Visit https://ebookgate.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Songs of Innocence and Experience Romance in the

Cinema of Frank Capra 1st Edition Magdalena Grabias-
Zurek

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookgate.com/product/songs-of-innocence-and-
experience-romance-in-the-cinema-of-frank-capra-1st-
edition-magdalena-grabias-zurek/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookgate.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

The Megaliths of Northern Europe 1st Edition Magdalena

Midgley

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-megaliths-of-northern-europe-1st-
edition-magdalena-midgley/

ebookgate.com

The Systems View of Life A Unifying Vision Capra F.

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-systems-view-of-life-a-unifying-
vision-capra-f/

ebookgate.com

Sukuma Labor Songs from Western Tanzania We Never Sleep We

Dream of Farming 1st Edition Frank Gunderson

https://ebookgate.com/product/sukuma-labor-songs-from-western-
tanzania-we-never-sleep-we-dream-of-farming-1st-edition-frank-
gunderson/
ebookgate.com

The Cinema of the Swimming Pool New Studies in European

Cinema Christopher Brown (Editor)

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-cinema-of-the-swimming-pool-new-
studies-in-european-cinema-christopher-brown-editor/

ebookgate.com
Whitman and the Romance of Medicine Robert Leigh Davis

https://ebookgate.com/product/whitman-and-the-romance-of-medicine-
robert-leigh-davis/

ebookgate.com

The Age of Innocence Webster s German Thesaurus Edition

Edith Wharton

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-age-of-innocence-webster-s-german-
thesaurus-edition-edith-wharton/

ebookgate.com

Romance Objects Transitivity in Romance Languages Giuliana

Fiorentino (Editor)

https://ebookgate.com/product/romance-objects-transitivity-in-romance-
languages-giuliana-fiorentino-editor/

ebookgate.com

Cinema and Censorship The Politics of Control in India 1st

Edition Bhowmik Someswar

https://ebookgate.com/product/cinema-and-censorship-the-politics-of-
control-in-india-1st-edition-bhowmik-someswar/

ebookgate.com

The Romance of the Rubaiyat 1959 1st Edition A. J. Arberry

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-romance-of-the-rubaiyat-1959-1st-
edition-a-j-arberry/

ebookgate.com
 Songs of Innocence and Experience:
Romance in the Cinema of Frank Capra
 Songs of Innocence and Experience:
Romance in the Cinema of Frank Capra

By

Magdalena Grabias
 Songs of Innocence and Experience:
Romance in the Cinema of Frank Capra,
by Magdalena Grabias

This book first published 2013

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2013 by Magdalena Grabias

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-4781-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4781-0

To my mum and dad, my sister, my nephew, my grandma
and Clive Nolan, my friend.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... xi

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1

Chapter One ................................................................................................ 5

Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 35

Comedy and Romance in Literature and Film

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 65

From Innocence to Experience: Innocence

Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 105

From Innocence to Experience: Experience

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 161

Innocence and Experience: It’s a Wonderful Life

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 199

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 203

Selected Filmography ...............................................................................211

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 The Old Comedy vs. The New Comedy .................................... 39

Table 2-2 Comedy vs. Romance ........................................................... 44-45

Table 2-3 Screwball Comedy vs. Romantic Comedy ........................... 49-50

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor

Christopher Garbowski, the supervisor of my doctoral dissertation and a
spiritus movens of my academic research, for his incredible patience,
kindness, good will, long years of hard work on me and with me, and for
inspiring me with his vast knowledge and humanistic attitude.
I also wish to thank Professor Jerzy Kutnik and Professor Jacek Dąbaáa
for valuable pieces of advice, support and time devoted to me and my
book.
A thank you to Professor Jan Adamowski and my colleagues at the
Department of Cultural Studies of Maria Curie-Skáodowska University in
Lublin (UMCS) for support and the creative academic atmosphere.
Further thanks go to Ian Jones for his enthusiasm, his hard work on my
book and invaluable help in solving linguistic and stylistic issues.
A thank you to Ivan Kinsman and Krzysztof Kurkowski for technical
support.
A massive thank you (which I fail to express in words) goes to my
family: my lovely mum Wiesáawa Karczewska-Grabias for her warmth
and wisdom and teaching me to feel and love; my dad Professor Stanisáaw
Grabias for being a never-ending inspiration and for knowing the way
whenever I fail to see one; my beautiful sister Ewa Niestorowicz for being
my best friend ever and never failing in that; Tomasz Niestorowicz for
being always there for me; AdaĞ Niestorowicz for being the coolest little
guy on Earth; my grandma Maria Karczewska for being perfect (I know
you are watching over me from some better place now...); and Kasia for
her unconditional love and kind heart.
Last but not least, a big thank you to all those I love, my wonderful
friends who have been making my life worth living throughout the years
and who make me want to reach for the stars (in random order): Clive
Nolan, Christina Booth, Mike Booth, Ian Jones, Timo Groenendaal, Marijke
Groenendaal-van der Schaal, Claudio Momberg, Rachel Wilce, Nick
Barrett, Susanne Brauer, Victoria Bolley, Mark Westwood, Mrs. Margaret
Nolan, Fernando Gomez, Alan Reed, David Clifford, Scott Higham, Andy
Sears, Peter Gee, Nathalie Lebreux-Pointer, Mick Pointer, Paul Menel,
Chris Lewis, Maggi Lewis, Paul Manzi, Agnieszka ĝwita, Marcel Haster,
Barbara Haster, Graeme Bell, Simon Hill, Kylan Amos, Kim Carter,
xii Acknowledgments

Fabien Bienvenu, Noel Calcaterra, Arnfinn Isaksen, Morten L Clason, Stig

Andre Clason, Ian Hemingway, Neil Palfreyman, Bridget Palfreyman,
Patric Toms, Sian Roberts, Dominique Bordas, Tatiana Unzueta, Chris
Walkden, Iain Richardson, Damian Wilson, Soheila Clifford, Farideh
Clifford, Tasmara van Loon, Verity Smith, Tracy Hitchings, Alec Morris,
Wojciech JastrzĊbski, Agata Pawlos, Marcin Pawlos, Ewelina Tiemann,
Marcin Tiemann, Magdalena SkórzyĔska-Wach, Tomasz Wach, Michaá
Zając, Magdalena Bardzik, Mariusz Bardzik, Ewa Mazurek, Ewa
Leonowicz, Marcin Leonowicz, Anna ZieliĔska, Tomasz ĩurek, Monika
Chodkiewicz, Bogusáaw Nocek, Janek Kulka, Anna Kulka-Dolecka,
Grzegorz Dolecki, Katarzyna Kaja Zieja, the Rev. Andrzej Szpak,
Karolina Kmiecik-JusiĊga, Marek JusiĊga, Klara Skwarek, Andrzej
Skwarek, the Rev. Jan Mazur, Karolina Fórmanowska, Mareczek Wójcik,
Aneta Wójcik, Karolinka Wójcik, Andrzej Smyk, Maágorzata Anasiewicz-
Kuzioáa, Dorota ĝwita, Dariusz Mirosáaw, Natalia Kubacka, Agnieszka
ĝwiątnicka-KulpiĔska, Tomasz Thom KamiĔski, Artur Chachlowski,
Maágorzata Chachlowska, Katarzyna Chachlowska, Magdalena Kinsman,
Rafaá Rejowski, Sáawomir Artymiak, Jacek Karczewski, Katarzyna
ObszaĔska, dr Anna Pado, Ewa Oráowska, GraĪyna Krzyszczak, my
colleagues at CNiCJO, Pendragon, Arena, the Pendie OCD, all at the
Caamora Theatre Company; and Frank Capra–for wings...
 INTRODUCTION

Although of Italian origin, Frank Capra (1897–1991) is considered to

be one of the most quintessentially American directors of the golden era of
Hollywood. Capra’s biography proves that the ideals of the American
Dream can be more than just a set of worn-out historical clichés. In the
case of Capra, these ideals became the chance to escape poverty and the
way to achieve an education and realise his professional aspirations. For
Capra, the American Dream became a dream largely fulfilled in real life.
His faith and gratitude to the country which offered him the opportunity to
go from proverbial “rags to riches” were expressed by Capra in his films.
He created an idealistic hero, who, in the spirit of a modern Don Quixote,
in the name of common good, fights against a corrupt and unjust system
during the difficult period of the Great Depression and attempts to build
the New Deal in America.
At the time of their initial release, Capra's comedies, although
undeniably commercially successful, were not always treated seriously by
the critics. After several decades of detailed analyses and attempts to
interpret and evaluate Capra’s movies with regards to the changing tastes
and perceptions, the critics and film scholars have largely accepted the
importance and the artistic value of the director's works. In fact, the
number of awards1 as well as the continuous popularity of Capra’s films,
despite the passage of time, are clear proof of the filmmaker's genius and
confirm his position in the pantheon of the masters of cinematography.
The critical literature offers a broad range of subjects concerning Frank
Capra and his art. Among the most frequently discussed themes are
populism and American social issues presented in Capra’s films, as well as
the influence of Catholicism upon his filmic universe; the ethos of the
American Dream and glorification of small town values and the American

1
In his career Capra directed over 40 films. It is interesting to note that his It
Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes To Town, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,
and It's A Wonderful Life perennially occupy top positions on the lists of the
American Film Institute. Furthermore, It Happened One Night, Mr. Smith Goes To
Washington, It's A Wonderful Life, as well as Capra's war documentary series Why
We Fight are to be found in the Library of Congress and on the list of the National
Film Registry.
2 Introduction

middle class. My book is a study of selected Capra comedies and their

analysis from the perspective of the theory of romance as initially
proposed by Northrop Frye in his seminal works Anatomy Of Criticism
(1957) and Secular Scripture: A Study Of The Structure Of Romance
(1976). In 1988, Lesley Brill wrote an important book on Alfred
Hitchcock, The Hitchcock Romance: Love and Irony in Hitchcock Films.2
He based his analysis on Frye’s concept of literary romance, which
overlaps with comedy, and applied it to the realm of the cinematic art of
Hitchcock. Therefore, Frye’s theory proves to still be current and also
adequate in the case of cinema. Moreover, Frye's theory became the
background for Francesca Aran Murphy's interpretation of the world of
comedy in her book The Comedy of Revelation. Paradise Lost and
Regained in Biblical Narrative (2000).3
Frye claims that “in romance the central theme […] is that of
maintaining the integrity of the innocent world against the assault of
experience.”4 The above quotation, as well as the title of my book, echo
William Blake's romantic reflections on the conflicting nature of
innocence and experience, expressed in his Songs Of Innocence And
Experience (1794).5 However, Frye’s understanding of the notion of
romance embraces broader aspects than the classic determinants defining
the epoch of Romanticism. Frye acknowledges that romance is far older
than Romanticism.
The methodology I have chosen to apply for the sake of my analysis of
Frank Capra’s films is closer to Brill's interpretation of Frye’s theory:

By romance I mean to indicate the relatively fabulous kind of narrative that

we associate with folklore and fairy tale and their literary and cinematic
offspring. In film, such narratives may be as clearly related to their mythic
and folkloric forebears as Cocteau's Beauty And The Beast or Murnau's
Nosferatu; they may be modernised fairy tales like The Gold Rush and Star
Wars; or may underlie such rationalized and relatively distant relations as
6
Grand Illusion or She Done Him Wrong.

2
Lesley Brill, The Hitchcock Romance: Love And Irony In Hitchcock Films
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).
3
Francesca Aran Murphy, The Comedy Of Revelation. Paradise Lost And
Regained In Biblical Narrative (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
4
Northorop Frye, Anatomy Of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1957), 201.
5
Blake William, Songs Of Innocence And Experience: Shewing The Two Contrary
States Of The Human Soul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).
6
Brill, The Hitchcock Romance, 5.
 Songs of Innocence and Experience 3

The subject of romance, as defined by Frye, has been given little

attention in cinema-related critical literature. In my book I claim that
romance is a pivotal element of Capra’s movies and the one allowing for a
more thorough interpretation as well as appreciation of the uniqueness of
the director's style. Therefore, the arguments and discussion presented in
the subsequent chapters are intended to support the thesis that in the light
of Frye’s theory that Capra's films constitute romantic pieces of art.
For the sake of my book I have chosen to examine seven films which,
until the present day, remain Capra's most popular and the audience's most
beloved films. In my opinion, all of the selected motion pictures most
fully realise the Frye-related quasi-mythological formula (the subject of
which will be developed further in subsequent chapters), which to an
extent explains the continuous popularity of these particular films of the
director among his many others.
The films have been systematised according to the three comedy types:
paradisal, purgatorial and infernal, which Aran Murphy adapts from
Dante's Divine Comedy to buttress Frye’s concept of romance.7 Finally, I
have designated the films to two more general Blake-related categories of
“innocence” and “experience”, as such a division reflects the three levels
of Dantean comedic reality. The category of 'innocence' corresponds to
Murphy's paradisal level, while 'experience' includes the purgatorial and
infernal levels, since they can be readily dealt with together. I have
assumed that the above categorisation portrays the correlation between
paradise and childhood innocence and purity; purgatory with the process of
acquiring experience; and inferno encompasses psychological and
physical fatigue along with despair. This structure has enabled me to
present and analyse Capra’s filmic universe and the process of
development of his filmic vision. My main purpose, however, is to
indicate that the romantic elements can be found in all Capra’s films
chosen to be scrutinised in this book, irrespective of the category they
have been assigned to.
My book consists of five chapters. Chapter One is devoted to the
person of Frank Capra-his life and film making career. The first subsection
of the chapter is an attempt to place Capra and his career within the
frameworks of the social and political situation in America in the 1930s
and 1940s. In the second, I present an overview of critical literature
concerning Capra and his films. The critical approaches range across
virtually the entire range of film studies. In the final part of the chapter I
discuss the cinematic legacy of the director.

7
See Aran Murphy, The Comedy Of Revelation, 24.
4 Introduction

Chapter Two provides the theoretical background to the subject of

comedy and romance in literature and film. In the first subsection I present
the constituents of the literary Old and the New Comedy, which overlap
and largely correspond with Northrop Frye’s theory of romance, and
discuss Frye’s theory of romance in detail. The subsection is concluded
with a comparison of both genres. The subsequent part is devoted to
discussing Hollywood’s realisation of the two genres and what could be
termed their meta-relationship with the three types of film comedies critics
discuss in relation to Frank Capra, namely screwball comedy, romantic
comedy and populist comedy. The final part of the chapter is devoted to
the notion of audience and the theory of emotions, laughter and ethics.
Chapter Three is the first of three analytical parts of the dissertation. In
this chapter I formulate the thesis that Capra’s films are romances and
present the basis of my categorisation of the seven chosen movies. The
main body of the chapter is devoted to the category “innocence” and the
three films that represent it; namely Lady For A Day (1933), You Can't
Take It With You (1938) and It Happened One Night (1934). The primary
aim of this chapter is to indicate the presence of the romantic mode in all
three motion pictures as well as justify the thesis that, in the light of Frye’s
theory, the films are romantic ones.
Chapter Four is an analysis of three populist movies representing the
category of “experience”: Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (1936), Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington (1939) and Meet John Doe (1941). Following the
presented pattern, I search for the romantic elements within the films,
arguing that, despite the gloomy tone of this category, the above-
mentioned films still fit into the frameworks of Frye’s romance modified
by Aran Murphy.
I devote Chapter Five to perhaps Capra’s greatest masterpiece, It's A
Wonderful Life (1946). I claim that the film is multidimensional and that
all three Dantean levels of comedy–paradise, purgatory and inferno–can be
found in it, and consequently it combines both categories of “innocence”
and “experience”. As in the two previous chapters, my main aim is to
prove that the film is a romance and, moreover, represents the
quintessence of Capra’s romantic vision.
 CHAPTER ONE

FRANK CAPRA:
THE ARTIST AND HIS FILMS

The first chapter of my book will be devoted to Frank Capra, his life
and his works. My purpose is to place the artist into the framework of the
historical and social background within which he lived and created, and
also to present the most crucial elements of the director's biography.
Subsequently, I will devote the next part of the chapter to providing an
overview of critical literature which has discussed Capra and his films
throughout the years from the beginning of the director's cinematic career
up to the present day, as well as Capra’s position within the discipline of
film studies. I will demonstrate how the films used to be perceived by
critics, scholars and audiences in the past, and how the perception,
interpretation and understanding of the movies have changed together with
changing times and differing critical perspectives. Finally, I will attempt to
examine Capra’s legacy and the artist's influence upon the present-day
cinema.

Frank Capra's America in Literature and Film

America at the turn of the twentieth century, its inevitable social
changes brought about by World War I and later on by the years of the
Great Depression, followed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal,
has been widely described, discussed and documented by historians,
writers, film directors and documentarists. In literature it was a period
when many artists drew their attention to the theme of the artificiality of
class divisions and unfair social conditions, and hence in their works they
offered a spectrum of lifestyles of people representing both the upper and
lower classes. Stephen Crane described the life of a prostitute in his
Maggie: A Girl Of The Streets (1893). Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie
(1900) was a depiction of the life of a country girl who, in search of a
better life, went to Chicago and became a kept woman. On the other hand,
6 Chapter One

Edith Wharton devoted her 1920 novel The Age Of Innocence to

scrutinising and criticising the stiff conventionality of the upper class.
Thus, the literary works of that period frequently indicated the general
dissatisfaction of Americans with life, notwithstanding the social stratum
they belonged to. The post World War I period was a time marked by the
artists of the Lost Generation.1 Writers and poets like T. S. Eliot with his
The Waste Land (1922), F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby (1925),
Ernest Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises or Farewell To Arms (1929), or
John Dos Passos in his 1930s U. S. A. Trilogy among others, described the
post war society and the strong disillusionment of people after the war and
the prevailing feeling of failure and loss of youthful dreams and ideals.
The Great Depression years brought about another set of subjects and
social problems to be discussed in both literature and cinema. Following
the Wall Street Stock Market Crash on 29 October, 1929, millions of
people became unemployed, homeless and bereft of hope. The longest
economic crisis in the history of America instigated the mass migration of
people in search of jobs and the possibilities to establish a better life for
themselves and their families. This phenomenon was described with an
almost reportage-like style by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath
(1939). The author presents the story of a family of farmers, the Joads,
who, together with other families from Oklahoma and Texas, were driven
off their land in search of the Promised Land in California. The novel is a
painfully realistic account of the situation of many families in America
during the Great Depression. While preparing the book, Steinbeck
announced: “I want to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are
responsible for that [the Great Depression and its effects].”2 However,
despite the grimness of the subject, and contrary to Dos Passos’ grave
satire on America presented in his trilogy, Steinbeck's novel is not devoid
of positive and optimistic tinges. The Joads are part of the vast group of
the hungry and discontented yet, in spite of their tragic situation, they
manage to maintain the inherent goodness of common ordinary people.
In 1940, Grapes of Wrath was turned into an Oscar winning film by
John Ford. Today, the film is considered to be one of the most significant
movies documenting the Great Depression era. Nevertheless, the cinema
of the 1930s did not solely deal with the gloom of the social situation. The

1
The term Lost Generation was coined by Gertrude Stein and popularised by
Ernest Hemingway in his novel The Sun Also Rises (1926). The term refers to the
generation of people who served in World War I.
2
John Steinbeck quoted in Morris Dickstein’s “Steinbeck And The Great
Depression” in Harold Bloom (ed.) Blooms Modern Critical Views: John Steinbeck
(New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008), 152.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 7

American film industry experienced what many have claimed to be its

golden era and many new genres were experimented with. Gangster and
horror movies, thought to have reflected the sombre mood and pessimism
caused by the Depression, were popularised by stars like Bette Davis,
James Cagney and Boris Karloff. However, the audience also grew fond of
an utterly new and much lighter movie genre, the musical comedy. The
genre propagated a diverse message and in most cases aimed at uplifting
people's morale and conveying an optimism and faith in the prospective
improvement of the situation in the country and the regaining of prosperity
and social balance. In 1934, having watched the greatest child star of that
time, Shirley Temple, in one of her musical roles, President Roosevelt
remarked:

When the spirit of the people is lower than at any other time during the
Depression, it is a splendid thing, that, for just 15 cents, an American can
go to a movie and look at the smiling face of a baby and forget his
troubles.3

The gloom of the Great Depression was also reflected in the shift of
subject matter as well as the alteration of character development in the
classical genres of film comedy and drama. This tendency becomes
conspicuous especially in comparison to the 1920s depictions of the
frivolousness and carefree happiness of the upper class in comedies. In the
Depression-era movies their fortune is often reversed, and in numerous
films like Gregory La Cava's My Man Godfrey (1936) or Frank Capra’s It
Happened One Night (1934), among many others, the members of the high
society are forced to taste the experience of everyday toil and drudgery
common to the less privileged social strata.
The historical events of the beginning of twentieth century - World War
I, the optimistic and prosperous decade of the Jazz Age, the echo of
sorrows of people struggling against the hardships of the Great Depression
- all had an immense impact on Frank Capra and it is perhaps for that
reason the famous words of Ma Joad uttered in John Ford’s The Grapes Of
Wrath: “We're the people that live! We'll go on forever, because we're the
people”, seem to be the central message of the most memorable of the
director’s motion pictures.

3
Franklin D. Roosevelt quoted in Ilana Nash, American Sweethearts: Teenage
Girls In Twentieth-Century Popular Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2005), 119.
8 Chapter One

The “Most American” of American Directors

As I have already implied, the America of Frank Capra was many
different things historically, politically and socially. Born in 1897 to a
Catholic family in Sicily, Francesco Rosario Capra arrived in America in
1903.4 The Capras settled in Los Angeles and the country soon became a
real home for the six-year-old boy who, in time, was to become the
quintessence of an American citizen and the embodiment of American
ideals. Capra's life, as Janine Basinger suggests, can serve as “an example
of how America allows individuals from humble beginnings to invent
themselves, to be who they want to be, and to live by that mythology.”5
Young Frank began his working life in America as a newspaper boy
and in the course of the initial years on the new continent he tried to make
a living, among other things, as a door-to-door salesman, a waiter and a
wandering musician. From the very beginning, Capra sincerely believed in
the opportunities offered by America, and he quickly understood that the
only way to get out of poverty and to break out of the social status of an
Italian immigrant was to gain an education. Much against his family’s will,
who considered books and schooling a waste of time and money, Frank
achieved his aim, reaching as high as Throop College of Technology (later
the California Institute of Technology). He graduated with a bachelor’s
degree in chemical engineering in 1918, just in time to join the army in its
First World War operations where he spent his time teaching mathematics
to artillery officers in San Francisco. After the war, unable to find a job in
his profession, he was forced to seek odd jobs travelling throughout the
western states for the next three years. It was not until 1921 that he got his
first job in the film industry when, in search of easy money, Capra tricked
producer Walter Montague into believing that he had some experience in
Hollywood filmmaking and was instantly asked to help direct the short
film Fultah Fisher’s Boarding House (1922) based on Rudyard Kipling’s
poem. The film is Capra's first movie and even today surprises the critics
as more than a mediocre debut, especially for a young and inexperienced
director as Capra was at that time.
Capra’s real Hollywood career, however, commenced two years later

4
Frank Capra's short biography contained in this chapter is based primarily on:
Frank Capra, The Name Above The Title: An Autobiography (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1971), Charles Maland, Frank Capra (New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1995), Joseph McBride, Frank Capra. The Catastrophe Of Success
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993).
5
Jeanine Basinger, “Introduction” in Frank Capra, The Name Above The Title: An
Autobiography (New York: Da Capo Press, 1997), XIII.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 9

with a series of jobs, among others, as a developer and printer in a lab,

editor, prop man, and a gagman of the Hal Roach and Mark Sennet
studios. Those first steps in the realm of cinema eventually resulted in the
collaboration with a silent movie comedian, Harry Langdon, and the
directing of two Langdon features, The Strong Man (1926) and Long Pants
(1927). Both films were a huge success: they made Langdon one of the
biggest stars of that time and they also attracted a great deal of attention to
the young director. However, it is believed Langdon grew jealous of
Capra’s fast-growing popularity and got rid of him soon after the release of
their second feature. In the long run such a state of affairs turned out to be
for the better as that same year Capra was hired by Harry Cohn, the
President and Production Chief of Columbia Pictures. Here, Frank soon
became the leading director and ultimately helped to transform the small
film company into a major Hollywood studio.
During the eleven years at Columbia he directed such award winning
masterpieces of American cinema as It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds
Goes to Town (1936), You Can’t Take It With You (1938) and Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington (1939). It is in the period of his long-lasting
collaboration with New York playwright Robert Riskin and cameraman
Joseph Walker, among others, at Columbia that Capra developed and
established his unique comic style6 which, according to Robert Sklar,
“possessed the knack of providing mass entertainment in which
intellectuals could find both pleasure and significance.”7 After the
commercial success of some of his films at Columbia, Capra fought and
won the battle to gain control over every aspect of his movies' production.
“I wanted to make my own films,” Capra recalls “‘one man, one film’ was

6
Capra’s style has been named Capraesque by the critics and in critical literature
the term operates in reference to the director’s originality and uniqueness. There
has been a discussion among some of the critics concerning Capra's actual input in
what is considered to be Capraesque stylistics. Joseph McBride in his book
presents a very radical opinion which denies Capra's right to be called an auteur by
indicating the tremendous role of Capra's colleagues and giving credit especially to
Robert Riskin. Most of other critics are not that radical and, while they do
acknowledge Riskin's role in establishing Capra's characteristic style, they still
consider Capra to be the driving force of Capraesque. See: Sam B. Girgus,
Hollywood Renaissance: The Cinema Of Democracy In The Era Of Ford, Capra,
And Kazan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 63; McBride, Frank
Capra, 252; Pat McGilligan, “Introduction” in Six Screenplays By Robert Riskin,
(ed.) Pat McGiligan (Berkley, University Of California Press, 1997), XXIII.
7
Robert Sklar, Movie Made America: A Cultural History Of American Movies
(New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 198.
10 Chapter One

for me a fetish.”8 The fulfilment of this ambition was reflected in the

placing of the director's name above the title of his features and, what is
more significant, it found realization in the movies themselves, regardless
of whether they belonged to the genre of romantic, screwball, or his
populist comedies.
Frank Capra, as Charles Maland points out, was an auteur long before
the auteur theory was proclaimed by Truffaut in his essay “La Politique
des Auteurs” published in Cahiers du Cinema in January 1954.9 In fact,
auteurism was based on an assumption which Capra had already been
exercising in his movies for more than two decades. The theory claimed
that one person should be the driving force of filmmaking and, hence, the
films of a particular director should be examined and interpreted according
to the recurring stylistic and thematic patterns.10 And Capra’s works
certainly fulfil this criterion.
In the early thirties, Hollywood was eagerly experimenting with sound
and discovering new possibilities that the innovation offered to
cinematography. Capra was soon using it for the sake of introducing verbal
humour and fast witty dialogues into his films, which, together with silent
era visual gags, are considered to be one of his trademarks and a technique
which he skilfully practiced even in his later films. This combination
enabled Capra to define and develop the genre of screwball comedy,
which, as it is frequently suggested, started with It Happened One Night.11
The use of chiaroscuro, operating with light, incorporating music and
singing, as well as reaction shots, dream sequences and flashbacks became
Capra’s ways of transmitting social ideas, the signs of the tightening of
human bonds, and the means to express feelings and illustrate the
characters' emotional states.
After the enormous success of It Happened One Night which–as the
first film–swept the Oscars in five main categories in 1935, Capra went
through a period of self doubt and emotional breakdown. He spent a few
months in a hospital and the whole experience led him to choose to

8
Frank Capra in Richard Schickel, The Men Who Made The Movies: Interviews
With Frank Capra, George Cukor, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Vincente
Minnelli, King Vidor, Raul Walsh, And William A. Wellman (New York: Atheneum,
1975), 67.
9
Maland, Frank Capra, 19.
10
See Maland, Frank Capra, 176.
11
See Leland A. Poague, The Cinema Of Frank Capra: An Approach To Film
Comedy (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1975), 153. The issue of It
Happened One Night and the genre debate around the film will be discussed in the
third chapter.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 11

differentiate the thematic issues of his movies, which eventually resulted

in his decision to direct populist comedies within which, apart from
entertaining his audience, the director could also “say something.”12
Although the motif of a hero struggling for his ideals in an unfamiliar
and unfriendly territory can be traced back to Capra’s Langdon features, it
is in his populist movies that the Caprasque hero gained his most
recognizable traits. Capra’s Deeds and Smiths are usually small town
dwellers and apparently plain common men. However, in the course of the
action, they turn out to be uncommon and prove to be “the hope of the
world.”13 They are romantic idealists willing to stand up and fight for what
they believe in and defend their values against the cynical corrupt
environment. As Richard Schickel states, Capra’s heroes “became
archetypes which reflected back to us our best qualities – common sense,
down-to-earthness, idealism, patriotism, fidelity to family values.”14 They
are imaginative heroes of unusual will and moral strength who, like Capra
himself, are thrust upon “the roller coaster experience”15 of personal
struggles experienced during trying historical events.
The Capra family emigrated to America at the very beginning of the
twentieth century and consequently found themselves in the vortex of
social change and the country's rapid transformation. As a young adult,
Frank lived through the times of World War I, the joy and cultural
liberation of the Roaring Twenties and the Jazz Age, the miseries of the
Great Depression, and subsequently the atrocities of World War II.
Throughout the years life accorded him both joyful and tragic experiences.
He received an education, managed to find a job in filmmaking and
became successful beyond all expectations at a professional level; he was
married twice and it was during the second, long-standing marriage that
his children were born. However, he also suffered a great deal. The death
of his parents and a son, divorce, emotional breakdown and the period of
self-doubt after the success of It Happened One Night have influenced and
shaped Capra’s mature perception of life. Consequently, all these personal
rises and falls are reflected in his heroes, and it is probably due to the
diversity of their character traits, as well as their profound genuineness,
that they seem so humane and credible to the viewer and allow the

12
Capra, The Name Above The Title, 185.
13
Capra in American Film Institute interviews with Frank Capra, “Frank Capra:
One Man–One Film” in Frank Capra. The Man And His Films, (ed.) Richard
Glatzer and John Raeburn (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1975),
19.
14
Schickel, The Men Who Made The Movies, 57.
15
Maland, Frank Capra, 23.
12 Chapter One

audience to identify with them so deeply.

Even though more than seventy years have passed since some of
Capra's early movies, the director is still considered to be one of the most
fervent advocates of the idea of the American Dream. His firm belief in
upward social mobility is illustrated in his films on numerous occasions,
especially in his populist movies. The theme was named by the critics “the
Cinderella motif” and many a time was criticised as naïve and excessively
corny. In the end, the term “Capracorn”16 was coined to describe the Capra
style in general. However, who, if not an Italian immigrant whose life is
the most tangible proof that the American Dream can at times be fulfilled
in reality, had the right to propagate the ideals, to glorify America, and to
express his gratitude to the country that had provided him with the
opportunity to complete his aims and aspirations successfully? Moreover,
despite the fact that Capra’s filmic universe was frequently described as
romantic, pastoral, Disney-like,17 or he was accused of dealing in pure
fantasy, his social vision was largely based on his own experience and in
most cases, his films, against all appearances, developed subjects well
known to Capra himself and common to the immigrant middle class
minorities in general. William S. Pechter notices that

[Capra's] comic genius is fundamentally a realistic one. […] He seems

obsessed with certain American social myths, but he observes that society
itself as a realist.18

Capra is an interpreter of an American experience.19 It is within the

framework of the comedy genre in his Columbia era that he ingeniously
succeeded in portraying America and commenting on the political and
social situation during the Great Depression, the New Deal and at the
threshold of the war. Even though, frequently, the central focus of his films
is elsewhere, movies like American Madness, It Happened One Night, or
the populist trilogy: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington, and Meet John Doe (1941) all include significant images and
shots which do not allow the viewer to forget about the social and political
situation within which the plot of the story unfolds. On their way to

16
The term, its source and connotations are discussed, among others, in Stephen
Handzo “Under Capracorn” in Frank Capra. The Man And His Films, (ed.) Glatzer
and Raeburn, 164-176.
17
See Poague, The Cinema Of Frank Capra, 50, Sklar, Movie-Made America, 209.
18
William S. Pechter American Madness in Frank Capra. The Man And His Films,
(ed.) Glatzer and Raeburn, 183-184.
19
See Maland, Frank Capra, 186.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 13

achieving their goals, the characters of the 1930s films are put on the road
and become a part of the experience of social mobility. The upper class
heroine in It Happened One Night travels by public night bus in the
company of working class members and, together with them, is forced to
suffer hunger, to sleep in a motel and share with them all sorts of
inconveniences so far unknown to her. American Madness depicts the
iconic shots of bank runs after the Wall Street Crash; and in the Deeds-
Smith-Doe trilogy are depicted people living in Hooversvilles, standing in
bread lines, or roaming across the country in search of land, jobs and
dignity.
Together with Hollywood directors like John Ford, Frank Capra
became to the cinema what contemporary writers like Steinbeck,
Hemingway or William Faulkner were to literature – the documentarist of
his times and the voice of the populace. The critic Sam Girgus claims that
“Capra is today remembered, […] like Ford, for the influence of his
creative genius and social vision of his own and later generations of
filmmakers and viewers.”20 Apart from presenting contemporary American
issues, the films also provide an alternative perspective and depict Capra's
vision of the country in which the ideals of the American Dream find their
fulfilment. As Ford states, “Frank Capra is an inspiration to those who
believe in the American Dream.”21 At the end of the movies, Capra’s
heroes are victorious, and the climactic moments constitute the affirmation
of life and the praise of democracy and humanistic values like family,
morality, human dignity, friendship and simple kindness, which are
considered intrinsic to American culture. “There were real human issues at
stake in his movies,”22 the director John Milius notices. Moreover, Girgus
proclaims Capra to be the “avatar of the democratic impulse in cinema.”23
Both of these features, together with Capra's ability to refer to the most
profound human experiences, explain why audiences find his films so
tremendously appealing.
Capra’s attitude towards the audience reflects the assumption of
Classical Hollywood that a movie should absorb the attention of the
audience as much as possible.24 Capra shared the belief that the audience
is always right. “People’s instincts are good, never bad. They are right as

20
Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 57.
21
John Ford, Foreword to Frank Capra's The Name Above The Title (1971).
22
John Milius in Frank Capra's American Dream, dir. Kenneth Bowser, Columbia
Tristar Television, 1997.
23
Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 58.
24
See Maland, Frank Capra, 177.
14 Chapter One

the soil, right as rain”,25 he remarked on one occasion. Therefore, over the
years he managed to create a bond between himself and his audience and
he placed a great deal of trust in his viewers. He chose his audience to be
the first and the decisive judge of his works. In order to check whether a
film had a chance of being received positively, he was among the first to
organise closed previews for a certain group of viewers to test their
reactions. The results of these sessions were recorded and it allowed the
director to make the necessary alterations to the film before its official
release.26 After a short time the practice of closed previews became a
standard in Hollywood. It is interesting to note, that in the case of Capra, it
was also the way of exercising his democratic ideology. It was to the
people's will that he entrusted the decision about the ultimate shape of
some of his films. In his autobiography, Capra reminisces that, for a
filmmaker, there are few things better than seeing his audience enjoying
the film:

For two hours you've got 'em. Hitler can't keep 'em that long. You
eventually reach even more people than Roosevelt does on the radio.
Imagine what Shakespeare would have given for an audience like that!27

The above quotation reflects the respect and concern of the director for
his audience, and also constitutes an accurate commentary on the power of
cinema. Capra's belief in his audience’s opinion seems to have been
appropriate, as the warm reception of most of his films, as well as the
commercial success of his Columbia productions, prove that the sentiment
was, and largely still remains, mutual in the case of several films.
Capra treated his actors with equal affection and respect as his
audience. “I treated them all as stars,”28 Capra says, as was confirmed by
the actors themselves on more than one occasion. And such an attitude was
true in the case of all the actors he worked with, notwithstanding the fact
whether they appeared in the film for ten minutes or ten seconds. In one of

25
Capra quoted in Geoffrey T. Hellman “Thinker In Hollywood” in Frank Capra.
The Man And His Films, (ed.) Glatzer and Raeburn, 5.
26
Charles Wolfe devotes his article to the phenomenon of Capra's relationship with
his audience and solving the matter of the problematic ending to Meet John Doe,
which will be discussed further on in the book. See Charles Wolfe “Meet John
Doe: Authors, Audiences, And Endings” in Meet John Doe: Frank Capra,
Director, (ed.) Charles Wolfe (New Brunshwick & London: Rutgers University
Press, 1989), 3-29.
27
Capra quoted in Hellman “Thinker In Hollywood”, 13.
28
Capra interviewed by Richard Glatzer in Frank Capra Interviews, (ed.) Leland
Poague (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2004), 120.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 15

his interviews, Capra stated:

If the so-called ‘bit people’ are believable and can involve the audience in a
sense of reality, the audience forgets they're looking at a film. They think
they're looking at something in real life. The bit people have a great chore
because they're helping to make that background real. If the audience
believes in the small people, they'll believe in the stars.29

Similarly, as in the case of his audience, he had confidence and faith in

his actors. Stars like Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, Gary Cooper, James
Stewart, Jean Arthur and others had the opportunity to co-create the role
they played and thus add something unique to the characters they
impersonated. “I gave each of the actors a personality, a sense of being, a
sense of existence – no matter how small their part, even if it was a walk-
on. […] I didn't want them to ape me,”30 Capra claimed. Hence, the
predominant style in Capra’s movies is what Raymond Carney claimed to
be a transcendental acting style, which he explained as allowing the actors
to “speak the language of desire.” According to Carney:

It has a more emotional interiority than the other kind of acting. It attempts
to put the viewer in touch with private states of feeling that almost defy
verbal or social expression. It is in these respects more mysterious and
more imaginatively stimulating than the other sort of acting.31

As a result, both the audience watching the films and the actors playing
the parts found, and still do find, the characters believable and convincing.
Capra directed his last picture for Columbia in 1939 and subsequently
left for Warner Brothers where he made two more movies, Meet John Doe
(1941) and Arsenic And Old Lace (1944). During World War II Capra was
assigned to the army’s Morale Branch (later called Special Services),
where, in 1942, he was commissioned by General George C. Marshall to
direct the seven-part series of war documentaries aimed at raising the
morale of American soldiers and eventually called Why We Fight. In a
way the series became an answer to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph Of the
Will (1935), an orchestrated praise of Hitler's policy and Nazism. “She
[Leni Riefenstahl] scared the hell out of me. The first time I saw that
picture I said, ‘We're dead, we’re gone, we can’t win this war,’” Capra

29
Capra in Poague, Frank Capra Interviews, 120.
30
Capra in Poague, Frank Capra Iterviews, 120.
31
Ray Carney, American Vision. The Films Of Frank Capra (Hanover, N.H.:
University Press of New England, 1986), 235.
16 Chapter One

commented.32 The film showed clearly how powerful a weapon the use of
national symbols is, and it provided Capra with the idea of using some of
the enemy propaganda footage for the sake of highlighting the enormity of
the danger and explaining the necessity of American military forces to
fight, as well as the reasons for it.
Although the Why We Fight series was Capra’s first documentary
project, it is constantly being appraised as valuable and skilfully directed
propaganda material. Some of the critics claim that, even within the series,
the Capraesque-style and sensitivity can still be found. The films highlight
the positive aspects of the common American lifestyle, virtues of common
people, pride in American culture, as well as freedom and liberty in
general.33 As such, they convey Capra’s belief in democratic values,
affirmation of life in a free country, and present a social vision similar to
the one we can find in most of the director’s populist movies.
The war years also left their mark on Hollywood. The old studio
system was no longer as strong as in its pre-war period and those who
decided to return to their former occupations after the war were frequently
searching for alternative ways of finding employment. After four years of
military service, Capra resolved not to return to any of the film studios he
had been formerly involved with. Instead, he and three other leading
Hollywood directors, Sam Briskin, William Wyler, and George Stevens,
chose to try their luck with their own independent production company.
Thus, in 1945, Liberty Films was formed. It was for Liberty Films that
Capra made his most famous masterpiece, It’s A Wonderful Life (1946),
which will be discussed in detail in a further section of this book, and State
Of The Union (1948). As the critics judged, these were the director's two
last meaningful productions. Capra continued filmmaking for the next
thirteen years during which time he directed four features and a series of
scientific programmes for television. None of these, however, turned out to
be as successful as their predecessors, and Capra’s 1961 Pocketful of
Miracles, a remake of his own Lady For A Day, became the director’s
swansong. Twenty years later in 1982 the American Film Institute
honoured Capra with a Life Achievement Award.
Nevertheless, neither Pocketful Of Miracles nor his television
productions became the last time the world heard about Frank Capra. In
1971 the director published his autobiography The Name Above The Title,
a heart-warming account of his life, but also an exciting history of the
golden years of Hollywood and its ways. The book was immediately

32
Capra in Schickel, The Men Who Made The Movies, 82.
33
See Maland, Frank Capra, 128.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 17

highly acclaimed by both the critics and the readers and it commenced a
new era for Capra. The early seventies became the time of Capra film
revivals. A generation of young people discovered in them the values and
charm that had been largely absent from cinema for decades. Frank Capra
became a celebrity again and enjoyed tremendously touring the country
and lecturing young students in universities across America.
Capra died in his sleep at his California home in 1991. Today, he still is
considered to be the epitome of American culture and the most eager
warrior fighting for the American Dream's values and ideals. John Raeburn
claimed that Capra was “the most insistently American of all directors.
[…] He was most obsessively concerned with scrutinizing American
myths and American states of consciousness.”34 It is clear that Capra
worshiped his adopted country, to which he gave proof on numerous
occasions in his films, his autobiography, interviews and lectures. In his
speech during the American Film Institute Life Achievement Award
celebration, Capra conveyed his gratitude once more declaring: “For
America, just for living here, I kiss the ground.” Capra was aware of his
obligation to pay back the debt he owned to America for the opportunities
it had offered to him and his family. At the same 1982 AFI event in
reference to Frank Capra, George Stevens Jr. recalled the fragment of
William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize address concerning the duty of an artist:

It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him
of the courage and honor, and hope and pride and compassion and pity and
sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not
merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help
him endure and prevail.35

These words seem to accurately describe the art of Frank Capra.

Currently, just like in the past, in the hearts of his audience Capra remains
“the lighthouse in a foggy world,”36 bringing a spark of hope and
optimism to what frequently seems like a dull and grim quotidian reality.

34
John Raeburn, “Introduction” in Frank Capra. The Man And His Films, VIII.
35
William Faulkner's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech. Online on January 16, 2013
at: http://fiction.eserver.org/criticism/faulkner-nobel.html.
36
Capra used these words twice in his movies: first in Meet John Doe and later on
in the first of his Why We Fight series Prelude To War in relation to all the political
leaders in the service of democratic ideas and liberty. See Maland, Frank Capra,
117.
18 Chapter One

In the Eyes of the Critics and through the Prism

of Cultural Studies
The understanding of Capra’'s works has, to a large extent, been
shaped by the critics and scholars who have been examining the films for
their meaning and artistic value over the years, which have reflected the
different concerns of film studies as they have evolved. Hence, in this part
of the chapter, I will provide an overview of the critical ideas concerning
the director and his movies, as well as Capra’s place within the framework
of cultural studies.
Looking at the vast number of critical works and articles concerning
Frank Capra and his films that have been published since the beginning of
his career, a clear dividing line between two trends of interpretation is
conspicuous. Namely, between the criticisms from the 1930s on up to the
seminal publication of Raymond Carney’s American Vision: The Films of
Frank Capra in 1986, the first fully auteurist approach, and those which
appeared after it. In the preface to the 1996 edition of American Vision,
Carney notices that most of Capra’s critics up till then had read, translated
and interpreted Capra's visions into a “series of sociological
generalisations”37 which, in the case of Capra, would be “using the films
to discuss social conditions during the Depression, power relations
between men and women, or other aspects or pre- or post-war American
society.”38 Within these frames of reference, the critics were arguing how
to appraise and treat Capra’s movies. On the negative side, the director
was accused of being a populist (in the negative sense of the term), too
naïve and too popular to be treated seriously. As early as the 1940s
Richard Griffith called Capra’s films “fantasies of good will,” as they
proclaimed the naïve belief that “the kindness of heart is in itself enough
to banish injustice and cruelty from the world.”39 Capra scholar Leland
Poague claims that in his articles Griffith goes as far as to imply that
“Capra is naïve at best, politically pernicious at worst, and intellectually
bankrupt in any case.”40
The second group of critics admits the alleged naivety of Capra’s
movies, but does not perceive it as a negative trait. Lewis Jacobs believes
that their “naivety” is the reason for their popularity and the source of
entertainment and appeal to the audience. Poague claims, contrary to

37
Carney, American Vision, XIV.
38
Carney, American Vision, XIV.
39
Richard Griffith “It's A Wonderful Life And Post-War Realism” in Frank Capra.
The Man And His Films, Glatzer and Raeburn (ed.), 162.
40
Poague, The Cinema Of Frank Capra, 17.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 19

Griffith, that Capra is not about politics at all, and he looks for literary
qualities and artistic values in the director's works. He also praises Capra's
optimism and enthusiasm and believes them to be qualities capable of
melting the hearts of the most cynical realists.41 Surprisingly, as a
confirmed pessimist, Graham Greene was won over by Capra’s optimism
and complements this group too. In his 1936 review of Mr. Deeds Goes To
Town, discussing the theme of happy endings, the critic makes the
comparison of Mr. Deeds and Fritz Lang's Fury (1936). “Lang’s happy
ending was imposed on him, we did not believe in it; Capra’s is natural
and unforced,” he states.42 Two years later Greene continues the subject in
reference to You Can't Take It With You:

We may groan and blush as he [Capra] cuts his way remorselessly through
all finer values to the fallible human heart, but infallibly he makes his
appeal – by that great soft organ with its unreliable goodness and easy
melancholy and baseless optimism. The cinema, a popular craft, can hardly
be expected to do more.43

In his seminal The Comic Mind, Gerald Mast seems to share Greene’s
view and, although he notices “a striking naiveté in [Capra's character's]
handling of complex political, social, and moral issues,”44 he proclaims
Capra “the supreme master of the comedy of sentiment, moralising, and
idealisation.”45 Furthermore, he states that “the Capra comedies are among
the most valuable sociological documents in the history of the American
cinema.”46
In the 1970s Capra was rediscovered by television and the medium
made it possible for Capra’'s movies, together with the works of other
directors of the golden era of Hollywood, to reach an audience larger than
ever before. This coincided with the publication of his autobiography,
which drew Capra’s works to the attention of a brand new generation of
viewers and, as I have already mentioned, allowed the director to stand in
the limelight once more. Thirty years after World War II, Capra and his
films were reevaluated by the critics and they gained an utterly fresh
perspective from which they were approached and interpreted. The new

41
See Poague, The Cinema Of Frank Capra, 19.
42
Graham Greene ‘A Director Of Genius: Four Reviews’ in (ed.) Glatzer and
Raeburn, Frank Capra. The Man And His Films, 111.
43
Greene “A Director Of Genius”, 115.
44
Gerald Mast, The Comic Mind: Comedy And The Movies (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1979), 259.
45
Mast, The Comic Mind, 259.
46
Mast, The Comic Mind, 259.
20 Chapter One

group of critics–including, among others, William Pechter, Andrew

Bergman, and Stephen Handzo–looked for another level in Capra’s works
and they claimed (in accordance with Capra’s original intentions) that the
essence of his films was in their message. Bergman saw an artistic
visionary in Capra and he perceived his films as an attempt to introduce
the fairy tale-like American myth based on the unity of love, decency and
neighbourly kindness, into reality.47 The critics of the 1970s began to
defend Capra and suggest that the films were something more than “a
figment of simple Pollyanna platitudes.”48 They noticed a penetrating
picture of the times and an observant critique of society and social
problems, as well as the complexity of the multilevel structure of Capra’s
movies. Examining the dark nature of Capra’s films became fashionable
and it was more and more frequently suggested that Capra’s world
reflected the picture of contemporary times as seen through the eyes of an
experienced man trying to cope with important everyday issues in a
desperate struggle to salvage some innocence and decency within the
realm of social, political and financial corruption. Looking at Capra’s
works from such a perspective suggested that Capraesque sweetness and
corniness were a superficial element of the director's art, and refuted the
allegation of triviality of his subjects.
It was Handzo who explicitly verbalised the thesis that Capra’s concern
is not with politics but rather with individuals. In fact, it is conspicuous
even in his populist movies. According to both Handzo and Poague “Capra
is primarily a poet of the personal and the moral, not the social and the
political,”49 and such an understanding of Capra’s works is probably the
closest to Carney's auteuristic approach. For Carney, “Capra’s films
document a variety of mid-twentieth-century ideological positions.”50
They are presented through creating and developing an individual, and
ultimately allowing him to find his way of self-expression. Thus, the main
focus of Capra’s films is the individual. Carney stresses Capra’s
Emersonian faith “in the power of the human imagination [and spirit] to
transform existing social forms and structures.”51 Such an approach leads
us to look further for the deconstructionist tendencies in Capra’s works.
Whereas a great number of critics assume that most obviously Capra’s

47
See Andrew Bergman “Frank Capra And Screwball Comedy” in (ed.) Glatzer
and Raeburn, Frank Capra. The Man And His Films, 68-81; Poague, The Cinema
of Frank Capra, 22.
48
Bosley Crowther quoted in Maland, Frank Capra, 131.
49
Poague, The Cinema Of Frank Capra, 23.
50
Carney, American Vision, XIV.
51
Canrey, American Vision, 26.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 21

main concern is community and its values in the traditional meaning of the
term, Carney states it is individualism. Along this line of thinking, Capra
can be perceived as a natural deconstructionist in Jacques Derrida's
understanding of the notion, and many of Capra’s films can be read as
deconstructing community values by means of stressing individualism and
the individual's ability to “reform social structures.”52
Carney claims that a vast number of critics up to that point, by means
of stating generalisations about Capra’s movies, had badly influenced the
prevailing interpretation of his films. Furthermore, he blames American
critics and the discipline of cultural studies in general for the “loss” of the
individual. “There are no individuals in cultural studies,” he says. “The
system swallows up its members. There is no space left in which
individuals can move freely.”53 Hence, Capra’s films are more often than
not judged and interpreted only partially and from a narrow perspective.
Carney points out:

The critics translate the characters, actions, words, and images into a series
of abstract meanings, moving from sensory experiences to symbolic
significances, from perceptions to conceptions, from the physical to
metaphysical, from the visible to invisible, from the realm of the known to
that of a secret.54

Whereas the uniqueness of Capra, according to the critic, lies in his

ability to create and present the grandeur of individual personality,
identity, and consciousness and its power to escape controlling
institutional and cultural structures and to find a way of self-expression.55
American Vision is a study of Capra’s individualism and auteurism. Carney
proposes to view the movies from the perspective of art and discusses their
artistic values, thus making a strong case for Capra as an important and
serious artist.
By the 1980s and 1990s few critics questioned Capra’s position in the
pantheon of great Hollywood directors.56 And John Raeburn’s statement

52
Carney, American Vision, 27.
53
Carney, American Vision, XV.
54
Carney, American Vision, XII.
55
See Carney, American Vision, XVI.
56
The exception was Capra's biography Frank Capra. The Catastrophe of Success
by Joseph McBride published two years after Frank Capra's death. McBride tries to
reveal Capra as an utter egoist and a self-promoter and to deny the director the title
of the auteur. The book is, however, primarily a biographical account of Capra’s
life and not the critical appraisal of the filmmaker's works. See McBride, Frank
Capra.
22 Chapter One

claiming Capra’s place among the most “American” of all American

directors, mostly ceased to be doubted or controversial. Most of the critics
were in accordance that Capra’s films were communicating something
vital. The articles and criticisms offered studies of various subjects and
issues and proposed a number of ways of approaching Capra’s works.
Charles Wolfe discussed Capra’s fascination with the media and its
function in shaping the reality presented in his films. Richard Maltby
claimed that Capra’s most famous comedy, It Happened One Night, was a
response to the grim situation of the Great Depression, thus adding another
dimension to the film that used to be treated as not much more than an
entertaining light comedy at the time of its release. Charles Maland
focused on the theme of despair and the circumstances that drove the
protagonists into it.57 Sam Girgus and Wes Gehring discussed the subjects
of democracy and the populist (in a positive sense) nature of Capra’s
films.58 Gehring announced Capra to be “the archetypal author of the
populist film comedy.”59
Leland Poague’s Another Frank Capra, the most philosophical
criticism concerning Capra according to Carney, offered a “proto-feminist”
reading of the director’s movies.60 In his book, Poague attempts to prove
that Capra is a modernist, which, in the eyes of the critic, is conspicuous,
among others, in the director's identification with his female characters.
Another Frank Capra exposes a previously uncharted perspective on
Capra's films and proposes quite a new reading of the works through the
light of feminist psychology and trends.
Eric Smoodin devoted his book to the study of the relationship
between Capra and his audience, providing an interesting documentation
of the development of film culture and audience studies. “It is undoubtedly
true,” Smoodin quotes after Margaret Ferrand Thorp, “that no art has ever
been so shaped and influenced by its audience as the art of cinema.”61
Hence, Smoodin aims at examining this relationship between the director
and his viewers in order to identify and define it in terms of the mutual

57
See “Introduction” to Frank Capra: Authorship And The Studio System, Robert
Sklar and Vito Zagarrio (ed.), (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998), 5-7.
58
See Wes D. Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy (Westport: Greenwood
Press, 1995); Sam B. Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance.
59
Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy, 2.
60
See Leland Poague, Another Frank Capra (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994).
61
Margaret Ferrand Thorp quoted in Eric Smoodin, Regarding Frank Capra:
Audience, Celebrity, And American Film Studies (Durham: Duke University Press,
2005), 4.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 23

correlation and its influence upon both, the ultimate cinematic product and
the group of the audience that would watch it.62
In his “It Is (Not) A Wonderful Life: For A Counter-reading Of Frank
Capra”, Vito Zagarrio argued against Capra's corniness and delivered
proofs indicating that, despite appearances, Capra's filmic universe was
filled with unhappy endings, personal and social conflicts and
catastrophes, and recurring suicidal motifs. Therefore, according to
Zagarrio and others after him, Capra’s movies portrayed both an American
Dream and an American Nightmare to an equal extent.63
A similar view is supported by Charles Maland in his article ‘Capra
And The Abyss,’ in which he argues against Griffith's “fantasy of
goodwill” statement. Maland points out that a large number of critics tend
to observe only the happy endings of the films and in the process fail to
acknowledge the nature of the dramatic conflicts leading to the happy
climax.64 In his article, on the basis of the three discussed movies,
American Madness, Mr Deeds, and Mr. Smith, Maland argues that the
main heroes in all three of them are forced to struggle with despair at
crucial moments. However, the reasons lie deeper than on a personal or
romantic level. Maland formulates and argues a thesis that the conflicts
and anxieties leading Capra heroes to the abyss

are rooted in a fundamental tension in American middle-class ideology,

grounded in the American past, […] and particularly wrenching during the
Depression era. […] The tension, a key in helping to understand the
abysses in and the appeal of Capra's films during the Depression era,
concerns the conflict between private [self] interest and the public
[common] good.65

Hence, the clue is in one of Capra’s most frequent motives, namely the
relationship between the notions of capitalism and democracy and their
power to influence the characters and the society. “In the moments of
abyss [...],” Maland concludes, “we witness some of the most disturbing of
our collective American nightmares.”66

62
See Smoodin, Regarding Frank Capra, 2.
63
See Vito Zagarrio, “It Is (Not) A Wonderful Life: For A Counter-reading Of
Frank Capra” in Frank Capra: Authorship And The Studio System, 64-93; Charles
Maland “Capra And The Abyss: Self-interest Versus The Common Good In
Depression America” in Frank Capra: Authorship And The Studio System, (ed.)
Sklar and Zagarrio, 95-128.
64
Maland, “Capra And The Abyss”, 96-97.
65
Maland, “Capra And The Abyss”, 116.
66
Maland, “Capra And The Abyss”, 124.
24 Chapter One

In his book Hollywood Renaissance: The Cinema of Democracy in the

Era of Ford, Capra, and Kazan, Sam Girgus provides us with an insight
into the reinvigoration and renewal of American culture through the work
of the directors. He explains this in relation to F.O. Mathiessen’s
understanding of American Renaissance in literature. Matthiessen’s theory
concerned the period of American national literary history between 1850-
55 that, in the critic's opinion, marked America's “coming to its first
maturity and offering its rightful heritage in the whole expanse of art and
culture.”67 In his work he focuses on the subject of “the continuing
renewal of American culture.”68 Girgus transfers these determinants into
his vision and perception of the realm of Hollywood. He acknowledges the
mid-nineteenth century writers like Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau,
Whitman and Melville and their impact on the renewal of the culture of
democracy, and points out that a similar phenomenon can be observed in
Hollywood. Interestingly, the directors who Girgus enumerates as the
representatives of the Hollywood Renaissance-John Ford, Frank Capra,
Elia Kazan, Fred Zinnemann, William Wyler and Billy Wider-are either
immigrants or rebels. Yet, Capra and Ford, in Girgus’ words: “are the key
to the dialogue and debate over the meaning of America.”69 Moreover, he
claims that their films “can readily be placed in the context of the writings
and arguments of some of [the] most influential democratic thinkers.”70
Thus, Capra, among others, is once more viewed as a modernist and
perceived as a speaker of democratic society.
Richard. A. Blake presents a somewhat contradictory view to the above
mentioned one. In his book Screening America: Reflections On Five
Classic Films he claims directly:

Capra has often been mistakenly pegged as a New Deal Democrat. He

mistrusts government intervention in human affairs and tolerates it only
when the individual, representing the common man, is able to purge the
institutions of professional bureaucrats and profiteers and control the
structures with old fashioned common sense. Solutions to problems in
Capra's films never come from organizations; they come from individuals,
even when they unite as an informal collective, the people, as in It's A
Wonderful Life or Meet John Doe.71

67
F.O. Matthiessen quoted in Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 1.
68
Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 2.
69
Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 7.
70
Girgus, Hollywood Renaissance, 7.
71
Richard A. Blake, Screening America: Reflections On Five Classic Films (New
Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991), 108.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 25

Thus, Blake, in Carney fashion, stresses the importance of the

individual, but combines it with their role in the community. This in turn
can be linked to notions like social, ethnic and Catholic minorities, which
are also quite frequently discussed in connection to Capra and his movies.
Christopher Garbowski, in his study of small communities and
neighbourhood values in America, mentions It's A Wonderful Life in the
context of the concept of “social capital”. The term refers to “social
networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from
them.”72 In the eyes of the author, the community of Capra’s Bedford Falls
is a perfect example of the phenomenon and he cites Francis Fukuyama's
observation of It's A Wonderful Life that mutual support and altruistic acts
make the people better citizens and the whole community more humane.
Garbowski points out that the theme of small community and
neighbourhood has often been attributed to Capra’s ethnic and religious
background.73 Similarly, Lee Lordeaux argues that the ending of It's A
Wonderful Life shows that George Bailey has learned “to fully appreciate
the Italian familial identity–in social ethics, in sacrificial mediation and in
the film’s communal celebration.”74 Lordeaux’s interpretation seems a bit
far-fetched, however. Capra, Italian born and certainly aware of the ethnic
issues and presenting it on several occasions in his movies, felt American
and in his films was mostly dealing with the ethos of the American Dream.
Nevertheless, the concept of Capra’s community presented by Lordeaux
reflects to a large extent what Garbowski claims to be a realisation of
social capital.
The religious aspect of Capra’s movies has also been analysed by a
number of critics. Although Capra in his autobiography refers to religion
and even openly talks about his conversion back to Catholicism, and even
though this fact often seemed to provide an excuse for the critics to
interpret his movies in religious terms and to call characters like John Doe
Christ-figures, Blake argues that Capra “seems to be drawing on popular
mythology rather than theology.”75 In support of this thesis he recalls the
character of Clarence, the angel from It's A Wonderful Life, who,
according to Blake, is more a fairy-tale character than a religious one.
Further on he recalls four of Capra’s allegedly Christ-heroes - Doe, Smith,

72
Robert Putnam quoted in Christopher Garbowski, Pursuits Of Happiness. The
American Dream Civil Society Religion And Popular Culture (Lublin: Maria
Curie-Skáodowska University Press, 2008), 107.
73
See Garbowski, Pursuits Of Happiness, 106.
74
Lee Lordeaux, Italian And Irish Filmmakers In America: Ford, Capra, Coppola,
And Scorsese (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 158.
75
Blake, Screening America, 108.
26 Chapter One

Deeds and Bailey - and interprets their actions as moral and altruistic.
However, Blake states that the choice between virtue and evil is not an
exclusively Christian doctrine and to cast the characters in the role of
Christ-figures limits Capra's message too narrowly.76 To support his view,
Blake discusses the case of another Hollywood director, Woody Allen, and
argues similarly that the fact that the director is Jewish does not
automatically imply that his films present the Jewish experience
exclusively. As an artist, the critic states, “Woody Allen explores the
universal human condition.”77 And the same seems to apply in the case of
Capra.
An additional scholar, Joe Saltzman, devoted his studies to another
interesting aspect of Capra's movies, namely the recurring images of
journalism and journalists. In his book he claims that Capra movie
journalists of the 1930s and 1940s “resemble their counterparts in
contemporary television and media.”78 Hence, his book constitutes a
thorough examination of Capra’s male and female characters linked to the
profession, the editors, and the publishers and media tycoons. The author
presents and scrutinises the heroes one by one and indicates how they
created and shaped the image of people involved in the media in twentieth
century popular culture. Having sketched and examined the number of
journalistic types occurring in the movies, Saltzman claims that, although
the patterns have undergone some subtle alterations throughout the years,
the essentials remain the same. The picture of people of the press and of
the media in general are equally negative or at least suspicious in today's
movies as they were back in Capra times. “The Capra journalist villain is
alive and well into the twenty-first century,”79 Saltzman notes, and he
argues the point by providing examples of numerous Hollywood post-
Capra films. Nevertheless, the author acknowledges the fact that, despite
Capra's general mistrust towards the profession, in some of the films the
director also displayed some affection for journalists, like Peter Warne in
It Happened One Night or Babe Bennett in Mr. Deeds Goes To Town.
These are, however, the types who in the course of the movie undergo a
transformation, reject cynicism, and “repent their sins.”80 Other media
representatives are those who, against the ethics of the profession, betray
the public trust and act against democracy. According to Saltzman,

76
Blake, Screening America, 110.
77
Blake, Screening America, 100.
78
Joe Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist In American Film
(Los Angeles: The Norman Lear Center USC, 2002), 143.
79
Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist, 145.
80
Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist, 144.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 27

“whether it is a journalist or a politician who does the dirty deed, it is so

despicable that it lingers and festers in the memory, gradually
overwhelming any heroic act.”81 And, in Saltzman’s opinion, this is the
reason why Capra's characters like Jim Taylor in Mr. Deeds, or D.B.
Norton in Meet John Doe seem “as real today as they did when they were
created. Their goals and tactics are familiar to everyone, and real-life
parallels in modern media abound.”82 Thus, once more, Capra’s movies
are proved to be timeless.
It is interesting to note that Capra has recently attracted the attention of
Polish cultural studies and film scholars as well, and in 2006 alone the
films of the director were discussed in three publications. GraĪyna
Stachówna acquainted Polish readers with the character of the idealistic
Senator Jefferson Smith.83 Krzysztof Ociepa offered a generally
informative picture of Capra’s career and focused on the populist trilogy,
which he interpreted from the historical and sociological point of view.
Ociepa claims that Capra’s films are the sign of a building of a new
American identity consisting of all the hitherto existing myths, but also
complemented by the experiences of lower class members and immigrant
communities.84 The third and perhaps the most analytical critical work in
Polish is ElĪbieta Ostrowska-Chmura’s chapter in Mistrzowie kina
amerykaĔskiego (American Film Masters) which the author devotes to
theories in the spirit of Carney and Zagarrio, studying the motif of
searching for the lost identity and the theme of American dreams and
nightmares.85
Irrespective of the subject of the studies, most of the above-mentioned
critical works are based on the conviction that Capra is not merely a
director of his films, but an auteur as well, and that an individual and the
power of creative individual performance constitute the core of his
movies.

81
Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist, 146.
82
Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist, 146.
83
See GraĪyna Stachówna, Wáadcy wyobraĨni. Sáawni bohaterowie filmowi
(Kraków: Znak, 2006), 298-302.
84
See Krzysztof Ociepa, „Ameryka New Dealu w stylu caprasque: Pan z
milionami, Mr. Smith jedzie do Waszyngtonu i Obywatel John Doe Franka Capry”
in Kino amerykaĔskie: Dzieáa, (ed.) ElĪbieta Durys and Konrad Klejsa (Kraków:
Wydawnictwo Rabid, 2006), 9-45.
85
See ElĪbieta Ostrowska-Chmura „Frank Capra–amerykaĔskie marzenia i
koszmary” in Mistrzowie kina amerykaĔskiego: klasycy, (ed.) àukasz Plesnar and
Rafaá Syska (Kraków: Rabid, 2006), 181-207.
28 Chapter One

The aspect of cultural studies concerning Capra would be incomplete

without mentioning the broad and fashionable subject of popular culture as
well as the closely connected notion of optimism. Therefore, it is
interesting to look at Frank Capra from the perspective of the latest trends
and ways of interpreting the pop culture phenomenon. As I have already
mentioned, in the past, Capra was frequently criticised for being too corny
and too optimistic to be treated seriously. However, in her article ‘A
Defence Of Popular Culture’, Mary P. Nichols claims that popular culture
may be “popular, but not simple. [...] Popular audiences demand hope, not
because they refuse to face reality, but because their diverse experiences
teach the complexities of reality.”86 Hence, the aim of pop culture is to
provide relief to ordinary life. Nichols concludes the article as follows:

Popular culture is popular because it resonates with life. At its worst it

resonates with the lowest, most vulgar, or most trivial aspects of life, but at
its best, it appeals to life's complexity, its nobility, and its wisdom. If we
fail to distinguish these different aspects of popular culture we are as guilty
of simpleminded prejudice as those who would abandon the classics
because they are old. The vitality of the classics is based on their reflection
on human experience, an experience continually revealed to us if we are
wise enough to look for it.87

The above view can also be applied to Capra’s works and, as such, it
constitutes the defence of the director and the rebuttal of one of the oldest
arguments against Capra. The original intention of the term Capracorn
was to emphasise the alleged triviality of the artist’s films and to diminish
the uniqueness of his directorial style. However, Capracorn was nothing
other than a synonym for “feel-good movies”, and these in turn are
nowadays considered to be the vital part of one of the most influential
cultural trends of the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries, namely pop
culture.
Stephen Brown goes so far as to claim that “elements like feel good,
optimism and hope have some correspondence to theological terms such as
glory, the Kingdom of God and Eschatology.”88 In his article, he argues the
presence of all of them in Capra’s films. With Capra, Brown argues,

86
Mary P. Nichols, “A Defense Of Popular Culture” Academic Questions, vol. 13,
no. 1 (Winter 1999-2000), 76.
87
Nichols, “A Defence Of Popular Culture”, 78.
88
Stephen Brown, “Optimism, Hope, And Feelgood Movies: The Capra
Connection” in Explorations In Theology And Film. Movies And Meaning, (ed.)
Clive Marsh and Gaye Ortiz, (Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), 219.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 29

they [the films] seem to suggest that life is not a totally meaningless and
random existence if looked at from the point of view of the end. In that
context, feeling good, optimistic and hopeful can continue to have an
intellectual respectability among filmmakers.89

Capra’s optimism and the feel-good factor of his movies can be further
vindicated by the recently developed and cultivated (by Martin Seligman)
theory of positive psychology, aiming at establishing and implementing a
set of positive “virtues” into everyday life in order to provide an individual
with everyday happiness. Positive psychology emphasizes traits

that promote happiness as well as well-being, as well as character strengths

such as optimism, kindness, resilience, persistence and gratitude. These
positive characteristics, sometimes called 'character strengths' or even 'ego
strengths' […] will be recognised […] as names for what used to be called
'the virtues'.90

Therefore, in the light of positive psychology, the above-mentioned

virtues are necessary for the sake of building a good character and
becoming a good person on many levels. Character strengths, as Paul Vitz
states, are the main components making up the virtues. For instance, he
explains, “the virtue of humanity involves the character strengths of love
(e.g., valuing close relations with others), kindness (e.g., generosity and
nurturance), and social intelligence (e.g., emotional intelligence and
sensitivity).”91 In their book Character Strengths And Virtues: A Handbook
And Classification, the psychologists Christopher Peterson and Martin
Seligman enumerate a list of six core virtues which, according to Vitz, can
be all linked to more general terms:

wisdom and knowledge is very close to the traditional virtue of prudence;

humanity is close to charity; courage, justice and temperance have not
changed their names; and their sixth virtue, transcendence, is not far from
hope.92

Thus, the above psychological theory provides yet one more argument
in favour of Capra and Capraesque characters. The heroes of his films -
Longfellow Deeds, Jefferson Smith, George Bailey and many others -
seem to have ruled their lives according to the “virtues” long before they

89
Brown, ‘Optimism, Hope, And Feel-good Movies’, 232.
90
Paul C.Vitz, ‘Psychology In Recovery’, First Things, No. 151 (2005): 19.
91
Vitz, “Psychology In Recovery”, 20.
92
Vitz, “Psychology In Recovery”, 20.
30 Chapter One

were classified and named by Peterson and Seligman. The infamous

Capracorn was all about optimism, hope and aiming to achieve one's
dreams and happiness here in this life. Today, after many decades, both
Capra audiences and critics tend to agree that there is much more to Capra
than meets the eye at the first casual view of his films. The Capra world is
always a multidimensional one. As Brown accurately points out, “many
directors successfully maintain a credible hope amidst human suffering.
Few can do it with such a light a touch as Capra.”93

The Capra Legacy

The name of Frank Capra today brings to mind Hollywood-related
keywords like screwball, romantic, and populist comedy, feel-good
movies, or the Capra touch and the Capra tradition. It has already been
several years since cinema critics and cultural studies scholars of the end
of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century started to
pose the question of whether, and to what extent, Capra's influence can be
found in present-day cinema. Are the films in the Capra tradition still
being made today? Attempts to provide the answer to the above question
have been made in numerous publications.
Wes D. Gehring in his book Populism And The Capra Legacy focuses
on the subject of populism and Capra’s populist movies. The author
enumerates and examines several post-Capra movies such as The Electric
Horseman (1979), Field Of Dreams (1989), and Dave (1993) amongst
others, and argues that the elements of the Capra touch is present in each
of them. This trilogy, as Gehring treats the above set of films, “represents
mainstream extensions of the Capra tradition.”94 He further applies the
populist “touchstone” to the trilogy in order to identify Capra’s style in it.
The Electric Horseman, in the eyes of the critic, “is an updated look at a
less idealised populist hero.”95 More elements can be easily found in the
plot: the hero is a country boy who, like the Capraesque Smith, Deeds, and
Doe, is uprooted from his natural environment and forced to perform an
unfamiliar public role. Similarly, as in the Capra world before, the city
becomes the symbol of evil. Field Of Dreams constitutes a mix of
Capraesque populism and feel-good fantasy due to, among others,
emphasizing the values of family and tradition as the factors which
identify the individual. As well as conveying the traditional dichotomy

93
Brown, “Optimism, Hope, and Feelgood Movies”, 228.
94
Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy, 54.
95
Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy, 29.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 31

between good and evil, Gehring claims that the film is “a baseball version
of Capra's populist fantasy It's A Wonderful Life.”96 Dave, on the other
hand, is a reflection of the political populism of Mr. Smith Goes To
Washington.
The Capra legacy is also alive in the currently tremendously popular
genre of romantic comedies. While a number of them are being produced
every year, and many of them continue to reach the status of box office
hits, the basic formula has been surprisingly stable for decades. Romantic
comedies are still based on the feel-good element and the assumption that
love can face anything and is capable of conquering any obstacle, as well
as on Capra's belief that “good fortune comes to one who has been unfairly
treated.”97 To prove the point it is enough to recall such titles as Pretty
Woman (1990) or the more recent example of Maid In Manhattan (2002),
which are both modern versions of Capra's favourite Cinderella motif in
his Lady For A Day vein (1933). “We are meant to be optimistic,”98 Brown
states in relation to the subject of feel-good movies. Nothing is beyond
reach if we allow love to be the guiding force of our lives. Cinderella can
marry a prince, even if the prince is a millionaire and Cinderella, as in
Pretty Woman, is a prostitute (Julia Roberts), or a hotel maid (Jennifer
Lopez), as in Maid In Manhattan.
The screwball comedy genre has not been forgotten in the second half
of the twentieth century either. Peter Bogdanovich’s film What's Up, Doc?
(1972) is comprised of the essential screwball elements like its
unconventional screwball heroine (Barbra Streisand), mistaken identities,
a crime, police chase, fast dialogues, visual humour, and even (since it is
Streisand in the main role) the performing of a song. Bogdanovich’s film
is a direct homage to the classic screwball genre. In his book Romantic vs.
Screwball Comedy Gehring suggests the title of another comedy, which in
his opinion is even closer to the Capra tradition than What's Up, Doc?,
namely Runaway Bride (1999). And indeed it is not difficult to notice
thematic parallels between Runaway Bride and Capra's It Happened One
Night (1934). As in the previous case, all the pivotal elements are here: the
screwball heroine: a runaway bride (Julia Roberts); the hero (Richard
Gere), a reporter who, like Capra’s Peter Warne (Clark Gable) before him,
searches for the journalistic scoop and the Capraesque American small
town. Moreover, according to Gehring, as in the case of It Happened One
Night, although Runaway Bride starts out as a screwball comedy and is
built on numerous screwball paradigms, as the plot unfolds it dovetails

96
Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy, 15.
97
Brown, “Optimism, Hope, And Feelgood Movies”, 224.
98
Brown, “Optimism, Hope, And Feelgood Movies”, 224.
32 Chapter One

into other genres like romantic comedy and melodrama.99

Most recently, conspicuous screwball elements can be traced in the
smash hit trilogy Meet The Parents (2000), Meet The Fockers (2004), and
Little Fockers (2010). Interestingly, however, the formula seems to have
undergone slight alterations in this case. In the above modern version of
screwballs, the hero pattern has been changed and the traditional zany
features are assigned to the parents of the main couple. Therefore, what we
witness here is the reversal of the roles. All that the romantic couple wants
is to have a “normal” life together. To achieve this goal, however, they
have to fight the obstacle in the shape of their eccentric parents, who seem
to be determined to change the life of their “boring” children and make
them live it according to their rules. Funnily enough, the parents, played
by Streisand, DeNiro, and Hoffman, are a generation with roots in the
golden era of screwball comedies. Streisand, of course, as I have already
mentioned had played a similar role before. Such a reversal, we can argue,
is not entirely a novelty. It echoes the motif present in Capra’s Arsenic And
Old Lace (1944), in which a young protagonist (Cary Grant) is desperately
trying to put a stop to the criminal affairs of his zany elderly aunts
(Josephine Hull and Jean Adair).
There are many Capraesque themes, motifs and character types to be
encountered in Hollywood cinema today. Saltzman enumerates and
examines various examples of media related types,100 but there are others,
such as, for instance, cold-blooded, greedy tycoons, or the “Cinderella
man” hero. Moreover, in 2002 the remake of Capra's Mr. Deeds Goes To
Town was released under the title Mr. Deeds and featured the box-office
Hollywood stars Adam Sandler and Winona Ryder. The plot is shifted to
contemporary times, and some slang expressions are applied to satisfy the
needs and expectations of a modern young viewer, but a great deal of the
scenes are an exact copy of Capra’s masterpiece.
Coincidentally, in the same year, one more homage was paid to Capra
by the famous American popular culture team of Jim Henson, shortly after
Henson’s death. The plot of It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie
(2002) takes place on Christmas Eve and presents Kermit the Frog faced
with a heartbreaking task of informing his friends that the legendary
Muppet Theatre is being shut down due to its financial ruin. The viewer is
offered a retrospective summary of the events and Kermit’s desperate
struggles to save the theatre from a fraudulent and villainous banker (Joan
Cusack), after the angel (David Arquette) intervenes on behalf of Kermit

99
See Gehring, Romantic vs. Screwball Comedy. Charting The Difference
(Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2002), 159.
100
See Saltzman, Frank Capra And The Image Of The Journalist.
 Frank Capra: The Artist and his Films 33

to the Almighty (Whoopi Goldberg), who decides to examine the facts

which led the poor amphibian to utter despair. At a certain point Kermit
proclaims George Bailey's famous words that everything and everyone
would be better off without him. Obviously, as in the case of It's A
Wonderful Life, things end up well for Kermit and his theatre and the next
generation of young viewers is being brought up on Capra legacy.
Above all, the Capraesque hope, optimism and an affirmation of life
can be spotted in more than one modern movie. “There is unashamed hope
in The Fisher King [1991], as in It's A Wonderful Life,”101 Brown claims.
The title hero of Forrest Gump (1994) states on several occasions: “Life's
a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.” Yet,
according to Brown, the statement does not necessarily suggest the
randomness and chaos of life. Brown assures us that, in fact, it is quite the
opposite:

Forrest again and again finds himself thrust into the centre of America's
historic moments. […] We see him meeting Presidents, rock stars, bringing
influence to bear on some of them. Like Capra's hero [George Bailey], his
life touches so many other lives. Forrest's encounters suggest that there is
no such thing as accidents. 102

Thus, Capra’s message that life really can be wonderful, and that
"anything is possible through the promise of a second chance,"103 lives on
and is still up-to-date in the second decade of the twenty-first century.
The enduring popularity of Capra’s films among the critics and the
audience alike suggests that the director indeed succeeded in making
movies that reach the hearts and change the lives of his audience. In the
time of Capra’s revival, the director John Cassavetes pronounced the
words that were soon to become one of the most frequently repeated
quotes in the context of Frank Capra and his role in portraying America
and propagating the American myth. “Maybe there really wasn't an
America, maybe it was only Frank Capra,” Cassavetes claimed.104
Opinions like this constitute a clear indication of how the perception of
Capra’s works and the director as an artist have changed and evolved
throughout the years, and prove that a number of Capra’s films resist the
passage of time and changing cultural trends.
In the following chapters I am going to refer to a number of critical

101
Brown, “Optimism, Hope, And Feelgood Movies”, 230.
102
Brown, “Optimism, Hope, And Feelgood Movies”, 231.
103
Gehring, Populism And The Capra Legacy, 113.
104
John Cassavetes quoted in Preface to Maland, Frank Capra.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the
renewing of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism,
the washing of regeneration. The ancients commonly
expressed baptism with water, by regeneration; for they
considered this external sacrament as a sign of internal,
spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly calls
baptism regeneration, and says that infants were regenerated,
that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and cannot be
doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and
writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and
youths, but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was
bishop of Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was
born before the death of St. John—was brought up in Asia,
where that apostle had lived and died. He was acquainted with
Polycarp; and in his younger years, had often heard him
preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been chosen by him
to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the
church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev.
Irenæus, and those Christians who lived in an age so near the
apostles, and in a place where one of them had so lately
resided, could not be ignorant—they must have known what
the apostolic practice was, with respect to infant-baptism—a
matter of the most notorious and public nature.
Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about
one hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony,
that the church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is
true, he advises to delay their baptism; not because it was
unlawful, for he allows of it in cases of necessity; but because
the sponsors were often brought into a snare; and because he
imagined that sins, committed after baptism, were next to
unpardonable. He accordingly advises that unmarried persons
be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are
confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay, supposes that
infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would have
been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an
innovation, which he would certainly have done, had it begun
to have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the
contrary. His speaking of sponsors, who engaged for the
education of the infants that were baptized, shows that there
had been such a custom. And his asking, ‘why that innocent
age made such haste to baptism,’ supposes that infants had
usually been baptized, soon after their birth. So that he fully
enough witnesses to the fact, that it had been the practice of
the church to baptize infants. And his advice to delay their
baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of
those odd and singular notions for which this father was very
remarkable.”
This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian,
by Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently
a man of abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful
writer. His integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as
has been hinted, he held to some strange and peculiar notions.
He was not deemed perfectly orthodox by the ancient
Christians. Being a person of warm imagination, he expressed
himself, very strongly, on different subjects, at different times;
and some have thought, in a manner that was not consistent.
Some of the later Baptists have even pretended that he denied
infant-baptism. But these considerations do not disqualify him
as a witness in the present case. Instead of invalidating, they
serve to confirm his testimony.
Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who mentions
infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not
come into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer,
replies, “So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the
baptism of unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks
against it, and as earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger
of temptation is past; till marriage, or the abatement of lust.
But will it thence follow, that the baptism of such unmarried
persons did not obtain in the church till Tertullian’s time? Or
that it then first began to be in use? Our author might as
reasonably have inferred the latter opinion, as the former. But
the very words, in which he expresses his advice against
baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common practice.
After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against infant-
baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be
more profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper
years, and were able to understand something of its nature
and design; but he does not like the anti-pædobaptists,
condemn it as unlawful; which he would have done, if it had
been a novel practice—an innovation, contrary to the rule of
scripture, or without the approbation or direction of the
apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of necessity, of
sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of saying, that
Tertullian was the first man who mentioned infant-baptism,
and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the only
man, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us,
who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing
infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly
shows, that infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He
does not intimate, that the practice was of human invention, or
not authorized by the apostles. His private opinion, with
respect to the expediency of delaying baptism in several cases,
and the reasons which he offered, are nothing to us. We have
only cited him as a voucher to an ancient fact; and the
testimony which he has given affords clear and incontestable
proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in his times.
Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century,
and was for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th
homily on Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the
pollution of infants, says, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin
did my mother bring me forth. Let it be considered what is the
reason, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for
forgiveness, infants also, by the usage of the church, are
baptized; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted
forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless
to them. And again, infants are baptized for the remission of
sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any
reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to
that sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution,
though his life be only the length of one day upon the earth. It
is for this reason that infants are baptized, because by the
sacrament of baptism, our pollution is taken away.” In another
treatise, he says, “the church had a tradition, or command
from the apostles, to give baptism to infants! for they, to
whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there
is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which ought to be
washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which
pollution, the body itself is also called the body of sin, &c. &c.”
These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put
the matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit
can be given to them; and no reason appears, why they should
not be credited. It is true, they are taken from Latin
translations. Origen wrote in the Greek language. But the
fidelity of the translators and authenticity of these passages,
have been sufficiently vindicated by Dr. Wall, even to the entire
satisfaction of all impartial enquirers. None will object, but
those persons who are disposed to cavil.
I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have
made an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from
the apostles, mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more
policy and popularity in your remarks, than real weight. It will
not do for us to turn those weapons against the ancient
Fathers and holy apostles, which the protestants have used
with so much success, in their disputes with the Papists.
Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2
Thess. ii. 15. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
epistle.” And in the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, “Now we
command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse. “Now I praise you,
brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
ordinances (the traditions, paradoseis) as I delivered them to
you.” The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances,
which he calls traditions. The original word signifies traditions,
and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited
passages.
Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner—in the name of
Christ, the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, to hold
and keep the traditions—not merely such as had been written
by the pen of inspiration, but also those which were delivered
to them by word, or in an oral and verbal manner, and with
particular reference to the rules and ordinances of the gospel.
The traditions and commandments of mere men, which
pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But those
traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which
were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians—
recorded and authenticated by the ancient Fathers—and
transmitted down to us, by the faithful historian.
Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was
practised in his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen
was certainly a competent witness; and he had every
opportunity, and advantage for knowing what had been the
practice of his predecessors and even of the apostles. Many of
the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended from
heathen parents; and being the first of their family who
embraced christianity, must have been baptized when adults.
But Origen was one of the most learned men of the age. He
was born and educated at Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled
into Rome, and Greece, and Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided
for some time in several of the most eminent churches, and
spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and Palestine. His
ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his forefathers
had been christians, for several generations. His father was
martyred, in the persecution under Severus.
It is very remarkable, that his pedigree should have been so
accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a
great enemy to christianity, had represented the christians as
being an ignorant people, destitute of science; but not being
able to conceal the repute of Origen, for his uncommon skill in
human literature, pretended that he had been at first a
heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In order to confute
this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry, and set
forth his christian descent.
Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-
five years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when
his father suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly,
been baptized in his infancy; and must have been informed
concerning the practice of the apostles, respecting the
baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or at least his great-
grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they both were
christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared, that
infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was
directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize
them. His circumstances were such as afforded him all the
necessary and suitable means for obtaining information. We
have no reason to suspect his credibility as a witness; and
nothing can be more unreasonable, than to reject or treat his
testimony with contempt. It is a circumstance worthy of our
very particular notice, that Origen and the other ancient
Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a practice that
was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a
practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of
illustrating and confirming other points that were then
disputed.
I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr
Cyprian, who was for some time contemporary with Origen;
and next to him, the most noted Christian writer of that age.
Cyprian was constituted bishop or minister of Carthage, in the
year 248, and Origen died in the year 252. The testimony of
this ancient saint, to which I now have an immediate
reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by
one Fidus, a presbyter, or minister in the country, viz. Whether
an infant might be baptized before he was eight days old? The
reason of his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law
respecting circumcision, which, under the Old Testament
dispensation, required that infants should be circumcised on
the eighth day from their birth. Pursuant to the aforesaid
question, an ecclesiastical council of sixty-six bishops, having
convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian proposed a
resolution of the following import, viz. “that an infant might be
baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its
birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite,
had something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the
circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which
ceased at the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the
spiritual circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus
restricted, with respect to the age or time of administration.”
To this resolution the council agreed unanimously; as it
appears from the testimony of Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus,
from which I shall extract a few paragraphs, in order to show
the sentiments of those venerable and ancient saints relative to
infant-baptism.—The inscription is as follows:
“Cyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in
council, in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,
“Greeting.
“As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they must
not be baptized within two or three days after they are born;
and that the law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed;
so that you think none should be baptized and sanctified, until
the eighth day after their birth; we were all in our assembly of
a quite different opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that
which you thought fitting to be done, there was not one of
your mind. But all of us rather judged, that the grace and
mercy of God is not to be denied to any person born. For
whereas our Lord in his gospel, the Son of Man came not to
destroy men’s souls (or lives) but to save them.—That the
eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish
circumcision, was a type going before in a shadow, or
resemblance, but on Christ’s coming was fulfilled in the
substance; for because the eighth day, that is the next after
the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise
from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual
circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the Sabbath,
or the Lord’s day, went before in the type, which type ceased
when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was
given to us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered
from obtaining the grace, (that is of baptism) by the law which
is now established; and that the spiritual circumcision ought
not to be restrained by the circumcision which was according
to the flesh; but that all are to be admitted to the grace of
Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the apostles, says,
the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be called
common or unclean. This, therefore, dear brother, was our
opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any
person from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is
merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it
holds for all, so we think it is more especially to be observed in
reference to infants, and those that are newly born, to whom
our help and the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because
by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the
world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore
compassion,” &c.
Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles,
declares expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his
time, and in the time of the apostles.”
Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized
either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells
us, infants were baptized, although they had no sin; and that
the sign of the cross was made upon their foreheads at
baptism.—Saint Hierome says, “if infants be not baptized, the
sin of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent’s charge.”—
Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time, about 280 years
after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one of those
practices which was not instituted by any council, but had
always been in use.” The whole church of Christ, he informs
us, had constantly held that infants were baptized for the
forgiveness of sin.—That he “had never read or heard of any
Christian, Catholic or sectary, who held otherwise.”—“That no
christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.”
“If any one,” saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this
matter, though that, which the whole church practises, and
which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use,
may be believed, very reasonably, to be a thing delivered or
ordered by the apostles, yet we may, besides, take a true
estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail
infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people
received.”
No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour
of, or against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and
writings, they often mention it, occasionally and transiently,
when discoursing on some other subject.—They mention it as a
general practice of universal notoriety, about which there was
no controversy, in order to confute some prevailing heresy, or
establish certain doctrines, that were then disputed. Similar
testimonies might easily be produced from the writings of
many other ancient witnesses, but this would unnecessarily
add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore
conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and
conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of
the well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin,
which happened about three hundred years after the apostles.
Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and
sinful defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents
were Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged,
very closely, in all their writings upon the subject, the following
argument, viz. “That infants are, by all christians,
acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be in
them for original sin, since they have no other.” “If they have
no sin, why are they then baptized, according to the rule of the
church, for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they washed in
the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?” Pelagius,
and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were
extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They
knew not how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving
themselves in greater absurdities and difficulties. Some
persons aggravated the supposed error, by charging upon
them the denial of infant-baptism, as a consequence that
followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the slanderous
imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused
falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited,
which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “that baptism ought to be
administered to infants, with the same sacramental words
which are used in the case of adult persons.”—He vindicates
himself in the strongest terms, saying, “that men slander him
as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did
promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the
redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never heard of any,
not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing
of infants.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly
removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them,
been demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to
be baptized. But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at
all respecting this doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the
most explicit manner, the incontested right, and the
established immemorial practice of infant-baptism. Celestius
also confessed, “that infants were to be baptized according to
the rule of the universal church.”
One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the
other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the
centre of the world and place to which all people resorted.
Celestius settled at Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all
the principal churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had
been any number of churches, or a single church, in any part
of the world, not only in that but in the two preceding ages,
who denied the baptism of infants, these learned, sagacious
persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they
would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their
opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which,
above all others, they were most grievously pressed. It is
evident there was no society of Baptists then in the world, nor
had there been any of that denomination, within the memory
of man. The confession of Pelagius and Celestius amounts
almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all reasonable
doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and had
always been practised among christians, even from the
apostolic times.
Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being
acquainted with the history of infant-baptism, and who made
this the principal subject of his studies and enquiries, briefly
sums up the evidence on both sides, in the following words:
“Lastly, for the first four hundred years, there appears only one
man, Tertullian, who advised the delay of infant-baptism in
some cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps practise such
delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men so
thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was
unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred
years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who
either spoke for or practised any such delay, but all the
contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the
Waldenses or Albigenses declared against the baptizing of
infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that
people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held that
opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being
no more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of
the German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”
Reed’s Apology.
86. See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86.

87. They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J.
Voss, de baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib.
x. cap. v. and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I.

88. See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580,

581. of dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used
in these scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated
to dip; and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a vesture dipped
in blood; it is better rendered stained, by sprinkling blood upon
it; and all these scriptures denote only a touching one part of
the body, and not plunging. In other authors, it signifies, tingo,
immergo, lavo, abluo; but in no author it ever signifies to dip,
but only in order to washing, or as the means of washing. As
for the Hebrew word ‫טבל‬, rendered, by the LXX. in Gen.
xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, to stain by sprinkling, or otherwise
mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by βαπτιζω,
and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands Naaman to
wash; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it is said,
he dipped himself seven times; the word is ‫ ;ויטבל‬which the
LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word
‫ טבל‬is used, which we render dip, speaking concerning the
dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by
the word βαπτω: And, in I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that
Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the
word here is also ‫ויטבל‬, and the LXX. render it εβαψεν; in
which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by
plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is
said to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his
touching the blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not
signify plunging.
This learned author likewise observes, that βαπτιζω signifies to
wash; as instances out of all authors may be given; and he
particularly mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and
 Phavorinus and Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first
used in the scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same
purpose, Acts i. 5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the
expression is equivocal; I baptize you with water, but he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost: which is an accomplishment
of that promise, that the Holy Ghost should be poured on
them. As for other places, in Mark vii. 2. 4. νίπτω, which
signifies to wash, and is so translated, is explained in the
words immediately following, as signifying to baptize. And, in
Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled that our
Saviour had not washed before dinner: The word in the Greek
is ἐβαπτισθη, to whom he replies in the following verse, Ye
Pharisees make clean the outside, &c. so that the word,
βαπτιζω signifies there to cleanse, or to use the means of
cleansing.
He also observes, that though the original and natural
signification of the word imports, to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet
it also signifies to wash or cleanse: Nevertheless, he thinks that
it is so far from signifying nothing else but to dip or plunge,
that when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought
to be εμβάπτω, or εμβαπτιζω, rather than βαπτω, or βαπτίζω;
and also that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a
mode of, and in order to washing; and that it signifies to wash,
in all good authors. He also refers to Scapula and Stephanus,
as translating the word βαπτιζω by lavo, or abluo; and Suidas,
as rendering it by madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo: And
he speaks of some authors, that he had searched in every
place wherein they mention baptism, and that he found not
one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he was
obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest
man, who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word
to signify to wash, as well as to dip.[89]

89. Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a
remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of
applying water was certainly that of pouring, and not that of
dipping. It is as follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the
Baptism of John, enquires thus of the Pharisees; “How could
you think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who
did not in Ahab’s time baptize the wood upon the altar, which
was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord’s appearing
in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not once only, but
he says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time.
And do it the third time; and they did it the third time.
Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not
then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself
baptize, when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi,
again appear here on earth?”
We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given
by Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the
wood and on the burnt offering. This pouring of water, Origen,
that accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was
well acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament,
calls baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of
the Greek word Baptizo four times; twice with express
reference to the Baptism of John; and twice with express
reference to that Baptism which took place in the days of the
Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are expressly told, was not
performed by dipping the wood and sacrifice into water, but by
pouring water upon them.
It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word
baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always signify a
total immersion. Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie mentions a
river in India, into which if an offender enters, or attempts to
pass through it, he is immediately baptized up to his head:”
(baptizetai mechri Kephales.) Here a person is said to be
baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained
above the water. This certainly was not a total immersion.
“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by
the oracle (viz. askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti.”) In
which instance, if dunai signifies to plunge wholly under water,
as it certainly does, then baptize must signify something less
than a total immersion.—“Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not
lawful to plunge him wholly under the water.” The baptism
here described, resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of
leather, which when put into the water, will not sink to the
bottom, but swim upon the top.
The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s
and Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the
primitive word bapto signifies a wetting with water, that was
certainly less, and very different from a total dipping or
immersion. The sentence is this. (“Baptei men askon, udor de
ugron dunei pote.”) “He indeed baptizeth a bladder or bottle,
but it never goeth under the liquid water.”
To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken
from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs
and the mice, in which the lake is said to be baptized by the
blood of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo.) This
lake was not dipped into the blood of a frog; it was only
bespattered and tinged therewith.
We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It
appears undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from
learned writers and commentators, both ancient and modern,
that the word baptizo has other significations besides that of a
total dipping or immersion.
The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and
criticks have often translated baptizo into the following Latin
words, viz. baptizo, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lave,
abluo, madefacio, purgo, mundo. No one, I presume, will
pretend that all these words are mentioned as being perfectly
synonimous—of the same meaning exactly. And certainly if the
 word baptizo signify any thing less or different from a total
immersion, then persons may be baptized in some other mode.
Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his
Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all
christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might,
for this purpose, have selected from the Greek language words
of the most unequivocal and definite signification. If it had
been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they
might have used the word Rantizo; if the mode of pouring,
they might have used the word Ekcheo; if that mode of
bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of
water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word
Louo; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of
dipping, they might have used the word Dupto or Duno, &c.
Reed’s Apology.

90. Ἐις and ἐκ.

91. Ἐις τὴν Θαλασσαν.

92. Ἐκ.

93. If any one has a mind to see how these particles ἐις and ἐκ,
are used in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid.
concord. in voc. ἐις and ἐκ, where there are a great number of
places mentioned, in which these words are used; and, it will
hardly be thought, by any impartial reader, that the greatest
part of them can be rendered by, into or out of; but rather to,
or from.

94. Γδατκ πολλα.

95. See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Page 500.

96. In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed,

in different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse
11. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision,
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” That is, in putting off the
old man, you are circumcised without hands; the work is
effected by the Holy Spirit—You are born again, which is
spiritual circumcision. “Circumcision is that of the heart.” This
renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting off the body of
sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we are
“buried with him in baptism.” As the burial of Jesus Christ gave
evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that
he had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual
circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves
to be really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As
Christ, when buried, was dead and separated from the world;
so in regeneration we become separate from sin. We are new
creatures, having put off the old man. We are buried from the
wicked indulgences and pursuits of the world.
The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only
causes, but types and symbols to represent the death of our
sins, our putting off the old man, and becoming new creatures.
No reference is made in the text to the water of baptism, any
more than to the knife of circumcision in the preceding verse.
The writer is speaking of that baptism, and of that alone, in
which we “are risen with Christ, through the faith, which is the
operation of God.” This certainly can be nothing less than
spiritual baptism, or regeneration; for the most violent
advocate for dipping, or plunging, or burying, will not pretend,
that this, necessarily, is connected with “faith;” he will allow it
may be possible for a man to be plunged and buried in water,
and yet not have “the faith, which is the operation of God.” If
he allow this, and allow this he must and will, then our text is
no support of his cause. It cannot be water baptism which is
mentioned.
Were not this the fact, nothing could be inferred respecting the
mode of baptism. It would then only signify that, as Christ was
buried and separated from the world; so we in baptism are
buried and separated from a world of sin. The zeal for the
literal construction of this figure may, perhaps, be extinguished
by indulging it in other instances. St. Paul says, “I am crucified
with Christ.” Would any person suppose from this, that he had
been led to Calvary, nailed to the cross, and pierced by the
soldier’s spear? Christians are said to be “circumcised in
Christ.” Does any one infer from this that all Christians
experience the bloody rite of the Jews? Or, because Christians
“are partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” are all christians,
therefore, betrayed by Judas, spit upon, buffeted, and crowned
with thorns? Or, because St. Paul says the Philippians were his
“crown,” were they, therefore, formed into a crown of honor,
and worn as a badge of future glory? Or, because the
sacrament represents the sufferings and death of Christ, are all
worthy communicants crucified? Were our baptist brethren
consistent with themselves, such would be their explanation of
these passages of scripture.
It immediately follows our text; “wherein also you were risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead.” Wherein, or in which baptism “we
are risen,” actually “risen with Christ by the faith” which God
gives to the new creature. You, who have this spiritual
baptism, rise like Christ above the selfish motives, and sensual
pursuits of a fallen world. You seek the kingdom of God; you
aspire after divine good.
Persons, born again, like Jesus Christ, separate their hearts
from the world, and rise to a divine life. That this is the only
true construction of the text, may be inferred from a
corresponding passage, Rom. vi. 4. “Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.” By spiritual baptism we partake
the privileges of Christ’s death. By dying to sin ourselves, as
we do in the new birth, we resemble Jesus Christ in his death,
who died “to make an end of sin.” As Christ was raised from
the grave; so we, not in water baptism, but in regeneration or
spiritual baptism, are “raised” to walk in newness of life. Old
things are done away; all things are become new. If we have
experienced this spiritual baptism, we shall have the Spirit of
Christ, We shall be separate from the world of sin, as Christ
was in the grave, and we shall like him rise to a holy, a new
life. We obey a new master, seek a new way of salvation, act
from new motives, to accomplish new designs; we choose new
companions, experience new sorrows, and new joys. As if
buried, we are separate from our former lives.
St. John says, “He [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire.” The Selucians and Hermians understood
this literally, and maintained that material fire was necessary in
the administration of baptism. Valentinus, like our baptists,
rebaptized those, who had received baptism out of the sect,
and drew them through the fire. Herculian, cited by Clemens
Alexandrinus, says that some applied a red hot iron to the ears
of the baptized. St. Paul says, we are buried with Christ in
baptism. This also has been understood literally; but such
persons forget that to be consistent, on their plan, they should
continue “buried” three days and three nights, the time Christ
lay in the earth. Should any object that this would drown them,
the baptist, in his way of treating figures, would have an easy
answer, and readily prove that drowning was the very design of
baptism. Rom. vi. 4. “We are buried with him by baptism into
his death.” We are not merely buried, for this is only a part,
any more than sprinkling; but we are buried to death, “buried
into his death.” Thus he has scripture for drowning all whom
he baptizes, and precisely as much scripture for drowning, as
for burying. The very same passage, might he say, which
commands burying, commands drowning, commands “death.”
 In the present mode of plunging, the resemblance is almost
entirely lost. What is the difference between laying a dead
body in a rock, covering it with a great stone; sealing it in a
solemn manner; all things continuing in this state, three days
and three nights, what is the resemblance between this, and
suddenly plunging a living body into water, and instantly lifting
it out of the water? What possible likeness is there between a
living person in the water, and a dead body in a rock? The
similitude is little better than that of the blind man, who
supposed the light of the sun was like the noise of a cannon.
We have accordingly endeavoured to show in the introduction,
that the elegant scholar, the christian orator of Tarsus, had no
thought of any such resemblance; his object was to show, that
in regeneration or spiritual baptism, which is followed “with
newness of life,” or, a new life, “through faith which is the
operation of God,” we are dead and buried to sin, and raised or
made alive to God, as Christ was. The evident design of the
text is to illustrate the preceding verse, which speaks of
spiritual circumcision made without hands. This baptism is that
by which we are raised with Christ; but in water baptism we
are not always raised with Christ. If men are plunged they may
generally be raised from the water; but this has no necessary
connexion with “rising with Christ.” This baptism is also
effected “through faith which is the operation of God;” but a
man may be raised out of an ocean of water, every day of his
life, and remain destitute of faith; therefore, the text has no
reference to water baptism.
Rev. E. Parish’s Sermon.

97. This was done by the council at Constance, A. D. 1415, before

which time there were, indeed, several disputes about the
matter or form of the cup, in which the wine was contained;
but it was never taken away from the common people till then.
98. This hymn is inserted after Sternhold and Hopkin’s version of
the Psalms.

99. See Dr. Goodwin’s Christ set forth, § 2. Chap. ii.

100.
See Quest. LXXII. Vol. III. page 97, & seq. and Quest. LXXVI,
LXXXV, LXXXVII.

101.
See Quest. lxxxi. Vol. III. page 268.

102.
Voveo.

103.
See Quest. CLI.

104.
See page 317.

105.
That several of the Fathers practised and pleaded for praying
for the dead, is evident from what Cyprian says, Epist. xxxix.
concerning the church’s offering sacrifices, by which he means
prayers for the martyrs; among whom, he particularly
mentions Laurentius and Ignatius, on the yearly return of
those days, on which the memorial of their martyrdom was
celebrated. And Eusebius, in the life of Constantine, Lib. iv.
Cap. lxxi. when speaking concerning the funeral obsequies
performed for that monarch, says, that a great number of
people, with tears and lamentations poured forth prayers to
God for the emperor’s soul. And Gregory Nazianzen prayed for
his brother Cæsarius after his death. Vid. Ejusd in Fun. Cæsar,
Orat. x. Also Ambrose prayed for the religious emperors,
Valentinian and Gratian, and for Theodosius, and for his
brother Satyrus. Vid. Ejusd. de obit. Valentin. Theodos. & Satyr.
 And Augustin speaks of his praying for his mother Monica,
after her decease, in Confess. Lib. ix. Cap. xiii. And Epiphanius
defends this practice with so much warmth, that he can hardly
forbear charging the denial hereof as one of Aerius’s heresies.
Vid. Epiphan. hæeres. lxxv. And some Popish writers, when
defending their praying for the dead, have, with more malice
than reason, charged the Protestants with being Aerians, upon
this account.

106.
See Quest. lxxxvi. page 313.

107. Vid. Grot. in loc.

108.
Many suppose that all those Psalms, in which some particular
expressions are referred to in the New Testament, as having
their accomplishment in Christ, are to be understood as
containing a double reference, namely, to David, as denoting
his particular case, and to Christ, of whom he was an eminent
type. But as for Psalm xxii. there are several expressions in it,
not only applied to Christ in the New Testament; but they
cannot well be understood of any other but him. In the first
verse he uses the same words that were uttered by Christ on
the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me? and in ver. 8. he trusted in the Lord that he
would deliver him; let him deliver him: This was an expression
used by those who mocked and derided him, Matt. xxvii. 41,
45. And what is said in verses 14, 17. All my bones are out of
joint; I may tell them, they look and stare upon me; does not
seem to be applicable to David, from any thing said concerning
him elsewhere; but they are a lively representation of the
torment a person endures, when hanging on a cross, as our
Saviour did; which has a tendency to disjoint the bones, and
cause them to stick out. And when it is said, ver. 16, 18. they
pierced my hands and my feet; and they part my garments
 among them, and cast lots upon my vesture; the former was
fulfilled in Christ’s being nailed to the cross, and his side
pierced with a spear; and the latter is expressly referred to as
fulfilled in the parting of Christ’s garments, and casting lots
upon his vesture, Matt. xxvii. 35. as an accomplishment of
what was foretold, by the royal prophet in this Psalm. These
expressions cannot, in the least, be applied to David, but are
to be understood of our Saviour; therefore, we may conclude
that those words in ver. 6. I am a worm, &c. are particularly
applied to him.

109.
What under one aspect is grace, under another is duty.

110.
Vide ante vol. I. p. 19. in note.

111.
The petition in Luke offered daily, is equivalent to that in
Matthew.

112.
επιουσιον is found only in this prayer, and rather means
necessary.

113.
Qu. For Father is designed in its appellative sense, and our as a
covenant-plea.

114.
See Quest. CLIV. page 79.

115.
See Vol. II Quest. XLV. page 353.

116.
See Vol. II. page 376.
117. See Vol. II. page 376, &c.

118.
See Vol. I. Quest. xii. p. 471.

119.
It has been said, that there cannot be any reason or motive to
pray, or make any petition, to an unchangeable God, whose
design cannot be altered, and who has fixed all events, without
a possibility of any change.
Before any attempt is made to remove this objection, and
supposed difficulty, it must be observed, that it equally lies
against the foreknowledge of God. For if God certainly
foreknows every thing that will take place, then every event is
fixed and certain, otherwise it could not be foreknown. “Known
unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” He
has determined, and passed an unchangeable decree, with
respect to all that he will do to eternity. Upon the plan of the
objection under consideration, it may be asked, What reason
or motive can any one have to ask God to do any thing for
him, or any one else, since he infallibly knows from the
beginning what he will do, and therefore it is unalterably fixed?
Therefore if it be reasonable to pray to an omniscient God, it is
equally reasonable to pray to an unchangeable God. For the
former necessarily implies the latter. But in order to show that
the objection is without foundation, the following things must
be observed.
1. If God were not omniscient and unchangeable, and had not
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, he would not be the
proper object of worship, and there would be no foundation,
reason, or encouragement to make any petition to him.
This, it is presumed, will be evident to any one who will well
consider the following observations.
First. If there were no unchangeable, omniscient Being, there
would be no God, no proper object of worship. A being who is
capable of change, is necessarily imperfect, and may change
from bad to worse, and even cease to exist, and therefore
could not be trusted. If we could know that such a being has
existed, and that he was once wise, and good, and powerful,
we could have no evidence that he would continue to be wise
or good, or that he is so now, or that he is now disposed to
pay any regard to our petitions, or is either willing or able to
grant them; or even that he has any existence. What reason of
encouragement then can there be to pray to a changeable
being? Surely none at all. Therefore, if there be no reason to
pray to an unchangeable God, there can be no reason to pray
at all.
Secondly. If God be infinitely wise, and good, and omnipotent,
supreme and independent; then he certainly is unchangeable,
and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. This has
been proved above, or rather is self-evident. But if he be not
infinitely wise and good, &c. then he cannot be trusted; he
cannot be the object of that trust and confidence which is
implied, and even expressed, in praying to him.
Thirdly. The truly pious, benevolent, devout man would not
desire, or even dare, to pray to God for any thing, if he were
changeable, and disposed to alter his purpose and plan, in
order to grant his petitions. Therefore he never does pray to
any but an unchangeable God, whose counsel stands forever,
and the thoughts of his heart to all generations. He is sensible
that he is a very imperfect creature; that his heart, his will, is
awfully depraved and sinful; that he knows not what is wisest
and best to be done in any one instance; what is best for him,
for mankind in general, for the world, or for the universe; what
is most for the glory of God, and the greatest general good;
and that it would be infinitely undesirable and dreadful to have
his own will regarded so as to govern in determining what shall
be done for him or any other being, or what shall take place. If
it could be left to him to determine in the least instance, he
would not dare to do it, but would refer it back to God, and
say, “Not my will, but thine be done.” But he could not do this,
unless he were certain that the will of God was unchangeably
wise and good, and that he had decreed to do what was most
for his own glory, and the greatest good of the whole; at the
same time infallibly knowing what must take place, in every
instance, in order to answer this end; and consequently must
have fixed upon the most wise and best plan, foreordaining
whatsoever comes to pass. Therefore, whatever be his
petitions for himself, or for others, he offers them to God, and
asks, on this condition, always either expressed or implied, If it
be agreeable to thy will: for otherwise he would not have his
petitions granted, if it were possible. And he who asks any
thing of God, without making this condition, but sets up his
own will, and desires to have it gratified, whether it be for the
glory of God, and the greatest good of his kingdom, or not;
and would, were it in his power, compel his Maker to grant his
petition, and bow the will of God to his own will; he who prays
to God with such a disposition, is an impious enemy to God,
exercises no true devotion, and cannot be heard; and it is
desireable to all the friends of God that he should be rejected.
Resignation to the will of God always supposes his will is
unchangeably fixed and established, which it could not be,
unless he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
Thus it appears that if God were changeable, and had not
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, there would be no
foundation for religious worship, or reason for praying to him;
or that there can be no reason or encouragement for prayer
and petition to any but an unchangeable God.—I proceed to
observe,
2. There is good reason, and all desirable and possible
encouragement, to pray to an unchangeable God, who has
from eternity determined what he will do, in every instance,
and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
This will doubtless be evident, to him who will duly, consider
the following particulars.
First. Prayer is as proper, important, and necessary, in order to
obtain favour from an unchangeable God, as it could be were
he changeable, and had not foreordained any thing.
Means are as necessary in order to obtain the end, as if
nothing were fixed and certain. Though it was decreed that
Paul and all the men in the ship should get safe to land, when
they were in a storm at sea; yet this must be accomplished by
means, and unless the sailors had assisted in managing the
ship, this event could not take place, and they could not be
saved. Prayer is a means of obtaining what God had
determined to grant; for he has determined to give it in answer
to prayer, and no other way. “Ask, and ye shall receive,” says
our Saviour. When God had promised to do many and great
things for Israel, he adds, “Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet
for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for
them:” [Ezek. xxxvi. 37.] The granting the favours, which God
had determined to bestow, was as much suspended on their
asking for them, as if there had been nothing determined and
fixed about it. There is as much regard had to prayer in
granting favours, and the prayer is heard, and God gives them,
as really and as much in answer to it, as if there were nothing
determined and foreordained respecting them: for the decree
includes and fixes the means, as much as the end; the method
and way by which events are to take place, as much as those
events themselves. The one depends on the other, as much as
if there were no decree, and nothing fixed; yea, much more:
for the decree fixes the dependence and connexion between
the means and the end: whereas if there were no decree, and
nothing fixed, there would be no established connexion, but all
would be uncertain, and there would be no reason or
encouragement to use means, or do any thing to obtain an
end.
Surely, then, there is as much reason and encouragement to
pray to an unchangeable God, and this is as important and
necessary, as if there were nothing fixed by the divine decrees,
and much more: yea, the unchangeable purposes of God are
the necessary and only proper ground and reason of prayer.
Secondly. Though prayer is not designed to make any change
in God, or alter his purpose, which is impossible; yet it is suited
and designed to have an effect on the petitioner, and prepare
him to receive that for which he prays. And this is a good
reason why he should pray. It tends to make the petitioner to
feel more and more sensibly his wants, and those of others for
whom he prays, and the miserable state in which he and they
are: for in prayer these are called up to view, and dwelt upon:
and prayer tends to give a sense of the worth and importance
of the favours asked. It is also suited to make persons feel,
more and more, their own helplessness, and entire
dependence on God for the favours for which they petition, of
which their praying is an acknowledgment: and therefore tends
to enhance them in the eyes of the petitioner, when given in
answer to prayer, and make him more sensible of the free,
sovereign goodness of God in granting them.[120] In sum, this is
suited to keep the existence and character of God in view, and
impress a sense of religious truths in general on the mind, and
to form the mind to universal obedience, and a conscientious
watchfulness and circumspection, in all religious exercises.
Thirdly. It is reasonable, and highly proper and important, and
for the honour of God, that the friends of God should express
and acknowledge their entire dependence on him, and trust in
him, for all they want for themselves and others, and their
belief in the power, wisdom and goodness of God; and all this
is acknowledged, expressly or implicity, in prayer to God. It is
also reasonable and proper that they should express their
desire of those things which are needed by themselves or
others, and which God alone can give or accomplish: and such
desires are expressed in the best way and manner by
petitioning for them. And in asking for blessings on others, and
praying for their enemies, they express their benevolence,
which is an advantage to themselves, and pleasing to God,
even though their petitions should have no influence in
procuring the favours which they ask. And in praying that God
would honour himself, and advance his own kingdom, and
accomplish all the great and glorious things which he has
promised to do for his own honour, and the good of his people,
they do not express any doubts of his fulfilling his promises,
but are certain he will grant their petitions; but they hereby
express their acquiescence in these things, and their earnest
desire that they may be accomplished; and also profess and
express their love to God, and friendship to his people and
kingdom; and do that which the feelings of a pious, benevolent
heart will naturally, and even necessarily, prompt them to do.
We have many examples of such petitions and prayers for
those things and events, which the petitioners, antecedent to
their prayers, knew would certainly be accomplished. We have
a decisive and remarkable instance of this in David, the king of
Israel, in the following words: “And now, O Lord God, the word
that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning
his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast said. And
let thy name be magnified forever, saying, The Lord of hosts is
the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be
established before thee. For thou, O Lord of hosts, God of
Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an
house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray
this prayer before thee. And now, O Lord God, thou art that
God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this
goodness unto thy servant. Therefore now let it please thee to
bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue forever
before thee; for thou, O Lord God, hast spoken it, and with thy
blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed forever:” [2
Sam. vii. 25-29.] Here David not only prays God to do that
which at the same time he knew and acknowledges God had
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookgate.com