Brideshead Revisited; Sixty Three Years On

Watching Brideshead Revisited again last night, I was struck by how in tune it is with the times since it was written by Evelyn Waugh in 1945 and produced by Granada in 1981.


The central problem in the book is the inability of Charles Ryder (Jeremy Irons) to accept the validity of Lady Julia Flyte's (Diana Quick) belief in Catholicism, or rather, in Christianity generally. Waugh portrays Christianity, through Charles, as idiotic, pagan, superstitious nonsense and through Julia as life-affirming, tolerant, peaceful and demanding.

As we see in the opening sequence much later, during the war, Charles is a disillusioned army officer; listless, childless (they're with his ex) and loveless; while Julia and her sister Cordella (Phoebe Nicholls) are off fulfilling themselves by nursing in Palestine.

The ostensible reason Charles is disillusioned is that Julia has denied her own love for him because she refuses to 'live in sin' and can't marry him in the Church as he is divorced. The real reason is that he has lost his faith in himself and his own assumptions.

Since we know these assumptions are those of a wealthy, indulged only-son, and that they closely relate to Progressivism, he has really lost faith in man's ability to transform himself into a better being through self-realization or social action. In effect, in fighting fascism he has discovered the relationship between the 'master race' and the 'better man' much loved by Progressives, socialists and Communists. No wonder he's down in the mouth. Grace cannot be manufactured by man alone, either benignly (as in Britain) nor by force (as in Germany).

Too bad Waugh didn't live to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg which lays out, beautifully, the reasons why Christianity is the foundation of liberal democracy while atheism is the driving force behind totalitarianism. He would have been entranced at how well his own religious beliefs have survived and prospered.

My other thought on this -- and here I'm bleeding for Charles -- is that he might have done a lot better with Julia had he been a better student of history. Here's my version of what he should have said on the stairs after the death of Lord Marchmain:

Julia, darling. Your father's actions today, his signing of the Cross, are on your mind. You're thinking of his, of your, religion and his acceptance of divine grace. But you know, your father had more than one route to grace; he was also an Earl, a lord of the realm, appointed, or rather his family was appointed by an English king, the head of the Church of England. No, please, I am not trying to make a case that your father had two different fealties. Not at all. I am saying that the Head of the Anglican Church and the Vicar of Christ are worshiping the same God, are serving at the same Altar, are one with the same divine grace. Henry the VIII didn't create a new church because he wanted a new God. He created one because he wanted a new wife. I want a new wife. I want you, I love you, and I want you to be able to love me. Please consider Henry; consider England; consider me. High Anglicans and low Catholics are really the same thing; you and I are all in the same boat, in the same church, part of the same continuity of history. Your father could be an English lord and a repentant Catholic. You can be an English lady and a pious Anglican. I'm not asking you to leave your God; I'm asking you to let me share him with you. The marriage service says sex is for procreation; it says love is divine. Marrying me is God's will. You must see that!

Oh Julia, dry your tears, we are all one in God's eyes, as will be our children, my love.

That's my best shot today; that's what I would have said. Would it have worked on Julia?

Would Evelyn have approved?