Talk:Hilaire Belloc/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Talking of Dick Whittington" quote

I've reverted Charles Matthews's insertion of a quote from the above mentioned work, as it is not clear if this was an actual interview or a fictionalized conversation. The phrase "Belloc is made to say..." implies that the authors are putting words in Belloc's mouth, while "A sample of Belloc's conversation is reported..." implies that this is what he actually said.

Charles, if "Talking of Dick Whittington" is non-fiction and this is what Belloc actually said during an actual interview, please make that clear. (For example, "Belloc said in an interview with Hugh Kingsmill (reported in Talking of Dick Whittington (1947) by Kingsmill and Hesketh Pearson), ...") Also, it would be helpful to understanding Belloc's thought if the the quote were longer, rather than simply ending with "The Crucifixion." Thanks. JHCC (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, talking first and reverting later could be better. On p.11 of the book, Hesketh Pearson says 'So far as our own conversations are concerned, they are sufficiently faithful reports of our own conversations'; and Kingsmill says to Graham (Greene): 'In short, Graham, everything is factual ...'. It was a three-way conversation (Belloc-Hesketh-Kingsmill) from p.212 that I was sampling - they visited Belloc and talked. It's non-fiction.

Continuation is Kingsmill: I see; Pearson: You must have influenced G.K.C. a lot?; and on about Chesterton. Belloc says he is 76, so the interview would have taken place 1946/7. The book appeared 1947. But to call it an 'interview' when it is an example of Belloc's normal conversation (reconstructed by two witnesses) is to give it a wrong status. Charles Matthews 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, the article should say, "Belloc said in an conversation with Hugh Kingsmill and Hesketh Pearson, [insert quote here] (reported in Kingsmill and Pearson, Talking of Dick Whittington (1947))" I'll make it so.

Pity that there's no further elaboration from Belloc, but that's life, I guess.

BTW, the revert was just to avoid confusion while this got sorted. No offense implied, and I hope none taken. JHCC (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You had a legitimate point to make. Charles Matthews 17:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

First time for everything. JHCC (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Epitaph on the Politician

I feel that the following deserves a mention.

Here richly, with ridiculous display,
the Politician's corpse was laid away. 
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.7 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11

If you bring 9/11 into a page like this, you need absolutely cast-iron references to show what you are asserting. Charles Matthews 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, if there is really a connection between Belloc and ecumenical efforts by Catholics, involving the Muslim American Society as the external link suggests, this needs to be established. Tenuous connections and assertions of relevance are not enough, if that material is to be kept on this page. Charles Matthews 12:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Material moved out of article

These three portions await proper substantiation by references. Charles Matthews 10:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been seen as based on the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Enthusiastic reactions from Protestants and paleoconservatives may stem from hostility to Islam, especially in the aftermath of September 11, rather than endorsement of Belloc's thoroughly Catholic worldview.

In later generations, proponents of Catholic-Mulsim Dialogue would bring up many of the same points, but in a different context - i.e., regarding Islam as a separate religion having many differences but also a lot of similarities with Catholic Chrisitinaity, enabling Catholics and Muslims to stand together on key issues such as abortion, preserving the institution of marriage and family values (see [1]).

Preface to Cruise of the Nona

The article states that his friend Lord Stanley wrote a preface for his book the Cruise of the Nona and links to Arthur Stanley. Although the book was originally published in 1925 the edition with the preface by Lord Stanley was published in 1956 [2] after Belloc's death. The preface itself refers to Belloc in the past tense so it was presumably written after his death specifically for inclusion with the new edition. Although a near contemporary of Belloc, Arthur Stanley died in 1931 so it could not have been him that wrote the preface. It would have been the next Lord Stanley, Arthur Stanley's son Edward Stanley. --DavidCane 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Belloc and modern academia

Is it worthwhile noting professors' hesitancy in allowing students to use him as a source, because ole B didn't cite sources? The Jackal God 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You saying that all professors hesitate to do this, and for the reason stated? Seems like that would be hard to document. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing

Can we think of a more NPOV way of saying "Roald Dahl is a follower at an unsafe distance."? Zerobot 13:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Writing" section of this entry is full of puffery. Comment by Nancy Raffman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.213.86 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hilaire

How is his name pronounced? Hill air bell ock?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.215.191 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Which of his books are still under copyright? I assume his works for children are still restricted? 2fort5r (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semiticism (again)

As a casual reader of the article (which is generally quite informative), I found the the sub-section on his anti-Semiticism rather a let-down, for this reason: I was left wondering what exactly his views were. Apparently he was not an anti_Semite in the sense of disliking individual jews. So in what sense is this accusation meant? Perhaps he was actually anti-Zionist? Anyway, I'd like someone with more knowledge of Belloc than I to clarify for us just what his anti-Semiticism consisted of. Thanks 202.178.112.80 05:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist? Not sure, but clearly Belloc thought it was a project unlikely to endure. See the conclusion of his Epilogue in The Battleground: Syria and Palestine, the Seed Plot of Religion (1936), where, after appraising the technical and cultural superiority of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine (against their Islamic neighbors), he states that the Zionists' quasi-religious strength will not suffice, without support from abroad, to maintain a Jewish Israel which is opposed by her Islamic neighbors: "But this strength alone would not maintain the Jews against the fierce hostility of the Moslem world which surrounds them. That hostility is another moral force with which the future cannot but be filled." BateauBateau (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the last sentence in the anti-semitisim section ("Also, it is not possible to be an orthodox Catholic without thinking that the Jews made a mistake in not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.") be deleted? From the rest of the section, it appears that Belloc is, rightly or wrongly, accused of anti-semitism on other grounds than thinking Jew were wrong not to have recognized Jesus as the Messiah. Being an "orthodox Christian" does involve differences of opinion with Jewish religion, but it surely isn't either evidence of or an excuse for anti-semitism, so I don't see what purpose this sentence is serving. --Hickoryhillster (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Media

Is it possible that Hilaire Belloc served as inspiration and/or namesake to the character Rene Belloq from George Lucas' Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.5.99 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Most notable for..."

Were Catholic writers so rare in the early 20th century, or are Belloc's achievements so insignificant, that he was "most notable for his Roman Catholic faith" (which influenced his writings)? Teri00 (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In those days it was very diffucelt to get a book published. Because he was a renown historian he had a chance.

I believe it was he who coined the phrase; "Dark Ages" referring to "The Middle Ages".

And referring to the early Church and the early martyrs and writing on this, did he not say: "If I were arrested in that era and accused of being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict me?" I understand that the courts distinguished between a nominal Christian and a practising Christian, clear in the life/death of Saint Lawrence.

I'm stuck in studing both Saint Augustine and Saint Athanasius, another study might be too much! MacOfJesus (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Not a very important detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.189.78 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

More could be said of his interventions against evolution, which really didn't present him in the best light, showing him to be something of a clever but shallow debater, who was more interested in rhetorical polemics than in actually investigating the truth in an unbiased factual way... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

An event never "publicly discussed," but "fully described" in a book?

In the Religion section we learn that "As a young man, Belloc lost his faith. Then came a spiritual event which he never discussed publicly..." Three sentences later we're told that "The momentous event is fully described by Belloc in The Path to Rome." Which is it? Human fella (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism charge

Since it appears that the section on this is going to be edited, from a POV stance, I'd just like to point this out: at this rate, the article is going to be dominated by the one issue. Belloc wrote 150 books. Trying simply to exonerate him isn't leading to a focus on those. Charles Matthews 06:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

On that, I don't want to cut the Michael Coren quote, since people still speak up for Belloc; but that whole section is copyvio from here: [3]. Including the incomplete reference to the Coren book. This was shameless anon editing from September. Charles Matthews 06:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can point out to me the purpose behind the phrase "Cecil having died in 1918" in the following sentence, I would like to remove it. "His association with G. K. Chesterton and Cecil Chesterton is one, though inconclusive; the somewhat unworldly G. K. Chesterton expressed views (for example in The New Jerusalem, 1920, see citation in the Chesterton article) about the separateness of Jews by culture and religion which must have been offensive to some, Cecil having died in 1918." Zerobot 12:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole bit probably needs to be reconsidered; it was written before the issue was really addressed at all in the Chesterton article. Charles Matthews 16:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I agree with most of what was said but just have a few thoughts:

1. It's off balance that Anti-semitism is 1/3 of the article.

2. I think a interpetations of anti-semitism nowadays are far different than they were 80 years ago -ie we have a hyper-sensitive society now that is on the lookout for this bogeyman everywhere. Anti-semitism is detestable, but we know that Belloc detested anti-Semites and excluded them from his circle of friends. Thus any views regarding Jews I think were theological and transcendental and had nothing to do with garden variety anti-semitism.

3. A few of these facts, to be fair to this person, should be in the article. Such as

a) he did interntionally exclude from his life bona fide anti-semites and rigorously philosophically disagreed with them.

b) Jews themselves cite to his work as an example of a gentile historian who saw the inner workings of anti-semitism, documented and explained the "tragic cycle." Can anyone honestly tell me they've read "The Jews"? Did you find it anti-semitic? I read it and didn't find any and I am Jewish! Indeed, he documents a cycle and does it with sympathy, not anti-semitism. For that reason, I would kindly like to add back:

"Far from anti-semitic, the work sympathetically documents the history of Jewish persecution and has even been cited positively by Jewish historians who acknowledge Belloc's accomplishment is identifying a cycle of persecution and coining the phrase 'The Tragic Cycle' of anti-semitism."

I think its fair expecially since this article has quotes out of context "such as "the crucificion" (as someone rightfully pointed out" and "Cecil dying in 1918"????

I think when people like Seigenthaler say Wikipedia is "biased, unscholarly etc." having articles that dedicate 1/3 or 1/4 to anti-semitism makes their case. What also makes their case is purposefully excluding any info that would exonerate or at least shed balancing light on a person like Belloc. You can remove my edit if you like, but I think it's a move of stubbornness, not scholarship if you do. Thanks. -Anon. (comment added 17:29, 12 December 2005 UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.197.172 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You should understand that the section on anti-Semitism grows for a reason: every time we get anonymous edits that attempt to slant away from NPOV by dismissing the whole business, the only thing to do is to produce a fuller, sourced discussion. There are plenty of such sources. In order to be fair, both sides of the argument get stated at greater length. There is no way out. If only people would not simply come here to do that. I'm rather more interested in other aspects of his writing. The only way that the article can retain balance is for other sections to be expanded also. Charles Matthews 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see someone thinks The Jews is not an anti-Semitic book, which is ludicrous. The whole 1922 text is due to be posted by Project Gutenberg, and when that happens we shall be able to see better. Of course Belloc was neither a fool, nor (at a personal level) a knave, but he had an anti-Semitic bee in his bonnet. He was trying to deal with it, with partial success. Anyone who thinks we should all focus on this one book out of his 150 does Belloc no favours at all.Charles Matthews 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it fair to Belloc to include anti-semitic quotes of which he is accused. Much of this discussion is to the effect that somebody knows somebody who knows somebody who thought he was anti-semitic. Direct quotes from Belloc, if they exist, are in order. --Dennis Larkin

It is a common fallacy of modern thought to hold historical figures up to what we feel today is the politically correct ideal. Belloc lived in a time when few were very open-minded about the Jews, and Belloc was no more anti-Semitic then the next Edwardian British man; in his prologue to the anthology of Belloc short stories The Eyewitness, editor Matthew Anger even posits that Belloc was less anti-Semitic than the next Edwardian British man. Belloc may not have been right in his ideas about the Jews, but until fairly recently, these ideas were common indoctrinated dogma in society (remember Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock). It is highly unfair to expect Belloc to be so forward thinking as to ignore thousands of years of common beliefs. JNF Tveit 05:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think anyone who tries to maintain that Belloc was "less anti-Semitic than the next Edwardian man" would do well to read Belloc's vitriolic pamphlet "The Jews" before he repeats the claim.Ojevindlang 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the comments above by Anon. Also, one must remember hermeneutics when reading a text such as this. JNF Tveit 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If by Anon you mean the guy who claims to be Jewish and says he did not think Belloc's book The Jews anti-Semitic, I am unconvinced by the former claim and unimpressed by the later. I *have* read the book, and it is anti-Semitic through and through. No talk about "hermeneutics" can change that.Ojevindlang 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You undermine yourself. For you to say that it is antisemitic "through and through" doesn't pass the laugh test. Mein Kampf is antisemitc through and through. Protocols of Zion is antisemtic through and through. Now you are going to tell me that within that context, the context of REAL antisemitism, that "The Jews" is antisemtic?? Maybe you should reread it while drinking a few beers or a couple glasses of wine? I do that sometimes to gain perspective when I confront polarizing issues when I disagree vehemently with the other side. Perhaps a joint, if that is your preference? I get upset with what I think is bombastic talk on serious matters since antisemitism, racism, hate of all kinds IS real and hurtful. Labeling things as bigoted when perhaps they shouldn't be dilutes the meaning of real hate and allows it to arise again.BinaryLust (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please quote Belloc's anti-semitic passages. A man who wrote 130 books should be easily nailed with anti-semitic quotes. Please provide. --Dennis Larkin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.202.8 (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, what citations from Belloc's work can be offered to show that he was anti-semitic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.202.8 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Open the book The Jews. On page 37, an anecdote is told of an elderly Jew who said that his people wished to be left alone to be followed by a recitation of unreferenced scandals of the man's descendants, as if that were not also true of non-Jews. Then proceed to page 30, to see an analysis that might have appeared in Mein Kampf with respect to the general history of Jews in "foreign" lands, such as Poland and Spain. On page 37, Mr. Belloc argues the presence of a foreign organism yields hatred of that organism by the host organism. On page 43, the Jews are said to exist within a foreign state as a separate organism. This relationship did not appear to exist for the Irish in England or the Huguenots in France. The anti-Judaism of Mr. Belloc, as was true of that of Mr. Fichte, Mr. Voltaire, Mr. Marx, and Mr. Schopenhauer, represented the era, not the individual. Prime Minister Churchill and President Wilson displayed negative attitudes towards Blacks, the latter even praising Birth of a Nation. Mr. Belloc was anti-Jewish in the same way President Wilson was anti-Black; for both men one inserts the caveat that attitudes presently despised were those of the society in which the person lived and that, to see the person for what he or she truly was, one must interpret those statements in light of the surrounding society.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that you quoted is antisemitic. Additionally, you mentioned his "anti-Judaism" which by definition is not antisemitism. You may argue that it is on the road to antisem but by itself it is not. Jews themselves have always acknowledged themselves as a Nation that dwells among the nations. That is the entire Exile narrative of Jews. Furthermore, it is basic sociology and anthropology that groups with divergent interests within the same competitive sphere (state, society, etc.) will at times have conflict. That conflict is in proportion to the power of each group. Jews are a powerful people but so are the people they have interacted with throughout history, whether Ancient such as Egypt, Assyria, Greece, Rome or modern Russia, Poland, Germany, etc. If anything, he should be commended for understanding this before modern Social Science WITHOUT hateful connotation in order to inflict harm (that would be Jew hatred). On the flip side, in my opinion, someone who doesn't acknowledge these facts of history is a reverse antisemite or a Jewish bigot who doesn't acknowledge the other side of the coin.BinaryLust (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

He was part-English, so may we have the English pronunciation of his first name - with no final /r/? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Words on antisemitism" section

The fact is, Belloc has a reputation as being an antisemite. And his defenders will insist that reputation is unfair; but the very fact that they feel the need to defend him proves the reputation exists. The "Words on antisemitism" section before I added to it seemed rather incomprehensible - the accusation had been removed but the defences were left there, as if hanging in midair. If we are going to include responses to the accusations, we must at least include the fact that they exist. 101.172.170.165 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In the book "Rethinking History, Dictatorship and War: New Approaches and Interpretations" edited by Claus-Christian Szejnmann, there is a chapter on Belloc by Ulrike Ehret. Ehret quotes (Szejnmann (P.52, p231)), from a Belloc letter replying to one from Arnold Lunn (21.5.1938) Here Belloc blames the Spanish Civil War on the "Moscow Jews": "The French Revolution was founded by patriotism and property, the Spanish is founded on Jewish Communism which especially attacks those fundamental ideas of our Western Civilization. What the two movements have in common is hostility to the Catholic Church, but in the French case that hostility came in from the side, it was incidental...but the Communists' attack on the Church is its main activity. That is why it was a good strategy on the part of the Moscow Jews to attack Spain. I think they would have succeeded if it had not been for Franco forestalling them".

Since Belloc repeats the unpleasant anti-semitic canard about "Jewish Bolshevism" in this letter,I think this qualifies him as holding some anti-semitic opinions, ones commonly held by the extreme right in the 1930s. Having said that, we would need to make a closer study of all Belloc's comments on the Jewish community before coming to a conclusion. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Manner of death (cause: fall) is vague. "Just four days before his eighty-third birthday, while dozing before the fireplace in his daughter's home, he fell into the flames and was so badly burned that he died in hospital at Guildford, Surrey, soon afterward on July 16, 1953" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.226.18 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dinner at the Vintners’ Hall. 23 October 1931

Not worthy of comment in the main article, but perhaps of interest to a researcher, might be his being mentioned in Tables of Content (1933), André L. Simon, #66: “Dinner at the Vintners’ Hall. 23 October 1931”, “The first dinner of the new-born ‘Saintsbury Club’”: “There was but one speech, but a real master-piece: Hilaire Belloc proposing the toast of Professor Saintsbury, whose birthday we were keeping. He spoke of his astounding knowledge of literature in all lands, of his transparent honesty and of his indomitable courage, the three cardinal virtues of the literary critic and also of the judge of wine—and old Professor Saintsbury such a master of both letters and wine.” (My pictures 9861-2.) JDAWiseman (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

'May all my enemies go to Hell'

As far as I know, this came from a rhyme Belloc composed in his fiction work The Four Men, and I've never heard of it used in a Christmas card. What is the source for this information? JNF Tveit 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This rhyme appears in Belloc's The Four Men, as one of the verses of a song one of the title characters, The Sailor, sings. It should be noted that the other characters regard the verse as fairly gauche and ill-conceived, and if the verse is taken out of this context it may be misunderstood. It should also be noted that these four characters supposedly represent four different facets of Belloc's own character; so while a part of Belloc may have agreed with this verse, other parts of him may have disagreed and checked the more offensive part. This is all inconsequential, however, if someone can cite a source which proves Belloc used the verse in a Christmas card. The verse in its entirety is as follows:

'May all good fellows that here agree

Drink Audit Ale in heaven with me,

And may all my enemies go to hell!

Noel! Noel! Noel! Noel!

May all my enemies go to hell!

Noel! Noel!' JNF Tveit 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this material still goes unattested, and since the current version may be unjustly defamatory against Belloc's character, I am going to change it, pending attestation. JNF Tveit 20:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems an odd inclusion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now removed it. A song in a novel doesn't necessarily reflect his opinions.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)