"subversive" nature of Chesterton's work, of his giving weapons
to Communism and doing his bit towards starting "a very nasty class
war" in America. Mr. Nickerson was allowed to develop this theme in
a series of articles in Chesterton's own paper. Correspondents too
complained often enough in the paper of its attacks on vested
interests and on other schools of thought than its own.

In the course of a controversy with Mr. Penty, in which I think G.K.
most distinctly misunderstood his opponent but in which both men kept
the friendliest tone, Penty says that Chesterton treats as a drive
much that he himself would call a drift: that the mind is more
in fault than the will of mankind in getting the world into its
present mess. With this diagnosis Chesterton certainly agreed for
the greater part of mankind. He spoke often of a "madness in the
modern mind." Psychology meant "the mind studying itself instead of
studying the truth" and it was part of what had destroyed the mind.
"Advertisements often tell us to Watch this Blank Space. I confess I
do watch that blank space, the modern mind, not so much for what will
appear in it, as for what has already disappeared from it."

Thus too when the Rev. Dick Shepherd remarrying a divorced
woman--i.e., encouraging her to take again the solemn vow she had
already broken--said that he heard the voice of Christ: "Go in
peace," it was not for impiety that Chesterton condemned him. He
wrote with restraint "There is scarcely a shade of difference left
between meaning well and meaning nothing."

Was Penty still right in thinking he saw a drive where he ought to
see a drift and Nickerson in thinking he was dangerously subversive
in his attitude to the rich? And anyhow what about Belloc?

I incline to think that the truth was that while G.K. could never
hate an individual he could hate a group. If he suddenly remembered
an individual in that group he hastily excepted him from the group in
order to leave the objects of his hatred entirely impersonal. Thus he
hated politicians but found real difficulty in hating a politician.
He hated what he called the plutocracy, but no individual rich man. I
do think however that while believing firmly in original sin he was
somewhat inclined to see it as operative more especially in the
well-to-do classes. His championship of the poor was in no way
impersonal. His burning love and pity went out to every beggar. He
tended to love all men but the poor he