There are a number of places on the world-wide-web where one can learn a few things about Christopher Dawson. Chief among them seems to be the so-called Christopher Dawson Archives, where one can find, amongst other things, a few essays written about Dawson, a few essays written by Dawson, a bibliography covering Dawson’s corpus of published work, as well as a weblog which, unfortunately, is updated rather infrequently. Here one will find a wholly inadequate introduction to Dawson on Wikipedia. There is also this essay from the Christendom Awake website, as well as another from CatholicAuthors.com. Fascinatingly, the  Acton Institute’s website lists Dawson among a select group of people (including J.R.R. Tolkien!) as being "in the liberal tradition." On the same site one will also find a brief introduction to Dawson’s life and work. The Gifford Lectures website has a decent introduction to Dawson containing the core insight that his "central concern was to articulate the centrality and dynamism of religion for all cultures, but particularly for European culture." And, lastly, the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture has this to say about Dawson.

Of course, I should not fail to refer my readers to the website of the wonderful Christopher Dawson Collection at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN.

G. K. Chesterton may be "the most unjustly neglected writer of our time," as Dale Ahlquist writes, but I can’t think of any 20th century writer as unjustly neglected as Christopher Dawson.

Interestingly, Chesterton and Dawson make for a remarkable comparison. This hit me one day when I was interviewing Dr. Adam Schwartz, Assistant Professor of History at Christendom College. Dr. Schwartz was in the Twin Cities for the Annual Chesterton Conference some time ago when I interviewed him on behalf of a local Catholic journal. At one point in our interview, he explained to me that Dawson had distinguished himself from the other historians of his day particularly by means of his meta-historical approach to history. According to Dr. Schwartz,  

English historiography particularly at this time—early to mid 20th century—was much more based on putting together facts and telling you exactly when things happened. Dawson thought that was absolutely necessary and didn’t like it when historians didn’t do that, but he also believed in what he called metahistory, which was trying to divine the meaning of events as well as the matter of them. For Dawson, of course, metahistory meant looking at history from a theological standpoint. He articulated very well, and better than any of his English counterparts did, a very explicitly Christian Catholic view of history, which saw the Incarnation as not only an important moment in salvation history but in secular history; it was the turning point in all of history. That was his main lodestar for how he understood history, and that set him apart from many of his peers, who either didn’t have a metahistorical view at all or, if they did, had a more philosophical one—Marxist, or something like that, but not a supernaturalist viewpoint.

I well remember that as Dr. Schwartz was explaining all of this I couldn’t help but think of Chesterton and his very fine book The Everlasting Man, after which, of course, this site is named. And so I went ahead and brought it up. "Your description of Dawson’s historical vision sounds a great deal like that of G.K. Chesterton’s in The Everlasting Man."  To which he responded,

[As it turns out, Dr. Schwartz has done a great deal of work on Dawson and Chesterton.]

It was about six years ago that I first heard the name Christopher Dawson.

It was one of those lovely days in the month of May when one is finally rewarded for enduring a Minnesota winter. My sophomore year at the University of St. Thomas had just come to an end, and most of my friends were packing up their things to go home for the summer. I was one of the last people to leave the dorms that spring. I don’t know why. I think I had the sense even then that those were good days. Having just completed my final paper of the term, I was breathing the freshness of the open air again. I think you know what I mean. I had that feeling that one gets when he has just finished a very long project and finally has the chance to do whatever he wants. Two years into my undergraduate studies, I was just beginning to take a serious interest in the liberal arts.

It was then, amidst all of the hustle and bustle of students gathering up their things to go home, that I first heard of Dawson. I had wandered into the room of a friend who was to graduate in just a couple of days. He was packing his up his books, box by box, when he came upon a particular volume and hesitated. Looking back on that moment, I think he was holding a copy of Christianity and European Culture; at any rate it was a book written by Christopher Dawson. My friend seemed most interested in this little volume, and so I asked him what it was all about. I vividly recall him telling me what I have since come to know very well: that Dawson was a Catholic historian who understood that cultures are the basic units of historical inquiry, and that religion is the basis of culture. Since that day I’ve spent a great many nights reading Dawson’s work, and I don’t think I could improve upon this brief description.

It was just a few months later that I first read Dawson for myself, and I’ve hardly put him down ever since.