old
"with a greater weight / Than all his days upon him, for he
bears / The times of twain his brethren, they who died / In the great
plague, last followers of his creed” (15). Their deaths were given
in exchange for his life, and he bears the burden of this
substitution. Notice that this is a more negative view of exchange
than we find in his later works.
There
is a little bit of discussion of concepts
of sacred vs. secular: speculations whether there is a division or a
unity between these two spheres of life. Similarly, there is the
theme of church vs. state (secular vs. sacred power), whether a unity
of these powers is necessary or dangerous.
Most
strongly, Williams' later doctrine of Romantic theology pervades
these pages. The pagan villagers believe that they have been taught
just such a doctrine by Joachim: they believe that every love, every
lust, every desire is a way towards God. They have a practice of
buying female slaves as concubines, and have somehow come to believe
that this practice brings them closer to the divine. They are
later chastised by the Abbot, but there is no narrative
voice to take sides in this debate, or any other.
Which leads
me to a discussion of the themes that were a surprise to me.
They all fall under what I can only call a startlingly strong
sympathy for the non-Christian perspective.
Several characters speak a kind of pluralistic relativism, and
various forms of syncretism, relativism, and universalism permeate
the text. Indeed, the play ends with a stirring dual anthem: the
priests chant Christian texts in Latin while Amael and the villagers
sing a rousing ballad to Druhild. A woman gets the last word,
praising the Virgin Mary for healing her son. But the overwhelming
sense of the ending is indeterminate. Pagan and Christian sing to
their gods. The Christian song is indecipherable and unoriginal; the
pagan song is folk poetry rather than high verse. The Christian song
is high poetical Latin; the pagan song is a lively rhythmical ballad.
Which one wins?
Nobody
wins. Or both win. Which leads me to wonder whether this was a phase
in Williams' life when he was raising all kinds of spiritual
questions, facing doubts, pondering the truth of Christianity, and
considering agnosticism or syncretism/relativism. In his one
published work from this same time, The
Silver Stair, the
narrative persona is struggling to decide between the Via
Affirmativa
-- the positive way, the Way of the Affirmation of Images -- and the
Via
Negativa
-- the negative way, the Way of the Rejection of Images. In this
case, the affirmation or rejection relates to romantic, sexual love.
He decides in favor of Affirmation. In 1917, Williams married
Florence Conway. He nicknamed her "Michal." They had one
son, whom they name Michael. Hm.
There
is no external evidence that Williams went through an experience of
conversion, like Lewis, or dedication, like Tolkien. But I wonder if
the evidence of this play suggests that he did go through a serious
period of doubt that resolved itself more slowly and less
dramatically than Lewis's. Internal evidence suggests that he did.
2 comments:
Excellent job. I can say I was within inches of this play, though miles away from the content. I wonder if Michael wins in the play?
Thanks, Brenton! No, it's not clear whether anyone "wins." That's part of the confusing beauty.
Post a Comment