3. What is the Servile State

[John]

3. How does Belloc define the servile state? To what is he referring? Do you agree with Belloc's description?

[Manuel]

John wrote: "3. How does Belloc define the servile state? To what is he referring? Do you agree with Belloc's description?"

For Belloc, the Servile State is an economic system based on the same premises as a State based on slavery: a few persons (or the state) would be the owner of the means of production, and most people would be subject to compulsive work in exchange for a wage or a salary, plus a certain security regarding the means of life, and old age.

Although there are some differences with what we have today, it's clear that what Belloc called the Servile State is very similar to what is called the Welfare State in Western Europe, and in a partial way in the U.S. Although most people can stop working for some time and keep living under unemployment help, sooner or later they must return to work, so there is that element of compulsion that Belloc identified with slavery.

[Fonch]

I totally agree with Professor "The Servile State" is the conclusion to which both capitalism and social-communism would lead us, although for Belloc the Servile State would be reached faster following the Social-communist model. I believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union proved Belloc right in this case.

[John]

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "3. How does Belloc define the servile state? To what is he referring? Do you agree with Belloc's description?"

For Belloc, the Servile State is an economic system based on the same pr..."

I'm going to take up this discussion here, as it seems the more appropriate place to discuss what is a Servile State.

I see in Chapter 9 where Belloc identifies the fact that one must work to eat as the compulsion that converts supposedly freely contracted labor to servility. But I think this goes to far because that compulsion exists even in the most distributive state. If a small farmer decides to stop working, he will, absent the intervention of friends, eventually stop eating. If the tradesman, stops plying his craft, he too will eventually starve, guild or no. The reality of work or starve is not servility-inducing compulsion, but simply life.

And this doesn't meet Belloc's own definition of a servile state in he beginning. There have been Servile States since Belloc wrote, and as best as I can tell they have been and are communist - Belloc specifically (I will have to go back and look for the location) notes that socialism leads to this, and it is his best insight.

[Fonch]

John wrote: "Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "3. How does Belloc define the servile state? To what is he referring? Do you agree with Belloc's description?"

For Belloc, the Servile State is an economic system based..."

I think John are both capitalism and social-communism. I had already told the example of the People's Republic of China (which leads us to the worst of both worlds). The problem I see John is that we tend to think that social-communism is opposed to capitalism, when in fact capitalism is the Father of Social-Communism, and they apparently confront each other, but in reality they are compatible with each other. Capitalism makes money concentrate in a few hands, while social-communism makes us serfs of the State, so Belloc says that the passage from Collectivism to the Servile State is immediate. At least I see it that way. In this book Belloc does not talk about Distributism, except to propose it as an alternative to Capitalism, and to Social-communism. Instead, he explains how due to the crises of Christianity we are returning to an economic model that takes us back to slavery prior to the arrival of Christianity.

[John]

Fonch wrote: "John wrote: "Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "3. How does Belloc define the servile state? To what is he referring? Do you agree with Belloc's description?"

For Belloc, the Servile State is an economic..."

I disagree. I don't agree at all that capitalism and socialism are the similar in the way you describe. I should note that when I use the term capitalism here I am referring to free market capitalism in which the state's interference in business is minimized to ensuring that the powerful do not trample the rights of others. The greatest difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism creates wealth and socialism destroys it. And the wealth created by capitalism is broad indeed. In the two decades following the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe there was a general turn towards freer markets and away from socialist central control. Not coincidentally, billions of people around the world were lifted out of abject poverty. "Globalism," for all its problems, and they are many, brought more benefit to the poorest of the poor than any government program or any charity ever did or could. As a counter-example, Venezuela was once the wealthiest country in South America. It is no longer.

I do agree though, that Belloc ultimately seems to consider both the modern capitalist welfare state and the fully socialist state to be servile states. But only one of these has ever generated laws requiring people to work, or literally enslaving people: China, North Korea, the Soviet Union. Capitalism, even welfare state capitalism, doesn't have this truly coercive element in which one is actually mandated to work in exchange for some level of security. Belloc gets around this by the rhetorical slight-of-hand in which he claims that the fact that if you don't work you don't eat means that you are coerced to take any job that is offered. I've commented on this expanded concept of coercion elsewhere.

Belloc's criticisms of capitalism only make sense if you accept his premise that an alternative system is or was available. If this is wrong, then the best course is to attempt to identify the reforms needed to address the ills of capitalism.

[Manuel]

I think when we are speaking about capitalism we are really alluding to three different things:

1. Capitalism, as it was during the 19th century, almost to the time of Belloc's writing this book.

2. Capitalism, as Belloc foresaw it was going to evolve in the future (the Servile State).

3. Capitalism, as it has actually evolved (the welfare state).

Not everything Belloc foresaw has actually happened. But many things have. The current welfare state in Western Europe is quite similar to Belloc's Servile State, except for the absence of laws forcing people to work. The current welfare state in the U.S. is farther away. The democratic party has been trying to bring it nearer, although lately they seem to be more concerned with spreading abortion and the woke ideology.

Of course, Belloc thought that there was a third alternative: Distributism. And although Schumacher tried to bring it again to the front, all attempts up to now have been minority enterprises.

[Fonch]

I admit that capitalism, perhaps in the medium term, may be less ruinous than social-communism, but in the end it tends to concentrate money in a few hands. Today the two systems do not fight, but feed each other. The left has accepted the economics of the right, and the right the blackberry, and the culture of the left. In essence, I no longer see any difference in either system. In the end the two systems end up becoming two theologies, which end up postponing God. The idea is what Belloc proposes a third way, which strengthens the middle classes, the family, and fights against secularization, and this is not assured by Capitalism. The right currently in my country, I no longer want to fight the cultural battle against the left, and only deals with the economy. Has there been any criticism of divorce on the right? Is the abortion law going to be repealed? Is the so-called same-called same-sex marriage going to be repealed? No Euthanasia? Lol So why do I want capitalism? which was developed by Protestantism. I want a third way, which allows me to develop everything I have outlined in this paragraph. Such, and as it is, humanity will not work, but it could save several generations from eternal damnation. Today we live in a society more typical of orcs, than of people. At least that's how I see it.

[Fonch]

Manuel wrote: "I think when we are speaking about capitalism we are really alluding to three different things:

1. Capitalism, as it was during the 19th century, almost to the time of Belloc's writing this book.
..."
That is why I want that third way that Belloc proposes, which conforms to what the Popes proclaim in their encyclicals, and in the Social Doctrine of the Church. Pd. Moreover, if we analyze all the texts, and Essays by G.K. Chesterton, and Hilaire Belloc there are more criticisms of capitalism than socialism. In my opinion, saying no to capitalism does not mean saying yes to Socio-Communism, and to anarchism. In fact these ideologies have merged with capitalism, which if carried out would lead to the destruction of everything, and if carried out the beneficiaries would be the fittest. I would advocate a Social Darwinism, which is unacceptable

[Fonch]

Last night I was reading a novel by the Italian writer Curzio Malaparte "Storia di Mani" or "History of Tomorrow". A kind of Ucrony in which the communists took over Europe, and said things very similar to Hilaire Belloc. That if Social-communism were to prevail, a state trust would be imposed. That the owners could not be expropriated, and if it was done they could not be compensated. Exactly the same thing that Hilaire Belloc has said in this book. I would like to find a book, where Belloc would expose his economic model. The refutation of the two systems is all well and good, but I should have proposed an alternative.

[John]

Manuel wrote: "I think when we are speaking about capitalism we are really alluding to three different things:

1. Capitalism, as it was during the 19th century, almost to the time of Belloc's writing this book.
..."

But there must be something that we can agree is truly capitalism, with respect to which these other things are capitalist only to the extent they share in that "pure" capitalism. Otherwise the word capitalism has no meaning because at any given time when one of us uses the word with one meaning in mind, no on else can be sure what we are referring to.

I use capitalism to refer to a system based on the private ownership of property, including productive property, and free exchange of property and services between all persons on an equal basis based on enforceable contract. Fundamentally, the capitalist system uses prices freely arrived at to allocate goods and services to their most productive use. You could say that my understanding of "pure" capitalism is that economic system most appropriate to a free people, and one that is most consistent with the economic understanding of the late scholastics - especially in Spain.

I think a similar thing can be said for socialism. Spain has a socialist government, but is no more truly socialist than the United States is truly capitalist. "Pure" socialism I would understand to mean the state owns the means of production, and possibly large amounts of other property as well and the state allocates resources. This is state control of everything, and is, as Leo XIII and Pius XI said, incompatible with Catholicism.

The welfare states of the modern West, are already a "third way," a mix of capitalism and socialism.

And I have run out of time this morning. I will try to return this evening with further thoughts.

[Manuel]

John wrote: "I use capitalism to refer to a system based on the private ownership of property, including productive property, and free exchange of property and services between all persons on an equal basis based on enforceable contract..."

I think you and I are saying practically the same thing. But I think your definition of capitalism could also be applied to 19th century capitalism, whose abusive application was condemned in the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" and rejected by Belloc and Chesterton.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Read again your paragraph about "pure" capitalism and tell me where it doesn't apply to 19th century capitalism.

[Fonch]

John wrote: "Manuel wrote: "I think when we are speaking about capitalism we are really alluding to three different things:

1. Capitalism, as it was during the 19th century, almost to the time of Belloc's writ..."

Hello John to my way of seeing nobody discusses Private property, in fact I believe, as the prologue of Armando Zerolo of my Spanish edition of the Servile State said. I believe both the Scriptures and the action of the Popes against the Fatricelli Michele Cesena, Ubertino Casale, Clareno, Olivi. We were talking about this topic when we discussed Michael Flynn's book "Eifelheim" are endorsed. What should be sought in my opinion is a more equitable distribution of wealth.

What you talk about Scholasticism, the School of Salamanca is the system prior to Capitalism, known as Mercantilism, which experienced some cyclical crises, which is what would be good to avoid. Because rich come out stronger from them, and the rich get poorer. The system we are criticizing began to devalue, when Luther and Calvin endorsed the interest, and accepted usury, which was condemned in the Councils. I do not know if it would be any of the councils of Carthage. In fact, one of the great problems of capitalism, and I think, that Belloc points out there although he does not say it is the clearly Protestant influence, which capitalism has, which aggravated the gap between rich and poor. Partly because of the seizure of monasteries. My criticism goes against the Capitalist system, which goes from the sixteenth century onwards, and which took shape with Adam Smith, and which has led us to a kind of Malthusianism, and brutal Darwinism, which Belloc denounces in this Servile State.

In my opinion, socialism is the child of this capitalism. Marx and Engels took the data of the economist David Ricardo for their Essays. That is why the struggle between the two worlds is artificial, and both seek the same thing the destruction of Christianity, and of the family, and that the money is concentrated either in a plutocracy, or in state officials (this in the case of socialism).

My personal opinion is that, although it is not definitive, we must seek a fairer system. At least for a few generations, and when the system fails, because of the corruption of subsequent generations adapt it for the next ones.

[Galicius]

Belloc’s thesis "that industrial society as we know it will tend towards the re-establishment of slavery" has in recent decades been much strengthened by the use of what a professor called “cold efficiency of the computer.” I am sure that members here are familiar to what extent businesses use them to monitor their employees “performance” and “manage” their time. The computer gives the corporation the power to measure the employee’s every second. This may have even received a grater boost in recent years with the work at home. Not that this is anything new. I knew an employee of the Intel Corporation in the nineteen seventies who had a computer terminal in his apartment that he worked on through a telephone connection, before Internet.

[Fonch]

Galicius wrote: "Belloc’s thesis "that industrial society as we know it will tend towards the re-establishment of slavery" has in recent decades been much strengthened by the use of what a professor called “cold ef..."

It is very interesting what Galicius says, and that it shows us how the Technology Industry works.

[[deleted user]]

I haven't read this book, but I looked up "servile" and found an article on The Third Commandment by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (on a webpage with the Real Presence Association) which reminds us that the essential thing is to make time and effort to *sanctify* the Sabbath, not merely rest from "servile work." This was a good reminder to me, because sometimes I try to get out of doing the dishes, when the better thing to do would be the dishes AND reflecting more on Sunday's Gospel reading etc. :) For those who are reading The Servile State: does it have anything about avoiding servile work on Sundays? Hope my comment's not totally out of place. It's just something I understand better than the complexities of economic systems. ;)

[Manuel]

Michelle wrote: "For those who are reading The Servile State: does it have anything about avoiding servile work on Sundays?..."

No, Belloc understands "the Servile State" as a State where the citizens are treated as "serfs" or slaves. The term is purely economic.

[Fonch]

Michelle wrote: "I haven't read this book, but I looked up "servile" and found an article on The Third Commandment by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (on a webpage with the Real Presence Association) which reminds us that..."

Manuel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "For those who are reading The Servile State: does it have anything about avoiding servile work on Sundays?..."

No, Belloc understands "the Servile State" as a State where the citi..."

Hi Michelle I was glad you joined this discussion of the "Servile State" book. I do not know if my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca will remember it, but I remember that in Europe there were attempts at that, that commerce respect the holidays, and sanctify the holidays, and not open those days, but in the end they opted for greed, and many times they open on Sundays, and holidays. I am in favor of those days having minimum services, in case there is a breakdown (which usually occur unfortunately on vacation), or someone gets sick (it is usually very problematic for people to get bad on weekends). Precisely what this book is about is to favor the freedom of the workers, and to denounce the worsening of the conditions of the people by presenting a third way against capitalism, and the economic options of the left. PD. What Professor Manuel Alfonseca says is totally true what Belloc denounces is that the economic systems previously cited lead us to the worst of the days before the arrival of Christianity, and to a covert slavery. Michelle invited you to read the Professor's reviews, and mine if you want to better understand this book.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks for both your replies, and for reading my comment. :) Your comments are interesting too. Whatever we do, wherever we live, let's try to "keep the Sabbath holy" and encourage others to do so too. :D

I looked up "The Servile State" by Hilaire Belloc online and Angelus Press clarified pretty well for me: "Explains that capitalism (liberalism applied to economics) is inherently unstable and that the two "remedies" proposed by the world (Marxist collectivism and the Servile State) are worse than the disease! Shows how capitalism tends towards its twin brother Marxism because both undermine the Catholic ideal of the widespread ownership of business property - farms, shops, and small businesses. The real solution: Distributism (Catholic morality applied to economics)."

[Fonch]

It is a good summary. The idea was thought previously by Dostoyevski in his novel "Demons", where he considered that the collectivism is a son of capitalism . Belloc says that the pass of the capitalism to the servile state would be gradual, but if the Socialism ruled the society the process would be inmediate.

[[deleted user]]

Did you read that whole novel by Dostoyevski? I find that author difficult to get through...

[Fonch]

Yes i did it. I wrote a good review about "The Deamons".

[Manuel]

Michelle wrote: "Did you read that whole novel by Dostoyevski? I find that author difficult to get through..."

This is a post in my blog about this novel by Dostoyevski:
https://populscience.blogspot.com/201...

[[deleted user]]

I read the article in the link, thanks. I'm impressed, you guys! :O Dostoyevski was my dad's favorite. He passed The Brothers K. on to me when I was a little too young to appreciate it, but I still haven't been able to get into it, other than the bits with Alyosha (I'd search for his name). :)

[Fonch]

i must conclude The Brother Karamazov

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "i must conclude The Brother Karamazov"

You haven't concluded it either? I found it too depressing to get through. :(

[Fonch]

It was not poignant. The problem is that i do not follow with it. The Deamons was more poignant or Idiot, or the Double. Some Day i Will conclude with the Brothers Karamazov. Dostoyevski was going to write a sequel where he was going to execute Aliosha. I say thanks to the Lord for not writing this book.

[Manuel]

"The Brothers Karamazov" is my favorite book by Dostoievsky.

[Fonch]

My favorite book is "Crime and punishment" 😊. I think that i cheer up to read to Fiodor Dostoyevski thanks to Juan Manuel de Prada, thanks to the big influence that this book had in his youth. "Humiliated and ofended" liked me really much, and "The adolescent" i am looking for this book a long time ago. I read the summary in the Garzanti Encyclopedia of literature. I was fascinated by the character of Lambert.

[[deleted user]]

Manuel wrote: ""The Brothers Karamazov" is my favorite book by Dostoievsky."

Same with my Dad. He wrote that on the title page of my birthday gift when I was 13. Being a bookworm, I tried to read it. But it was too mature and dreary. I tried again when I was 28, but I just skipped around, reading about Alyosha. I tried again now, age 40, in response to a writing class. I felt motivated for a few minutes, as I looked for an ebook, determined to read it, for my dad. (I didn't keep the gift book itself, just the dedication my dad wrote). Same problem. I just feel sickened by the plot, and couldn't keep turning pages. (I started reading the author's first book ever written, instead. I don't mind that one so much, so far; it starts out so cheerfully). The only reason I still want to read it is to somehow pay homage to my father, to understand him better, as if this book is a missing link. If it was your favorite too, can you give me any advice on how to get through it?? I'd appreciate it. :) Like, does finishing it leave one with a sense of the goodness of humanity loved by God, or is it all depressing? Ok tell me this -- WHY is it your favorite, maybe that will help me think of reasons my dad liked it, and the value I know it has, which I'm just not able to reach, deterred by other barriers...

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "It was not poignant. The problem is that i do not follow with it. The Deamons was more poignant or Idiot, or the Double. Some Day i Will conclude with the Brothers Karamazov. Dostoyevski was going ..."

Being poignant helps. My dad was big on poignancy. What?! :O No not Alyosha! :( The only parts of it I ever really read was anything with his name in it. My dad made my nickname Mi-sha after Alyosha, apparently, and said I was like him in a way. He feels real to me. If I couldn't read the book "for my dad," maybe I could try reading it "for Alyosha."

Huh, I can actually relate to the first page of The Double. :O (I often test out a book by seeing how I feel about its beginning, and decide whether or not to keep reading, if I don't have to). The plot description also sounds fascinating, very sci-fi, which my dad got me to like, a bit. And so you're saying it's poignant? Hmm. :) I'm trying to avoid impurity, that's the thing. Oh and too much violence. I guess Dostoyevski is not L.M. Montgomery though haha.

My dad never tried to encourage his other books, but we have some of them. Maybe if I got more used to the author's style, I could return to The Brothers and make a go of it. I don't want to cheat by watching the movies though, I'd rather just read the books. If I have to skip scenes, whatever.

Aww the poor landlady! What was your favorite-ness in Crime and Punishment? Why do you recommend this one the most? I tried to hand it over to a high school aged neighbor who wanted to become a police officer, but his mom didn't want to give it to him. He joined the military and is becoming a doctor now though. And I used to babysit that kid! :)

[Fonch]

Not, i do not like anything the double. It is the story of the madness, and the ending is really cruel, although surely would influence in the Goblin by Sologub (probably). The novel who liked me were the Adolescent and overall the Humiliated and ofended with a Dickensian Plot.

Thanks to the Lord that Dostoyevski did not write the sequel of "Brother Karamazov" it had been very cruel and painful to read the Aliosha excution (his idea was who received the capital punishment).

Well Crime and Punishment is a story where the christianity is more present is a refutation of Darwinism, and the Nietszche theories of Superman a story of Conversion and forgive Sonya is amazing. It is a story of goodness. Besides i felt fascinated by Dunia i played a videogame called Neverwinter Nights and i knew a character, called for this name and i did not get to save her. Besides i suffered a personal crisis that i have never been able to face. I suppose that this novel was so important for me. I think that all novelists Dostoyevski is that he much know the life. At least a lot of things that i had experience were told by him. I was obssessed by the Idiot because i had a close experience to the main Character i had a love triangle. Besides with Cervantes and Poe is the favorite character of my favorite writer Juan Manuel de Prada (with the permission of G.K. Chesterton, Joseph Pearce, and The Professor Manuel Alfonseca).

[Manuel]

Michelle wrote: "If it was your favorite too, can you give me any advice on how to get through it?? I'd appreciate it. :) Like, does finishing it leave one with a sense of the goodness of humanity loved by God, or is it all depressing? Ok tell me this -- WHY is it your favorite..."

To answer part of your question, I have written a review of The Brothers Karamazov in Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The book ending is a good balance between good and evil. Book twelve ("A Judicial Error") looks like a mystery novel in the style of Perry Mason, together with a scathing criticism of the judicial system. The Epilogue is sad, but hopeful. Aliosha is its main character.

My advice? I'd try to read this book together with other books, by jumping from one to the other. I'd read no more than one chapter per day (which means that it will take a long time to read the whole book). And if you cannot put up with some part, just jump over it.

This is my classification of some of the books by Dostoievski I have read:

5 stars: The Brothers Karamazov
4 stars: Crime and Punishment, The Insulted and Injured, Demons and The Dream of a Ridiculous Man
3 stars: "White nights", "Memories of the underground", "The idiot", "The adolescent" and "The gambler".

"The double" I liked less.

[Fonch]

My rating would be "Crime and punishment" (5), "White nights" (5), "Humiliated and ofended" (4), "Adolescent" (4), "Deamons" (4), Gambler (3'5), Idiot (3) (too many painful reminds :-(), Double (1'5), and Nadheza Nietochka (1).

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "Not, i do not like anything the double. It is the story of the madness, and the ending is really cruel, although surely would influence in the Goblin by Sologub (probably). The novel who liked me w..."

Oh! :( I don't know if I could bear reading a book if I know it's just going to have a cruel ending! :(

Forgiveness is good. :) Okay, those are interesting enough reasons. :D

What's your favorite G.K. Chesterton book(s)? I remember reading 2-books-in-1 by him, about St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas. (I had to write an essay about it).

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "My rating would be "Crime and punishment" (5), "White nights" (5), "Humiliated and ofended" (4), "Adolescent" (4), "Deamons" (4), Gambler (3'5), Idiot (3) (too many painful reminds :-(), Double (1'..."

Okay, cool. :D

[[deleted user]]

Manuel wrote: "Michelle wrote: "If it was your favorite too, can you give me any advice on how to get through it?? I'd appreciate it. :) Like, does finishing it leave one with a sense of the goodness of humanity ..."

Thanks I read your review. I wish I had asked my dad more about what he thought of the book and stuff. I just got so many different books and presents, I didn't pay enough attention to this and how much it meant to him. Okay you have given me hope -- I think maybe with that advice I will be able to give it another try in the near future. I often do read a few books at a time (right now: Kolbe: A Man for Others, one of the Oz books by L.Frank Baum, and more), so that'll work. A chapter a day is good too, I'm doing that with Fr. Ed Broom's Marian Compendium right now as well.

[Fonch]

It is a difficult question being G.K. Chesterton my favorite author, perhaps the Father Brown stories although i like the prose and the Essays.

[[deleted user]]

That's cool.

Someone else at church mentioned that Fr. Brown character... I should read some one of these days. Are there many cases, like Sherlock Holmes or MONK?

[Mariangel]

Michelle, we read Chesterton's Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Thomas Aquinas in the club. You can read the discussions here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

[Fonch]

Generally are short stories written by in a beatiful literary style. Chesterton was well known as the Prince of the Paradox, plenty of beatiful images. Chesterton was very beloved by the argentinian people Borges said that there was not any Chesterton page which had not a piece of Happiness. A very interesting book "The everlasting man" this book was very decisive to the C.S. Lewis conversion. In my case i like really much heretics. I liked really much The Common Man and the Well and the Shallows.

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "Generally are short stories written by in a beatiful literary style. Chesterton was well known as the Prince of the Paradox, plenty of beatiful images. Chesterton was very beloved by the argentinia..."

The last time I really read Chesterton was 20-ish years ago, and I didn't appreciate him enough, as he was beloved where I was studying. I should read him again one day.

[[deleted user]]

Mariangel wrote: "Michelle, we read Chesterton's Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Thomas Aquinas in the club. You can read the discussions here:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
..."

Cool. I looked up some of the discussion topics in both. I probably would've preferred the book to be shorter (rather than longer), only because I had a time limit to read and then turn in a book report about it haha. I think I recall wishing that there had been more instruction in the writing prompt -- of what to pay attention to while reading, and what to make note of and write something about. But that was 20 years ago, and I don't have the book anymore.

[Manuel]

My favorite by Chesterton is The Everlasting Man among his non-fiction and The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare among his fiction.

[Fonch]

I liked really much "Flying Inn" every Day spent closer to our period. "The poet and lunatics" is one of my weakness. This book has a big beggining and marevellous ending.

[[deleted user]]

Sorry for the delay... thanks for sharing those, you guys! :D I looked them up and they do look interesting as you said! Did you write reviews?

[Manuel]

Michelle wrote: "Sorry for the delay... thanks for sharing those, you guys! :D I looked them up and they do look interesting as you said! Did you write reviews?"

This is my review for The Everlasting Man:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Fonch]

Michelle wrote: "Sorry for the delay... thanks for sharing those, you guys! :D I looked them up and they do look interesting as you said! Did you write reviews?"

Unfortunatelly not. I have a lot of reviews for writing :-(.

[[deleted user]]

Michelle wrote: "Sorry for the delay... thanks for sharing those, you guys! :D I looked them up and they do look interesting as you said! Did you write reviews?"

I keep rereading it... mind-boggling to me -- and fascinating! Thanks 4 sharing! :)

[[deleted user]]

Fonch wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Sorry for the delay... thanks for sharing those, you guys! :D I looked them up and they do look interesting as you said! Did you write reviews?"

Unfortunatelly not. I have a lot o..."

That's okay, I haven't reviewed all the books in my list either. :)