jiLst for the causes they have adopted, hutrnfor the deuominations aud creeds thevrnrepresent. The experiences of the MoralrnMajority and the Christian Coalitionrnpresent many such examples.rnUltimately, Carter warns, the danger isrnthat, as religion “gets into” politics, it becomesrnno more than politics —and whatrna fall that is. At worst, in such instances,rnreligion really does become the worstrnkind of hypocrisy, even a mask for demagogues.rnWe recall Santayana’s celebratedrndefinition of fanaticism as redoublingrnyour efforts when you have forgotten vourrnoriginal goal. Carter concludes with arnplea never to forget the heart of the matter:rn”Without renewal, without a retreatrnfrom the wilderness and a return to therngarden, without more time spent listeningrnto the voice of God . . . without thesernnecessities, religion will be nothing too.”rnPhilip Jenkins teaches at FennsyhaniarnState University. His most recent book isrnMystics and Messiahs: Cults and NewrnReligions in American History (OxfordrnUniversitt- Press).rnThe Lewis Gunrnhy J.O. TaternWyndham Lewis: Painter and Writerrnby Paul EdwardsrnNew Haven and London: Yale UniversityrnPress; 584 pp. J75.00rnProfessor Edwards has set himself to arndaunting task in taking on WyndhamrnLewis (1882-1957). Lewis thernpainter is a difficult task for many reasons:rnfirst, because he attacked the Brifish artrnestablishment early on, trashing RogerrnFry and Bloomsbury and later KennethrnClark, thereby laying a groundwork ofrncontroversy and contempt; second, becausernhis shattered career caused muchrnof his early work to be lost and some of hisrnlater work to be less than excellent; andrnthird, on account of the nature of muchrnof that work (sometimes representational,rnsometimes abstract, but always lacking inrnobvious appeal and certainly no part ofrnany school except perhaps Lewis’s ownrnVorticism). Edwards has shown Lewis’srngraphic work to have been driven by hisrnobsession with what we may call thernmodern metaphysical, hi his paintings,rnwe hover over Cartesian vortices, asrnMelville’s Lhmacl did. Let me add (as ifrnyou could stop me) that Edwards’ treatmentrnof Lewis’s graphic art is the mostrnpersuasive and instructive I have everrnseen: well worth the price of admission.rnThe comparison here would be withrnWalter Michel’s authoritative cataloguernand Hugh Kenner’s essay in WyndhamrnLewis: Paintings and Drawings (1971) asrnwell as Richard Cork on Vorticismrn(1976), but Edwards’ analyses seem bothrnsuperior and needed.rnBut though that is much, it is not all —rnfar from it. Edwards has also addressedrnhimself to Lewis the writer, of itself arnchallenging, even treacherous subject,rnagain for a host of reasons, among themrn(1) that Lewis was (is) the most politicallyrnincorrect major author in modern Britishrnliterature, having explored with brilliantlyrnanalytical hostility the meanings ofrnfeminism, the youth cult, homosexuality,rnthe “gilded bolshevisni” of the 20’s, andrnall the other idols of the Zeitgeist triumphantrntoday; (2) that he puffed AdolfrnHitler more than once in the early 30’s inrna misguided attempt to avert a secondrnworld war; and (3) that Lewis sometimesrnpublished hastily and assembled hisrnbooks badly, adding further damage tornhis reputation. Straightening all this outrn(50 books in 50 years) in what CarolynrnRECEIVED WISDOMrnRaphael and the Noble Task by Catherine Salton (New York: HarperCollins, IS?rnpages, S20.00)rnCatherine Salton has prodneed a stunning debut novel, just in time for Christmas.rnRaphael is a chimere — not a gargoyle, it mu.st be understood —on the west fa(;ade of arngreat cathedral in the Middle .ges. Mis noble task I will leave to each reader to discover,rnfor this is a beautiful fable: whimsical, reverent (Salton is a devout Catholic), witt}’, andrndeeply moving. I fully expect Raphael and the Noble Task to take its place on the shelf ofrnChristmas classics, alongside Mary E. Wilkins Freeman’s “Christmas jenny,” ‘i’rumanrnCapote’s “A Christmas Memory’,” and, yes, Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.rn— Bill KauffmanrnHeilbrun has called “die Age of Woolf’rn(yes, Virginia was one of Lewis’s favoriternpunching bags) is no task for the faint ofrnheart.rnAdd to all the textual, aesthetic, andrnpolitical problems the challenge ofrnLewis’s prophetic insight, idiosyncraticrnexpression, and extensive historical andrnphilosophical reading, and there is inherentrndifficidty in the complexity of the materialrnand therefore in its exposition. Edwardsrnhas performed brilliantly andrnincorporated many new insights of hisrnown, as well as of other recent critical andrnscholarly work. One more reason to haverna copy of this book, then, is for the notesrnand bibliography, quite valuable in theirrnown right. I must say that I regret that therncomments on Lewis’s writing aren’t complete.rnTwo of the stories in Rotting Hillrnare masterful, and The Red Priest hasrnsomething going for it as well.rnBut never mind, for we come then tornthe point: The paintings and the writingsrnwere the product of one man, though notrnperhaps of one unified sensibility. Thernsense of crisis in Lewis’s work is not final-rn1- his but rather his modernist sense ofrnour crisis. That crisis took many forms,rnreligious, philosophical, aesthetic, andrnother; above all, it was that of humanrnidentity —both individual and in thernmass—in the machine age. As we beginrnthe 21st century, we can find no better explorerrnof the “metaphysics of the not-selfrnthan Wyndham Lewis. On the shelf besidernLewis’s best work {Tarr, The Childermass,rnTime and Western Man, The Apesrnof God, Snooty Baronet, The Revenge forrnLove, Malign Fiesta, and others: I amrnthinking of the scholariy editions of BlackrnSparrow Press), this integrated expositionrnby Paul Edwards has a valued and necessaryrnplace. I think I can close nicely withrnhis own closing words:rn[IjCwis’s] work provides the mostrncomprehensive critique we have ofrnthe Modernist urge to overcomernour dereliction b’ violentiy breakingrnthrough to a realm of authenticity,rna rcalih’ transcending our dividedrncondition; driven by suchrnurges himself, he yet knew that itrnwas our privilege to be no morernthan imperfect imitators of tiiat authenticity,rnand urged us to realizernthat we must be Apes of God ratherrnthan gods ourselves.rn].0. Tate is a professor of English atrnDowling College on Long Island.rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn