CS Lewis and the Lion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 15 Number 1 Article 3 Fall 10-15-1988 C.S. Lewis and the Lion: Primitivism and Archetype in the Chronicles of Narnia Sue Matheson Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore Part of the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons Recommended Citation Matheson, Sue (1988) "C.S. Lewis and the Lion: Primitivism and Archetype in the Chronicles of Narnia," Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: Vol. 15 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol15/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mythopoeic Society at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To join the Mythopoeic Society go to: http://www.mythsoc.org/join.htm Mythcon 51: A VIRTUAL “HALFLING” MYTHCON July 31 - August 1, 2021 (Saturday and Sunday) http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-51.htm Mythcon 52: The Mythic, the Fantastic, and the Alien Albuquerque, New Mexico; July 29 - August 1, 2022 http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-52.htm Abstract A reading of the Narnian chronicles as fantasy, not Christian allegory, and notes “the tension between allegory and symbol” in the Chronicles. Sees the character of Aslan, and his use of magic, as the “primordial image” which gives the fantasy its power. Additional Keywords Lewis, C.S.—Characters—Aslan; Lewis, C.S. Chronicles of Narnia—Symbolism This article is available in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol15/iss1/3 MYTHLORE 55: Autumn 1988__________________________________________________________Page 13 CS . Lew is and the L ion: Primitivism and Archetype in the Chronicles of9{am ia Sue fMatheson n The Achievement of C.S. Lewis, Thomas Howard asserts language of fantasy is "symbol and Archetype" ("The that we "blunder sadly” if we read the Chronicles of Nar Child", p. 62). To date, attempts to read the Chronicles as nia as anything other than fairy tales, but he finds himself fantasy have not been successful, primarily because, as forced to conclude that "sooner or later, it becomes impos Howard's study illustrates, they have not examined the is sible to carry the discussion of Narnia any further without sues that are raised by symbolic narrative. Clearly another finding ourselves unabashedly head over heels in the lan reading of the Chronicles is necessary - one which is sym guage of Christian vision and dogma" (p. 50). Lewis is pathetic to the study of symbol and archetype and will clearly responsible for this problem. When he died 22 bring us closer to an understanding of the tension between November 1963, he left behind a firmly entrenched reputa allegory and symbol in the Chronicles as well as the ar tion as a Christian apologist, secured in a part by his own chetype which underpins these stories. critical endeavors which encouraged a school of theologi cal criticism to grow up around his writing. Because the tension between allegory and symbol in the Chronicles can be traced to Lewis, it is important to un Criticism about Narnia can be classified into two derstand the context in which they were written. Accord groups: the allegorists, including J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles A. ing to Alan Bede Griffiths, one of Lewis' principle Huttar, and Kathryn Lindskoog, who read the Chronicles problems was "how to reconcile his extraordinarily power as pure allegory, drawing one-to-one correspondences be ful intellect, which made him one of the greatest critics of tween them and the Christian story; and the allegorists, in English literature, with his no-less powerful imagination, cluding Richard Purtill, Walter Hooper, and Elaine Trixer, which was to flower in the planetary novels and the Nar who amend the allegorists' position somewhat by arguing nia stories (p. 15). This gap between Lewis' intellect and that Tales should be read "symbolically."1 Because the his imagination appeared shortly after his conversion to pseudo-allegorists invariably base their "symbolic" Christianity. Owen Barfield says, "From 1935 onwards, I analyses on a one-to-one correspondence between the had the impression of living with not one but two Lewises. symbolism of the Chronicles and Christian symbolism, There was both a friend and a memory of a friend; some however, their position is allegorical in effect if not in in times they were close together are nearly coalesced; some tent. In short, for them, the Chronicles are symbolic insofar times they seemed far apart" (Inklings, pp. 60-61). This as their symbolism is Christian symbolism. The distinction double nature of Lewis' is not surprising, because in the between these groups is one of degree, not kind. early thirties, he underwent separate emotional and intel lectual religious conversions: he became Theist before he Whatever their differences, both groups insist that the became a Christian. The most revealing comment that Chronicles are fantasy. Reading fantasy as allegory, Lewis makes about himself in Surprised by Joy occurs just however, is obviously inappropriate, because fantasy is before he becomes a Theist: "The fox had been dislodged symbolic narrative. As Ursula K. Le Guin points out, the from (sic) Hegelian Wood and was now running in the Page 14 MYHTLORE 55: Autumn 1988 open" (p. 179). Theism, the God who was "sheerly non- you are very lucky (I have never been so lucky as all that) human" (p. 184), overtook Lewis in an open field, but un a whole set might join themselves so consistently that able to reconcile his national nature with the irrational, he there you have a complete story without doing anything yourself. But more often (in my experience always) there became a Christian. are gaps. Then at last you have to do some deliberate in venting, have to contrive reasons why these characters Convinced by Hugo Dyson and Tolkien that Chris should be in these various places doing these various tianity is a myth that became historical fact, Lewis' conver things, (p. 41) sion to Christianity was intellectual, not emotional. His description of his conversion in a letter of 18 October 1931, The "deliberate inventing" that Lewis speaks of in 1952 to Arthur Greeves, takes the form of a didactic argument, is part of the creative process: shaping the archetype into which concludes: "(a) That this Christian story is to be ap recognizable symbols and gives them a purpose within the proached, in a sense, as I approach the other myths, (b) context. Stealing "past the dragons" in 1956, however, at That it is important and full of meaning. I am also nearly tributes a specific meaning to these symbols and gives certain that it really happened" (Letters, p. 428). them a purpose within the context. As an artist, Lewis had no business doing this. By giving the archetype shape, the The process of this argument is clearly allegorical: artist translates it into the language of the present and has when the symbols of myth acquire meaning, they become done "his utmost"; he must then "leave the interpretation allegory. Based on his attempts to prove God's existence to others and to the future" (Jung, p. 104): if one ignores rationally, Lewis' career as a Christian apologist further il Lewis' recommendation that the Chronicles be read lustrates the nature of his conversion. The only proper chronologically (beginning with The Magician’s Nephew response to God or myth, however, is non-rational: "the and ending with The Last Battle) and places them instead awe of the creature before the mysterium tremendum (Otto, in the order of the actual writing, the linear, Judeao-Chris- p. 85). tian framework from Genesis to Apocalypse disappears. The gap between Lewis' rational mind and his irra Lewis' decision late in the writing of the Chronicles to tional nature is not an unusual phenomenon. According construct an allegorical framework around them after to Carl Jung, every creative person is a duality or synthesis denying Tolkien's earlier charge of allegory makes no of contradictory qualities (p. 101). On one hand, die artist sense until one remembers that from his earliest years he has a personal life, and, on the other, he is an impersonal was firmly rooted in Victoriana. In fact, Lewis could have creative process. Lewis recognized his own duality as a been a Victorian. The parallels between hiscareer and Mat man and an artist when he dispelled the notion that he thew Arnold's are striking. Arnold displays the same gap wrote the Chronicles as deliberate allegory: "this is all pure between imagination and intellect as Lewis; and neither moonshine. I couldn't write that way at all. Everything man realized his potential as a poet: Arnold was over began with images: a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen shadowed by Browning and Tennyson; Lewis' poetry is on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even technically sound but lacks the inspiration of Yeats or even anything Christian about them ("Sometimes", p. 46). Walter de la Mare. Eventually, both men turned to writing prose and made their reputations as essayists. Arnold Belonging to Lewis' impersonal creative process, these could have been speaking of himself and Lewis in his ob images were later edited by Lewis, the Apologist, who servation: "nothing is more striking than to observe in how "saw how stories of this kind could steal past a certain in many ways a limited concept of human nature, the notion hibition in my own religion in childhood..