Let Us Keep the Tavern

by Arthur Machen


Feast of St Nektarius the Wonderworker, Metropolitan of Pentapolis

Anno Domini 2021, November 9


When, in an ancient legend, Hiram the master-builder, was slain by the treacherous craftsmen, the supreme word—or secret—of masonry perished with him. Consequently the temple that Hiram was building, though almost finished, could never be finished absolutely, and the Lost Word has not yet been recovered. It will be found, perhaps, on the day on which the missing letters of the Great Name are restored; and then, as the Kabbalists truly say, there shall be compassions on every side.

 

In the meantime, as I have understood, the Masons do as best they can with a substituted word. It is not the true word, nor does it pretend to be the true word. It is a makeshift, the best obtainable under present conditions, and, no doubt, it has done as well as could be expected.

 

As a matter of fact, this mystery of the substituted word goes through the whole of life. There are people in the arts who do not possess genius, but managed to turn out highly respectable and interesting tales and pictures by dint of hard work and careful cultivation of their talents. So in war, so in games. There is the ban soldier, the ban cricketer. These are rare, but a man by taking pains can no doubt make himself a safe and solid soldier, or a safe and solid cricketer. And if one cannot get the best—the real thing—it is, no doubt, wise to put up with the second best. There is a great deal to be said for substitutes.

 

This is true even of such minor matter as lunch. I have the ideal lunch in my mind: a sardine or two, a few radishes, a little bread and butter. Then an omelette fines herbes, a small fish, exquisitely fried, fresh from the Loire, a cutlet and fried potatoes, a slice or two of paté de lièvre, a plate of those fragrant tous les mois strawberries with sugar and cream in a bit of gruyère.

 

We will drink with this simple but agreeable meal a bottle of Barsac, and afterwards we will have our coffee and fine champagne in the garden court of the Pheasant at Tours, sitting amidst flowers by the fountain, under the shade of the broad-leafed plane tree.

 

This is my Lost Word in the article of luncheon; but what an admirable substitute may be found for it. If a man can discover an old English inn, and in it a hunk of bread, a good cheese, and a pint of honest ale, he may boast truly that he has lunched very well. Provided, of course, in the first place, that the inn or Tavern does not call itself “Ye Olde Red Loin” or “Ye Olde” anything else: “Ye,” it has been observed by the judicious, has a tendency to make the beer too weak and the cheese too strong. But if the tavern be genuine and the food and drink be genuine, then I say that he who lunches thus lunches well.

 

But it will be remarked that here there is no pretense of make-believe in the substituted word. Bread and cheese and beer do not pretend that they are omelettes, cutlets, or white wine. They stand up boldly as good things in their way, without subterfuge or concealment. It is the curse of too many substitutes that they are full of false pretenses.

 

Look at the people called Vegetarians. I think I could eat with them—now and then—if they would only be honest. If the Vegetarian would only say: “I can give you a bowl of lentil soup, guaranteed velvety, smooth, guileless of all gritty offenses against the palate, and then some first-rate floury potatoes, grown in dry, warm soil, mashed up with salt, black pepper, and real butter, and a fine bit of Stilton to finish up with”: then, I say, I would keep his fast with him.

 

But your vegetarian has the profoundest distrust in the attractive power of vegetables. He begins to lie with the soup. He calls it “Vegetable Hare Soup.” He equivocates as he passes his sickly “Mock Galatine of Chicken.”

 

He is ridiculous with his “Nut Cutlets,” shameless with his “Fruitarian Roast Turkey.” His whole bill of fare is like a tale told by an idiot to an idiot: it is a vainer delusion than the Barmecide’s feast. Here, in short, we have the vicious make-shift, the corrupted rather than the substituted word; as we have it again in those horrible products, unfermented wine and non-alcoholic—or “Control”—beer.

 

And this brings me to an announcement that I saw in The Times a few days ago. The Lord Mayor of London—may the Saints send him a better occupation—is to preside at a conference to be held in the course of the autumn on the subject of “The Provision of Alternatives to the Liquor Tavern.” In other words the misguided persons concerned in the conferences are going to try to find a substitute for the tavern; for one of the most ancient and honorable institutions in the whole estate of man.

 

Some would say that Church and State synthesize humanity in a condition of well-being. I would rather say Church and Tavern. There is a great deal to be said against even the good State; there is nothing to be said against the good tavern.

 

Not that I deny that it is possible to find a tolerable substitute for the tavern; but the method is difficult. You must take first of all a burning sun, a fiery sky, a land of rock and sand and thirsty desolation. Then by the stony road, with its thorns and thistles, bring your caravan of travelers parched with the fires of the air and the earth. Finally, make a well of cold, bubbling water to thrill up shining through the ardent rock. Then it will be said: de torrente in via bibet: ergo exultabit caput—he shall drink of the brook by the way: therefore shall he lift up his head. That is the only substitute for the tavern.

 

But these conferencing people—of “14 Christian denominations,” by the way—I know what they want. They want a large dreary room, very high, with walls distempered in bilious green, and furniture in pale pitchpine. They want tablecloths covered with stale mustard stains. They want shelves full of “Pops Ale,” “Cork-ho, “Vinto,” “Pipso,” and other flagitious and offensive beverages. They want to dispense coffee of such forlorn and shabby nastiness that a French beggar would spit it out of his mouth: and Conscientious Cocoa—"Pacifist” Brand.


*Originally published in the Evening News: August 22, 1917. Reprinted in Dreamt in Fire: The Dreadful Ecstasy of Arthur Machen (Darkly Bright Press, 2021) Pages 192-194. Available for purchase at Eighth Day Books.

Share this Post on Your Preferred Platform

By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 31, 2026
"What is it that has ordered the things of heaven and those of earth, the things which move through the air and those which move in the water; nay, rather the things which proceeded them: heaven and earth and the natures of fire and water? What is it that combined and arranged them...set them into motion and put them on their unceasing and unhindered course?..But who is the architect of these things? Or did not he who made them also bring them into being? We shall certainly not attribute such power to spontaneity." On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 3 This comes after St. John of Damascus sets out to delineate between the created and the uncreated, a fact which, while at the core of existence, seems for him to be, for this very reason, the simplest to believe. Everything but God is created and, thus, susceptible to change. This means people, but this also means demons, angels, the rest of the created order across the entire cosmos. Everything is vulnerable to unrest. Except for God. If you have ever tried to explain the Holy Trinity to a child for the first time, maybe you have felt as I have the weightier, inexpressible side of God's unchangeability: how do I possibly communicate this essential fact to the person in front of me? (This is usually when my faint stutter starts to pop up again.) I like that here, like St. Patrick reaching for a three-leaf clover, St. John brings us back to earth to better understand the cosmos. Fire and water are no less mysteries than heaven and earth. And yet here we are, cooking and washing, eating and drinking, filled and sustained on what we can neither fully explain nor claim to have created. Only God is unchanging. Vice versa, God is the only constant we need. Maybe the rest is better left unsaid. LUKE TAYLOR GILSTRAP is Vice President of the Board of Directors for Eighth Day Institute. His poems have appeared in Spiritus, Ekstasis (Christianity Today), and Relief Journal, among others. He lives happily in Wichita, Kansas with his wife and three sons.
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 24, 2026
"Now, one who would speak or hear about God should know beyond any doubt that in what concerns theology and the Incarnation not all things are inexpressible and not all are capable of expression, and neither are all things unknowable nor are they all knowable. That which can be known is one thing, whereas that which can be said is another, just as it is one thing to speak and another to know. Furthermore, many of those things about God which are not clearly perceived cannot be fittingly described, so that we are obliged to express in human terms things which transcend the human order. Thus, for example, in speaking about God we attribute to Him sleep, anger, indifference, hands and feet, and the like." On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 2 When I was studying Fiction in graduate school, one of the first methods I learned to really situate the reader in the story you were about to tell them was disorientation; if you wanted to ground them in one story, first you had pull the rug out from under their feet. So it's fitting that in the beginning of St. John Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith, before rebuilding our foundation, he first puts us squarely in limbo, seesawing back and forth between certainty and uncertainty. To paraphrase, there is no doubt (certainty) that about God some things can be expressed...but not all things (uncertainty). Some things about God are truly knowable (certainty), but some are unknowable (uncertainty). Oh, and while we're speaking about God (certainty), let's admit there's a gap, too, between what we say and what we know (uncertainty). My favorite line in this spiraling excerpt, "...it is one thing to speak, and another to know," takes me back to the final lines in Wendell Berry's poem, "How to Be a Poet," which he wrote primarily as a reminder to himself: Accept what comes from silence. Make the best you can of it. Of the little words that come out of the silence, like prayers prayed back to the one who prays, make a poem that does not disturb the silence from which it came. Wherever your preferences fall on the cataphatic or apophatic spectrum of theology (whether you lean more toward what we can say about God or what we cannot), Berry's poem, I think, would nod along with St. John: before we say too much, let our words be preserved by the silence from which they came. I'm thinking of the silence, that filling, restorative quiet I feel when I step into a cathedral or in some of my favorite moments with my kids in the early hours. Even before praying, can we hear the One already praying in us? ​​​​​​​Let's start there. LUKE TAYLOR GILSTRAP is Vice President of the Board of Directors for Eighth Day Institute. His poems have appeared in Spiritus, Ekstasis (Christianity Today), and Relief Journal, among others. He lives happily in Wichita, Kansas with his wife and three sons.
By Mark C. Watney July 20, 2026
Late-Night Bookstores and Spiritual Reading
By Sarah Orner July 20, 2026
On St. Benedict and the Making of Vows
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 20, 2026
The Pursuit of Truth in the Age of AI
By Michael Simmon July 20, 2026
On the Theology of Raising Chickens
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 20, 2026
G.K. Chesterton and Raising Small Children
By Fr. Mark Lovett June 9, 2026
"Seal of the Fathers"
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap June 9, 2026
In Memory of Warren Farha, 1955-2026
By Jeremy Wagner May 15, 2026
An Ode to St. Brendan the Voyager
More Posts