Volume 4 Number 1 Article 5

9-15-1976

"Surprised by Joy": C.S. Lewis' Changing Attitudes Toward Women

Margaret Hannay

Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore

Part of the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons

Recommended Citation Hannay, Margaret (1976) ""Surprised by Joy": C.S. Lewis' Changing Attitudes Toward Women," Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: Vol. 4 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol4/iss1/5

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 Presents “those chauvinistic elements which have irritated so many women” who encounter Lewis’s work, and argues that Lewis’s attitude toward women altered in his life and his work as he matured. See also a letter and response in Mythlore #15, p. 27–28, 30.

Additional Keywords Davidman, Joy—Influence on C.S. Lewis; Lewis, C.S.—Attitude toward women; Lewis, C.S.—Characters—Women

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/vol4/iss1/5 "Surprised by Joy": C . S. Lewis' Changing Attitudes Toward Women by M argaret Hannay

C. S. LEWIS’ BIOGRAPHERS c o n c e d e t h a t "T hough L e w is ’ a t t i ­ domesticated, fussy, kind woman gets an occasional pat on tude was to alter considerably after his marriage, it her little head—(Mrs. Beaver in The Lion, the W itch, and is probably true, as Owen Barfield said in a meeting of the the Wardrobe, Ivy Maggs in That Hideous Strength.)" G ib b o n s New York C. S. Lewis Society in 1972, that Lewis could prop­ points out that the Un-man works on the Lady's weakness by erly be called a misogynist on at least the ’theoretical imparting a dramatic conception of herself. "He also (worse level’, though decidedly not so in his personal relations and worse—but then he is a devil) gives her a l o o k i n g - with individual women."1 It is the intent of this study to g l a s s "2 (italics hers). Stella Gibbons also objects that document that the obvious "theoretical misogyny" of Lewis' Lewis is "narrow and unkind" when Jane is rebuked "for try­ earlier works did indeed change, particularly after he ing to stick to her books" and "rather donnishly lectured encountered Joy Davidman. for her lack of wifely obedience" (93). "What is a woman to Lewis has emerged as one of the most prominent spokesmen do," she asks? "If women are not to enter into the world of for twentieth-century evangelical thought. "St. Clive", as men, nor stay in their own world of foolish vanity" what can he was affectionally called in my undergraduate days, is they do? "I am afraid Lewis implies that if they cannot be cited as an authority on almost every aspect of Christian goddesses they are to go on suckling fools and chronicling life and doctrine, including, unfortunately, the "place" of small beer, and.be disapproved of." She concludes, "There women. The more Lewis' works are used to enforce the idea seems no way out of the situation and I prefer not to think of the domination of men and the subordination of women, the any more about it" (94). less attractive these works become to the intelligent Chris­ But "not thinking any more about it" is no longer suffi­ tian men and women who are intensely concerned with articu­ cient reaction to the apparent chauvinism in Lewis' works; lating an ideal of "the godly woman" which is based on many women have grown so sensitive to the underlying preju­ Scripture rather than on tradition. This is particularly dice that they no longer appreciate Lewis' work as a whole. distressing since there are so few novels w ritten from a Therefore, this paper will first present those chauvinistic Christian perspective which repay serious critical atten­ elements which have irritated so many women, and then demon­ tion; Lewis' do. Therefore, it matters that the magnificent strate how Lewis' attitude toward women altered in both his Green Lady descends into ignorance to provide a foil for the life and his work as he matured. He finally came to per­ King's wisdom. Few Christian books for Children merit the ceive that women are indeed fully human, as Dorothy Sayers international recognition given to the Narnian Chronicles: had claimed, and that women can be f r i e n d s in the rich sense The Last B attle fully deserved the Carnegie Medal it that Lewis gave that word. When Joy Davidman became first received. The Narnian books deal with the significant issue his friend and then his wife, she radically altered his of sin and redemption, of the need for valour in the strug­ presentation of women in his fiction, his use of masculine gle against evil, and of the difficulty in combatting hypoc­ as a term of praise, and perhaps most significantly, his risy. Therefore, it matters that young girls see Mrs. Bea­ pronouncements on marriage. Those who object to the narrow v e r i n The Lion, the W itch, and the Wardrobe commended for view of women in Lewis' early works should delight in the her fussy domesticity, while the leadership roles are given deeper understanding of such later works as T ill We Have to the Pevensie boys. Lewis' literary criticism has signif­ F a c e s an d The Four Loves. The gradual awakening of the icantly affected the way in which such great Christian w rit­ evangelical community to the fact that Man is both male and ers as Milton and Spenser are read; therefore, it matters to female, equally acceptable to God, need not detract from our the Christian scholar that the words "masculine" and "vir­ appreciation of the writings of C. S. Lewis, when those w rit­ ile" appear so often as eulogistic adjectives, with the ings are viewed chronologically. obvious implication that "feminine" is a dyslogistic term. ("Feminine" is never used eulogistically by Lewis, even in In his younger days Lewis certainly would have provided an reference to women authors.) excellent case study of the "typical male chauvinist." His Lewis' attitude toward women is important precisely attitude toward women is clearly shown in the otherwise b e c a u s e his work is so good. Christian parents, anxious to delightful romp "Abecedarium Philosophicum": have their children read something "good for them" give them the Narnian Chronicles, which a r e good for them, both good M is the Many, the Mortal, the Body, fun and good doctrine. Christian adults seeking construc­ The Formless, the Female, the Thoroughly Shoddy. tive leisure reading, and non-Christians interested in space N is Not-being which sinks even deeper. fantasies are entranced by Lewis' interplanetary trilogy, More formless, more female, more footling—and which follows the medieval adage of "teaching by delight." c h e a p e r .3 The scholar studying Milton, Spenser, or medieval allegory finds in Lewis a balanced and profoundly Christian critical theory and interpretation. But the parent handing out Nar­ 2 Stella Gibbons, "Imaginative Writing" in Jocelyn Gibb, nian books, the adult reading the space trilogy, and the e d . , Light on C. S. Lewis (New York: Harcourt, Brace and scholar studying The Allegory o f Love need to be aware of World, 1965) , p. 93. Lewis' background so that they can separate what is sound 3 "Abecedarium Philosophicum," Oxford Magazine, 30 (N ov. doctrine from what is personal prejudice against women. 1933), p. 298. Father Walter Hooper says that Owen Barfield Stella Gibbons, writing in Light on C. S. Lewis in 1 9 65, does not remember writing the lines, but thinks that they was probably the first to articulate that attitude toward were mocking another poem published earlier, and therefore women which underlies Lewis' fiction. She says she receives do not mean what they appear to say. (Letter from Father from the novels "an impression that Lewis disapproved of Hooper to me, 29 Sept. 1975). It is difficult to understand women...of so m e women; women who have entered rather boldly how Lewis and Barfield could have written this, however, if into the world that men have reserved for themselves. The they were at a ll concerned about the chauvinistic inferences which could be drawn from the poem. The matter needs fur­ ther clarification. In fact, the lines may echo Spenser's 1 Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A statement: "The one imperfect, mortal, feminine, / "Th'other B io g ra p h y (London: Collins, 1974), p. 214. immortal, perfect, masculine" Faerie Queene II.ix .22-23.

15 This poem fits in with his comments about women in his le t­ Lewis apparently developed a reputation for misogyny at ters. He mentioned a mutual friend to his brother, saying, Oxford, a reputation which amused him. Kathryn Lindskoog "he used to write poetry but is now too engrossed in his­ recalls that "When I met him in July, 1956, we laughed about tory, and he has also become engaged—that fatal tomb of all the silly public idea that he was a woman hater."9 (This lively and interesting men." In 1927 he wrote to his was at the time of his marriage to Joy.) It was generally brother with glee that the term had "produced one public assumed (erroneously, Lewis' biographers note) that Lewis event of good omen—the carrying in Congregation of the Sta­ disliked tutoring female pupils; therefore, many young women tute lim iting the number of wimmen at O xford...."4 Merely were afraid to study under him. Clyde S. Kilby recounts the spelling of "wimmen" may be enough to put Lewis unmis- that when he and his wife visited Magdalene College, he takenly on the side of the anti-fem inists, but the important asked the porter if there were any truth to the rumor that thing is how he voted. He said the voting fell into three Lewis did not like women. The porter said there was, and blocks—the old guard who were against women; the slightly Mrs. Kilby never did meet C. S. Lewis. The porter may have younger group "who date from the palmy days of J. S. M ill, been, and probably was, wrong; other women such as Katherine when feminism was the new, exciting, enlightened thing" and Raine, Dabney Hart, and Kathryn Lindskoog who visited Lewis who voted for women; and his own lot who voted against. in his latter years indicate that he was a gracious host Lewis was certain this was quite natural. "The first lot indeed.10 But Lewis must have done s o m e th in g to establish belong to the age of innocence when women had not yet been his reputation as a misogynist at Oxford; given the prevail­ noticed; the second, to the age when they had been noticed ing attitude toward women at Oxford in his early days, it and not yet found out; the third, to us. Ignorance, was rather an achievement to be singled out for his special romance, realism ..." (118). By any realistic standards, antipathy toward women.11 Perhaps his 1927 vote to lim it Lewis was saying, women should not be encouraged to study at women students was long remembered. Or perhaps that reputa­ Oxford, and if permitted, their number should be lim ited. tion was gained through his writings. Lewis also wanted to exclude women from the priesthood. The space trilogy evidences an attitude toward women His attitude toward women in the church apparently includes which might contribute to such a reputation. O u t o f t h e a measure of superstitious taboo. In Arthurian Torso h e Silent Planet is a special case, since none of the major shares with Williams the belief that women are excluded from characters are female; it needs no further treatment in this the priesthood because of "the menstrual flow ...excluded... context. However, in P e r e la n d r a the pivotal character is a because they share m ystically in the role of Victim ."4 5 How­ woman, the Green Lady. As Eve in a yet sinless world, she ever, by this logic women should be the only priests, for is responsible for the fate of a planet and its future Christ also shared "mystically in the role of the Victim." inhabitants as she undergoes philosophical and practical In "Priestess in the Church," w ritten in the same year as temptations. Her husband and king watches in serene com­ Arthurian Torso (1948), he admits that "all the rationality" fort, not even appearing in the story until the struggle has appears to be on the side of letting women serve as priests. been won by other minds and hands. This leaves Lewis the In no way are women "less capable than men of piety, zeal, author with a serious architectonic problem. Given his pre­ learning, and whatever else seems necessary for the priestly suppositions, the man must be superior to the woman; how­ office."6 Against this he can only assert that God, though ever, the Adam has no opportunity for action or debate which sexless, must be portrayed as male; he asserts that if we will demonstrate that superiority. In a completely gratui­ cast off the exclusively male image of God (which Lewis tous scene, Lewis significantly alters the whole character­ believed is Scriptural),7 we cast off our Christianity as ization of his Eve in order to make her serve as a foil to well. If God must be portrayed as male, then his represen­ the King's greatness: tatives must be male. The argument is based on the unstated presupposition which is made explicit in Preface to Paradise "... Our sons shall bend the pillars of rock L o s t : "Whether the male is, or is not, the superior sex, the into arches—" masculine is certainly the superior gender." To one holding "What a re arch es?" s a id T in id r il th e Queen. "Arches" said Tor the King, "are when p il­ such an assumption, God and God's representatives must be masculine because God is superior to us. The assumptidn it­ lars of stone throw out branches like trees.... self is completely unsupported, but Lewis apparently never And there our sons w ill make images." wavered in this conviction. In a 1961 review of Ellrodt's "What a re im ages?" s a id T in i d r i l . Neoplatonism in the Poetry o f Spenser, Lewis said: "The sex­ "Splendour of Deep Heaven!" cried the King with a great laugh.12 ual inferiority of Venus to Adonis is heavily compensated by her overwhelming superiority in every other aspect."8 In Although the King wants to believe that Tinidril is somehow other words, being a goddess almost, but not quite, makes up responsible for his learning, it is clear that she is not. for being female! While she has been actively engaged in withstanding tempta­ tion, the King has been given divine revelation. She will learn these matters second-hand from her husband, or not at 4 W. H. L e w is, e d . , Letters of C.S. Lewis (London: Geoff­ all. The man learns from God, and the woman learns from rey Bles, 1966), p. 117. See also p. 83, where the young man. At first glance, this may appear to echo P a r a d is e Lewis describes his eccentric Aunt Lucy, who was also a suf­ fragette. The reader is referred to the excellent works of L o s t , where Eve leaves Raphael's lecture because she prefers Dorothy Sayers, Lewis' friend and one of the early women to have Adam instruct her: he solves "high dispute with con­ jugal Caresses" (VIII, 56). However, Eve has already lis­ graduates of Oxford, for the opposite side of the question. See particularly the essays in Are Women Human? and h er tened to Raphael's account of the war in heaven and of the creation in the world. She actually leaves just in time for detective novel set in Oxford, Gaudy Night. Adam to tell the angel how marvelous she is. Tinidril seems 5 Charles Williams and C .S. Lewis, Taliessin Through Log- to receive a l l her scientific instruction indirectly, with- res, The Region of the Summer Stars, and Arthurian Torso (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), p. 334. 6 C .S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and 9 Kathryn Lindskoog, C. S. Lewis: Mere Christian (G len­ E th ic s , ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William dale, California: Regal Books, 1973), p. 13. See also her B. Eerdmans, 1970), p..235. For a refutation of this arti­ more detailed acount in "C.S. Lewis: Reactions from Women," cle, see Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids, M y th lo r e , 12 (3:4, June 1976), 18-20. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1975). 10 Light on C. S. Lewis, p. 13; Dabney Hart, "C. S. Lewis' 7 While the anthropomorphic imagery in scripture is pre­ Defense of Poesie" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Univer­ dominantly male, it is by no means exclusively m a le . God i s sity of Wisconsin, 1959), p. v; Lindskoog, p. 12. pictured as a mother in Isaiah 42:14, 46:3, 49:15, 66:13. 11 See, for example, J .E . Hankins, Source and Meaning in See also Psalm 131:2, Luke 15:8-10, Matthew 23:37. Perhaps Spencer's Allegory: A Study in the Faerie Queene (O xford: the most important reference is the traditional identifica­ Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 153 where he declares Radigund tion of the Wisdom (feminine) of Proverbs 3 with the Logos "hated the natural and normal lim itations of her sex and in of John 1:1-13; both Wisdom and Logos are usually inter­ this was unwomanly" and then goes on to equate the husband/ preted as manifestations of the second person of the Trin­ wife relationship with the master/servant relationship. i t y . Such casual and unthinking devaluation of women was appar­ 8 "Neoplatonism in the Poetry of Spenser," S tu d ie s in ently almost the norm at Oxford. Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature , ed. Walter Hooper 12 C.S. Lewis, P e re la n d r a (London: The Bodley Head, 1943), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 155. p p . 7 2 -7 3 . 1 6 out even expressing a preference for such pedagogical meth­ but as he is obviously unattainable, has channelled her feel­ ods . ings into obedience to him, which means a return to Mark."15 This scene in P e r e la n d r a can best be understood by refer­ After her introduction to Ransom, the narrator says: "At the ence to Lewis' work on Milton, but the parallel is not quite very moment when her mind was most filled with another man that direct. In Preface to Paradise Lost, Lewis demon­ there arose, clouded with some undefined emotion, a resolu­ strates that Eve is a very great Lady indeed, her words of tion to give Mark much more than she had ever given him submission to Adam are to be interpreted as "The Queen of before, and a feeling that in so doing she would be really earth" speaking to the King. Lewis compares Eve to Portia, giving it to the Director" (183). When she prepares to hunt who called herself "an unlessoned girl" before Bassanio. for Merlin she places herself in obedience to Ransom rather than directly in obedience to God (282). As she grows in But I should feel sorry for the common man, wisdom at St. Anne's she reaches a point where she "ceased such as myself, who was led by this speech into to feel any resentment at the Director's tendency, as it the egregious mistake of walking into Belmont were, to dispose of her—to give her, at one time or in one and behaving as though Portia really were an sense, to Mark, and in another to M aleldil; never, in any unlessoned g ir l. __ She may speak th u s t o Bas­ sense, to keep her for himself. She accepted that." (286). sanio: but we had better remember, that we are All the efforts of St. Anne's are directed to force her dealing with a great lady.13 to be obedient to Mark, including sexual obedience. It has Lewis no doubt intends to echo this gentle submission of a previously been established that Mark is not a successful great lady to a greater man, but he fails in the attempt. lover: "Only one thing ever seemed able to keep him awake The failure is an artistic one: in attempting to avoid Mil­ after he had gone to bed, and even that did not keep him ton's mistake of describing pre-lapsarian sexuality, Lewis awake long" (10). He is also presented as becoming physic­ has kept the King "offstage" until these final scenes. At ally repulsive. Dimble is shocked by his appearance; his this point in the narrative the reader knows that the Lady face "had grown fatter and paler and there was a new vulgar­ is physically strong and agile, commands the animals, has ity in the expression" (266). It is also clear that Jane the poise befitting the Queen of the planet, and has a dir­ does not enjoy making love with Mark. When Mrs. Dimble ect relationship with M aleldil. There are few qualities asks, "Do you hate being kissed?" Jane breaks into tears left which can be attributed to the King to prove his super­ (31). Thus it is highly significant that when Ransom dis­ iority. Instead of s h o w in g us that superiority in accord­ misses Jane, he sends her to Mark's b e d , with the injunc­ ance with the dramatic conventions of the novel form, Lewis tion: "Go in obedience and you w ill find love. You will is reduced to t e l l i n g us that the King is greater than the have no more dreams. Have children instead" (473). Queen. Lest we mistake his purpose, it is made painfully Lest the reader dismiss these instructions as part of the clear when Ransom meets the royal couple on the mountain: plot of the novel, Lewis said the same thing in cold prose in the essay "Equality," published two years earlier: ...it was not of the Queen that he thought most. It was hard to think of anything but the King. Men have so horribly abused their power over ... It was that face which no man can say that he women in th e p a s t t h a t t o w iv e s , of all people, does not know. You might ask how it was possible equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal to look upon it and not to commit idolatry, not .... Have as much equality as you please—the to mistake it for that of which it was the like­ more the better—in our marriage laws: but at ness.... (236) some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity.... This Is the maleness of Christ really so essential that the male is the tragicomedy of the modern woman; taught person evidences the image of God while the female person by Freud to consider the act of love the most does not? If Lewis means his words here to be taken liter­ important thing in life , and then inhibited by ally, he has created a very serious theological problem. feminism from that internal surrender which Genesis makes it quite clear that b o t h male and female are alone can make it a complete emotional success. created in God's likeness, and there is no indication what­ Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, ever that one sex is closer to that likeness than the other. to go no further, some degree of obedience and That Hideous Strength is apparently founded on the same humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the assumption of male superiority, at least in some hierarchi­ woman's part, [italics mine] 16 cal sense. But the problems here are even more complex, for Lewis makes the wife a more sympathetic character than the In the novel, Lewis has come dangerously close to adding: if husband, and then brings the authority of Ransom and all the woman cannot love her own husband, she can first trans­ Deep Heaven against her, to force her to learn obedience to fer her obedience to some superior man, and then let him her husband. In this novel, the Adam has fallen into the redirect that submission back to her husband. Enemy's camp, and the wife is told to be submissive. This type of reasoning is the more distressing since Obviously both Mark and Jane have serious flaws, but Mark Lewis begins the novel with a very sympathetic portrait of is certainly the weaker person morally. His intoxication the life of the university-student-turned-housewife. We with the inner rings leads him into activities he knows to first see Jane Studdock sitting alone in her empty flat be criminal. It is only after he has been imprisoned that remembering the words of the marriage ceremony: "Matrimony he realizes the full extent of his degredation; then he was ordained, thirdly, for the mutual help, and comfort that finds a better "inner ring" first with the tramp and then, the one ought to have of the other." The narrator tells us: by implication, at St. Anne's. Jane's flaw is the desire to "In reality marriage had proved to be the door out of a be independent, to run her own life. The narrator declares: world of work and comradeship and laughter and innumerable "To avoid entanglements and interferences had long been one things to do, into something like solitary confinement." of her first principles."14 This cannot help but recall This is extremely perceptive, and the solution is even bet­ Lewis' own words about his conversion in Surprised by Joy: ter—Jane contemplates taking out her notebooks and editions "Remember, I had always wanted, above all things, not to be to work on her doctoral dissertation on Donne. (Note the 'interfered with'" (182). The difficulty arises in that irony of her subject—Donne's "triumphant vindication of the what Lewis learned by submission to God, Jane is apparently body.") But suddenly the intelligent woman reader is supposed to learn by submission to Mark. The lesson was betrayed; we are not to have a competent woman who fills her more palatable to Jane when she first learned submission to life with scholarship after all. The narrator continues Ransom, in his golden manhood. It is made explicit, that "Jane was not perhaps a very original thinker." She thinks submitting to Mark is somehow submitting to the Director. she can regain her lost enthusiasm for the subject but, the Either "Jane" or Lewis is playing a dangerous game here. As narrator makes clear, she cannot. Instead she procrastin­ one reader observed, "She is still infatuated with Ransom, ates by looking at the paper. This is an excellent device for getting the story going—she remembers her dream of Alcasan and Merlin. But it immediately implies that schol­ 13 C.S . L ew is, Preface to Paradise Lost (London: Oxford arship is not a possibility for women such as Jane. The University Press, 1942), p. 120. Lewis was aware of the immense difficulty of portraying Eve correctly. See L e t­ t e r s , p . 195. 15 Letter from Jim Allan to me, June 5, 1976. 14 C. S . L ew is, That Hideous Strength (London: The Bodlev 16 C .S. Lewis, "Equality," The Spectator (27 August 1943), Head, 1945), p. 85. p . 192. 17 story could have proceeded equally well by having her go to exists in the novel only to serve Ransom in a clearly sub­ the library to find out more information on Alcasan and servient fashion, even curtseying when she enters his room Merlin; even an unoriginal thinker can read a history book. (171). It has been suggested that she is the Christian Instead, she buys a hat (29). counterpart of Fairy Hardcastle. Indeed, both women are On this question of intellectual woman and marriage Lewis described in strikingly sim ilar terms—they are ta ll, phys­ could have learned a great deal from Dorothy Sayers. In ically "big"; they have unusually large hands; they appear Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey novels her H arriet Vane is proba­ before us seated, dressed in black skirts. Both women have bly no more appealing than Jane, and must also learn grati­ secrets in their past. Mark Studdock finds that all of the tude and submission; but Harriet is at least permitted to Fairy's history is "secret history" (81); when the members retain her mind and her individuality. Of course, Mark of the company are explaining why they came to St. Anne's, Studdock is a large part of Lewis' problem. Even an intel­ Grace Ironwood is specifically excused from painful revela­ ligent woman could, after some soul-searching, expect to tions by the Director (242). Jane is taken in to be ques­ find some happiness with Lord Peter Wimsey. But Lewis seems tioned by Grace Ironwood (73) and by Fairy Hardcastle (186). to have deliberately made Mark as repulsive as possible so The difference in the questioning procedure reveals that the that the principle of wifely submission must stand alone, sim ilarities between the women are superficial. The Fairy without love and without respect. Jane is to submit herself is a sadistic homosexual, who "enjoys her work" in torturing to him merely because she is his wife; Mark needs do nothing Jane to obtain information; Grace requests that Jane join at all to merit such submission. True, Mark learns much them, but makes no attempt whatever to compel her. The during his imprisonment, but Jane has no way of knowing first names of the women become obviously significant. It that. All she knows is that her husband has deserted her is unfortunate that Grace Ironwood (never called Dr. Iron- and joined the Enemy, that he is in league with Fairy Hard- wood) is not given a more significant part of the action; castle who captured and tormented her, that kindly Dimble her role is exemplified at the close of the novel where she can hardly bring himself to speak to Mark. It is emphasized is seated by the fire, clad in black and silver, "almost that Jane was not so stupid as to have married Mark in his invisible in the shadows" (457). She is n e v e r made clearly present condition. The man to whom she vowed obedience was visible, but her achievement and her lack of traditional a quite different Mark, one who had been a friend of Dennis- "feminine attractiveness" may be seen as a faint precursor ton instead of Curry, Frost and the "Fairy." There might be of Orual. Neverthless, Lewis in 1945 was not yet ready to some ground for requiring submission in retribution if Jane portray a strong and godly woman as a fully developed char­ had somehow m a d e Mark degenerate, if his deficiencies were a c t e r . her fault. But Lewis is careful to show that Jane is to It is Mother Dimble, not Grace Ironwood, who is the ideal Mark the one oasis in his desert of whining self-pity and "godly woman" in the novel. She is charitable, wise, and pathetic social striving. Indeed, it is b e c a u s e Mark "made able to adjust to the most trying circumstances. But her the fatal mistake" that she "must be 'nice' to Mark" (183) 17 wisdom is revealed by statements such as "Did it ever come The "good women" in That Hideous Strength are equally into your mind to ask whether anyone could listen to all we instructive. Camilla, one must admit, has the possibility say?" implying that women chatter on aim lessly while men of being an interesting person. She is described as a Val- never speak an idle word. We note that when V iritrilbia kerie (like Lewis' cousin in Surprised by Joy ) and i s p r e ­ inspired their speech it was Dimble and Denniston who had sumably included in the statement "Dimble and he and the the gay intellectual dual while the women w a tc h e d ( 3 9 7 ). Dennistons shared between them a knowledge of Arthurian Ivy, with her peasant shrewdness, declares, "Whatever we Britain which orthodox scholarship w ill probably not reach say, Jane, a woman takes a lot of living with. I don't mean for some centuries" (245). But Camilla is told to stay at what you call a bad woman" (374). A more accurate statement home when the others go out to meet Merlin—because she is would be that a person takes a lot of living with, for we pregnant. It is her body which Logres needs, not her mind. are all fallen creatures; Lewis has made no attempt here to Grace Ironwood is another enigmatic figure. On the one avoid the implication that men are easy to live with. hand, she is a medical doctor and therefore unique in Lewis' It is highly significant that the female characters in early fiction—a Christian career woman. Nevertheless, she That Hideous Strength are so often lumped together, while the men are listed by name. "In the kitchen...sat Dimble and MacPhee and Denniston and t h e w om en” (396) . When th e party returns from seeking Merlin "the four women" are found 17 This self-sacrifice to a despicable husband which is asleep; Ivy Maggs is distinguished by having "her kind, com­ demanded of Jane is also praised in the person of Sarah monplace mouth wide open." Jane is awake with the other Smith of Golders Green, a "person of particular importance" seekers, of course, but only that she can be vilified by in the heaven described in The Great Divorce. (New York: Merlin for n o t being pregnant. (Please note that Camilla Macmillan, 1963). She is characterised by love for child­ was kept home because she w a s . Had Jane been pregnant and ren and animals, certainly a highly desirable trait in any so confined, the party would have had no seer.) After all person, but her high status is apparently due to her loving the important discussion with Merlin is over, the Director submission to her bullying husband. He is the class male says, "And would someone wake t h e w om en? Ask them to b r in g chauvinist, speaking to her in "his 'manly' bullying tone... him up refreshments" (347). The women in Logres are valua­ the one for bringing women to their senses" (113). It is ble for child-bearing and for procuring refreshments. They most heartening to note that the chauvinistic husband van­ are not even important enough to be counted by Ransom when ishes, presumably swallowed by H ell, and the Lady goes on in he tells Merlin "We are f o u r m en, so m e women, and a bear" perfect Joy. (361). (italics mine) 1 8 The novels are definitely patronizing in their attitude "The real excellence of Deloney is in his dialogue; he has a toward the female characters, but there is good biographical peculiar talent for reproducing the chatter of silly women" reason for such a treatment of women. Between the death of (429). This is significant because here, in 1953, he feels Lewis' mother in 1908 and his marriage to Joy Davidman in the need to distinguish between the chatter of silly women 1956, there were no women central to his life save Mrs. and the speech of an intelligent woman. I personally feel Moore. That Mrs. Moore could not have improved his opinion that a few years earlier he might have written "the silly of women we know from Lewis' biographers, who describe her chatter of women." It may be significant that he had as "highly possessive and selfish—or thoughtless—to an already met and worked with Joy Davidman; in his preface he astonishing degree."18 She apparently served as the model thanks her for her help with the proofs (vi). for the possessive jealousy of both the mother in S c r e w ta p e We know from Lewis' own words in A G rief Observed w h at and Orual in T i l l We H a v e F a c e s . She hated Christianity, she thought of his habitual use of "masculine" as a term of abused Lewis for upsetting the household by going to church, praise—even when applied to her: and continually interrupted his writing to ask him to help with making marmalade or housecleaning. What was H. Joy not to me? She was my daughter The young Lewis was schooled in the B ritish system of and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my sub­ segregated "public" schools—private schools segregated from ject and my sovereign; and always, holding a ll women, from non-Caucasians,19 and from the less wealthy. The these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, army was notoriously misogynist, almost as much so as was shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress; but at Oxford—and Lewis went from school to army, and from army to the same time all that any man friend (and I Oxford. His social life consisted almost solely in various have had good ones) has ever been to me. Maybe literary societies; there were no female members in the m ore.... That's what I meant when I once praised M artlets Society, the Icelandic Society, or the Inklings. her for her 'masculine virtues'. But she soon In fact, when John Wain listed Dorothy Sayers as an Inkling, put a stop to that by asking how I'd like to be Lewis vehemently corrected him. Although he liked her "for praised for my feminine ones.25 the extraordinary zest and edge of her conversation" he Another sign of a changing attitude toward women appears in added, "Needless to say, she never met our own club, and The Silver Chair: probably never knew of its existence."20 Their "club" was well enough known to be mentioned in a mystery novel: "It Scrubb was quite right in saying that J ill (I must be Tuesday—there's Lewis going into the B ird."21 Since don't know about girls in general) didn't think the detective novel was D. L. Sayers' forte, it would be most much about points of the compass. Otherwise she odd if she were not aware of the Inklings; obviously, she would have known, when the sun began getting in was never invited to attend. This is made more emphatic by her eyes, that she was travelling pretty nearly Warren Lewis' own description of those mornings in "The due w est.26 Eagle and Child," for his brother had said "no sound The parenthesis is not typical of Lewis' previous work; it delights me more than male laughter."22 It was probably not is quite possible that it was influenced by Joy. For in said with an emphasis on m a l e , but nevertheless, the adjec­ describing the choice of the title Lewis mentioned that "my tive is there, and the women were not. brother and the American w riter Joy Davidman (who has been That adjective or an equivalent is there rather fre­ staying with us and is a great reader of fantasy and child­ quently in Lewis' literary criticism as well. Allegory of ren's books) both say that The W ild Waste Lands is a splen­ L o v e mentions the "nervous and masculine" quality of Spen­ did title ...." 27 If Joy was involved in the choice of the ser's prose23 24 ("nervous" is used in the old sense of "strong, title she must have read the manuscript. s in e w y " ) . The Sixteenth Century volume is full of such It is a most satisfying example of poetic justice that eulogistic usages of "masculine." Dunbar is praised for "an Lewis' world should finally have been overturned by a woman assured v irility " (98), the Scottish Chaucerians were "men —and an American woman, a Jewess, and a divorcee. (Lewis of strongly masculine genius" (97), Southwell is commended had early expressed his scorn for the English school by say­ for "the greatness of the matter and the masculine precision ing, "Women, Indians and Americans predominate and—I can't of phrase" (546), Daniel can achieve "the same masculine and say how—one feels a certain amateurishness in talk and the unstrained majesty which we find in Wordworth's greater son­ look of the people.")28 nets" (530). But this literary history does contain some From T ill We Have Faces with its magnificent protrayal of glimmerings of hope. Lewis actually praises a woman, Anne Orual (the book was dedicated to Joy, and Lewis' biographers Lady Bacon. Indeed, "if quality without bulk were enough, speculate that the character of the Queen is drawn from Joy) Lady Bacon might be put forward as the best of all six­ and particularly from The Four Loves (Joy held the copy­ teenth-century translators" (307). And, what is more impor­ right) we can see how marriage to this fascinating and b ril­ tant, Lewis has begun to distinguish categories of women: liant person completed the alteration of his attitude toward women. 18 Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A The contrast between That Hideous Strength and T i l l We B io g ra p h y (London: Collins, 1974), p. 66. W. H. Lewis in his H a ve F a c e s illustrates how much Lewis has changed. The most memoir of his brother speaks of "the autocracy of Mrs. Moore obvious difference between the books is that T i l l We H a v e --an autocracy that developed into stiflin g tyranny" (Let­ F a c e s is told by Orual herself. Lewis has become capable of ters, pp. 21-22). See Clyde S. Kilby and Douglas Gilber, C. entering into a woman's mind. Though both women have vis­ S. Lewis: Images of His World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William ions, Orual is totally different from Jane Studdock; her B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), p. 11, which gives an significance does not lie in child-bearing or in wifely excerpt from Lewis' diary in March 1924. "During this time obedience, but in her complaint against the gods. Orual was it was unfortunate that my first spring flood of Dymer a scholar, by the standards of Glome, but she is never rid i­ should coincide with a burst of marmalade-making and spring- culed for her Greek as Jane is ridiculed by the author for cleaning on Mrs. Moore's part, which led without intermis­ her attempt at studying Donne. Jane is a seer who is used sion into packing. I managed to get through a good deal of by Logres, but who takes no significant part in the battle. writing in the intervals of jobbing in the kitchen and doing messages...." 19 The same subtle prejudice underlies the im plicit racism 25 C. S . L ew is, A Grief Observed (New York: The Seabury of the white-skinned Narnians and the dark Calormenes, for Press, 1973) , p. 39. example, or Ransom's fear when he confronts the hrossa, 26 C .S. Lewis, The Silver Chair (New York: M acm illan, where it is twice emphasized that the beast was b la c k . 1953), p. 23. 27 • 20 C. S . Lewis, "Letters to the Editor," E n c o u n te r, 20 B io g r a p h y , p. 245. Unfortunately, the manuscript has (Jan., 1963) , p. 81. 21 disappeared, probably filed by Lewis under "W.P.B." It L e t t e r s , p. 14. The detective novel was Edward Cuspin, would be helpful to know if the parenthesis is a later addi­ p s e u d ., Swan Song (Gollance, 1947) according to CSL: The tion, put in after Joy read the manuscript. Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society. 28 L e t t e r s , p. 81. See also an unpublished letter to 22 L e t t e r s , p . 14. 23 .c Arthur Greeves (4 February 1933, #0543 in the Wade Collec­ C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ tion at Wheaton College) which says of a girl who was work­ versity Press, 1936), p. 319. ing under him on George Macdonald, "The girl is, unfortun­ 24 C. S . L ew is, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century ately, quite unworthy of her subject; apart from everything Excluding Drama (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1944), p. 98. else, she is an American." 1 9 Orual is a warrior who first wins the love of her people by A woman who accepted as literally her own this single combat and retains it by leading her troops into bat­ extreme self-surrender would be an idolatress tle until she has won the peace. In fact, the only male offering to a man what belongs only to God. And chauvinism in the book is put into the mouth of the cowardly a man would have to be the coxcomb of all cox­ king and the barbaric mob. It is King Trom who values a combs, and indeed a blasphemer, if he arrogated woman less than a man. When Psyche's sacrifice is required to himself, as the mere person he is, the sort by the priest, he responds, "What's one g irl—why, what of sovereignty to which Venus for a moment would one man be—against the safety of us all?"29 I t i s th e exalts him. But what cannot lawfully be yielded mob who insult the king by asking for his sons, screaming, or claimed can be lawfully enacted. Outside "Barren king makes barren land," even though the king has this ritual or drama he and she are two immortal three children. Daughters do not count. The scene is rem-- souls, two freeborn adults, two citizens. (148) iniscent of King Henry VIII putting Anne Boleyn to death Yet this idolatry is apparently what had been demanded of because she bore no sons, not knowing that Princess Eliza­ Jane Studdock. Because she was not friend as well as lover, beth would have one of the most illustrious reigns in Eng­ she had no sphere in which she could be equal with her hus­ land's history. Even so the king and people discount the b a n d . Princess Orual. The irony appears in the evaluation of her Lewis complains that "Christian w riters (notably Milton) reign given by the priest Arnom at the end of the volume: have sometimes spoken of the husband's headship with a com­ "Queen Orual of Glome...was the most wise, just, valiant, placency to make the blood run cold" (148). (Apparently fortunate and merciful of all the princes known in our part Lewis is quite unaware that he himself is one of those w rit­ of the world" (320). Jane Studdock was pretty, foolish, and ers.) He then goes back to the Bible, emphasizing that stubborn, finally learning to be submissive to the unappeal­ Ephesians 5:25 speaks of the relation of husband and wife as ing Mark; Orual was wise, valiant, and merciful, learning parallel to Christ's relationship to the church. "This obedience to God Himself. It is difficult to imagine a headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we greater contrast. should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like T i l l We H a ve F a c e s proves that Lewis has finally come to a crucifixion..." (148). The term "headship" has not see that women are fully human, rather than some separate changed, but its meaning has obviously changed for Lewis. and inferior species. The Four Loves is written from a new Here he has swung over to the other side, becoming almost understanding of the relationships between men and women. masochistic in his view of headship.31 In his chapter on "Friendship" Lewis explains that in most But more important is that Lewis, for the first time, is societies men and women have friends only of their own sex, writing about love knowing what he is writing about. He because the work and education of the two sexes are so dif­ even pokes a bit of fun at those patristic writers who ferent that they have "nothing to be Friends about. But we attempt to write about Eros: "I cannot help remembering that can easily see that it is this lack, rather than anything in they were all celibates and probably did not know what Eros their natures, which excluded Friendship; for where they can does to our sexuality..." (138). Lewis allies himself be companions they can also become Friends. Hence in a pro­ strongly with the married men, the men who d o k n o w .32 f e s s io n ( l i k e my own) w here men and women work s id e by s id e Though Lewis retained the vocabulary of hierarchy, it is ...such Friendship is common."30 Is this the same Lewis who apparent that his own marriage did not follow the domina­ so gleefully voted for the restriction of "wimmen" at O xford? tion/ submission pattern. There is no indication in the let­ In the essay "Equality" cited earlier, we noted that ters, the biography, or in A G rief Observed that he believed Lewis believed inequality to be an erotic necessity. He Joy to be his natural inferior, hierarchical or otherwise. went on to say that "The error...has been to assim ilate all Indeed, Roger Lancelyn Green calls Joy "a wife who as friend forms of affection to that special form we call friendship. was able and eager to meet him and any friend of his on It indeed does imply equality." The primary change in e q u a l terms as if she too were an Inkling..." (italics Lewis' understanding of marriage came when he discovered mine). When Green visited Lewis in 1958 and 1959 he that a wife could be f r i e n d as well as lover. We saw that observed of "the sheer happiness and contentment" that Lewis i n A G rief Observed he admitted that Joy was his lover "but was finding with Joy: "the solicitude for his wife, the sim­ at the same time all that any man friend...has ever been to ple delight in her company, the argument, badinage, and m e." rollicking fun that betokened the perfect relationship."33 This Friendship was a very strong element in his own Though Lewis apparently never intended a double entendre in marriage; Joy was his friend long before she became his the title of his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, G reen wife. When Lewis knew about marriage by experience he no d e c la r e s : longer spoke of woman as merely child-bearer but rather of He had indeed been surprised by Joy—surprised the wife as friend a n d lo v e r : into an absolute love and a complete marriage, Suppose you are fortunate enough to have "fallen the overwhelming fulfilm ent of an intense nature in lo v e w ith " and m arried your F r ie n d . And now long unsatisfied, a tremendous capacity for love suppose it possible that you were offered the long channelled into strong friendship and choice of two futures: "Either you two w ill cease immense literary creativeness. 34 to be lovers but remain forever joint seekers of One can only wish that Lewis had found Joy Davidman earlier the same God, the same beauty, the same truth, or —both for his own happiness and also for the difference it else, losing all that, you w ill retain as long as would have made in his work. you live the raptures and ardours, all the wonder and the wild desire of Eros. Choose which you please." Which would we choose? Which choice 31 For an earlier statement on headship, see the 1940 should we not regret after we had made it? (99- article "Christianity and Literature," in Christian Reflec­ 1 0 0 ) t i o n s , p p . 4 - 5 . Here woman i s to man a s man i s t o God— w hich le a v e s th e im p lic a t io n t h a t man i s t o woman a s God i s Lewis also nearly reversed his stand on the "headship" of to man, the husband. Jane was forced to submit unconditionally to 32 See Corbin Scott Carnell, "Eros as a Means of Grace," a repulsive man. In The Four Loves Lewis talks of surren­ i n Imagination and the S pirit, ed. Charles Huttar (Grand der in "the act of Venus" as a game: Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdmans, 1971) which discus­ ses Lewis' views of marriage. 33 B io g ra p h y , p . 270. 29C.S . Lewis, T ill We Have Faces (London: Geoffrey Bles, 34Biograph y, p. 277. Warren Lewis gave a similar des­ 1956), p. 69. Some readers also perceive Bardia's comment, cription of Joy's intellectual equality. "Joy was the only "ft's a pity about her face" as chauvinistic. He would not woman whom he had met (although as his letters show he had have said that about a man. It also leaves open the possi­ known w ith g r e a t a f f e c t io n many a b le women) who had a b r a in b ility that Orual became a great ruler only because her which matched his own in suppleness, in width of interest, ugliness prevented marriage and child-bearing. Elizabeth I in analytical grasp, and above a ll in humour and sense of could again be used as a counter-example—a beautiful woman fun. Further, she shared his delight in argument for argu­ who chose to be "Prince" rather than a wife. ment's sake, whether frivolous or serious, always good- 30C.S . Lewis, The Four L o ves (New York: H arcou rt Brace humoured yet always meeting him trick for trick as he Jovanovich, 1960), pp. 105-06. changed ground" (Letters, p. 23). 2 0