I am writing a paper on C.S. Lewis and the Arthurian tradition for Sørina Higgins’ collection, The Inklings and King Arthur. As I trawl through the materials one common theme keeps coming back: How do we explain the sudden appearance of Merlin in That Hideous Strength (1945)?
Part of the ultimate answer is this: “Charles Williams and J.R.R. Tolkien.” Williams and Tolkien, both writers struggling with Arthurian stories and both close friends of Lewis—they are the reason that Merlin appears. They influence the way that Lewis shaped his science fiction writing during WWII.
This claim won’t shock readers of the Inklings or C.S. Lewis scholars; it was from Sørina that I first heard That Hideous Strength (THS) called “The Charles Williams novel by C.S. Lewis.” While the first Ransom book, Out of the Silent Planet (1938), was an H.G. Wells space fantasy—what he and Tolkien called a Romance—and Perelandra (1943) became a new myth like what Milton did in Paradise Lost. THS really sets itself apart from the other books as a supernatural thriller. It is dark, eerie, peculiar, a clear precursor to Orwell’s 1984 (1948), and for some reason includes the great wizard Merlin. It is certainly in the stream of Charles William’s work. Read Williams’ Descent Into Hell (1937) and some of his Arthuriana, then read That Hideous Strength. You’ll see what I mean. My chapter in the book is going to work out that link (if I am successful!).
But Williams and Tolkien are not Lewis’ only influence. One hint that is often missed is the subtitle to That Hideous Strength: “A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups.” That Lewis has to include a preface defending the subtitle makes the reader wonder why he even bothered. THS doesn’t feel like a fairy tale; it’s missing all the things we would expect, including evil stepmothers, wrinkled crones, knights in shining armour, breadcrumb pathways, woodcutter cottages, and, well…, it’s missing fairies. There are no fairies in That Hideous Strength.
While that last statement isn’t exactly true, as we’ll see, the average reader who ignored the subtitle would feel about the same as I did: This Merlin thing doesn’t fit. I think, though, that Lewis’ little paratextual clue, “A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups,” sets the reader up in a key way to expect the kind of book that Lewis has written. In this case, the subtitle takes us back—as so many other things in Lewis’ writing do—to George MacDonald.
While George MacDonald is a relatively famous father of the faërie tradition and a well-loved children’s author in the day before children were a market, MacDonald was also tremendously influential to C.S. Lewis. As I explain in my article, “Be Careful What You Read,” it was George MacDonald’s first prose book, Phantastes (1858), that Lewis encountered by accident one day at the train station. It erupted into his mental life, “baptizing his imagination” and preparing the way for his life as both author and Christian.
George MacDonald wrote a whole host of books that explored all aspects of faërie. But here’s the link to That Hideous Strength. Depending on your edition, you may not have noticed the subtitle to Phantastes. It’s easy to miss, especially for those of us using a digital copy. But the subtitle is significant. The full title of this 19th century classic is Phantastes: A Faerie Romance for Men and Women. Sounds a lot like Lewis’ subtitle:
Phantastes: A Faerie Romance for Men and Women
That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups
The echo is pretty clear.
What is the link, then, that Lewis was trying to make? He connects the Ransom world of THS with Tolkien’s and Williams’ fictional worlds with overt references. But he connects THS to George MacDonald’s Fairy Land through this subtle paratextual hint, the subtitle that rhymes with MacDonald’s own subtitle.
When I first read Phantastes, I was extremely confused by the character of Sir Percivale, the Arthurian knight and seeker of the Holy Grail wandering through George MacDonald’s Fairy Land. What I had missed early in Phantastes was George MacDonald’s preparation for the Arthurian thread in his faërie garment. Early in the book, in a cabin on the threshold at the edge of the fairy wood, the protagonist Anodos reads from a great book. Here is what he reads:
“Here it chanced, that upon their quest, Sir Galahad and Sir Percivale rencountered in the depths of a great forest. Now, Sir Galahad was dight all in harness of silver, clear and shining; the which is a delight to look upon, but full hasty to tarnish, and withouten the labour of a ready squire, uneath to be kept fair and clean. And yet withouten squire or page, Sir Galahad’s armour shone like the moon. And he rode a great white mare, whose bases and other housings were black, but all besprent with fair lilys of silver sheen. Whereas Sir Percivale bestrode a red horse, with a tawny mane and tail; whose trappings were all to-smirched with mud and mire; and his armour was wondrous rosty to behold, ne could he by any art furbish it again; so that as the sun in his going down shone twixt the bare trunks of the trees, full upon the knights twain, the one did seem all shining with light, and the other all to glow with ruddy fire….”
It is a fairly significant clue; if Anodos had kept reading, he would have heard his own tale. Even this I missed when I first read Phantastes, though once you work it out, it has a way of sticking. Given that Lewis is echoing MacDonald, is there something similar at play in That Hideous Strength? I went back to THS to see if I had missed the same kind of hint.
As it turns out, it begins almost immediately.
There is an Arthurian conversation between Jane, the protagonist and wife of Mark, and Dr. Dimble, her professor and a kind of mentor figure. Jane is a scholar of poetry and so knows England’s literary heritage well. Dimble starts exploring whether the Arthurian world sits in the pagan, Druidic side of Britain, or the Roman, Christian side. In Dimble’s view, Arthur draws them both together. But Merlin is an ambivalent character:
“Yes . . . [Merlin]’s the really interesting figure. Did the whole thing fail because he died so soon? Has it ever struck you what an odd creation Merlin is? He’s not evil: yet he’s a magician. He is obviously a druid: yet he knows all about the Grail. He’s ‘the devil’s son’, but then Layamon goes out of his way to tell you that the kind of being who fathered Merlin needn’t have been bad after all. You remember: ‘There dwell in the sky many kinds of wights. Some of them are good, and some work evil.’”
Here Dr. Dimble draws together all the elements of the story: the Christian history, magic, the Grail legend, good and evil as sides, and even faërie (sky-wights). The conversation swiftly moves from this reflective speech to the question of Bragdon Wood, the property behind their Bracton College that has been purchased by a nefarious conspiracy group for development. Merlin still sleeps there, Dr. Dimble reminds them. Who knows what will happens when his grave is dug up?
If this conversation in ch. 1, section V is not enough to prime readers for the Arthurian incursion, or if they miss the names in the book—Arthur Denniston, Fairy Hardcastle, Mr. Fisher King, the Pendragon—they should have been prepared for Merlin in ch. 1, section III. What makes this section remarkable is the third word: “I”. In Out of the Silent Planet (OSP) and Perelandra, as well as in the Dark Tower fragment of a Ransom story, Lewis is a first person narrator. The first person voice grows throughout OSP to climax in a letter between “Lewis” and Ransom; in Perelandra it does the opposite, beginning with Lewis, who disappears as Ransom tells his tale. It is commonly acknowledged that the first person narrator disappears in That Hideous Strength. Through most of the book, there are no personal notes from the narrator. There is one important exception, however: ch. 1, section III. Here is how it begins:
“The only time I was a guest at Bracton [College] I persuaded my host to let … me into the Wood and leave me there alone for an hour. He apologised for locking me in….
“Very few people were allowed into Bragdon Wood. The gate was by Inigo Jones [17th century architect] and was the only entry: a high wall enclosed the Wood….
Lewis—presumably Lewis the character in the other Ransom books—is the storyteller here, like Anodos in Phantastes. Anodos transitions from his bedroom to Fairy Land almost seamlessly. You should read the whole of ch. 2, but here is an example of that seamless transition:
My dressing-table was an old-fashioned piece of furniture of black oak, with drawers all down the front. These were elaborately carved in foliage, of which ivy formed the chief part. The nearer end of this table remained just as it had been, but on the further end a singular change had commenced. I happened to fix my eye on a little cluster of ivy-leaves. The first of these was evidently the work of the carver; the next looked curious; the third was unmistakable ivy; and just beyond it a tendril of clematis had twined itself about the gilt handle of one of the drawers.
This happens in THS as well. Lewis also has a slow, incremental transition. The transition, though, is through an Oxford-style quad (you can see these in the Golden Compass film) into Bracton Wood, where Merlin rests. Here is a bit of that slide across the threshold:
“… the sense of gradual penetration into a holy of holies was very strong. First you went through the Newton quadrangle which is dry and gravelly; florid, but beautiful, Georgian buildings look down upon it. Next you must enter a cool tunnel-like passage, nearly dark at midday unless either the door into Hall should be open on your right or the buttery hatch on your left, giving you a glimpse of indoor daylight falling on panels, and a whiff of the smell of fresh bread. When you emerged from this tunnel you would find yourself in the medieval college: in the cloister of the much smaller quadrangle called Republic. The grass here looks very green after the aridity of Newton and the very stone of the buttresses that rise from it gives the impression of being soft and alive. Chapel is not far off: the hoarse, heavy noise of the works of a great and old clock comes to you from somewhere overhead.
You went along this cloister, past slabs and urns and busts that commemorate dead Bractonians, and then down shallow steps into the full daylight of the quadrangle called Lady Alice. The buildings to your left and right were seventeenth-century work: humble, almost domestic in character, with dormer windows, mossy and grey-tiled. You were in a sweet, Protestant world. You found yourself, perhaps, thinking of Bunyan or of Walton’s Lives. There were no buildings straight ahead on the fourth side of Lady Alice: only a row of elms and a wall; and here first one became aware of the sound of running water and the cooing of wood pigeons. The street was so far off by now that there were no other noises.
In the wall there was a door. It led you into a covered gallery pierced with narrow windows on either side. Looking out through these you discovered that you were crossing a bridge and the dark brown dimpled Wynd was flowing under you. Now you were very near your goal. A wicket at the far end of the bridge brought you out on the Fellows’ bowling-green, and across that you saw the high wall of the Wood and through the Inigo Jones gate you caught a glimpse of sunlit green and deep shadows.”
Anodos’ motion is like Lewis’, though Anodos is walking into the faërie forest land where humans are in some danger, and Lewis is moving back through time in an enchanted forest where most of the fay have fled (or otherwise disappeared). Anodos travels on the tracks of space and perspective, Lewis on the tracks of space and time. Both make their way from the “real” world of bedrooms and kitchen tables to the world of fairy land.
Lewis travels a half mile into the wood, but the pilgrimmage feels much longer. The walled-in nature of the Wood gave it a “peculiar quality,” but his real object was the Well at the centre of the Wood. Merlin’s Well, where legend supported by some archaeology and bulky tradition said Merlin lay until that day. As Lewis thinks about the history of Merlin’s Well, the story of Bracton Wood, and how the Bragdon College fellows were debating with Kings and Queens, he falls asleep, only to be “wakened by my friend hallowing to me from a long way off.”
Who is this Merlin?
In Lewis’ faërie lecture that he used to give at Oxford and that became the chapter “The Longævi” in The Discarded Image, he defines Merlin as almost in the category of “High Fairies”:
The Fairy Damsels are ‘ met in forest wide’. Met is the important word. The encounter is not accidental. They have come to find us, and their intentions are usually (not always) amorous. They are the fées of French romance, the fays of our own, the fate of the Italians. Launfal’s mistress, the lady who carried off Thomas the Rymer, the fairies in Orfeo, Bercilak in Gawain (who is called ‘ an alvish man’ at line 681), are of this kind. Morgan le Fay in Malory has been humanised; her Italian equivalent Fata Morgana is a full Fairy. Merlin—only half human by blood and never shown practising magic as an art—almost belongs to this order. They are usually of at least fully human stature. The exception is Oberon in Huon of Bordeaux who is dwarfish, but in virtue of his beauty, gravity, and almost numinous character, must be classified among (let us call them) the High Fairies (130).
While That Hideous Strength is a very un-fairylike book at first blush, Lewis does not accidentally or carelessly place it within the MacDonald stream. For MacDonald, the inclusion of the Arthurian legend within the speculative Fairy Land is not a significant stretch. The Arthurian legend has always sat on the threshold of faërie with hybrid characters like Merlin and Morgana le Fey (fey=fairy). It is a hybrid world, as Dr. Dimble explains, combining the Druidic and the Christian, the Magic and the Moral. Some texts blend the two, so that Arthurian knights contend not just with giants and dragons, but with the ambivalent world of faërie (such as the “Sir Orfeo” poem translated by J.R.R. Tolkien, or the Welsh tradition). As Anodos wanders through Fairy Land—like Christian wandered through the wide world in Pilgrim’s Progress before him—Sir Percivale is available in the imaginarium (the imagination bank) as a character to encounter.
C.S. Lewis’ fairy tale is more complex in that he intends a contemporary re-imagining of the fairy tale setting. Here is his rationale in the preface to That Hideous Strength:
If you ask why—intending to write about magicians, devils, pantomime animals, and planetary angels, I nevertheless begin with such humdrum scenes and persons—reply that I am following the traditional fairy-tale. We do not always notice its method because the cottages, castles, woodcutters, and petty kings with which a fairy-tale opens have become to us as remote as the witches and ogres to which it proceeds. But they were not remote at all to the men who made and first enjoyed the stories.
The contemporary re-imagining of faërie will be familiar to those of us for whom urban fantasy is common fare (Holly Black’s work, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Once Upon a Time, etc.). But Lewis only had Edith Nesbitt’s Bastable Children tramping around London and Charles Williams’ supernatural thrillers for models. Lewis exchanges woodcutter cottages and impenetrable castles for college dining halls and institutional bureaucracies. So we can see how the frameworks of faërie would differ from MacDonald’s in the key symbols of the faërie world.
But the storyline is quite different too. MacDonald’s Anodos is a precursor to new adult fantasy, a young man coming into his heritage who finds that he is discovering self in the midst of self-denying adventure. Although the protagonists Mark and Jane of THS are also new adults on a journey of self-discovery and self-denial, the context is not adventure but apocalypse. Anodos will, like Bunyan’s Christian or Homer’s Odysseus, face temptations, trials, and his own final test of strength. Mark and Jane’s context is totalitarian conspiracy—the threat of a Brave New World. Their own angst, their personal limitations, and their lack of direction is washed over by geopolitical forces that consider them merely cogs in the inevitable machine of progress.
Unlike Anodos, neither Mark nor Jane ever draw a sword—or even the pacifistic version of a sword. They merely remain steadfast in the onslaught before them. Yet they are not weaponless. A dim echo of the Round Table has been re-formed with the re-emergence of the Pendragon, and Merlin stands in the balance between anthropocide, a nation collapsed into the collective mind of a nihilistic totalitarian übermensch, and the restoration of true Britain.
The “why” of Merlin has complex answers, including the influence of Charles Williams and J.R.R. Tolkien, as well as the Arthur reborn myth in England and the apocalyptic mists of WWII. If Tolkien supplied energy for imaginative world-building possibilities, and Williams extended Lewis’ choice in shaping the atmosphere of the novel, MacDonald provided the generic framework. Tolkien and Williams extend Lewis’ mythopoeic vocabulary; MacDonald provides the grammar.
So, why does Merlin appear in That Hideous Strength? One aspect of the full answer is the simple reply, “Because he can.” When Lewis adopted a fairy tale form, Merlin became one of the available characters. It may have worked the other way around for Lewis. When he discovered that Ransom was truly Arthur reborn and the Fisher King, he only had three options for generic framework: Epic Prose (as in Tolkien’s “New Hobbit,” which became Lord of the Rings), Epic Poetry (as in Williams’ Arthuriad), or Fairy Tale. Having tried and failed at both the other two forms, Lewis chose fairy tale. Viewed from this angle, Lewis’ move from WWII-era fiction to Narnia is not that great a leap.
I could not help thinking about MacDonald’s Lilith when you wrote about Phantastes. “Anodos transitions from his bedroom to Fairy Land almost seamlessly.” The influence writers have upon one another is powerful. I just listened to the unabridged audiobook, Uncharted by Angela Hunt and I can see the influence of Lewis’ The Great Divorce in this book written in the 21st Century. I enjoyed making my way through most of your post and I laughed out loud at the conclusion you came to in answering your own quote. I have to ask, “Really, is that all it is?”
Yes, Lillith… I’m still struggling with that book. I think I need a second read to collect it fully into my imagination.
I am doing a series on The Great Divorce–published most Mondays (echoing the same dates as the original). You may be interested in talking about how Hunt takes up the Great Divorce and doing a guest blog (which you could repost to your own blog as well).
I would be delighted to do a guest blog on Hunt’s take on the Great Divorce.
Cool, send me a note to junkola [at] gmail [dot] com and we’ll chat!
Two thinking-aloud thoughts you jolt out of me with this very interesting exploration – how what I tend to characterize as Williams’s ‘figurae rerum’ such as the Graal, the Stone, and in this context perhaps most notably his reimagining in The Greater Trumps of Tarot cards (insofar as they are more than just one sub-species of playing cards) to ‘depend’ on an original pack and corresponding table – how they seem to meet their ‘consummation’ in contemporary and very particular, variously ‘intimate’ circumstances. Merlin is more like the Stone in doing this in a way including spectacularly evident public impact, but he seems like this. They are there as dangers, and, if things go ‘as they should’, are there to ‘save the day’ – but (cf. The Great Divorce and The Weight of Glory) to be, much more urgently, possibly instrumental in saving particular souls/concrete human persons – in Merlin’s case, including himself! And who (rather than the more usual Williamsian ‘what’) else is significantly like this? The oath-breakers on the Paths of the Dead in Tolkien, I’d say. (I wonder how much we can tell about the dates of stages of writing The Lord of the Rings and That Hideous Strength?)
Reblogged this on The Oddest Inkling and commented:
Here is a BRILLIANT post by Brenton Dickieson about Merlin in That Hideous Strength. Enjoy!
I agree with Sorina that this is BRILLIANT! I have always loved That Hideous Strength and regard it as being prophetic in the sense that it tells us, in the modern west, our story. I had forgotten the journey to the wood through the various quads. That alone made me want to read the book again.
We need to find Logres in our time for the denizens of the NICE grow in power daily. Could we find Merlin? Is there anyone among us who could speak to him?
Do you know Masefield’s Arthurian poetry? Consider both his “Midsummer Night” and “Simkin, Tomkin and Jack” by way of comparison…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many thanks, David. I know some of Masefield’s poetry, the most famous ones I fear. I just pulled The Book of Beauty that he edited off my shelves to take a look & note that he did not include a single poem of his own there. I also read his children’s stories to my own children but I don’t know his Arthurian poetry. Did you suggest him in response to my question asking who among us could speak to Merlin?
Yes. Avoiding ‘spoilers’ as much as possible, in the volume Midsummer Night and other Tales in Verse (1928) in addition to poems retelling the stories of King Arthur there are two poems which we might describe as about the ‘return of Arthur’ (and his court, in the case of “Midsummer Night”, while “On the Coming of Arthur”, later in the book, refers only to him by name) – where this is vividly looked to as a future event. “Simkin, Tomkin and Jack”, from Minnie Maylow’s Story and Other Tales and Scenes (1931), tells what happens when those three brothers excavate one who “was Arthur’s comrade” and attempt to resuscitate him which includes present, and also looks to future, events. You mention “his children’s stories” and I should have mentioned the Arthurian element in The Midnight Folk (1927) – a book we know Lewis relished, as it happens (so George Sayer told me, anyway)! – which, as I recall, in its own, different way also includes present, and looks to future, events.
In these various imaginings of Masefield’s, we might perhaps be able to find Merlin and (attempt to) speak to him. In That Hideous Strength, my impression is that he is imagined as having definitively returned – and departed again, and that that possibility concerned him uniquely (as far as anyone knows), rather than also including King, Court, or any other “comrades”.
(If you have an accommodating library within reach, either in terms of its collection, or ‘interlibrary loan’ service, you might also be interested in having a look at my discussion of Masefield and ‘Avalon’ in the – spoiler-filled! – “Introduction” to my 1994 edition of his work in Boydell & Brewer’s ‘Arthurian Poets’ series.)
Thank you so much for replying to my comment at such length & with such detail. After reading your earlier comment I searched for Midsummer Night and found it on a website called Celtic Twilight (celtic-twilight.com) and I have begun to read it with some relish. They include a link to your 1994 edition of Masefield’s work on the site.
What struck me about the poem was, firstly, what a fine story teller Masefield was; and, secondly, the robustness of his metre. I can only describe it by using what feels like an old-fashioned word and that is “manly”. I can see what would have drawn Lewis to his work. The wonderful image of the Dawn Treader in the painting at the beginning of that story comes to mind. Similarly in Midsummer Night the characters seem to want to burst from the page.
If Merlin also steps from the page in this manner then I can see why you recommend Masefield’s work. He would stand in such contrast to the artificially lit world of the NICE and their contemporary followers.
Yes, he is so lively (and varied) a storyteller-in-verse! (In prose, too, come to that!)
Not to mislead you, though – I was thinking in terms of ‘once-and-future’ King (and knights, court, etc.) analogy – the ‘destined’ or possible ‘return’ – in the first place, in my comparison above, rather than his treatment(s) of Merlin in particular (though your mentioning that, makes it clear what attention it warrants – I had better get rereading, myself!).
(Another interesting aspect of Masefield’s Arthurian poetical works is the ‘matter’ of pagan and Christian, which in its own way is such a feature of Lewis’s novel, but I won’t try to address it here and now…)
On the ‘verse-side’, it is interesting to compare your remarks about the metrical robustness and manliness of Masefield’s use of ‘traditional’ poetry with Lewis’s observations about Williams in the two reviews reprinted in the most recent Lewis collection… (have a look: it will be well worth your while!).
Masefield and the Inklings is either a subject awaiting separate attention, or one where, sadly, I have missed what had been written already!
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I said to Stephen, I’ve started reading Image and Imagination: Essays and Reviews, ed. Walter Hooper (CUP, 2013), which includes both a review of Taliessin through Logres published in April 1939 when Lewis had known Williams for a couple years and before the OUP was evacuated to Oxford, and another from March 1946 when OUP republished it – after Lewis had published That Hideous Strength (THS) and Williams had died. They are not only interesting to compare with each other, and other things Lewis wrote about Williams, but for their attention to Williams’s treatment of Arthur’s realm and the Empire ‘in period’ and of Merlin – and possible implicit comparisons and contrasts with what he decided to do in THS.
Reblogged this on Khanya.
Pingback: The Place of the Lion in C.S. Lewis’ Fiction | A Pilgrim in Narnia
This paper overlooks the connection between Merlin and MAGIC, and how magic relates to and/or contrasts with science and scientism. In his preface to the novel, Lewis states that “it has behind it a serious ‘point’ which I have tried to make in my Abolition of Man” which compares magic to science. Also, in the novel itself Lewis discusses magic in several places and distinguishes Merlin’s magical art (which in one place he calls “magia” in contrast with “goeteia”) from the ceremonial occultists. Merlin as a magician is a major reason why he is in the novel.
One must understand why Merlin’s magic (magia) is different. His magic is rooted in who or what he is, not in what he does. This makes him a type of Christ, like Aslan was in Narnia, whose miracles are rooted in who he is. Merlin’s magic, like Christ’s miracles, are complimentary to nature, not contrary to it.
Thanks for this. Why don’t you write a response? It is certainly something I have overlooked. I have been imagining Lewis’ idea of magic in Abolition of Man as “the magician’s bargain”–the “process whereby man surrenders
object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power.” I think the magician and the scientist holds hands in that sense, rather than contrast.
I’d love to see how that turns in your mind in a way it is static in mine. I may have missed something. Post it on your own blog or on mine and the conversation is in play!
What is certainly true is that these books are linked, and I’ve nowhere written up those links.
Thanks Brenton for your response. I probably should pursue a published literary outlet since I haven’t seen the character of Merlin as a magician in That Hideous Strength given the attention that he deserves, but sharing it with you suffices for me since I enjoyed your above paper on Merlin in the novel. You are correct that The Abolition of Man limits the discussion of magic to the bad sort to make related points about applied science. The novel, on the other hand, presents Merlin as a good sort in contrast with the ceremonial occultists. Just as good and bad magic had a place in Narnia, the also have a place here.
An obvious hurdle on using Merlin as a type of Christ is the legend that Merlin’s father was a demon. Lewis hits that legend early in the novel through his character Dr. Dimple on pages 29 – 30 (Scribner Classics): “Has it ever struck you what an odd creation Merlin is? He’s not evil; yet he’s a magician. He is obviously a druid; yet he knows all about the Grail. He’s ‘the devil’s son’; but then Layamon goes out of his way to tell you that the kind of being who fathered Merlin needn’t have been after all. You remember, ‘There dwell in the sky many kinds of wights. Some of them are good, and some work evil.” Dr. Dimple continues: “I often wonder whether Merlin doesn’t represent the last trace of something the later tradition has quite forgotten about – something that became impossible when the only people in touch with the supernatural were either white or black, either priests or sorcerers.” It goes without saying that Christ’s birth was supernatural via the Holy Spirit which, if Lewis wanted to use Merlin as a type of Christ in the novel, certainly explains why he would address Merlin’s source of magic via his non-human father.
David C. Downing in his book Into the Region of Awe: Mysticism in C.S. Lewis (2005) touches on Lewis’s use of good and bad magic in the Narnia books and even says Lewis “considered the kind of ‘fairy’ magic we find in Arthurian romances as basically innocent in contrast to the insidious Renaissance sorcery of spells, charms and secret symbols. Fairy magic is merely a storytelling devise, while Faustian magic is an actual attempt to wield occult powers in the real world” (page 152). Downing discusses the deep/deeper magic in Narnia as good magic and even quotes from The Abolition of Man to give an example of the evil Renaissance magic, but he fails to see the good magic of Merlin in That Hideous Strength and how it can metaphorically relate to Christ and his miracles. A discussion of Merlin’s magic as it compares to Christ’s miracles would also have to explore what Lewis says about miracles in his book on miracles which, by the way, also discusses magic on page 179.
Excuse the typos above (the = they; devise = device). Also the quote from Dr. Dimple: “…the kind of being who fathered Merlin needn’t have been (insert ‘bad’) after all.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops: Dr. Dimple = Dr. Dimble
Actually, I prefer Dr. Dimple!
Pingback: George Orwell’s 1984 and C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength: A Conversation about Influence and Pride of Place | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Orwellian Advice: A Guest Post by the Mere Inkling | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Sleepless Knights by Mark H. Williams | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Wonderful analysis! Thank you!
I’m really looking forward to reading “The Inklings and King Arthur” – sounds like a treat.
Thanks Suzannah! The Inklings and Arthur book is really going to be a definitive collection. It will be long–most won’t read it cover to cover. There are some great essays in it.
Just ran into something relevant to Lewis’s Avalon development in chapters 13 and 17, and (so?) in its way, to his Merlin development, too: Brantly Millegan’s post about Enoch and Elijah, in which he links St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Q 49, article 5, reply to objection 2: “Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.” And one of the commenters, tj.nelson, quotes St. Gregory Palamas to similar effect (alas, without reference details): “I found the following reflection upon what St. Gregory Palamas thought about the assumption of Elijah:
”He writes: ‘But neither did he exceed the bounds of the earth’s atmosphere; the ascension of each of them was a raising from the earth without being taken from the surroundings of the earth…’.”
I haven’t looked up the Latin of the first and wouldn’t know where to begin searching for the Greek of the second, but Lewis might well have know the first (though the second seems unlikely), and one can imagine him consciously playing with the “atmospheric heaven” to designate “the Field of Arbol” (and similarly with respect to the latter, should he know it, or other Greek exegeses like it).
Pingback: Losing the Safety of the Real in That Hideous Strength | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Words C.S. Lewis Made Up: Grailologist | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Words C.S. Lewis Made Up: Curialisation | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Launch of The Inklings and King Arthur | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Inklings and Arthur Series Introduction by David Llewellyn Dodds | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Filling the Gaps in History: Mythopoesis as Deep Insight by Charles Huttar | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: “C.S. Lewis’ Arthuriad: Survey and Speculation” by Brenton Dickieson | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Inklings and Arthur Series Index | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The Inklings and King Arthur: Selfies and News | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Gods or Angels? A guest post by Yvonne Aburrow | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: “The Country Around Edgestow”: A Map from C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength by Tim Kirk from Mythlore | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: An Old Pictorial Map of Central Oxford (Are There Links to C.S. Lewis’ Fiction?) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Marsha Daigle-Williamson’s Reflecting the Eternal and Dante in the Work of C.S. Lewis, with Thoughts about Intertextuality (Good C.S. Lewis Studies Books That Did Not Win the Mythopoeic Award Series Insert) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: The C.S. Lewis Studies Series: Part 5: Recent and Foundational Studies on Lewis and Gender | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: “The Nightmare Alley of That Hideous Strength: A Look at C.S. Lewis and William Gresham” by By G. Connor Salter (Nightmare Alley Series) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: “The 80th Anniversary of C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters” by Brenton Dickieson | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: A Rationale for Teaching C.S. Lewis’ Fiction in The Wrong Order | A Pilgrim in Narnia