'Magdalen College Chapel was packed to overflowing for a special Evensong on May 13th 1998, prior to the unveiling of the Lewis stone in Addison's Walk. The Magdalen Choir sang as an introit 'Veni Sancte Spiritus', the opening music of Richard Attenborough's 'Shadowlands'. (The composer, George Fenton, happened, by a fortunate coincidence, to be present to hear it. He was at Magdalen to supervise the Choir's recording of some new music for his most recent soundtrack.) During the service, lessons were read by Lewis's godson, Laurence Harwood, and by Lady Freud, who was an evacuee at The Kilns during the war. The Dean of Divinity, the Revd. Dr. Michael Piret, in his prayers quoted from Lewis's works and gave thanks for Lewis's life. He also prayed for peace in Lewis's native Northern Ireland. (Dr Piret is a former President of the Oxford Lewis Society.) After the service was over, the congregation adjourned to Addison's Walk, which was looking especially beautiful in the evening sunlight, - though only a few weeks previously it had been completely under water in the April floods.
The commemorative tablet is a circle of Westmorland green slate about three feet in diameter, designed by stonemason Alec Peever, and erected a stone's throw from Lewis's rooms in the New Building. Michael Ward, the Centenary Secretary of the Oxford Lewis Society, welcomed everyone and spoke for a few minutes about the place Addison's Walk held in Lewis's life and about the poem, 'What the Bird Said Early in the Year', which has been inscribed on the tablet.
The President of Magdalen, Mr Anthony Smith, then unveiled the stone, and Walter Hooper, Lewis's biographer, recited the poem to the gathering. Among the eighty or so invited guests were former pupils of Lewis such as Francis Warner (now a don at St Peter's College, Oxford) and Martin Moynihan (editor of Lewis's Latin letters). A drinks reception in the President's Lodgings brought the evening's events to their conclusion.'
Michael Ward (Oxford University C. S. Lewis Society)
The inaccuracy of Shadowlands
On Saturday 3 October 1997 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a new adaption of Shadowlands for radio with Michael Williams as Jack and Zoe Wanamaker as Joy. Radio 4 broadcast separately a discussion on the adaption, with Humphrey Carpenter(producer), William Nicolson(writer), Douglas Gresham(CSL’s step-son) and A. N. Wilson(biographer).
After the broadcast, Douglas Gresham wrote: "Wilson once again spouted a whole lot of inaccuracies and twisted and exaggerated assumptions. I never heard my mother being ‘foul-mouthed’ at all, and she never smoked in her life. Jack never 'toiled' up and down to Oxford to find Kosher food for David, as we always had an account at "Palms of the Covered Market", a Jewish delicatessen. Jack much enjoyed the walk into Oxford when he did make it, but he never did the shopping in any case."
Unfortunately, the movie and TV play are just as inaccurate in their portrayal of both Jack and Joy.
After the broadcast, Douglas Gresham wrote: "Wilson once again spouted a whole lot of inaccuracies and twisted and exaggerated assumptions. I never heard my mother being ‘foul-mouthed’ at all, and she never smoked in her life. Jack never 'toiled' up and down to Oxford to find Kosher food for David, as we always had an account at "Palms of the Covered Market", a Jewish delicatessen. Jack much enjoyed the walk into Oxford when he did make it, but he never did the shopping in any case."
Unfortunately, the movie and TV play are just as inaccurate in their portrayal of both Jack and Joy.
“He restored substitution and co-inherence everywhere”
At the beginning of life in the natural order is an act of substitution and co-inherence. A man can have no child unless his seed is received and carried by a woman; a woman can have no child unless she receives and carries the seed of a man–literally bearing the burden. It is not only a mutual act; it is a mutual act of substitution. The child itself for nine months literally co-inheres in its mother; there is no human creature that has not sprung from such a period of such an interior growth.
In that natural co-inherence the Christian church has understood another; the about-to-be-born already co-inheres in an ancestral and contemporary guilt. It is shapen in wickedness, and in sin has its mother conceived it (Ps. 51:5). The fundamental fact of itself is already opposed to the principle of the universe; it knows that good as evil, and therefore it derives and desires its own good disorderly. It has been sown in corruption, and in corruption it emerges into separate life.
It has been the habit of the church to baptize it, as soon as it has emerged, by the formula of the Trinity-in-Unity. As it passes from the most material co-inherence it is received into the supernatural; and it is received by a deliberate act. The godparents present themselves as its substitutes; by their intentions and their belief (and they are there to present even for “those of riper years") the newborn is granted “that which by nature he cannot have,” he is “incorporated” into the church, he is made “partaker” of death and resurrection. It is this co-inherence which, at the confirmation, he himself confesses and ratifies.
The faith into which he is received has declared that principle to be the root and the pattern of the supernatural as of the natural world. And the faith is the only body to have done so. It has proclaimed that this is due to the deliberate choice and operation of the divine Word. Had he willed, he could presumably have raised for his Incarnation a body in some other way than he chose. But he preferred to shape himself within the womb, to become hereditary, to owe to humanity the flesh he divinitized by the same principle–"not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” By an act of substitution he reconciled the natural world with the world of the kingdom of heaven, sensuality with substance. He restored substitution and co-inherence everywhere; up and down the ladder of that great substitution all our lesser co-inherences cohere. And when the Christian Church desired to define the nature of the Alone, she found no other term; It mutually co-inheres by Its own nature. The triune formula by which the child is baptized is precisely the incomprehensible formula of this.
Charles Williams
In that natural co-inherence the Christian church has understood another; the about-to-be-born already co-inheres in an ancestral and contemporary guilt. It is shapen in wickedness, and in sin has its mother conceived it (Ps. 51:5). The fundamental fact of itself is already opposed to the principle of the universe; it knows that good as evil, and therefore it derives and desires its own good disorderly. It has been sown in corruption, and in corruption it emerges into separate life.
It has been the habit of the church to baptize it, as soon as it has emerged, by the formula of the Trinity-in-Unity. As it passes from the most material co-inherence it is received into the supernatural; and it is received by a deliberate act. The godparents present themselves as its substitutes; by their intentions and their belief (and they are there to present even for “those of riper years") the newborn is granted “that which by nature he cannot have,” he is “incorporated” into the church, he is made “partaker” of death and resurrection. It is this co-inherence which, at the confirmation, he himself confesses and ratifies.
The faith into which he is received has declared that principle to be the root and the pattern of the supernatural as of the natural world. And the faith is the only body to have done so. It has proclaimed that this is due to the deliberate choice and operation of the divine Word. Had he willed, he could presumably have raised for his Incarnation a body in some other way than he chose. But he preferred to shape himself within the womb, to become hereditary, to owe to humanity the flesh he divinitized by the same principle–"not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.” By an act of substitution he reconciled the natural world with the world of the kingdom of heaven, sensuality with substance. He restored substitution and co-inherence everywhere; up and down the ladder of that great substitution all our lesser co-inherences cohere. And when the Christian Church desired to define the nature of the Alone, she found no other term; It mutually co-inheres by Its own nature. The triune formula by which the child is baptized is precisely the incomprehensible formula of this.
Charles Williams
A Review
The Novels of Charles Williams
(Thomas Howard, Ignatius Press, 1983)
Originally published by Oxford University Press
What Beatrice was to Dante Thomas Howard is to readers of Charles Williams, whose novels are not exactly hell to read, but some may yet find them somewhat tough going. It's a pity, because as with the Latin Mass, if we only knew what we were missing we would clamor for more. Thankfully Ignatius Press has reprinted this book by Thomas Howard so that we do have a guide through this marvelous world. In this book, originally published by Oxford University Press, Thomas Howard starts with the party line that Williams is a bad writer, and then shows us why he's a very good one (Thomas Howard can be very sneaky). He explains why CW can't be considered a “major” writer, and maybe not even a good candidate for a minor one, but by the end of the book one is convinced that the label “major” is too small to fit Charles Williams.
Howard is similarly dismissive of his own writing in this book, even though it stands as one of his best (his best to date, in my opinion, is On Being Catholic). He suggests the reader not even read the whole book, but just jump around to the relevant parts for the Williams novel he/she is interested in. Here again I must express a minority opinion: The Novels of Charles Williams reads seamlessly and grippingly start to finish.
Anyone venturing into a Williams novel for the first time might find the water, as it were, initially cold and uninviting, regardless how heartily the swimmers urge him or her to dive in. Howard is like a personal trainer, both preparing the reader and helping them stay in shape when, gripped with the strange madness that afflicts readers of Williams novels, they recklessly swim further and further from shore. Howard is obviously among the initiates, and the more dismissive he is of Williams' standing as a writer, the more you want to read him. ’Nuff said. Dive in. The water's fine.
Gord Wilson (Bellingham, WA USA)
(Thomas Howard, Ignatius Press, 1983)
Originally published by Oxford University Press
What Beatrice was to Dante Thomas Howard is to readers of Charles Williams, whose novels are not exactly hell to read, but some may yet find them somewhat tough going. It's a pity, because as with the Latin Mass, if we only knew what we were missing we would clamor for more. Thankfully Ignatius Press has reprinted this book by Thomas Howard so that we do have a guide through this marvelous world. In this book, originally published by Oxford University Press, Thomas Howard starts with the party line that Williams is a bad writer, and then shows us why he's a very good one (Thomas Howard can be very sneaky). He explains why CW can't be considered a “major” writer, and maybe not even a good candidate for a minor one, but by the end of the book one is convinced that the label “major” is too small to fit Charles Williams.
Howard is similarly dismissive of his own writing in this book, even though it stands as one of his best (his best to date, in my opinion, is On Being Catholic). He suggests the reader not even read the whole book, but just jump around to the relevant parts for the Williams novel he/she is interested in. Here again I must express a minority opinion: The Novels of Charles Williams reads seamlessly and grippingly start to finish.
Anyone venturing into a Williams novel for the first time might find the water, as it were, initially cold and uninviting, regardless how heartily the swimmers urge him or her to dive in. Howard is like a personal trainer, both preparing the reader and helping them stay in shape when, gripped with the strange madness that afflicts readers of Williams novels, they recklessly swim further and further from shore. Howard is obviously among the initiates, and the more dismissive he is of Williams' standing as a writer, the more you want to read him. ’Nuff said. Dive in. The water's fine.
Gord Wilson (Bellingham, WA USA)
Williams on 'Exchange'
Charles talked and wrote a great deal about the practice of "exchange". It was one of the root rules of the Company. One made a pact and picked up the other person's fear or grief or pain and carried it oneself. This was the theory at any rate. The trouble was that, while the theory was irrefutable, the practice was apt to be dubious.... but how, I asked myself, was I to "present myself shyly to Almighty God in exchange for..."?
Letters to Lelange (Kent State UP), Page 54
Letters to Lelange (Kent State UP), Page 54
Arthur C Clarke & C.S. Lewis
In 1956 Clarke moved to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to pursue his hobby of scuba diving. That's the year when C.S. Lewis told Kathryn Lindskoog that the best science fiction book, in his opinion, was Clarke's ‘Childhood's End’. (Lewis didn't happen to mention that he and Clarke were acquainted, and that he had a close friend named Joy Gresham who was a friend of Clarke's.) About ten years later Clarke mentioned Lewis in an article called ‘Armchair Astronauts’ in Holiday magazine:
"Less sympathetic to our aims was Dr. C. S. Lewis, author of two of the very few works of space fiction that can be classed as literature – ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ and ‘Perelandra’. Both of these fine books contained attacks on scientists in general, and astronauts in particular, which aroused my ire. I was especially incensed by a passage in ‘Perelandra’ referring to 'little Interplanetary Societies and Rocketry Clubs'...
An extensive correspondence with Dr. Lewis led to a meeting in a famous Oxford pub, the Eastgate... Needless to say, neither side converted the other. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis' parting words were, 'I'm sure you're very wicked people-but how dull it would be if everyone was good.'
"Less sympathetic to our aims was Dr. C. S. Lewis, author of two of the very few works of space fiction that can be classed as literature – ‘Out of the Silent Planet’ and ‘Perelandra’. Both of these fine books contained attacks on scientists in general, and astronauts in particular, which aroused my ire. I was especially incensed by a passage in ‘Perelandra’ referring to 'little Interplanetary Societies and Rocketry Clubs'...
An extensive correspondence with Dr. Lewis led to a meeting in a famous Oxford pub, the Eastgate... Needless to say, neither side converted the other. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis' parting words were, 'I'm sure you're very wicked people-but how dull it would be if everyone was good.'
Why did Sauron create the One Ring...
... and What Were Its Powers?
It was part of Sauron's scheme to ensnare and enslave the users of all the rings of power and so control the Noldor of Middle-earth. Sauron planned for the domination of all of Middle-earth and he needed/wanted to control the Elves to complete this plan. This was the reason for the forging of the One Ring. Sauron went to Orodruin, Mount Doom, to forge the Ruling Ring, and by putting a large part of his own inherent power into the Ring he created a means by which he could enslave the users of the rings:
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them."
[The Silmarillion]
Sauron took quite a risk in placing a major portion of his own power into an item that could be taken from his control. This is exactly what happened at the end of the Second Age when the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and Isildur cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Separated from his power, Sauron was vanquished and seemingly disappeared from Middle-earth. Tolkien's view on the use of power is revealed in another one of his Letters:
"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophise' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalised and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control."
[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #121)
It was part of Sauron's scheme to ensnare and enslave the users of all the rings of power and so control the Noldor of Middle-earth. Sauron planned for the domination of all of Middle-earth and he needed/wanted to control the Elves to complete this plan. This was the reason for the forging of the One Ring. Sauron went to Orodruin, Mount Doom, to forge the Ruling Ring, and by putting a large part of his own inherent power into the Ring he created a means by which he could enslave the users of the rings:
"And much of the strength and will of Sauron passed into that One Ring; for the power of the Elven-rings was very great, and that which should govern them must be a thing of surpassing potency; and Sauron forged it in the Mountain of Fire in the Land of Shadow. And while he wore the One Ring he could perceive all the things that were done by means of the lesser rings, and he could see and govern the very thoughts of those that wore them."
[The Silmarillion]
Sauron took quite a risk in placing a major portion of his own power into an item that could be taken from his control. This is exactly what happened at the end of the Second Age when the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron and Isildur cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. Separated from his power, Sauron was vanquished and seemingly disappeared from Middle-earth. Tolkien's view on the use of power is revealed in another one of his Letters:
"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophise' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalised and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control."
[The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #121)
The C.S. Lewis Petition
We the undersigned are concerned about the apparent irregularities in the posthumous C.S. Lewis canon, first investigated in a computer study by C.F. Jones of the University of Florida in 1986, described by Kathryn Lindskoog in The C.S. Lewis Hoax in 1988, and confirmed in 1991 by A.Q. Morton of the University of Glasgow, leading forensic authority on literary forgery. We are concerned because both the complex "Literary Detective" alphabetical analysis by C.F. Jones and the vastly more complex cumulative sum chart sentence analysis by A.Q. Morton refute the authenticity of The Dark Tower. We are also concerned because of A.Q. Morton's report that the central forty percent of the 1990 C.S. Lewis essay "Christian Reunion" clearly matches the statistical pattern of Walter Hooper's writing rather than that of C.S. Lewis.
We are concerned about Kathryn Lindskoog's unanswered charge that the following posthumous works published from 1966 to 1991 have faulty provenance, and we are also concerned about the charge that they all exhibit unLewisian style, taste, beliefs, or values.
For a list of signatories, see http://www.lindentree.org/petition.html (Unfortunately this link has now been removed)
We are concerned about Kathryn Lindskoog's unanswered charge that the following posthumous works published from 1966 to 1991 have faulty provenance, and we are also concerned about the charge that they all exhibit unLewisian style, taste, beliefs, or values.
For a list of signatories, see http://www.lindentree.org/petition.html (Unfortunately this link has now been removed)
The C.S. Lewis Hoax
When THE C. S. LEWIS HOAX was published in 1988 it immediately aroused a tumult of praise and protest.
Five Stars
The WEST COAST REVIEW OF BOOKS (otherwise known as BOOKS/100 REVIEWS ) reviewed well over 3000 books from 1984 to 1989, but only 28 received five-star reviews. One of the 28 was The C.S. Lewis Hoax. Here are selections from that review:
"The 'Mere' Christian, C. S. Lewis, is unique: he was a scholar among scholars, self-described as an 'academic prig,' yet he is an international best-selling author. But Kathryn Lindskoog has similar claims to virtuosity; she is an academic researcher of redoubtable powers, but she also writes English that is satisfying for its own sake...
"Her story is dramatic: she asserts, with impressive documentation, that much of what has been published by or about Lewis since his death has been fabricated, seemingly for the personal aggrandizement of his literary executor, the personable Anglican priest Walter Hooper. In particular, she discredits the posthumous Lewis novel The Dark Tower, and succeeds in making plausible suggetions as to when, by whom, and under what inspiration it was in fact written... The irregularities -- to use a mild word -- that she establishes are shocking...
"This small book is a masterpiece of both research and writing; even those with little interest in literature will appreciate the strength and subtlety of the arguments, and the clarity (and charity!) of the style."
Five Stars
The WEST COAST REVIEW OF BOOKS (otherwise known as BOOKS/100 REVIEWS ) reviewed well over 3000 books from 1984 to 1989, but only 28 received five-star reviews. One of the 28 was The C.S. Lewis Hoax. Here are selections from that review:
"The 'Mere' Christian, C. S. Lewis, is unique: he was a scholar among scholars, self-described as an 'academic prig,' yet he is an international best-selling author. But Kathryn Lindskoog has similar claims to virtuosity; she is an academic researcher of redoubtable powers, but she also writes English that is satisfying for its own sake...
"Her story is dramatic: she asserts, with impressive documentation, that much of what has been published by or about Lewis since his death has been fabricated, seemingly for the personal aggrandizement of his literary executor, the personable Anglican priest Walter Hooper. In particular, she discredits the posthumous Lewis novel The Dark Tower, and succeeds in making plausible suggetions as to when, by whom, and under what inspiration it was in fact written... The irregularities -- to use a mild word -- that she establishes are shocking...
"This small book is a masterpiece of both research and writing; even those with little interest in literature will appreciate the strength and subtlety of the arguments, and the clarity (and charity!) of the style."
What do the Inklings have to teach us today?
Above all, and by example, it is the strength and beneficent power of the human spirit. Here we have... very different men, each with his own vision, and finding expression for it in very different ways. And yet there is a secret and subtle accord that unites them, not only in their personal friendship, but in all the interplay of circumstances that brought them together, and sparked recognition between them...”
Gareth Knight: “The Magical World of the Inklings”, Postscript.
Gareth Knight: “The Magical World of the Inklings”, Postscript.
The Novels of Charles Williams
If you've ever had deja vu, or thought of someone and they call on the telephone
at that moment, then you have already experienced what writer Charles Williams'
novels are all about.
Charles Walter Stansby Williams, M.A. Oxford, was a Writer, Poet, Editor
and Lecturer. His published writings are some of the most unusual and now
obscure works of the 20th Century. Williams is as obscure now as an important
20th century writer could be, but his influence is important. His works
range from literary criticism and biographies to theology, drama, poetry
and fiction. His influence is most seen in the rise of Arthurian Romance
themes in the mid to later part of the 20th Century.
When reading a Williams novel, one may begin to discover that Williams was
ahead of his time. In fact, Williams seems to have written from the point
of view of another dimension, where the nuances of spiritual associations
are prominent, and fictional characters are described in terms of soulful
connectedness as though Williams had looked not upon their outward mannerisms,
but upon their very spirits.
To label Williams' style of writing as merely Romantic or Mystic would miss
much of what stands out in it -- the ease and familiarity that Williams has
with other dimensions. These are not dimensions which are alien to most
of us, something about them is very familiar. That is the attraction and
ironically the incomprehensibility one may find in a Williams novel.
Source Unknown
at that moment, then you have already experienced what writer Charles Williams'
novels are all about.
Charles Walter Stansby Williams, M.A. Oxford, was a Writer, Poet, Editor
and Lecturer. His published writings are some of the most unusual and now
obscure works of the 20th Century. Williams is as obscure now as an important
20th century writer could be, but his influence is important. His works
range from literary criticism and biographies to theology, drama, poetry
and fiction. His influence is most seen in the rise of Arthurian Romance
themes in the mid to later part of the 20th Century.
When reading a Williams novel, one may begin to discover that Williams was
ahead of his time. In fact, Williams seems to have written from the point
of view of another dimension, where the nuances of spiritual associations
are prominent, and fictional characters are described in terms of soulful
connectedness as though Williams had looked not upon their outward mannerisms,
but upon their very spirits.
To label Williams' style of writing as merely Romantic or Mystic would miss
much of what stands out in it -- the ease and familiarity that Williams has
with other dimensions. These are not dimensions which are alien to most
of us, something about them is very familiar. That is the attraction and
ironically the incomprehensibility one may find in a Williams novel.
Source Unknown
The Trilemma
' ...that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.'
C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
Tolkien on Marriage
"Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to."
J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter to Michael Tolkien, March 1941
J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter to Michael Tolkien, March 1941
The Good News...
According to J.R.R. Tolkien
“I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story... it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories... But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desires and inspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfilment of Creation.”
Tolkien Reader, page 71-72
According to Dorothy Sayers
“Jesus Christ is unique – unique among gods and men. There have been incarnate gods a-plenty, and slain-and-resurrected gods not a few; but He is the only God who had a date in history.”
The Man Born to be King, page 20
According to Jack Lewis
“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact... It happens – at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences... By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth; that is the miracle.”
God in the Dock, page 66-67
“I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story... it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories... But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desires and inspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfilment of Creation.”
Tolkien Reader, page 71-72
According to Dorothy Sayers
“Jesus Christ is unique – unique among gods and men. There have been incarnate gods a-plenty, and slain-and-resurrected gods not a few; but He is the only God who had a date in history.”
The Man Born to be King, page 20
According to Jack Lewis
“The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact... It happens – at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences... By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth; that is the miracle.”
God in the Dock, page 66-67
Forward to “Essays presented to Charles Williams”, by C.S. Lewis
"In this book the reader is offered the work of one professional author, two dons, a solicitor, a friar, and a retired army officer; if he feels disposed to complain of hotchpotch (which incidentally is an excellent dish; consult the NOCTES AMBROSIANAE) I must reply that the variety displayed by this little group is far too small to represent the width of Charles William's friendships. Nor are we claiming to represent it. Voices from many parts of England -- voices of people often very different from ourselves -- would justly rebuke our presumption if we did. We know that he was as much theirs as ours: not only, nor even chiefly, because of his range and versatility, great though these were, but because, in every circle that he entered, he gave the whole man. I had almost said that he was at everyone's disposal, but those words would imply a passivity on his part, and all who knew him would find the implication ludicrous. You might as well say that an Atlantic breaker on a Cornish beach is 'at the disposal' of all whom it sweeps off their feet.
If the authors of this book were to put forward any claim, it would be, and that shyly, that they were for the last few years of his life a fairly permanent nucleus among his literary friends. He read us his manuscripts and we read him ours: we smoked, talked, argued, and drank together (I must confess that with Miss Dorothy Sayers I have seen him drink only tea: but that was neither his fault nor hers). "Of many such talks this collection is not unrepresentative."
If the authors of this book were to put forward any claim, it would be, and that shyly, that they were for the last few years of his life a fairly permanent nucleus among his literary friends. He read us his manuscripts and we read him ours: we smoked, talked, argued, and drank together (I must confess that with Miss Dorothy Sayers I have seen him drink only tea: but that was neither his fault nor hers). "Of many such talks this collection is not unrepresentative."
Announcing "The Proverbs of Middle Earth" by David Rowe
With permission from both the author and the publisher, over the next 3 months, I shall be posting a regular weekly excerpt from the book. It is expected that this important and original study will be published in the Summer of 2016. The book has a forward by Dr. Peter J. Kreeft.
On his great Tree of Tales, it is the leaves – the tiny details – in which J.R.R. Tolkien took greatest delight. Because of this, one of the ways in which his Middle-earth legendarium is unparalleled in English literature is that its diverse peoples and cultures each possess their own fully-formed wisdom traditions, comprised of songs, poems, and – the focus of this study – over 300 original proverbs.
From the great sea to the land of shadow, from wizards to rustic gaffers, David Rowe's book "The Proverbs of Middle Earth" will provide an in-depth exploration of the wisdom traditions of Middle-earth, investigating the degree to which Tolkien’s proverbs not only delight and instruct, but also bring revelatory “inner reality” to his created world.
“In investigating Tolkien’s proverbs, I feel like Alice, falling down the rabbit-hole, or Mary Poppins, reaching into her carpet bag: the deeper I go, the more there has been to discover. It has been said that Middle-earth is so deeply satisfying because “you can ask a question about it, and you’ll get an answer; and if you ask a question about the question, or a question about the answer, then you’ll get more answers.” This is exactly what I have been doing over the past seven years, and along the way I have marvelled at the sheer magnitude of thoughtful detail Tolkien put into his peoples and their cultures; how much effort he put into facets of his work that few ever notice. I invite you to come and discover them too!” ~ David Rowe
“I was intrigued by the idea of looking at the cultures of Middle-earth through the lens of their proverbs. This book will enrich and enhance our understanding of phrases often heard and said, deepening our love of this world. David has done a beautiful job in giving us a unique way to experience the lore we all love so much and I’m sure that fans will love having this book on their shelf.” ~ Lara Sookoo, publisher
The Proverbs of Middle-earth ©2016
By David Rowe. All rights reserved.
By David Rowe. All rights reserved.
Owen Barfield by Walter Hooper
After reading "Light on C.S.Lewis" (1965) Professor J.R.R.Tolkien told me he thought Owen Barfield’s Introduction threw more light on the subject than any other contribution. I’ve never heard any disagreement. That marvellous caster of light on Lewis died peacefully in Forest Row, East Sussex, on Sunday 14 December 1997 aged 99.
Arthur Owen Barfield was born in London (two weeks before Lewis) on 9 November 1898. He attended Highgate School, after which he took part in the First World War. He served as a Wireless Officer in the Signal Service of the Royal Engineers (now the Royal Corps of Signals), and was always grateful that he was able to learn Morse Code. He won a scholarship to Wadham College, and during his first term there in 1919 he met C.S. Lewis. Gradually Lewis’s admiration moved from Barfield’s poetry to the man in the round. ‘Barfield towers above us all,’ he wrote in his diary on 9 July 1922.
Both men loved ‘rational opposition’ and in 1923 they went at it hammer and tongs. The occasion was Barfield’s becoming an adherent of Anthroposophy, the religious system evolved by Rudolf Steiner. They argued about it for years, and it is to both men’s credit that they ended better friends than before. Lewis described Barfield in "Surprised by Joy" as the friend ‘who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the anti-self. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle.’ Lewis wrote to a friend in 1925,‘I go to Barfield for sheer wisdom and a sort of richness of spirit.'
Owen Barfield, a devout Christian, is not yet as famous as Lewis, but he was a respected author before Lewis’s name was known. One of his truly seminal books, admired by Lewis and Tolkien, is "Poetic Diction" (1928). Barfield hoped for an academic life, but honour drove him to London in 1929 to assist his father in the family law practice. He had married Maud Douie in 1923, and with three children to support, there was little time for writing. However, before his retirement as a solicitor in 1959 he produced "Saving the Appearances" (1957), which is about the disparity between normal human consciousness and the mind of the scientist in comprehending the familiar phenomena of the universe. None of his many books are easy to read. This is because of the profundity of what he writes about. But it is only by reading his brilliant writing that one can understand what Lewis meant by the ‘sheer wisdom’ he gained from him.
At the time of Lewis’s death, Barfield was 'discovered' by folk in the United States and for years he was a visiting lecturer to American universities. He had been appointed Literary Executor of Lewis’s Estate, and he spent thousands of hours in this capacity making his friend’s books better known. Anyone else would have resented this, but Barfield really did ‘tower’ above us - in brilliance, of course, but more than anything in humility and sweetness.
When the High Gates opened for him on that Sunday afternoon in December 1997 we may be sure it was because things of far greater importance than books had tipped the scales greatly in his favour.
Arthur Owen Barfield was born in London (two weeks before Lewis) on 9 November 1898. He attended Highgate School, after which he took part in the First World War. He served as a Wireless Officer in the Signal Service of the Royal Engineers (now the Royal Corps of Signals), and was always grateful that he was able to learn Morse Code. He won a scholarship to Wadham College, and during his first term there in 1919 he met C.S. Lewis. Gradually Lewis’s admiration moved from Barfield’s poetry to the man in the round. ‘Barfield towers above us all,’ he wrote in his diary on 9 July 1922.
Both men loved ‘rational opposition’ and in 1923 they went at it hammer and tongs. The occasion was Barfield’s becoming an adherent of Anthroposophy, the religious system evolved by Rudolf Steiner. They argued about it for years, and it is to both men’s credit that they ended better friends than before. Lewis described Barfield in "Surprised by Joy" as the friend ‘who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the anti-self. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle.’ Lewis wrote to a friend in 1925,‘I go to Barfield for sheer wisdom and a sort of richness of spirit.'
Owen Barfield, a devout Christian, is not yet as famous as Lewis, but he was a respected author before Lewis’s name was known. One of his truly seminal books, admired by Lewis and Tolkien, is "Poetic Diction" (1928). Barfield hoped for an academic life, but honour drove him to London in 1929 to assist his father in the family law practice. He had married Maud Douie in 1923, and with three children to support, there was little time for writing. However, before his retirement as a solicitor in 1959 he produced "Saving the Appearances" (1957), which is about the disparity between normal human consciousness and the mind of the scientist in comprehending the familiar phenomena of the universe. None of his many books are easy to read. This is because of the profundity of what he writes about. But it is only by reading his brilliant writing that one can understand what Lewis meant by the ‘sheer wisdom’ he gained from him.
At the time of Lewis’s death, Barfield was 'discovered' by folk in the United States and for years he was a visiting lecturer to American universities. He had been appointed Literary Executor of Lewis’s Estate, and he spent thousands of hours in this capacity making his friend’s books better known. Anyone else would have resented this, but Barfield really did ‘tower’ above us - in brilliance, of course, but more than anything in humility and sweetness.
When the High Gates opened for him on that Sunday afternoon in December 1997 we may be sure it was because things of far greater importance than books had tipped the scales greatly in his favour.
Tolkien to his son Christopher (extract)
10 April 1944
I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapor, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historic version is, of course, not the only one. All things and all deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects." No man can estimate what is really happening sub specie aeternitatis. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labors with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.
- from "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien"
I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapor, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historic version is, of course, not the only one. All things and all deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their "causes" and "effects." No man can estimate what is really happening sub specie aeternitatis. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labors with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.
- from "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien"
Tolkien on the Rings of Power
Just why were they created? The reason is tied to the regret the Elves had for the passage of time. The Elves were immortal and were fated to live as long as Middle-earth lasted. As such, the earth changed with the passage of time, and the Elves saw many things that were fair become destroyed and lost by the hurts of evil. Sauron, as tempter, awoke a desire in the hearts of Elves to heal the hurts of the earth and create a paradise on this side of the sea to compare to Valinor -- and to be its rulers; whereas in Valinor they were only subjects and below the Valar. The Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty. Yet they had other powers as well.
Tolkien provides a revealing insight on to the nature of the Rings and their powers in one of his letters:
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance --- this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor -- thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron... such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131
Tolkien provides a revealing insight on to the nature of the Rings and their powers in one of his letters:
"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance --- this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor -- thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron... such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #131
Barfield on Lewis
Barfield compared arguing with Lewis to “wielding a peashooter against a howitzer... It must be understood that rational opposition is not quarreling. We were always,” said Barfield, “arguing for truth not for victory, and arguing for truth, not for comfort.”
Before he moved to London in 1930 to work as a solicitor, Barfield published Poetic Diction (1928), a work that was to have a profound influence on the other Inklings, particularly J.R.R. Tolkien. Barfield died in 1998, outliving all his Inkling contemporaries.
Before he moved to London in 1930 to work as a solicitor, Barfield published Poetic Diction (1928), a work that was to have a profound influence on the other Inklings, particularly J.R.R. Tolkien. Barfield died in 1998, outliving all his Inkling contemporaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
