by Dr. Bruce L. Edwards

C. S. Lewis had a day job. It is strange to think of it that way, for most of us perhaps imagine the prolific Lewis investing countless hours at his desk crafting whimsical children’s fantasies or creating formidable arguments to advance “mere Christianity.” In fact, he was a renowned scholar of medieval and renaissance literature—first at Oxford, then later at Cambridge—for almost 30 years. How illustrious and gifted was he? Enough to shock his profession by inaugurating rather than climaxing his career with a magnum opus entitled The Allegory of Love.

This work skillfully and effortlessly transported modern readers into the medieval worldview, helping them see what chivalry and the courtly tradition of love looked like from the inside out, demolishing the clichés that had built up around this historical period. It exemplified and forecast all of the salutary traits of his literary scholarship (and later apologetics and fiction) that would astonish colleagues and endear him to his students. Here on abundant display, just as in the Chronicles of Narnia or The Problem of Pain or Miracles, are his incisive wit, rhetorical eloquence, perspicaciousness of coverage, and, most importantly, his respect for the past.

Kenneth Tynan, a former pupil of Lewis’s, captured it well:

“The great thing about him as a teacher of literature was that he could take you into the medieval mind and the mind of a classical writer. He could make you Understand that classicism and medievalism were really vivid and alive—that it was not the business of literature to be ‘rel evant to us, but our business to be ‘relevant’ to it. It was not a matter of dead books covered in dust on our shelves. He could make you see the world through the eyes of a medieval poet as no other teacher could do. You felt that you had been inside Chaucer’s mind after talking to him.”

Oddly enough, given this sterling reputation as a learned and enthusiastic expositor of medieval and renaissance literature, C. S. Lewis rejected the term “literary critic.” At its worst, this implied for him a set of tasks that enshrined what his friend Owen Barfield called “chronological snobbery”— a scholarly disdain for the past and our ability to recover or understand rightly the works and worldviews of antiquity. Besides, many in the collegiate world declared, the past— even if it were possible to recover it faithfully—would invariably be wrong about everything.

Lewis was not so defeatist and skeptical about the past, though he knew as well as anyone that it was hard work to wade into history and write confidently and accurately about its texts and personages. The term “literary historian” best fits him, since it calls attention to the primary motivation that characterized Lewis as a reader and lover of literature: to show the past to be alive and influential for the present—and the future. His own scholarly approach, expressed in a letter to a colleague, Kathleen Raine, only two weeks before his death, was to display in every project “plenty of fact, reasoning as brief and clear as English sunshine, and no personal comment at all.”

To read, he declared in his last and most visceral work of literary scholarship, An Experiment in Criticism, is not to “aggrandize the self,” but rather to transcend it, leaving behind one’s prejudices and preconceptions and breaking through the provincialism of one’s own times. To read and to research with this goal forced the scholar to recognize that “in coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favor of the facts as they are.”

Searching for the “facts as they are,” putting aside the self, and letting the past come forward to challenge the present—these sentiments were not only integral to Lewis’s most enduring scholarly works, they were also of one piece with his Christian worldview. It is this same respect for history that brought him to the enriching concept of “mere Christianity.”

He argued in his essay “On the Reading of Old Books” that in the company of our ancient and medieval brothers and sisters we find unity amidst the divisions in Christendom—that only by going outside of our own age can we discover the truth that “measured against the ages ‘mere Christianity’ turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self- consistent, and inexhaustible.”

From his lively survey English Literature in the Sixteenth Century to his examination of medieval cosmology in The Discarded Image, Lewis’s literary histories show his desire to reach backward into time to guide and to guard the present, thus equipping readers to see the past with fresher and less biased eyes. The scholarship that results from such conviction is the report of an intrepid explorer who has experienced what it is to look through others’ eyes, to think as they thought, and to behave as they behaved within their cultural period.

As he explains in his 1939 meditation on scholarship, “Learning in War-Time,”

“Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past.… A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.”


First published in Christian History, Issue 88, 2005.

Bookmark and Share

Here is the provocative title of a stimulating essay by Dr. Michael Weingrad: “Why There is no Jewish Narnia.”

Professor Weingrad, whose article appears in the Spring, 2010 issue of the Jewish Review, directs the Jewish Studies program at Portland State University. (His book, American Hebrew Literature: Writing Jewish National Identity in the United States, will be published this fall by Syracuse University Press.)

In this compelling and erudite essay, Professor Weingrad takes notice of two recent works of imaginative fiction that both illustrate and problematize his dramatic question (The Magicians, Lev Grossman, Viking, 416 pp., $26.95; Ha-Mayim she-bein ha-olamot (trans. The Water Between the Worlds) by Hagar Yanai, Keter, 313 pp., 88 NIS; available only in Hebrew).

In contextualizing these works, he demonstrates his appreciation for the mythical worlds created by Tolkien and Lewis, while at the same time revealing his perceptive grasp of how one’s exposure to world literature and its unique genres affects both different reading cultures and the writers they produce so variously.

For instance, he believes,

“We should begin by acknowledging that the conventional trappings of fantasy, with their feudal atmosphere and rootedness in rural Europe, are not especially welcoming to Jews, who were too often at the wrong end of the medieval sword. Ever since the Crusades, Jews have had good reasons to cast doubt upon the romance of knighthood, and this is an obstacle in a genre that takes medieval chivalry as its imaginative ideal.”

»» Read the rest! »»

Bookmark and Share

For any of my Texas readers, let me invite you to join me at Concordia University, Austin, TX, April 15, 2010, 11:30 AM, for their Annual C. S. Lewis lecture.

I will speaking on the topic, “‘Inside Language’: C. S. Lewis and The Bible in the 21st Century,” hosted by Concordia Professor and C. S. Lewis scholar, Dr. Joel Heck.

My talk is a meditation on what it means for Jack to say:

“It is Christ himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him.” —C. S. Lewis, Letters of C. S. Lewis (8 November 1952), p. 247.

Lewis is one of those “good teachers,” whose commitment to apostolic doctrine and submersion in Christian tradition spared him from the twin excesses of fundamentalism and liberalism in his times, and continue to guard us from stumbling into them in our own. Jack, like Tolkien, “had been ‘inside language,’” understanding the complex relationships among word, image, metaphor, and myth, and how, as creatures made in God’s image, we are enjoined to make meaning: inside and outside of Scripture. The Bible’s purpose in our century and throughout those millennia preceding it is to “bring us to Him.”

One of my goals is to try to elucidate Lewis’s “reception and use” of Scripture, and how he can guide us in the wise reading of its authority and central purpose in our lives in the 21st Century.

My talk is built upon research and reflection I did as one of several collaborators on The C.S. Lewis Bible, to be published this November by Harper One. According to Harper’s marketing materials, “this NRSV Bible provides readings comprised of selections from Lewis’s celebrated spiritual classics, a collection that includes Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, A Grief Observed, The Weight of Glory and The Abolition of Man, as well as letters, poetry, and Lewis’s less-familiar works.

“Each reading, paired alongside relevant passages in the Bible, offers C.S. Lewis as a companion to a reader’s daily meditation of scripture. As people engage in their devotional Bible reading, they will also gain insight from his writings and spiritual journey as they invite Lewis into their spiritual discipline. The notes contain over 600 selections from C.S. Lewis for contemplation and devotional reading.”

It includes an introductory preface by Dr. Jerry Root of Wheaton College, Illinois.

Bookmark and Share

Tlll We Have Faces––heavily motivated by Lewis’s longtime interest in the cupid/psyche myth, but now influenced by and filtered through his courtship and marriage to Joy Davidman and mature Christian faith, and interwoven with several complementary writing projects of the roughly same period (Surprised by Joy; The Four Loves; An Experiment in Criticism)––represents a nuanced spiritual conversion story vaguely autobiographical but also comprising the singular narrative of every journey from bondage to freedom, from cavelight to sunshine, both painful and telling, demanding and piercing. It is daring, experimental, and unlike anything before or after it in Lewis’s published work.

Lewis intends its world, like Narnia’s, to stand on its own, offering no convenient Wardrobe entry point, demanding of its reader the patient, slow, respectful invasion by which he or she willingly becomes incarnate, submerged in a strange and forbidding new world where all the usual modern and familiar Lewisian signposts are absent; where one must learn page by page, monologue by soliloquy, what is happening, to whom, and what the “culture” of Glome is like, much in the fashion of Lewis’s famous, “Meditation in a Toolshed” essay (found in God in the Dock).

In this manner, the reader experiences firsthand the incremental and gestalt-like appearance of truth, wisdom, and, eventually, revelation. But only by dying to self. “Die before you die,” is the central, most important recognition in the work. Lewis forces the reader to accept this principle even to get to the work’s last pages. Thus, TWHF demands––and rewards––multiple readings. “For him who eyes to see and ears to hear,” that is the motive and the message.

The Four Loves’ treatment of “devouring love” must be seen as a crucial backdrop (not to mention the path to Sehnsucht in Surprised by Joy), noting both the fact of its composition in roughly the same period but also their commonalities of theme. This too is a characteristic of Lewis: to produce “duets,” to have a prose version of fictional text to accompany each other in time (e.g., think of Problem of Pain and Great Divorce with Screwtape; Preface to Paradise Lost and Perelandra; Abolition of Man with That Hideous Strength; Miracles and The Chronicles of Narnia).

Bookmark and Share

Seventh Frances White Ewbank Colloquium on C. S. Lewis & Friends
June 3-6, 2010

Keynote speakers include:

  • Joseph Pearce: “Unlocking the Christianity of The Lord of the Rings”
  • Robert Trexler: “The Illustrations of At the Back of the North Wind: From Pre-Raphaelite to the Present”
  • Peter Schakel: “Hidden Images of Christ in the Fiction of C. S. Lewis”
  • Devin Brown:”What to Look for in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader”

    To submit paper proposals, contact Thom Satterlee, Colloquium Chair, by email at thsatterlee@taylor.edu or by post at Thom Satterlee / Department of English / Taylor University / Upland, IN 46989.

    For info on Call for papers, use this link.

    For registration information, use this link.


    For any other information, contact: Laura Constantine at (765) 998-4690

    Bookmark and Share

  • I recently posted this series of questions to my Linked-In group, “C. S. Lewis Readers and Scholars Association,” and thought I might share it with earnest readers of this blog for their reflections and insights:


    C. S. Lewis and Time Travel Science-Fiction — is there a Christian view of time travel that permits its orthodox “reception and use”?


    In view of the latest Star Trek movie’s new time travel thread: I ask this distinguished group, “What are the theological implications of time travel themes? And is there a feasible Biblically-honoring version, or are all time-travel conceptualizations inherently and implicitly anti-omniscient-monotheism, and anti-trinitarian in particular?”

  • For instance, do all time-travel premises presumptively indulge the human fantasy of self-aggrandizing re-insertions of oneself in alternate histories to avoid divine justice and undermine divine sovereignty with impunity?
  • Do such narratives necessarily presume time-travelers are thereby equipped with noetic advantages (past, present, or future) that are, in fact, serpentine in origin (i.e., isn’t that what the original FALL is about anyway?—gaining and presuming to use forbidden knowledge for which we are not suited or ready for?)
  • Is “traveling” in time tantamount to necromancy, i.e., seeking states of being and ill-begotten short-cuts to maturity ["godhood"] that cannot be attained through abstract knowledge alone, hence a gnostic error?
  • Is the time-delimited nature of human life (“time’s entropic nature”) the fatal flaw in ever conceiving of a bonafide Christian S/F universe that could feature a reputable, theologically-defensible version of time travel? Is the Son of God ever (e.g., his possible theophany in the fiery furnace) depicted as a “time traveller”?
  • Nothing in CSL’s Space Trilogy itself seems directly to embrace or challenge or upset the extant “space-time continuum” per se as many, if not most secular “time machine” stories do. Ransom may have one foot in eternity, but he is also constrained by time. Aslan goes to and fro in Narnia as he pleases, transverses multiple worlds, but when the Pevensies return from their first adventure, it’s like nothing much has changed in Terra’s years.
  • So is there a useful difference between “normal time-travel” and inter-dimensional travel, i.e., BETWEEN worlds/dimensions, that only incidentally affects or deflects time within just one of those worlds/dimensions?

  • Dear readers: I am interested in your reflective musings! – Bruce

    Bookmark and Share