Notes

Preface

          1.  Lewis, “Reason,” first published in Lewis’s Poems, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), p. 81.  For a discussion of the poem, relating it to The Pilgrim’s Regress and Till We Have Faces, see Kathryn Lindskoog, “Getting It Together: Lewis and the Two Hemispheres of Knowing,” Mythlore, 6 (Winter 1979), 45-47.

          2.  Lewis nowhere defines imagination explicitly, and he uses the term in a number of ways: as the image-making power (“imagine two books lying on a table”), the creative or inventive power (“fired the imagination of the hrossa”), the power to make up things (“of course one can imagine things”), the power to create fiction (“solely an imaginative supposal”), the mysteriousness and adventurousness of romance (“almost everything the imagination craves—irony, heroism, vastness, unity in multiplicity, and a tragic close”), and “‘Imagination’ in some high Coleridgean sense.”

          The essential concept, however, is that expressed by Tolkien in “On Fairy-Stories”: “The human mind is capable of forming mental images of things not actually present.  The faculty of conceiving the images is . . . called Imagination” (Essays Presented to Charles Williams [London: Oxford University Press, 1947], p. 66).  That emphasizes imagination’s involvement with the concrete in contrast with reason’s concern with abstractions; with fiction rather than fact; with making up, “creating,” rather than observing; with integration rather than analysis and identification.  In a recent article Owen Barfield gives as imagination’s concerns “resemblance” rather than a logical nexus, “metamorphosis” rather than sequence and aggregation, “interpenetration” rather than a fixed shape or pattern.  The resemblance of these qualities to the “mishmash” of modern relativism and philosophical subjectivism, Barfield believes, accounts for some of Lewis’s reluctance to commit himself to a theory of imagination.  Barfield sees a bifurcation between Lewis the logician and Lewis the imaginative writer similar to what I describe, but explains Lewis’s attitude toward imagination not as distrust but as a “desire to protect . . . and insulate imagination, so that it could continue to live its own pure and chaste life” (“Lewis, Truth and Imagination,” Kodon [Wheaton College], Winter 1978, pp. 17-26).

          3.  Smith, Patches of Godlight:  The Pattern of Thought of C. S. Lewis (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), p. x.  [< p. 183]

SECTION ONE:  THE WORK ITSELF

I—Introduction:  The Background

          1.  The text and a reliable translation may be found in The Golden Ass, being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius, with an English translation by W. Adlington, Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann, 1915), pp. 184-99.  I have drawn here upon the selective summary of Apuleius’s story which Lewis appended to the American edition of Till We Have Faces.

          2.  Boccaccio, The Book of Theseus, trans. Bernadette M. McCoy (New York: Medieval Text Association, 1974), p. 201; William Warburton, The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated (1738; rpt. London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1837), I, 324 (original in italics); Robert Graves, “Introduction,” The Golden Ass (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1951), p. xix.

          3.  For Lewis’s ideas on myth, see pages 122-26 and 137-39.  Also Peter Macky, “Myth as the Way We Can Taste Reality: An Analysis of C. S. Lewis’s Theory,” The Lamp-Post of the Southern California C. S. Lewis Society, 6 (July 1982), 1-7; Dean Loganbill, “Myth, Reality, and Till We Have Faces,” Man’s ‘Natural Powers’: Essays for and about C. S. Lewis, ed. Raymond P. Tripp, Jr. (n.p.: The Society for New Language Study, 1975) pp. 55-58.  Also, Don D. Elgin, “True and False Myth in C. S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces,” South Central Bulletin, 41 (1981), 98-101.

          4.  Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey (1920; London:  Oxford University Press, 1923).  Lewis summarized Otto’s points in the first chapter of The Problem of Pain (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1940), and more briefly in his reply to H. H. Price’s paper “Is Theism Important?”, Socratic Digest, No. 5 (1952), 49-50 (reprinted in God in the Dock:  Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970] pp. 174-75; in Britain, Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971], pp. 140-41).

          5.  From Lewis’s diary entry for 9 September 1923, included in volume VIII, page 150, of the unpublished Memoirs of the Lewis Family, 1850-1930, compiled and typed from original documents by Warren Lewis, now in the Wade Collection, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.  Used by permission of C. S. Lewis PTE Limited and the Wade Collection.

          6.  Memoirs of the Lewis Family, VIII, 163-64.

          7.  Lewis, diary entry for 23 November 1922, in Memoirs of the Lewis Family, VII, 281.

          8.  Lewis, Till We Have Faces:  A Myth Retold (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956), p. [1].

II—Chapters 1-2: Methods, Motives, Materialism

          1.  The letter is dated 10 February 1957, and is found in Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), pp. 273-74.  The imagined location of the setting is not very important.  The Kingdom of Glome was, Chad Walsh suggests, “somewhere on the fringes of Asia Minor, [< p. 184] . . . possibly in what is now Turkey, or near the Black Sea” (The Literary Legacy of C. S. Lewis [New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979], p. 161).  But, as Thomas Howard has written, myth requires a world that is remote from us and at the same time rooted in our world:  “We don’t want our myths taking place in 1929, or even 1066, nor do we want them to occur in East Lansing or Gary, Indiana” (“Myth:  A Flight to Reality,” in The Christian Imagination: Essays on Literature and the Arts, ed. Leland Ryken [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1981], p. 203).  Lewis’s use of an indeterminate time and place functions nicely to enhance his remythologizing of Apuleius.

          2.  Como, “Till We Have Faces: A Preface to Comprehension,” CSL:  The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 7 (November 1975), 3.  For a fuller analysis of Lewis’s changes in Apuleius’s tale, see Steve J. Van Der Weele, “From Mt. Olympus to Glome:  C. S. Lewis’s Dislocation of Apuleius’s ‘Cupid and Psyche’ in Till We Have Faces,” in The Longing for a Form:  Essays on the Fiction of C. S. Lewis, ed. Peter J. Schakel (Kent, Ohio:  Kent State University Press, 1977), pp. 182-92.  Also, Andrew Howard, “Till We Have Faces and its Mythological and Literary Precursors,” Mythlore, 4 (March 1977), 30-32; and Gisbert Kranz, “Amor und Psyche: Metamorphose eines Mythos bei C. S. Lewis,” Arcadia: Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, 4 (1969), 285-99; see also his C. S. Lewis:  Studien zu Leben und Werk (Bonn: Bouvier, 1974).

          3.  Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII.88, trans. R. D. Hicks, Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1925), 2: 195, 197.

          4.  Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII.138, 134-35, 148 (2: 243, 239, 241, 253).

          5.  Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII.136, 149 (2: 241, 253).

          6. See Epictetus, Discourses, IV.vii.14-15; and Josiah B. Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1970), p. 165.

          7.  Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), pp. 130, 132 (Ch. 9).  The Fox’s rationalism underlies Charles Moorman’s suggestion that “the conflict of faith and scientific rationalism, apparent in all of Lewis’s work, emerges as the dominant theme of Till We Have Faces” (Arthurian Triptych: Mythic Materials in Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and T. S. Eliot [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960], p. 105).

          8.  See, for example, Clyde S. Kilby, “Till We Have Faces: An Interpretation,” in The Longing for a Form, p. 179.  The Fox’s name, Lysias, is mentioned only once in the book (p. 186).  According to Edward G. Zogby, S.J., “his name in Greek, ironically, means ransomer” (“Triadic Patterns in Lewis’s Life and Thought,” in The Longing for a Form, p. 34).  In choosing the name, Lewis might also have had in mind that Lysias was the name of an Athenian orator (5^th-4^th century B.C.) who spent considerable time in exile.

          9.  Lewis’s aggressiveness in argument is a recurring motif of the essays in C. S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table and Other Reminiscences, ed. James T. Como (New York: Macmillan, 1979).  See Leo Baker, “Near the Beginning,” p. 6; John Wain, “A Great Clerke,” p. 69; Peter Bayley, “From [< p. 185] Master to Colleague,” p. 81; and Walter Hooper, “Oxford’s Bonny Fighter,” p. 142.

          10.  Clyde  S. Kilby, The Christian World of C. S. Lewis (Grand Rapids, Mich.:  Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 57-58; and Margaret Patterson Hannay, C. S. Lewis (New York: Ungar, 1981), p. 124.  Evan K. Gibson, C. S. Lewis: Spinner of Tales (Washington D.C.: Christian University Press, 1980), pp. 232, 242-43, lists a number of illustrations, but concludes that Psyche is not a symbol of Christ but “the ideal pattern for the Christian soul” (p. 244).  Martha C. Sammons takes the Christian interpretation much further, to a nearly allegorical reading (though she labels the approach “transposition” rather than allegory):  “Christian Doctrines ‘Transposed’ in C. S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces,” Mythlore, 7 (March 1980), 31-35.

          11.  Letters of C. S. Lewis, p. 274.

          12.  The poem by Simonides (556-467 B.C.) can be translated as follows:  “There’s a tale that Virtue dwelleth on a rock hard to climb and with a pure band of Goddesses to watch over it, nor may she ever be seen by eye of mortal, unless heart-devouring sweat come out of one and he reach unto the very top of manliness” (Lyra Graeca, trans. J. M. Edmonds, 3 vols., rev. ed. [London: Heinemann, 1964], 2: 321).  The poem by Sappho (flourished about 590 B.C.) is,

                                           The Moon is gone
                                           And the Pleiads set,
                                                Midnight is nigh;
                                           Time passes on,
                                           And passes; yet
                                               Alone I lie.
                                                  (trans. C. M. Bowra—Lyra Graeca, 1: 263).

          13.  The sources of the story are the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, 45-200, and Hyginus, Fabula, 94.

III—Chapters 3-5: Of Divine Mysteries and Sacrifice

          1.  But, as Thomas Howard reminds us, she is more like the Babylonian than the Greek Aphrodite, “a much darker, more bloody, more earthy deity than the lithe and statuesque figure we know from the Greeks and Romans” (The Achievement of C. S. Lewis [Wheaton, Ill.:  Harold Shaw Publishers, 1980], p. 166).  Jean Marie Chard, “Some Elements of Myth and Mysticism in C. S. Lewis’s Novel Till We Have Faces,” Mythlore, 5 (Autumn 1975), 15, points out that Lewis also drew upon the Babylonian myth of the love goddess Ishtar.  W. D. Norwood, Jr., goes further in suggesting that “Ungit—Aphrodite, as she is identified by the Fox, or Venus—is one ‘face’ of the true God; i.e. she is God in his aspect of Love” (“C. S. Lewis’ Portrait of Aphrodite,” The Southern Quarterly, 8 [1970], 255).  Cf. Setsuko Nakao, “A Reading of Till We Have Faces,” Sophia English Studies, 2 (1977), 53-67.

          2.  Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D.M.G. Stalker, 2 vols. (1957; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 1: 208.  [< p. 186]

          3.  Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey (1920; London: Oxford University Press, 1923), p. 18.

          4.  Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1940), pp. 27-29 (Ch. 3).

          5.  Lewis, “Religion without Dogma?”, Socratic Digest, No. 4 (1948), 92.  It was read to the Socratic Club in Oxford in May 1946 (reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], pp. 142-43; in Britain, Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper  [London: Geoffrey Bless, 1971], p. 111).

          6.  Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1950), pp. 117-18 (Ch. 12). In depicting the divine nature as consubstantial parent and son, Lewis indicates his belief in the mysterious, “irrational” doctrines affirmed by Athanasius and the writers of the “Athanasian Creed.” Lewis says of Athanasius, “He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, ‘whole and undefiled,’ when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius [who taught that Jesus was a supernatural being created by God, neither fully human nor wholly divine]— into one of those ‘sensible’ synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today” (Introduction to The Incarnation of the Word of God, Being the Treatise of St. Athanasius “De Incarnatione Verbi Dei,” trans. Sister Penelope, C.S.M.V. [London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press. 1944], p. 11; reprinted in God in the Dock, p. 206 [Undeceptions, p. 166]—retitled “On the Reading of Old Books”).

          7.  Sophocles, Oedipus the King, trans. R.C. Jebb, The Complete Greek Drama, ed. Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’Neill, Jr., 2 vols. (New York: Random House, 1938), 1: 380, 11. 412-13.

IV—Chapters  6-7: Love and Longing

          1.  Lewis, quoted by Walter Hooper in “An Evening with Walter Hooper,” CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C.S. Lewis Society, 6 (July 1975), 4.

          2.  Lewis, The Great Divorce (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1946), p. 85. Pagination is the same in the Fontana paperback edition (London: Collins, 1972); the British edition is not divided into chapters. In the text the page number given first is in the Bles edition; the page number given second, in italics, is in the Macmillian paperback edition (New York, 1946)—here, p. 94.

          Janice Witherspoon Neuleib, in “The Empty Face of Evil,” Christianity Today, 28 March 1975, calls such descriptions of possessiveness and jealousy “Lewis’s final statement on evil. Essentially, it is the wrong kind of love” (p. 16).

          3.  Lewis, The Four Loves (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960), p. 50 (Ch. 3).

          4.  The Four Loves, p. 63 (Ch. 3).

          5.  Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), pp. 23-24 (Ch. 1).

6.  Surprised by Joy, p. 74 (Ch. 5) and p. 24 (Ch. 1).  [< p. 187]

          7.  Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1940), pp. 139-40 (Ch. 10).

          8.  Surprised by Joy, p. 22 (Ch. 1).

          9.  Lewis, “The Weight of Glory,” Theology, 43 (1941), 266 (reprinted in Transposition and Other Addresses [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1949], p. 24; in the United States, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses [New York: Macmillian, 1949], p. 5).

          10. Lewis, Christian Behaviour: A Further Series of Broadcast Talks (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1943), p. 53 (reprinted in Mere Christianity [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952], Bk. III, Ch. 10).

          11. Cf. Lewis’s own expression of longing in a letter to Dom Bede Griffiths, 5 November 1959: “About death I go through different moods, but the times when I can desire it are never, I think, those when this world seems harshest.  On the contrary, it is just when there seems to be most of Heaven already here that I come nearest to longing for a patria.  It is the bright frontispiece which whets one to read the story itself” (Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966], p. 289).

          12. Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. W.H.D. Rouse, ed. Eric H. Warmington and Philip G. Rouse (New York:  New American Library, 1956), pp. 101-2.

          13.  “Recently, what seemed to be the right form presented itself and themes suddenly interlocked:  the straight tale of barbarism, the mind of an ugly woman, dark idolatry and pale enlightenment at war with each other and with vision, and the havoc which a vocation, or even a faith, works on human life”—Lewis, Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956), p. [1].  The preceding sentences in this explanation are quoted on page 6.  Carolyn Keefe uses the term “mystic experience” to clarify for herself the significance of such “vision”:  “Mystic Experience in Till We Have Faces,” CSL:  The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 7 (November 1975), 4-7.

V—Chapters 8-11:  Believing and Perceiving

          1.  The main source of the story is Aeschylus’s Agamemnon.

          2.  The source of the story is Sophocles’ Antigone.

          3.  Earlier Psyche had observed, “If I am to go to the god, of course it must be through death” (p. 72).

          4.  See page 67.  Some critics have argued that the name Maia invokes the Hindu word for illusion and thus is a way of exposing the deceptiveness of the modes of thought Orual relies on (see, for example, Martha C. Sammons, “The God within:  Reason and its Riddle in C. S. Lewis’s Till We Have Faces,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 6 [1976], 133; and John H. Timmerman, “The Epistemology of C. S. Lewis: Reason and Belief in ‘Till We Have Faces,’ ” Religion in Life, 46 [1977], 505).  However, from the context in which the name is introduced, on pages 67-68, and the way it is generally used, it seems more appropriate to regard it as drawing on Roman mythology, where Maia was the mother of Hermes and her name means simply “mother” or “nurse.”  Thomas Howard adds that the name derives “from [< p. 188] the root mag, signifying growth or increase,” and ties it to the pregnancy image in the story (The Achievement of C. S. Lewis [Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1980], pp. 172-73).

          5.  “Note” appended to the American edition of Till We Have Faces, p. 313.

          6.  Gerard Watson, The Stoic Theory of Knowledge (Belfast:  The Queen’s University, 1966), p. 9.

          7.  Charles H. S. Davis, Greek and Roman Stoicism and Some of its Disciples (Boston:  Herbert B. Turner, 1903), p. 70.

          8.  Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, VII.49, trans. R. D. Hicks, Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1925), 2: 159, quoting Diocles the Magnesian.

          9.  A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy:  Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (New York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), p. 126.

          10.  Lewis in an unpublished letter to Clyde S. Kilby, 20 November 1962.  All of the unpublished letters quoted from in this book are in the Wade Collection, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois (copies in the Bodleian Library, Oxford).  They are used with the permission of C. S. Lewis PTE Limited and the Wade Collection.

          11.  Lewis, Perelandra (London: John Lane—The Bodley Head, 1943), p. 232 (Ch. 16).

          12.  Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet (London:  The Bodley Head, 1938), p. 46 (Ch. 7).

          13.  Barfield, Saving the Appearances:  A Study in Idolatry (London: Faber and Faber, 1957), p. 20.  Barfield’s thought draws heavily upon the work of the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.  For a quite different, and I think questionable, interpretation of the influence of Barfield’s ideas on Till We Have Faces, see Robert J. Reilly, Romantic Religion:  A Study of Barfield, Lewis, Williams and Tolkien (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1971), pp. 125-29.

          14.  From a letter dated 17 June 1918, in They Stand Together:  The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963), ed. Walter Hooper  (London: Collins, 1979), p. 223.

          15.  From an unpublished letter, the longest in the Great War series, written, according to Lionel Adey, while Lewis was vacationing in Perranporth, Cornwall, September 1929 (C. S. Lewis’s “Great War” with Owen Barfield, English Literary Studies Monograph Series, No. 14 [Victoria, British Columbia: University of Victoria, 1978], p. 43 and note).

          16.  Saving the Appearances, p. 21.

          17.  Lewis, Prince Caspian (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1951), p. 112 (Ch. 9).  Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

          18.  Notice how, in the fourth series of radio talks, Lewis in handling essentially the same subject avoids making it so very subjective by placing the emphasis on God’s revealing himself, rather than, as in Prince Caspian, on an individual’s perceiving him:  “When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side.  If He doesn’t show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him.  And, in fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others—not because he has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole [< p. 189] mind and character are in the wrong condition”—Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1944), p. 18 (reprinted in Mere Christianity [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952], Bk. IV, Ch. 2).

          19.  Lewis, The Last Battle (London:  The Bodley Head, 1956), pp. 147, 150 (Ch. 13).

          20.  Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London:  Geoffrey Bles, 1955), p. 15 (Ch. 1).

          21.  Lewis in a letter dated 12 October 1915, in They Stand Together, p. 85.

          22.  Lewis’s diary entries for 4 July 1922 (VII, 171), 12 September 1923 (VIII, 151), 22 February 1924 (VIII, 184), and 3 June 1926 (IX, 101), respectively, in Memoirs of the Lewis Family, 1850-1930, compiled and typed from original documents by Warren Lewis, now in the Wade Collection, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.  Used by permission of C. S. Lewis PTE Limited and the Wade Collection.

          23.  Lewis, Dymer (London: J. M. Dent, 1926); Out of the Silent Planet, pp. 20-21; The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader” (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952), p. 167 (Ch. 12).

          24.  The Last Battle, pp. 170-71 (Ch. 15).

VI—Chapters 12-15:  Seeing and Knowing

          1.  A character in The Great Divorce experiences a similar sense of shame when she appears beside heavenly beings:  “How can I go out like this among a lot of people with real solid bodies?  It’s far worse than going out with nothing on would have been on earth” ([London:  Geoffrey Bles, 1946], p. 56 [New York:  Macmillan, 1946], p. 61).

VII—Chapters 16-20:  Loving, Hating, Hiding

          1.  Lewis, The Great Divorce (London:  Geoffrey Bles, 1946), p. 85 (New York:  Macmillan, 1946), p. 94.  Gunnar Urang notes that “the epigraph to [Till We Have Faces] reads:  ‘Love is too young to know what conscience is.’  But the next line in that Shakespearean sonnet [number 151] is ‘Yet who knows not conscience is born of love?’  The story now follows this development of ‘conscience’ in Orual” (Shadows of Heaven:  Religion and Fantasy in the Writing of C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and J. R. R. Tolkien [Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1971], p. 44).

          2.  The Great Divorce (Bles), p. 84 (Macmillan), p. 92.

          3.  See W. B. Carnochan, “The Minister’s Black Veil: Symbol, Meaning, and the Context of Hawthorne’s Art,” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 24 (1969), 182-92.  A valuable discussion of the veil symbolism appears in Margaret Hannay’s “Orual:  The Search for Justice,” Mythlore, 2 (Winter 1971), 5-6.

VIII—Chapter 21:  The Myth and the Retelling

          1.  Sir James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough:  A Study in Magic and Religion (New York:  Macmillan, 1922), p. 383.  [< p. 190]

          2.  Lewis, “Myth Became Fact,” World Dominion, 22 (1944), 269 (reprinted in God in the Dock:  Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids, Mich.:  Eerdmans, 1970], p. 66; and in Britain, Undeceptions:  Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bless, 1971], p. 42).

          3.  Lewis, Broadcast Talks (London:  Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1942), p. 50 (reprinted in Mere Christianity [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952], Bk. II, Ch. 3).  See also Stella Gibbons, “Imaginative Writing,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1965), p. 94.

          4.  Lewis, “Religion without Dogma?”, Socratic Digest, No. 4 (1948), 84 (reprinted in God in the Dock, p. 132; Undeceptions, p. 102).

          5.  Lewis, Miracles (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1947), p. 161 n (Ch. 15).

          6.  Lewis, “The Grand Miracle,” The Guardian, 27 April 1945, p. 161 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 82-84; Undeceptions, pp. 58-60).

          7.  “Myth Became Fact,” p. 269 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 66-67; Undeceptions, p. 42).

          8.  Mink, “History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension,” New Literary History, 1 (1970), 557.

          9.  Louch, “History as Narrative,” History and Theory, 8 (1969), 69.  In defense of narrative, see Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue:  A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame, Ind.:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), Ch. 15; also Johannes B. Metz, Faith in History and Society, trans. David Smith (1977; New York: Seabury Press, 1980), pp. 205-18.

          10.  Antoine Roquentin in Satre’s La Nausee (Paris: Gallimard, 1938).

IX—Part II:  “Real Life is Meeting”

          1.  Joe R. Christopher, in “The Labors of Psyche: A Sorting of Events,” CSL:  The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 7 (November 1975), 7-10, neatly outlines the differences between Lewis’s four versions of the labors:  in the Priest of Essur’s tale, in Part II of the main story, in the pictures through which Orual and the Fox observe moments of Psyche’s life after she left the valley, and in the note which follows the text in the American edition.

          2.  The sifting, sorting, and separating nicely image the subjective element in narrative—and in autobiography particularly—discussed in Chapter 8.  There is an apparent artificiality in sorting things into “separate piles, each all of one kind,” yet it is actually, Lewis would affirm, in the interest of a truth that is there.

          3.  For “the Way of Exchange,” see pp. 82-83.

          4.  Clyde S. Kilby describes Redival as “the selfish, lustful worldling more concerned about ‘getting and spending’ and a good time than anything else” (“Till We Have Faces: An Interpretation,” in The Longing for a Form: Essays on the Fiction of C. S. Lewis, ed. Peter J. Schakel [Kent, Ohio:  Kent State University Press, 1977], p. 180).  Evan Gibson looks deeper into her:  “Redival is robbed of the companionship and love of her older sister by invasions of their happiness in which she can have no part.  Born [< p. 191] without intellectual capacities, it is no wonder that she hates the lessons of the Fox and fills her lonely hours by plaguing him and encouraging others to do the same.  And the arrival of Psyche, who robs her of what love Orual still has for her, is, no doubt, regarded as the final collapse of her world.”  It is only natural, therefore, that she should become spiteful and indulgent and turn to Tarin and then to Batta for the companionship she could not find elsewhere (C. S. Lewis: Spinner of Tales [Washington, D.C.: Christian University Press, 1980], p. 240).

          5.  Barfield, Poetic Diction:  A Study in Meaning (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1928), p. 77 (Ch. 4).  Albert F. Reddy, S. J., comments, “[Orual] writes her book for the Greek reader, the man of pure reason and cultivated sensibility like the Fox; and Lewis writes his book for the modern Greeks among us.  These are the secularists of our day who regard the beliefs of primitive man as harmful superstitions and who desire to demythologize and rationalize all religion” (“Till We Have Faces: ‘An Epistle to the Greeks,’” Mosaic, 13 [1980], 156).

          6.  Much of the “ugliness” of Ungit may, in fact, be a projection of Orual’s feelings about herself upon Ungit.  Here again the matter of perspective becomes important.  Almost all that we know about Ungit comes through, and may be affected by, Orual.

          7.  The publishers turned down Lewis’s choice of a title, Bareface, because, they felt, it made the book sound too much like an American “western” (see Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography [London: Collins, 1974], p. 261).

          8.  Corbin S. Carnell, in Bright Shadow of Reality:  C. S. Lewis and the Feeling Intellect (Grand Rapids, Mich.:  Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 114-16, points out Jungian features of the story suggested particularly by the descent into herself.  See also Laura A. Ruskin, “Three Good Mothers:  Galadriel, Psyche and Sybil Coningsby,” Mythcon I Proceedings, ed. Glen GoodKnight (Los Angeles:  The Mythopoeic Society, 1971), pp. 12-14; and Helen M. Luke, The Way of Woman, Ancient and Modern (Three Rivers, Mich.:  Apple Farm, n.d.).

          9.  Lewis, The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader” (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952), pp. 101-2 (Ch. 7).

          10.  Lewis, “Dogma and Science,” The Guardian, 26 March 1943, p. 107 (reprinted as the second half of “Dogma and the Universe” in God in the Dock:  Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], p. 47; and in Britain, Undeceptions:  Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [London:  Geoffrey Bles, 1971], p. 25).

          11.  Lewis, Letters to Malcolm:  Chiefly on Prayer (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), pp. 32-33 (Letter IV).  Similarly, in Reflections on the Psalms, he asks, “Shall we, perhaps, in Purgatory, see our own faces and hear our own voices as they really were?”  ([London: Geoffrey Bles, 1958], p. 8).

          12.  Letters to Malcolm, pp. 33-34 (Letter IV).

          13.  See Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress (London:  J. M. Dent, 1933), p. 230 (Bk. X, Ch. 3).

          14.  Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” delivered as a lecture in 1945; first published in God in the Dock, p. 102 (Undeceptions, p. 76).  Lewis was re- [< p. 192] pelled by the “obscenities and cruelties” (“Religion without Dogma?”, Socratic Digest, No. 4 [1948], 93 [reprinted in God in the Dock, p. 143; Undeceptions, p. 112]) of paganism at its worst—its temple prostitution and human sacrifice, from which even worship of Ungit was not entirely free (pp. 7-8).  “Real paganism at its best [however] is the next best thing to Christianity” (letter to Arthur Greeves, 6 December 1931, in They Stand Together:  The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves [1914-1963], ed. Walter Hooper [London: Collins, 1979], p. 433), for in its numinousness and acknowledgment of the importance of sacrifice it contains the more vibrant and compelling of the two halves of “the real religion”—that is, a religion which combines the “thick” with the “clear,” the numinous with ethical teaching (“Christian Apologetics,” in God in the Dock, p. 103; Undeceptions, p. 76).

          15. “Religion without Dogma?”, pp. 93-94 (reprinted in God in the Dock, p. 144; Undeceptions, pp. 112-13).

          16.  Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1940), p. 139 (Ch.10).

          17.  Letters to Malcolm, p. 146 (Letter XXI).

          18. Lewis, Arthurian Torso:  Containing the Posthumous Fragment of “The Figure of Arthur” by Charles Williams and a Commentary on the Arthurian Poems of Charles Williams by C. S. Lewis (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), p. 123.  For discussions of Exchange by Williams, see especially the sixth chapter of Descent into Hell (1937) and section five of The Image of the City and Other Essays, ed. Anne Ridler (London: Oxford University Press, 1958).  Its thematic and biographical implications are examined in detail by J. R. Christopher, “Archetypal Patterns in Till We Have Faces,” in The Longing for a Form, pp. 206-10.  See also Nathan Comfort Starr, C. S. Lewis’s Till We Have Faces:  An Introduction and Commentary, Religious Dimensions in Literature, ed. Lee A. Belford (New York: Seabury Press, 1968), pp. 16-17; Dorothy Hobson Fitzgerald, “Themes of Joy and Substitution in the Works of C. S. Lewis and Charles Williams,” CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 12 (January 1981), 1-9; and Dabney A. Hart, Through the Open Door: A New Look at C. S. Lewis (forthcoming—University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1984). 

          19.  I differ with Clyde S. Kilby, however, in that I take Psyche’s husband to be the Cupid of Greek myth; he is the Christ-figure of the story, but is known by the people of Glome only as the Shadowbrute.  Kilby reads it as follows:  “Cupid we know as the god of love, and Psyche means, in Greek, soul, that is, the immaterial essence or spiritual principle resident in a human body.  Psyche is lovingly rescued from captivity by West-wind, another character in Greek mythology, and here a symbol of Christ, whom the pagan people of Glome can see and fear only as the Shadowbrute. He becomes ‘husband’ to one who from childhood had experienced a great longing (Sehnsucht) for him.  Contrary to her sister Orual, who demands always to see, Psyche is willing to live by faith with her unseen Lord” (Images of Salvation in the Fiction of C. S. Lewis [Wheaton, Ill.: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1978], p. 139).

          20.  Bardia’s words, “I wonder do the gods know what it feels like to be a man” (p. 66), also anticipate the Incarnation.  [< p. 193]

          21.  Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), p. 274.  The reference is to Tertullian, Apology, XVII, 197.

          22. Lewis, That Hideous Strength  (London: John Lane—The Bodley Head, 1945), pp. 394-95 (Ch. 14, Sect. vi).  As Orual was “being unmade,” so too was Jane, when she first met with Ransom: “Her world was unmade; she knew that.  Anything might happen now” (p. 173 [Ch.7, Sect. i]).  Similarly, in Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), Lewis says, “If I could only leave off, let go, unmake myself, it [the Object of his desirings] would be there” (p. 170; Ch. 11).

SECTION TWO: THE WORK IN CONTEXT

X—Poet of the Teens and Twenties

1. Barfield, “Introduction,” Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1965), p. ix.

2. Barfield, “Introduction,” p. xvi.

3. From a letter dated 30 January 1930, in They Stand Together: The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963), ed. Walter Hooper (London: Collins, 1979), p. 339.

4. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), p. 130 (Ch. 9). Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

5. Humphrey Carpenter, The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Their Friends (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), pp. 35-36.

6. Lewis in a letter dated 12 October 1916, in They Stand Together, pp. 134-35.

7. Ibid.

8. Lewis in a letter dated 12 September 1918, in They Stand Together, p. 230.

9. Clive Hamilton (pseud.), Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics (London: Heinemann, 1919), p. 16. Further quotations from this volume will be cited in the text. The work will soon be reprinted for the first time (Spirits in Bondage, ed. Walter Hooper [New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984]).

10. Clive Hamilton (pseud.), Dymer (London: J. M. Dent, 1926), Canto I, Stanza 24 (reprinted in Narrative Poems, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1969]). Quotations hereafter will be cited in the text by canto and stanza numbers.

11. See the Preface added to a later edition of Dymer (London: J. M. Dent, 1950), pp. xi-xii (reprinted in Narrative Poems, pp. 4-5).

12. Lewis in a letter dated 12 September 1918, in They Stand Together, p. 230.

13. Lewis in a letter dated 2 December 1918, in They Stand Together, p. 239.

14. The epigraph is not included in Narrative Poems. For a recent version of the Hàvamàl, see The Elder Edda: A Selection, trans. Paul B. [< p. 194] Taylor and W. H. Auden (London: Faber and Faber, 1969); the stanzas Lewis drew upon are on pp. 56-57.

15. For Sartre on choice as the projection of the self which gives one existence, and his affirmation that “in choosing for himself he chooses for all men,” see Existence and Humanism, trans. Philip Mairet (London: Methuen, 1948), pp. 28-29—a translation of L‘Existentialisme est un humanisme (Paris: Nagel, 1946).

16. Barfield, from an unpublished lecture delivered at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, 16 October 1964. Used with Mr. Barfield’s permission.

17. Thus I do not expect, as George Sayer does, that “the time may come when [Dymer] will be ranked higher than much of Lewis’s prose work”—“C. S. Lewis’s Dymer,” VII: An Anglo-American Literary Review, 1 (1980), 113. Sayer provides a detailed and valuable reading of the poem, with emphasis on the theme of guilt in it. Richard Hodgens, “Notes on Narrative Poems,” CSL: The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 7 (April 1976), 4-8, points out an Oedipal motif in Dymer. See also J. R. Christopher, “A Study of C. S. Lewis’s Dymer,” Orcrist, No. 6 (Winter 1971-72), 17-19.

18. Milne, “Dymer: Myth or Poem?", The Month, n.s. 8 (1952), 171, 173.

XI—Critic and Story-Writer of the Thirties

1. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), pp. 221-22 (Ch. 15).

2. From a letter dated 1 October 1931, in They Stand Together: The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963), ed. Walter Hooper (London: Collins, 1979), p. 425.

3. Lewis in a letter dated 18 October 1931, in They Stand Together, pp. 426-27, 427-28.

4. Coghill, “The Approach to English,” Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1965), pp. 51-52.

5. Lewis, “The Personal Heresy in Criticism,” Essays and Studies, 19 (1933), 8 and 7; page numbers for following references to this essay will be included in the text. The essay was reprinted, with two further pieces by Lewis and three replies by E. M. W. Tillyard, in The Personal Heresy: A Controversy (London: Oxford University Press, 1939).

6. Lewis, “A Sacred Poem,” Theology, 38 (1939), 272.

7. Lewis, Broadcast Talks (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1942), p. 60.

8. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952), p. 51 (Bk. II, Ch. 5).

9. Lewis, “Rejoinder to Dr. Pittenger,” The Christian Century, 75 (1958), 1359 (reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970], p. 177; in Britain, Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971], p. 143).

10. “The ‘Personal Heresy’: Style and the Man in Poetry—A Critical Controversy,” Times Literary Supplement, 29 April 1939, p. 248. [ <p. 195]

11. In “Christianity and Literature,” read to a religious society in Oxford in the late 1930s, Lewis develops an imitative theory of literature which corresponds closely to the critical approach in “The Personal Heresy”: “‘Originality’ in the New Testament is quite plainly the prerogative of God alone. . . . The duty and happiness of every other being is placed in being derivative, in reflecting like a mirror. . . . Our whole destiny seems to lie in . . . being as little as possible ourselves, in acquiring a fragrance that is not our own but borrowed, in becoming clean mirrors filled with the image of a face that is not ours” (Rehabilitations and Other Essays [London: Oxford University Press, 1939], p. 191; reprinted in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1967], pp. 6-7).

12. Lewis, “Donne and Love Poetry in the Seventeenth Century,” Seventeenth Century Studies Presented to Sir Herbert Grierson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), pp. 64-84 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969], pp. 106-25).

13. Lewis, Hamlet: The Prince or the Poem?, Annual Shakespeare Lecture of the British Academy, 1942, The Proceedings of the British Academy, 28 (London: Oxford University Press, 1942), p. 10 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, p. 96).

14. Ibid., pp. 12-15 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, pp. 98-101).

15. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936).

16. See Lewis, “What Chaucer Really Did to Il Filostrato,” Essays and Studies, 17 (1931), 56-75 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, pp. 27-44); “A Metrical Suggestion,” Lysistrata, 2 (1935), 13-24 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, pp. 15-26); “The Fifteenth-Century Heroic Line,” Essays and Studies, 24 (1938), 28-41 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, pp. 45-57); and A Preface to Paradise Lost (London: Oxford University Press, 1942).

17. Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress (London: J. M. Dent, 1933). Quotations are from this edition, cited in the text by book and chapter number. The epigraph, from Proverbs 25:25, is on the title page.

18. Compare with these lines from “To Sleep” (Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics [London: Heinemann, 1919], p. 30):

19. Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress, rev. ed. (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1943), p. 10.

20. Ibid., p. 176.

21. Ibid., p. 13.

22. Lindskoog, “Getting It Together; Lewis and the Two Hemispheres of Knowing,” Mythlore, 6 (Winter 1979), 45.

23. Lewis, “Myth Became Fact,” World Dominion, 22 (1944), 269 (reprinted in God in the Dock, p. 66; Undeceptions, p. 42).

24. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, p. 64 (Ch. 4). [ <p. 196]

25. Lewis, Miracles (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1947), p. 161n (Ch. 15). For the dates of the writing of Miracles, see Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography (London: Collins, 1974), p. 225. Parts of the footnote are expanded in “Religion without Dogma?”, Socratic Digest, No. 4 (1948), 83-84 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 131-32; Undeceptions, pp. 101-2).

26. A discussion of myth in “Is Theology Poetry?” is similar to the other early discussions of it: Socratic Digest, No. 3 (1945), 29-31 (reprinted in They Asked for a Paper: Papers and Addresses [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962], pp. 157-59). However, one should note Lewis’s claim, in “Bluspels and Flalansferes” in the 1930s, that “it must not be supposed that I am in any sense putting forward the imagination as the organ of truth” (Rehabilitations and Other Essays, p. 157; reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, p. 265). There is no inconsistency: though myth contains truth (in a non-abstract sense of the term), it is not the vehicle of truth (as abstraction). Lewis goes on to say, in the same paragraph, “I am a rationalist. For me, reason is the natural organ of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” The “but” in that sentence renders it ambiguous: one could read the sentence as elevating imagination and meaning above reason and truth. The context, however, would not support that interpretation. “Bluspels and Flalansferes” is Lewis’s contribution to a contemporary dispute over the relation of meaning and metaphor. His particular issue was the extent to which “dead” metaphors condition meaning. Lewis was not setting forth a general theory of metaphor or a theory of imagination. The sentences quoted here are from the final paragraph of the essay, which places the discussion of meaning and metaphor in the context of Lewis’s metaphysics for clarity and honesty. He is asserting the value, the indispensability, of metaphor and imagination even for a rationalist, but the final paragraph is added to avoid appearing to claim more for imagination than he actually is. In the hierarchical terms Lewis uses repeatedly in Rehabilitations, “truth” clearly ranks higher than meaning. But imagination and metaphor are in many cases the prior condition of apprehending truth, and thus are obviously of the highest importance to Lewis.

27. Compare “How can they meet us face to face till we have faces” with Exodus 33:11—“Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” The phrase “face to face” is used frequently throughout the Bible for a direct, personal relationship. Equally frequent is the image of hiding one’s face, out of fear or shame: for example, “And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God” (Exodus 3:6).

28. Lewis, “On Science Fiction,” first published in Of Other Worlds:  Essays and Stories, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), p. 68.  Given as a talk to the Cambridge University English Club, 24 November 1955.

29. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet (London: The Bodley Head, 1938), pp. 136-37 (Ch. 18).

30. Out of the Silent Planet, pp. 152-56 (Ch. 20).

31. Lewis in a letter to Sister Penelope, 9 July 1939, Letters of C.S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), p. 167. [ <p. 197]

32. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories,” in Essays Presented to Charles Williams (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 67.

33. Ibid., p. 83.

 

XII—Apologist of the Forties

            1.  Lewis, unpublished letter, 5 October 1938.  (See p. 189, n. 10).

            2.  Lewis, The Problem of Pain (London:  Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1940), p. 4.  Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

3.  Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography (London: Collins, 1974), p. 187.

4.  The series, entitled “Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” is the first half of the book Broadcast Talks (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1942). The book’s American title, The Case for Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943) emphasizes even more the logical, argumentative nature of the work. I will cite passages in the text by page number in the first British edition and by book and chapter of its later reprinting in Mere Christianity (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1952).

5. Lewis, quoted by Green and Hooper in C. S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 202.

6. Lewis, “Difficulties in Presenting the Christian Faith to Modern Unbelievers,” Lumen Vitae, 3 (1948); I am quoting from the reprinting, retitled “God in the Dock,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 243-44 (in Britain, Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971], p. 200).

7. Lewis, quoted by Green and Hooper in C. S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 202.

8. Lewis, Miracles (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1947), p. 15 (Ch. 2). The third chapter was later revised, expanded, and given the new title “The Cardinal Difficulty in Naturalism” (London: Fontana Books, 1960). Because my interest here is the place of Miracles in the development of Lewis’s thought, not the final form his argument took, I will continue to quote from the first edition.

9. For example, “authority, reason, experience; on these three, mixed in varying proportions all our knowledge depends” (“Religion: Reality or Substitute?”, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1967], p. 41). The line was added to the essay after it was published in World Dominion, 19 (1941), 277-81, but summarizes ideas that were there originally.

10. Lewis, “Myth Became Fact,” World Dominion, 22 (1944), 268 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 64-65; Undeceptions, pp. 40-41). Also on myth, see Lewis’s Preface to George MacDonald: An Anthology (London: Geoffrey Bles—Centenary Press, 1946), pp. 14-17; and, for a later elaboration of its ideas, the fifth chapter of An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961).

11. Alexander, Space Time and Deity: The Gifford Lectures at Glasgow, 1916-1918, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan and Company, 1920), 1: 11-13. [ <p. 198]

12. For example, “The Personal Heresy in Criticism,” Essays and Studies, 19 (1933), 15.

13. “Myth Became Fact,” p. 269.

14. “The Personal Heresy,” p. 10.

15. “Myth Became Fact,” p. 270.

16. “The Personal Heresy,” p. 15.

17. About the same time, in an article in The Coventry Evening Telegraph, 17 July 1945, Lewis put Alexander’s theory into popular terms; here too he stresses the need to unify: “One must look both along and at everything” (“Meditation in a Toolshed,” God in the Dock, p. 215; Undeceptions, p. 174).

18. “Myth Became Fact,” p. 270.

19. Green and Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 171.

20. Lewis, Perelandra (London: John Lane—The Bodley Head, 1943), pp. 45-46 (Ch. 3).

21. Lewis, “On Stories,” in Essays Presented to Charles Williams, ed. C. S. Lewis (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 101 (reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966], p. 15.

22. Perelandra, p. 52 (Ch. 4).

23. “Vivisection” was first published as a pamphlet by the New England Anti-Vivisection Society in 1947 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 224-28; Undeceptions, pp. 182-86). “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment” appeared first in Twentieth Century: An Australian Quarterly Review in 1949 (reprinted in God in the Dock, pp. 287-94; Undeceptions, pp. 238-45).

24. Lewis, That Hideous Strength (London: John Lane—The Bodley Head, 1945), p. 83 (Ch. 3, Sect. iv).

25. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), p. 45 (Ch. 2, Sect. i); also, “Transposition,” preached as a sermon in 1944, published in Transposition and Other Addresses (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1949), pp. 9-20; in the United States, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1949), pp. 16-29.

26. Lewis, The Great Divorce (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1946), p. 57 (New York: Macmillan, 1946), p. 62. In the text the page number given first is in the Bles edition; the page number given second, in italics, is in the Macmillan edition.

27. Green and Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 222.

28. Remarks by Owen Barfield summarized by Lewis in a journal-letter to Arthur Greeves, 5 November 1929, in They Stand Together: The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963), ed. Walter Hooper (London: Collins, 1979), p. 316. (Cf. Till We Have Faces, p. 76.)

29. Walsh, C. S. Lewis: Apostle to the Skeptics (New York: Macmillan, 1949), p. 158.

XIII—Autobiographer of the Fifties

          1. Miss Anscombe’s paper was published in the Socratic Digest, No. 4 (1948), 7-15, and recently reprinted in Metaphysics and the Philosophy of [ <p. 199] Mind, volume II of The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), pp. 224-31.

2. Miss Anscombe’s objections have been analyzed and rebutted by E. L. Mascall, Christian Theology and Natural Science: Some Questions in their Relations (1956; rpt. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1965), pp. 214-16; and Richard Webster, “The Emperor Clothed and in his Right Mind?" VII: An Anglo-American Literary Review, 2 (1981), 21-23. See also Walter Hooper’s essay on the Socratic Club: “Oxford’s Bonny Fighter,” in C. S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table and Other Reminiscences, ed. James T. Como (New York: Macmillan, 1979), pp.161-65.

3. Brewer, “The Tutor: A Portrait,” in C. S. Lewis at the Breakfast Table, p. 59. See also Roger Lancelyn Green and Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Biography (London: Collins, 1974), pp. 227-28. But cf. Miss Anscombe in the Introduction to Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: “The meeting of the Socratic Club at which I read my paper has been described by several of his friends as a horrible and shocking experience which upset him very much. Neither Dr Havard . . . nor Professor Jack Bennett remembered any such feelings on Lewis’ part. . . . I am inclined to construe the odd accounts of the matter by some of his friends . . . as an interesting example of the phenomenon called ‘projection’” (p. x).

4. Carpenter, The Inklings: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and Their Friends (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), p. 216.

5. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 103; in Britain, Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1971), p. 76. See also “The Apologist’s Evening Prayer,” in Poems, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), p. 129.

6. Having examined Lewis’s use of myth in the Narnian Chronicles at length in Reading with the Heart: The Way into Narnia (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), I will not comment on it further here.

7. Lewis, “As the Ruin Falls,” lines 9-12. The poem is undated and was published first in Poems, p. 110. See Carpenter, The Inklings, pp. 248- 49; Chad Walsh, Afterword to A Grief Observed (New York: Bantam, 1976), pp. 143-46, and The Literary Legacy of C. S. Lewis (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), p. 232; and Lyle W. Dorsett, And God Came In (New York: Macmillan, 1983), pp. 116-17 and 146-47.

8. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1955), p. 7 (Preface). Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

9. W. H. Lewis, “Introduction,” Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), p. 5.

10. Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress, rev. ed. (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1943), p. 7.

11. Lewis, “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,” Proceedings, Papers and Summaries of Discussions at the Bournemouth Conference 29th April to 2nd May 1952 (London: The Library Association, 1952), p. 27 (reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed. Walter Hooper [London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966], p. 32).

12. Lewis, “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to be Said,” [ <p. 200] The New York Times Book Review, Children’s Book Section, 18 November 1956, p. 3 (reprinted in Of Other Worlds, p. 36).

13. Lewis, “It All Began with a Picture . . . ,” Junior Radio Times, No. 47, p. [2], supplement to Radio Times, 15 July 1960 (reprinted in Of Other Worlds, p. 42).

14. Lewis, in 1954, prior to the Society’s December 28th meeting, in Letters of C. S. Lewis, p. 260.

15. Zogby, “Triadic Patterns in Lewis’s Life and Thought,” in The Longing for a Form: Essays on the Fiction of C. S. Lewis, ed. Peter J. Schakel (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1977), p. 35.

16. Carpenter, The Inklings, p. 245. Similarly, Leanne Payne, Real Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Works of C. S. Lewis (Westchester, Ill..: Cornerstone Books, 1979), p. 57—“Orual is really Lewis, and her tale is not only his but it is the story of all men.” Also, Donald Glover, C. S. Lewis: The Art of Enchantment (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1981), p. 191; Carol Ann Brown, “Who is Ungit?”, CSL: Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 13 (April 1982), 2; and Margaret Hannay, C. S. Lewis (New York: Ungar, 1981), p. 125.

17. Urang, Shadows of Heaven: Religion and Fantasy in the Writing of C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and J. R. R. Tolkien (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1971), p. 49. Urang’s book traces a shift in Lewis from “satirical particularizing” in the earlier works, to a more open and experiential attitude and freer use of myth in the later ones like Till We Have Faces, A Grief Observed, and Letters to Malcolm.

XIV—Personal Writer of the Sixties

1. Quotations from An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), will be cited in the text. It might well be argued that The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) is a more important book than An Experiment in Criticism. I would not dispute the claim, but I am hesitant to treat The Discarded Image as a work of the sixties. It puts into published form lectures Lewis began delivering in the twenties and thirties. If there is research or new interpretation in the sixties, it is likely to appear in the Epilogue, which in its emphases and expressions seems very much to reflect the openness to Barfieldian approaches late in Lewis’s life.

2. Margaret Hannay, in a lengthy chapter on Lewis’s literary criticism, explains An Experiment in Criticism as a response to the evaluative criticism of F. R. Leavis (C. S. Lewis [New York: Ungar, 1981], pp. 151-55).

3. Lewis, ‘“De Audiendis Poetis,’” published for the first time in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, ed. Walter Hooper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 1.

4. Lewis, “Metre,” A Review of English Literature, 1 (January 1960), 46, 45 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969], pp. 281, 280.

5. Lewis, “The Anthropological Approach,” in English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on the Occasion of His Seventieth [ <p. 201] Birthday, ed. Norman Davis and C. L. Wrenn (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1962), pp. 219-30 (reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, pp. 301-11).

6. From an entry in Lewis’s diary, 6 March 1926, sent to Arthur Greeves with a letter dated 18 August 1930, in They Stand Together: The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (1914-1963), ed. Walter Hooper (London: Collins, 1979), p. 382.

7. Scott Oury, in an article on the objective, also fails to resolve the issue of how one could come to know “the real”: “‘The Thing Itself’: C. S. Lewis and the Value of Something Other,” in The Longing for a Form: Essays on the Fiction of C. S. Lewis, ed. Peter J. Schakel (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1977), pp. 1-19. On Lewis’s objectivism, see also Robert H. Smith, Patches of Godlight: The Pattern of Thought of C. S. Lewis (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), pp. 1-27. Paul L. Holmer explores Lewis’s reconciliation of the objective and subjective in C. S. Lewis: The Shape of His Faith and Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pp. 86, 104. Cf. also the comments on the Narnian Chronicles and Till We Have Faces in Brian Murphy, C. S. Lewis (Mercer Island, Wash.: Starmont, 1983), pp. 71-81.

8. Father Hooper said further, in a conversation about A Grief Observed, that Lewis took good care of notebooks because they contained lecture notes and other things he intended to keep. Because no notebooks containing a draft of A Grief Observed have survived, Father Hooper suspects the book was not written in notebooks.

9. The last notebook was not quite empty, “for there are some pages of very ancient arithmetic at the end by J.”—N. W. Clerk (pseud.), A Grief Observed (London: Faber and Faber, 1961), p. 47. Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

10. The Comedy of Dante Alighieri . . . Cantica III: Paradise, trans. Dorothy L. Sayers and Barbara Reynolds (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1962), p. 329.

11. There is an interesting parallel here to Wentworth’s false Adela in Charles Williams’ novel Descent into Hell (London: Faber and Faber, 1937), especially chaps. 5 and 8.

12. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), p. 11, Letter I. Subsequent quotations will be cited in the text.

13. Vidler, “Religion and the National Church,” Soundings: Essays Concerning Christian Understanding, ed. A. R. Vidler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), pp. 239-63.

14. Merchant, “An Appraisal of Malcolm,” CSL: Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 4 (February 1972), 2.

15. “Petitionary Prayer” was read to the Oxford Clerical Society, 8 December 1953; published in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1967), pp. 142-51.

16. See also Hannay, C. S. Lewis, pp. 264-65.

17. Lewis, “Reason,” in Poems, ed. Walter Hooper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), p. 81.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid. [ <p. 202]

  

Index

  Allegory, Lewis’s use of, 121, 126, 127 

Allegory of Love, The, 116, 121-22

 

Aphrodite. See Venus 

Apologetic works: analogies in, 130, 145; dangers in, 150; reason in, 128-36, 148, 149, 162. See also individual titles

Barfield, Arthur Owen, 88-89, 107, 142, 151, 183n.2; on myth, 73; on perception, 40-41, 42

Broadcast Talks (American title: The Case for Christianity), 198n.4; on reason, 131-33; sight imagery in, 145

Case for Christianity, The. See Broadcast Talks

Chronicles of Narnia, 150, 158, 200 n.6. See also The Last Battle; Prince Caspian

Concrete images, Lewis’s use of, 111, 114-16, 124-25, 146

Cupid and Psyche myth: Apuleius’s version of, 2, 3-5, 22, 184n.1; Lewis’s adaptation of, 47, 49, 51, 61-62, 64, 76, 84, 185n.1, 193 n.19. See also Till We Have Faces: Psyche

Davidman, Helen Joy, 151, 167

Death to self, theme of: in Dymer, 103; in The Great Divorce, 144; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 119; in The Problem of Pain, 130; in Surprised by Joy, 161; in Till We Have Faces, 75, 77, 78, 82, 83

Dymer, 44, 92, 160, 171, 195n.17; death in, 103; myth in, 99-100, 105; Platonism in, 101, 103; romanticism in, 99-100, 107; sacrifice in, 102, 103, 110, 122; veils in, 103, 120

Exchange. See Way of Exchange

Experiment in Criticism, An, 163- 67, 173

Faces, motif of: in “Christianity and Literature,” 196n.11; in A Grief Observed, 173; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 125; in Reflections on the Psalms, 192n.11; in Till We Have Faces, 50, 74-75, 76, 79-80, 84-85

Four Loves, The, 27-28, 29

Great Divorce, The: death-to-self theme in, 144; form of, 44, 141, 176,179; longing in, 142-43; love in, 28-29, 54, 55, 143-44; sight imagery in, 145-46; taste imagery in, 146-47; and Till We Have Faces, 142-47, 160

Greeves, Arthur, Lewis’s letters to, 123, 124, 181, 199n.28, 202n.6; on dreams, 44; on Dymer, 101; on Lewis’s conversion, 109-111; on paganism, 193n.14; on perception, 41; on pride, 89; romanticism and rationalism in, 92-93

Grief Observed, A, 163, 167-71, 175, 178, 202nn.8, 9; the subjective in, 167, 171-73

Imagination in Lewis, x, 88; 96, 98, 138, 155, 165, 180-82, 183n.2, 197n.26; and conversion, 109-11; in A Grief Observed, 168-70; in Letters to Malcolm, 173-79; limitations on, 121-27, 128, 139-42, 145; in Out of the Silent Planet, 126; in Perelandra, 140, 158; and reason, 147, 169, 173-74, 182; in That Hideous Strength, 140-41; in Till We Have Faces, x, 14, 30-34, 61, 74, 83. See also Knowledge: through imagination

Joy. See Longing

Knowledge: through imagination, 138, 178-79; through reason or the senses, 90, 93, 110-11, 135, 136, 150, 176

Last Battle, The, 43, 45

Law of nature (moral law), 89, 111, 131, 132, 133, 146

Letters to Malcolm, 79, 82, 174-79

Lewis, C. S.: conversion to Christianity, 108-11, 122, 128, 160,181; and fictional characters, his closeness to, 160-62; literary criticism by, 111-16, 163-67; and metaphors, 106, 197n.26; pride of, 89, 136; reading theory of, 115, 163-66; romantic inclinations of, 91-101,106-7,116-17,120-22, 156, 159; tension, personal, and reason and imagination, ix, x, 99-101, 106-7, 108, 111, 116, 119, 126-27, 128, 139-40, 141, 145, 157, 159-62, 167, 179, 180; wholeness, personal, and reason and imagination, 161-62, 174, 179, 181-82. See also Imagination in Lewis; and titles of individual works

Longing, 188n.11; in Dymer, 100; in The Great Divorce, 142-43; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 116-17, 119-22, 156; in Spirits in Bondage, 98; in Surprised by Joy, 156, 159-61; in Till We Have Faces, 30-32

Love: in The Four Loves, 27-29; in The Great Divorce, 28-29, 54, 55, 143-44; in Till We Have Faces, 20, 29-30, 53-56, 71-72, 82-83

MacDonald, George, 78, 159-60

Masks motif: in Dymer, 103; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 118; in Spirits in Bondage, 96, 196n.18; in Till We Have Faces, 103, 118

Mere Christianity, 114

Metaphors in Lewis, 106, 197n.26

 Miracles, 129, 134-36, 148, 149

 Moral law. See Law of nature

 Myth, 5, 61, 83, 184n.3, 197n.26; allegorical explanation of, 72-73, 92-93; attitude of Lewis toward, 6, 108, 121-27, 128, 137-39, 149-50, 158-60, 181, 198n.l0; and conversion of Lewis, 110-11; and The Great Divorce, 147; in Letters to Malcolm, 176-79; in Perelandra, 140; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 120-26; in Till We Have Faces, 61, 63, 64-65, 162. See also “Myth Became Fact”

“Myth Became Fact": and dying god myth, 63, 65; and myth as “tasting,” 123, 124, 137-39, 146, 150, 173

Naturalism, 134-36

Objectivism, 111-16, 124-25, 127, 131-32, 146, 151, 152, 164-67, 172, 173

Orual. See Till We Have Faces: Orual

Out of the Silent Planet, 40, 44, 126, 178

Perelandra, 40, 140, 158

“The Personal Heresy in Criticism,” 163, 196n.11; and objectivism, 112-15, 164; and reading, 115, 138, 164, 165, 166

Pilgrim’s Regress, The: and allegory, 151, 161; death in, 119; dream in, 44; form of, 107; limbo in, 80; longing in, 116-18, 119, 121, 156; masks motif in, 118; myth in, 121-26, 137; reason in, 119-20, 122, 125, 145; and Till We Have Faces, 118-26, 160, 161; veils in, 120-21

Plato, 91, 114, 143; on imprisonment of the spiritual, 32, 101, 103

Prince Caspian, 42-43

Problem of Pain, The, 31, 82, 129-30, 133-34, 142, 144-45

Psyche. See Till We Have Faces: Psyche

Reason, x, 179-80, 183n.2, 197n.26; emphasis by Lewis on, 14, 90-101, 106-7, 108, 109, 119-22, 125-41, 144-45, 148, 149, 157-62, 192n.5, 198n.4; and imagination, x, 88, 111, 116, 147, 159, 169, 173-74, 180, 182; limitations on, 21, 74, 81, 86; in Till We Have Faces, x, 13-14, 18, 21, 24, 38-39, 72-74, 86

“Religion without Dogma?” 21, 64, 81, 193n.14, 197n.25

Sacrifice, 109-110, 193n.14; in Dymer, 102-3; in The Great Divorce,144; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 122, 125; in Surprised by Joy, 161; in Till We Have Faces, 23-25, 59-60, 62, 63-65, 72-73, 80-84

 Screwtape Letters, The, 176, 178, 179

 Sehnsucht. See Longing

 Self: accepted, 107, 148, 150-51, 162, 163, 171, 172; resisted, 88, 89, 111, 113, 164, 165, 196n.11

Sight imagery, 120, 126, 130, 138-39, 144-46, 173, 189n.18; in Till We Have Faces, 38-44, 48-49

Spirits in Bondage, 92, 101, 120; and Dymer, 100; romanticism in, 93-99; and the self, 107

Stoicism, 8, 80, 95; and materialism, 38-39; and rationalism, 13, 14, 20

Subjectivity: accepted, 150, 151-55, 157, 160, 163, 164-66, 167-68, 171-73, 191n.2; resisted, 67-68, 88, 89, 90, 111, 113, 114, 120

Surprised by Joy, 172; on conversion of Lewis, 108-9, 194n.22; on dreams, 44; imagination in, 156-60; on W. T. Kirkpatrick, 14, 90, 91; on longing, 30, 31, 92; on paganism, 124; on self-centeredness, 78

Taste imagery, 138-39, 146-47, 150, 162, 176

That Hideous Strength, 21, 85-86, 140-41, 168

Till We Have Faces: allusions in, 16-17, 36-37, 86, 104; archetypes in, 37-38, 62-64; Bardia, 54-55, 65, 71; Christian meanings in, 14-15, 32-33, 84-85, 162, 193n.19, 194n.20; death to self theme in, 75, 77, 78, 82, 83; dream motif in, 44-46, 60, 70, 74; and Dymer, 103-7; faces motif in, 50, 74-75, 76, 79-80, 84-85; four tasks in, 69-70, 75-77, 82-84, 191n.1; the Fox, 13, 18, 20, 39-40, 54, 55, 65, 80, 83-84, 122, 161, 185n. 8; and The Great Divorce, 142-47; imagination in, x, 14, 30-34, 61, 74, 83; irony in, 15-16; knowledge, as theme in, 50-52, 86; and Letters to Malcolm, 179; Lewis’s comments on, 6, 9, 11, 15, 27, 33, 38, 39, 188n.13, 192n.12; longing theme in, 30-32; love theme in, 20, 29-30, 53-56, 71-72, 82-83; masks motif in, 103, 118; myth in, 61, 63, 64-65, 162; narrative approach of, 7, 65-68, 191n.2; Orual, 7, 11-13, 45-46, 54-55, 57- 60, 63, 65, 69-72, 74-79, 84-86, 105, 188n.4, 192n.6, 201n.16; perception theme in, 38-44, 48- 49, 63; and Perelandra, 140; and The Pilgrim’s Regress, 118-26, 161; Platonic themes in, 32-33, 45; and The Problem of Pain, 130; Psyche, 14-15, 22, 25, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 65, 83-84, 104, 105, 122, 161, 186n.10, 188n.3, 193n.19; reason in, x, 13-14, 18, 21, 24, 38-39, 72-74, 86; Redival, 70-71, 191-92n.4; sacrifice theme in, 23-25, 59-60, 62, 63-65, 72-73, 80-84; setting, 11, 184-85n.1; and Spirits in Bondage, 93, 94, 96; and Surprised by Joy, 160-62; Ungit, 20-21, 192n.6, 193n.14; universality of, 162; veils motif in, 17, 56-57, 60, 63, 74-75, 77-79, 82, 85, 190n.3; Way of Exchange in, 70, 82-83

Tolkien, J. R. R., 127, 149, 150, 183n.2; on myth and Christianity, 109-11, 116, 122, 126, 181

Veils motif: in Dymer, 103; in The Pilgrim’s Regress, 120-21, 123, 125; in Spirits in Bondage, 96; in Till We Have Faces, 17, 56-57, 60, 63, 74-75, 77-79, 82, 85, 190n.3

Venus, 3, 4, 5, 17, 49; Ungit as, 20, 186n.1

Voyage of the “Dawn Treader,” The, 44, 77

Way of Exchange, 70, 82-83, 193n.18

Williams, Charles W. S., 82, 114, 140-41, 149, 193n.18, 202n.11

  

Table for Converting Page References
in Till We Have Faces to Chapter Numbers

To locate quotations in other editions of Till We Have Faces, use the page numbers below (from the Harcourt Brace Jovanovich paperback edition cited in this book) to identify the chapter and the approximate location in the chapter of passages cited by page number in the text.

  PART I
Pp. 3-12:                      Ch. 1
Pp. 13-24:                    Ch. 2
Pp. 25-34:                    Ch. 3
Pp. 35-43:                    Ch. 4
Pp. 44-56:                    Ch. 5
Pp. 57-66:                    Ch. 6
Pp. 67-76:                   Ch. 7
Pp. 77-87:                    Ch. 8
Pp. 88-101:                  Ch. 9
Pp. 102-116:                Ch. 10
Pp. 117-129:                Ch. 11
Pp. 130-139:                Ch. 12
Pp. 140-153:                Ch. 13
Pp. 154-167:                Ch. 14
Pp. 168-176:                Ch. 15
Pp. 177-190:                Ch. 16
Pp. 191-202:                Ch. 17
Pp. 203-214:                Ch. 18
Pp. 215-225:                Ch. 19
Pp. 226-237:                Ch. 20
Pp. 238-250:                Ch. 21

 

PART II
Pp. 253-267:                 Ch. l
Pp. 268-280:                Ch. 2
Pp. 281-293:                Ch. 3
Pp. 294-309:                Ch. 4