Earnestly

Christening.  The subject may sound old fashioned, but it was once, within Christendom, where a name was officially conferred.  These days a birth certificate, issued very shortly following a live birth, is the official record of name, but not so long ago religious authorities had the final word.  This came to mind upon seeing a local (Lehigh University) stage production of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest.  I’ve read the play before, but hadn’t seen a stage production.  As is likely widely known, the play’s title plays on the name Earnest.  Two characters, Jack and Algernon, both claim to be named Earnest only to learn that the women they’ve proposed to both insist on marrying a man whose name is indeed Earnest.  In order to remedy this situation, both men ask the local vicar to be christened, changing their names.

Names are chosen for us and given to us.  Although it is possible to change one’s name (I’ve done so twice), many consider this almost insulting to the parents who provided the name.  Since baptism, or christening, was so widely practiced in medieval Europe, this experience was fairly universal in western culture.  The Reformation eventually changed that; some traditions declared that a person had to be old enough to consent to baptism and you couldn’t very well wait until seven or eight to be given a name.  I was baptized in a river at about six or seven, and by then had learned my given name quite well.  Names become our identity.  I still recall the lines about names from another play, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. “Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”  Thus spake John Proctor.

The Importance of Being Earnest is, of course, a satire.  Even the name of the priest, the Rev. Canon Chasuble, DD, is a joke.  A chasuble, in the ecclesiastical world, is the outer vestment worn by a priest who is the celebrant at a formal mass.  Clothes make the man, so the saying goes.  Those of us who write fiction often wrestle with names.  In my day job I quite often encounter what seem to be unbelievable names.  Names that, were I to put them into a novel, would earn the scorn of critics (assuming any) that it was made up.  So I enjoyed being earnest for an afternoon.


Paraleipomenon

EarnestI suspect, like most people, I missed quite a few classics in school. This was the ’70’s when new and experimental were still the rage. One of the must-reads I missed was Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. As usual when approaching books like this, I’m delighted at the sheer number of famous lines I’ve repeatedly heard, whispering to myself, “So that’s where that comes from!” as I go. Since I expect you, my cultured reader, have walked on the Wilde side, I need not provide any of these lines here. I won’t even have to go over the plot. The edition I read, however, contained lines and scenes that did not make it into the canonical version. As an erstwhile writer, I know that final versions seldom resemble those that felt so magical at their penning. Cuts must be made. Editors must be satisfied. And so goes the life of the writer.

It was one of these cut lines that caught my eye. With Wilde’s keen wit, the clergy, represented by Dr. Chasuble. (For those liturgically challenged readers, a chasuble is a priestly vestment in the Roman and Anglican traditions.) In an unfortunately stricken scene the minister says, “I am compelled, like most of my brother clergy, to treat scientific subjects from the point of view of sentiment. But that is more impressive I think. Accurate knowledge is out of place in a pulpit. It is secular.” Accurate knowledge is secular. That thought stayed with me long after reading the out-takes and deleted scenes of the play. Those that remain contain priceless comments about the church and the dangers of christenings. This particular gem, from the cutting room floor, would be hilarious were it not so often true. It explains, for example, creationism.

It’s a fair wager that science remains, even today, a subject that flummoxes clergy and laity alike. It is the new revelation, after all. No truth cannot be reduced to numbers. Even my scribbling this post is mere electro-chemical signals jumping synapses like electro-chemical salmon dying to spawn. We’ve simply substituted one clergy for another. When’s the last time a preacher has been cited as an authority on anything? What with televangelists setting the bar (for anything we see on the media is necessarily representative), it stands to reason that no real intelligence lies here. By default we nod toward those who hold the paten and chalice of empirical evidence. As it is now, but never was, and shall be forever, amen. Who’s being earnest now?