itself part of the definition of a majornwriter. For the past one hundred yearsnsuch writers have been repelled by secularnmodernism and its celebration ofnthe Empiric Economic Man. The Individualnlet loose. To hold firmly to ansense of the real, writers were forcednto be. consciously or otherwise, antiprogressive,nantiliberal. even reactionary.nLionel Trilling, who held impeccablenliberal credentials, wrote, withnastonishment. I think, that “liberalnideology has produced a large literaturenof social and political protest, but not,nfor several decades, a single writer whoncommands our real literary admiration”n’The Liberal Imagination). Later, innCommentary {1962). there was “no literarynfigure of the very first rank . . ,nwho, in his work, makes use of or givesncredence to liberal or radical ideas.”noince for Waugh the moral, socialnand aesthetic orders were inextricablynintertwined. Christian Humanism, hisnindependent system of order, made possiblenhis artistic critique of the secularncity and its ideology. To understand thatncritique it is necessary to understandnhis fierce religiosity—but in a specificnway. The solidity he found in Peter’snChurch he also sought in some socialnsystem. Since he was not a systematicnpolitical thinker, one must work by indirection.nHe looked to the past becausenhe perceived in a past social order, overidealizednby him. what he missed in thenpresent. His sense of a class society,nmuch like the later Auden’s. was basednfundamentally on the timeless idea thatnmans definitions (class being only onenof them) protect him from anarchy andngive him a secure sense of where he isnand what he must do. Each being has itsnnature and place. Invidious comparisonsnbetween classes (not merely naturalnenvy) were, after all. the by-productnof the Age of the Common Man. thenmass man. Waugh, like so many writersnof the time, had a connatural sense ofnthe danger implied in such a view. Henwas essentially conservative, but onlynconventionallv a snob, which he definednU)nChronicles of Culturenas being “happiest in the company ofnthe European upper-classes.” His beingna snob, and he was one. has been overemphasizednin an effort to understandnhim and quite unfairly related to hisnpolitical instincts. Snobbery, like vanitynand bad manners, is characteristic ofnliberal and conservative alike. (Many ofnmy academic colleagues are liberalnsnobs.) At least his snobbery was modifiednby his religion. “I know I am awful.nBut how much more awful I should benwithout the Faith.” One should also remembernthat in England “Catholicismnis predominantly the religion of thenpoor.” No. the snobbery is a smokenscreen. His political intuitions, whichncaused savage, if infrequent, jibes atnliberalism, were based on somethingnmore than snobbism.n”For me Christianity begins with thencounter-reformation.” That sentencenappearing on a quickly written postcardnprovides one of the keenest insights intonhis system of order. Historically, it wasnCatholic Christianity, not ProtestantnChristianity, that was identified withnthe riches of culture after the rupture.nLet me explain. Like many converts tonCatholicism in the 20th century,nWaugh made two discoveries, not one.nFirst, and most important, he discoverednDivine Revelation in the Churchnand the presence of the Lord: “the denlight of membership of the Household,nof having your chair at the table, a placenlaid, the bed turned down, of the lovennn& trust, whatever their family bickerings,nof all Christendom.” Orthodoxy.nas for Chesterton, had not only told himnthe truth, it had proved itself a truthtellingnthing. Second, he discovered thenstorage place of truths about the naturenof man from Classical times to thenpresent which the Catholic traditionnhad preserv’ed from the assaults of history.nThe Church treasured, in ThomasnMolnar’s words, “the most accurate setnof statements that one may hold aboutnman’s nature, about the balance betweennfaith and reason, the interior and exteriornman. the condition on which societynrests, human relations.” This is a phenomenonnol conversion, especially innthe last two centuries. It meant fornWaugh that in addition to the teachingsnof Christ, he found the repository of thenenduring wisdom of the world, thatnwhich C. S. Lewis named the Tao.nThus, when Waugh tells Nancy Mitford,none of his most valued friends,nnever to use the word “progressive”nwhen writing to him. he knew what henmeant and meant what he said. Thatnstatement is a much more profoundncritical insight into his social viewsnthan the more often quoted, “I havennever voted in a general election as Inhave never found a Tory stern enoughnto command my respect.” It was hisnillative sense that sternly warned himnagainst such particulars as the welfarenstate and the labor governments. “I amnweary about having been consistentlynright in all my political predictions fornten years. It is so boring seeing it allnhappen for the second time after onenhas gone through it in imagination.”nWhile he was in many ways apolitical,nthe need for a sense of coherent ordernthat he felt at the center of his beingnwas his strongest sensibility.ni he central fact needed for an essentialnunderstanding of Waugh’s fictionnwas the discovery that his independentnsystem of order was liberating. Standingnon what he perceived as a firm base,nhe felt free to take on all comers. Thenenterprise was comic, not apocalyptic.n