It isn't an Allegory....

[CSLewisFan]

CS Lewis didn't make The Chronicles of Narnia an Allegory.... We Did.... :)

”As he wrote in Of Other Worlds:

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."

Lewis, an expert on the subject of allegory, himself maintained that the books were not allegory, and preferred to call the Christian aspects of them "suppositional". This is similar to what we would now call alternative history. As he wrote in a letter to a Mrs. Hook in December of 1958:

"If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."

The Chronicles of Narnia is not in this genre. Lewis did not write the series as an allegory using his fantasy setting to represent abstract concepts or real people. In terms of literary style, the series bears no parallels to allegorical works like The Divine Comedy, Animal Farm, or even Lewis's own The Pilgrim's Regress.

In fact, Lewis explicitly warns readers against trying to make a one-for-one match between Narnia and the real world. In a May 1954 letter to a fifth grade class in Maryland, he writes, "You are mistaken when you think everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way."

[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.”

-Austin
_________

[Aslan the Wise one]

Very True I like that a like how you put that.

[Parthian King]

I recently dropped this in the commentary on the "Santa" issue. I think it fits here, but to fully understand some of the details, you need to check out that thread:

I have been thinking about these issues (broadly--not just in relation to the Father Christmas issue), especially in light of some recent discussions elsewhere on the site that ended rather badly. The word "allegory" has been a point of hot debate, with some using Lewis' own words that his CoN series was not allegory to justify the stand that no Christian thought should be discerned in them. Since this latter point should (in my opinion) be roundly rejected since it is clearly not so, most (including myself) have argued that allegory is certainly what Lewis was about.

But I have been rethinking this in the light of Lewis' own comments, and the "Father Christmas" issue is a prime example of why we should consider carefully before making judgments. There are no doubt allegorical elements in the story, but there are in Tolkien's LotR too, even though he fervently denied it. What I am addressing is the issue of literary genre, or form, not content. The content of the Narnia series is clearly Christian/theological. Yet how does Lewis communicate that content?

I think the previous observations are built upon the assumption that Lewis is indeed about allegory at the bedrock of what he does. Yet I am not sure this is so, speaking in the purest sense. Overall, I do not believe that either Tolkien or Lewis wrote in purely allegorical form. Rather, I think Lewis' approach is more typological than allegorical. That is, his symbolic figures are better described as types than they are as allegories. This allows him the flexibility to do what he wants with the plot, to "fade in and fade out," to vary the intensity of his message, to be serious at one point and whimsical at another, and yet still be internally consistent. Thus he is quite inconsistent when we think in terms of pure allegory, but he's just fine if we judge him by typological standards.

An example from Scripture would be Joseph the husband of Mary in Matthew's birth narrative. By his very name, a typological parallel is set up with Joseph of Genesis. He is chosen by God for a special task. Under difficult circumstances he goes down to Egypt. After a time in Egypt he returns to the Promised Land, a return that has enormous ramifications for the future of God's people. Now, these are the areas of similarity between both Josephs, as I have painted in broad strokes. There are of course huge differences, since both men were real people separated by centuries and with vastly different circumstances. The narratives are not exact parallels, and Matthew (literarily speaking) does not attempt exactitude or "allegory": he does not need to. The simple fact that at some points there is some degree of similarity is enough to evoke connections and make associations, and get some truths across (which I won't go into, because that isn't the point here).

I think in the same way, Lewis uses characters and develops his plot, tapping into types and creating dynamic connections without being confined by the strictures of pure allegory. But rather than providing a basis for those who want to pronounce a negative "Ah-HA!" in regard to the ramifications for a "Christian interpretation" of the books, this does the opposite. We don't need to justify, tit for tat, right down the line, every point. Lewis doesn't need to do some sort of mythological genealogy to justify why the creatures of Narnia wish Christmas would come. Father Christmas is the personification of the Incarnation's celebration. The White Witch is antichrist and anti-joy, and wants nothing to do with those realities that undergird what Christmas is really all about. The most mythically and symbolically efficient way to communicate what her curse is about, and what Aslan's blessing is about, is to make it "always winter and never Christmas" when she rules, and to have Father Christmas come when Aslan is on the move.

So, I think Lewis is dead on the money, is just fine within his own system, and Father Christmas in Narnia makes as much sense as anything else Lewis is up to there.

[CSLewisFan]

I agree, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that CoN is full of Christian ideas and meaning, however I do not believe it is an allegory.

-Austin

[Lillee]

C.S Lewis was celebrating his love of God and his christianity when he wrote the books. if you catch them great, if you dont well wasnt it a good story anyways. ;)

[inkspot]

C.S Lewis was celebrating his love of God and his christianity when he wrote the books. if you catch them great, if you dont well wasnt it a good story anyways. ;)
Exactly!
Welcome to the discussion, Lillee, I didn't see you post before.

[CSLewisFan]

C.S Lewis was celebrating his love of God and his christianity when he wrote the books. if you catch them great, if you dont well wasnt it a good story anyways. ;)


Hmm, I agree CS Lewis poured his heart out and directed a steady stream of intellectual and biblical truths into a lot of books he wrote, but I don't think he purposefully did this in the Chronicles of Narnia.

Anything that is good here on earth, belongs to God. Understandably, the Chronicles are very good, so it is easy to see Christian values in the series.

Based on the evidence I have read, I do not believe Mr. Lewis intended to make the Chronicles into anything but a good story.

I think he achieved his goal because a great story it is and that's what it is: a story that will be woven into the minds of many who believe in the magical land of Narnia.

-Austin

[inkspot]

Once more, with feeling. Here is what Lewis himself said on the subject:
"The whole series works out like this:
• The Magician's Nephew tells the Creation and how evil entered Narnia,
• The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - the Crucifixion and Resurrection,
• The Horse and His Boy - the calling and conversion of the heathen,
• Prince Caspian - restoration of the true religion after a corruption,
• The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep),
• The Silver Chair - the continuing war against the powers of darkness,
• The Last Battle - the coming of Antichrist (the ape). The end of the world and the last judgement."
Clearly, he had biblical ideas in mind. And in case you doubt, he further said:
. I did not say to myself "Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia": I said "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.
See, in the author's mind, Aslan = Jesus.

This does not mean non-believers cannot enjoy the stories -- they are great stories! But you cannot say that Lewis did not intend for the symbolism to be there.

[CSLewisFan]

Do you remember what the sources are for those quotes?
(aka: a book or letter where he said that?) Thanks!

While I'm waiting on sources, I'll respond with some modified ideas.

In regard to your quotations, I think we are both reading the same thing but drawing slightly different conclusions.
My claim that the Chronicles of Narnia isn't an allegory holds fast because:

An allegory has a many functions but for this purpose it shows that:
1.It is a form of extended metaphor.
2. A metaphor is a comparison of two unlike things using the verb
"to be" and not using like or as as in a simile.

In the quote, Lewis said:

I said "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.

My interpretation of this statement that it is post publishing musings, not his game plan for writing the books.

Here, he isn't saying that he wrote the books with an allegory in mind, he is examining the Christian values that appear in the books.

-Austin

[Parthian King]

Inkspot, you bring lucidity to the issue of Aslan's identification. I have stated I think that typology, not allegory, is the better way to see the stories. Yet a caveat is needed when it comes to Aslan Himself. As you say, Aslan IS Christ. He comments to Frank in MN that He has known Frank for some years. He appears as a lamb at the end of DT, and explains that the purpose for the Narnia visits was to augment the children's knowledge of Him in their world. Aslan is Lord of Narnia and this world, pulling Pevensies as He wills from England to Narnia, and sending Narnians into England (Caspian at the end of SC). So Aslan IS Christ; He is not as Christ. Otherwise, I sill think typology (in reference to both characters and--more imporantly--plot) is helpful.

[Parthian King]

Inkspot, you bring lucidity to the issue of Aslan's identification. I have stated I think that typology, not allegory, is the better way to see the stories. Yet a caveat is needed when it comes to Aslan Himself. As you say, Aslan IS Christ. He comments to Frank in MN that He has known Frank for some years. He appears as a lamb at the end of DT, and explains that the purpose for the Narnia visits was to augment the children's knowledge of Him in their world. Aslan is Lord of Narnia and this world, pulling Pevensies as He wills from England to Narnia, and sending Narnians into England (Caspian at the end of SC). So Aslan IS Christ; He is not as Christ. Otherwise, I sill think typology (in reference to both characters and--more importantly--plot) is helpful.

[Charn_Tim]

My interpretation of this statement that it is post publishing musings, not his game plan for writing the books.

Here, he isn't saying that he wrote the books with an allegory in mind, he is examining the Christian values that appear in the books.
The issue is not whether or not he wrote the books "with an allegory in mind." We have already established that he did not.

What Inkspot and Parthian King are trying to say (I believe) is that C.S. Lewis intentionally interwove Christian symbolism and theology (not allegory) into his writings, but not to the extent that everything stands as a one-to-one correspondence to Biblical themes as an allegory like Piligrim's Progess would. The whole quote from Lewis that Inkspot originally quoted was this: "If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all." Thus, I would agreee with Parthian King that Lewis uses the typological approach rather than the allegorical approach so that (among other things) he can be free to take the plot wherever he wants.

So I agree with you that CoN is not an allegory, which we already have concluded on other threads, but I disagree with you if you say that "his gameplan for writing the books" was not to interweave Christian themes and symbolism along the way in a typological approach.

[CSLewisFan]

The issue is not whether or not he wrote the books "with an allegory in mind." We have already established that he did not.

What Inkspot and Parthian King are trying to say (I believe) is that C.S. Lewis intentionally interwove Christian symbolism and theology (not allegory) into his writings, but not to the extent that everything stands as a one-to-one correspondence to Biblical themes as an allegory like Piligrim's Progess would. The whole quote from Lewis that Inkspot originally quoted was this: "If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all." Thus, I would agreee with Parthian King that Lewis uses the typological approach rather than the allegorical approach so that (among other things) he can be free to take the plot wherever he wants.

So I agree with you that CoN is not an allegory, which we already have concluded on other threads, but I disagree with you if you say that "his game plan for writing the books" was not to interweave Christian themes and symbolism along the way in a typological approach.

"If what was said was misunderstood, than what was meant was misrepresented."

I'll try to collect my thoughts in a comprehensive manner. I haven’t yet mastered the art of successfully translating my thoughts through a keyboard. :)

1. What I was not trying to communicate.

I wasn't attempting to project that Lewis didn't intend for there to be a fuller, richer meaning to the story. With some heavy theological thinking, and clear-cut Christian themes, it's undeniable.

2. What I was trying to communicate.

Aslan is not the equivalent of Jesus in the story. He is like Jesus (simile, not metaphor).

The Chronicles are definitely not an allegory or a metaphor rather a shadow, simile, or typology as Parthian King and Tim Charn used (really like that term :)). My personal belief, is that CS Lewis went back and forth on exactly how many of the themes where strictly Christian as well as part of the story. But all in all, the theological principles and Christian values are undeniable.

I hope this was more clearly represented,

-Austin

[Charn_Tim]

"If what was said was misunderstood, than what was meant was misrepresented."

I'll try to collect my thoughts in a comprehensive manner. I haven’t yet mastered the art of successfully translating my thoughts through a keyboard. :)

1. What I was not trying to communicate.

I wasn't attempting to project that Lewis didn't intend for there to be a fuller, richer meaning to the story. With some heavy theological thinking, and clear-cut Christian themes, it's undeniable.
haha. I haven't even mastered the art of successfully translating my thoughts from my head to my mouth, yet, so I'm with you on that one :). Cool, I'm glad we agree on this.

2. What I was trying to communicate.

Aslan is not the equivalent of Jesus in the story. He is like Jesus (simile, not metaphor).

The Chronicles are definitely not an allegory or a metaphor rather a shadow, simile, or typology as Parthian King and Tim Charn used (really like that term :)). My personal belief, is that CS Lewis went back and forth on exactly how many of the themes where strictly Christian as well as part of the story. But all in all, the theological principles and Christian values are undeniable.

I hope this was more clearly represented,

-Austin
I agree with everything you say here, except I disagree with this statement: "Aslan is not the equivalent of Jesus in the story. He is like Jesus." First of all, if you have read The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in particular, Aslan specifically identifies as Jesus Christ in their world. I wish I had the book in front of me for a couple of quotes here, but he says something to the effect of, "I brought you into this world [Narnia] so that you may know me better in your world." It is towards the end of the book. Also, I don't know how you can still think that Aslan is like Christ, when Lewis himself says that he is Christ in the above quote that Inkspot and I gave.

[narniafreak216]

I also agree with what has been being said, but we will never know exactly what Lewis meant since we can not come straight out and ask him. I think an even better point to look at is that of is the message of what has been determined is truly there getting through to those who would not even think of these similies (or whatever you prefer to call them) because they do not know all the Bible stories?

[Charn_Tim]

I also agree with what has been being said, but we will never know exactly what Lewis meant since we can not come straight out and ask him.
I really disagree with this. I think we can know what Lewis meant or intended, because he himself said what he meant with them (see Inkspot's and my quotes above). Actually, we need both what Lewis himself said and what the text itself says.

To finish my last post, I have the quote from Voyage:

At the very end of the book, in the chapter "The Very End of the World," Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace have just seen Reepicheep off and have now come upon a Lamb sitting in the grass.

"'Please, Lamb,' said Lucy, 'is this the way to Aslan's country?'
'Not for you,' said the Lamb. 'For you the door into Aslan's country is from your own world.'
'What!' said Edmund. 'Is there a way to Aslan's country from our world too?'
'There is a way into my country from all the worlds,' said the Lamb; but as he spoke, his snowy white flushed into tawny gold and his size changed and he was Aslan himself..."
[Then Aslan tells Lucy and Edmund that He will send them into their own world now and they won't come back to Narnia again. He also says that they will eventually come to Aslan's country].
"'...We shan't meet you [Aslan] there [back in England]. And how can we live, never meeting you?'
'But you shall meet me, dear one,' said Aslan.
'Are-are you there too, Sir?' said Edmund.
'I am,' said Aslan. 'But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.'"

Given what Lewis already says about Aslan being Jesus Christ, and this above quote where Aslan is identified as "someone" in their world, we know that Lewis intends for Aslan to be Jesus Christ in Narnia. He even makes it clear by having Aslan essentially say, "You will meet me in heaven when you die." So it is pretty clear to me that Aslan = Jesus Christ, and that Lewis intended this to be the case.

[Lillee]

Exactly!
Welcome to the discussion, Lillee, I didn't see you post before.
thanks for the welcome. I am new here. I hope you all dont mind my two cents? :cool:

[Lillee]

Hmm, I agree CS Lewis poured his heart out and directed a steady stream of intellectual and biblical truths into a lot of books he wrote, but I don't think he purposefully did this in the Chronicles of Narnia.

Anything that is good here on earth, belongs to God. Understandably, the Chronicles are very good, so it is easy to see Christian values in the series.

Based on the evidence I have read, I do not believe Mr. Lewis intended to make the Chronicles into anything but a good story.

I think he achieved his goal because a great story it is and that's what it is: a story that will be woven into the minds of many who believe in the magical land of Narnia.

-Austin

Have you read the bible? especially Genisis? not that I want to start a debate on religion or anything and Im sorry if this starts to be one. but if you have you cant deny the similarities between Aslan Vs. God, the witch vs. Snake, how Aslan gives his life for Edmund vs. Jesus giving his life for everyone, and so on.
you are right though Mr.Lewis did intend to write a great story, I have to think he rewrote a better story!

[inkspot]

Lillee, you are more than welcome!

The source for my quotation originally is
CS Lewis' Letters to Children, a great book you would enjoy, and you can find the quotation online at
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-chronicles-of-narnia

Also in that book, I believe, you willl find Lewis' answer to a mum who said her child was worried because he loved Aslan more than Jesus! Lewis said: no problem, they are the same person! Of course Aslan is a fictional character, but in Lewis' mind, Aslan is Christ, as He might appear in another world.

I agree with Fan that the books are not an allegory, Lewis said so himself. He also spent a bunch of time after he chose to follow Christ outspokenly explaining Christianity to people, and so we don't need to ask him if all these parallels in the CON have anything to do with Christianity, of course they do! He said so.

[Son of Aslan]

I recently posted Paul F. Ford's take on the whole issue on my blog

BLOG entry (http://fellowship-hall.com/weblog_entry.php?e=179)

[CSLewisFan]

Lilee, yes, I have read the Bible, it is in fact one of my favorites. :)

Tim_Charn, this is one of the few points I disagree with you on. You wrote:

I agree with everything you say here, except I disagree with this statement: "Aslan is not the equivalent of Jesus in the story. He is like Jesus." First of all, if you have read The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in particular, Aslan specifically identifies as Jesus Christ in their world.

I still strongly believe that Aslan is not the equivalent of Jesus.

Do I believe that he represents or is like Jesus in the story? Of course, I would have to be a liar to say I've read all of the books at least 5 times (either that, or of not read them very well at all ;)).

You might be thinking that what I said I believed, and what I did not believe are the same thing. Incorrect, there is a large and very significant difference.

If I believed that Aslan were the equivalent of Jesus as in the same thing only in Narnia and in the form of a Lion and not man I would also be agreeing to:

It is okay to pray to Aslan as it is to Jesus (because you claim they are equivalents as in an allegory, they are technically the same thing so that makes it ok... right?).

I found it explained in a very interesting manner: "A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square; there's more to a rectangle then in a square, but everything that's in a rectangle can be found in a square."

This could help or make it more confusing it helped me though....
He is Christ in a fictionalized world, if Narnia were a real world I would whole heartedly agree with you. As Lewis always called his book a supposal, not an allegory, Aslan only represents Christ.... He is not the equivalent of him.

My thoughts in their fickle letter form....

-Austin

[inkspot]

Yes, of coure, Narnia is a fictional place, and Aslan is a fictional character, and no one is saying CON is Scripture. But Lewis saw no problem in introducing children to Jesus as Aslan. From CS Lewis' Letters to Children:

* "It makes me, I think, more humbled than proud to know that Aslan has allowed me to be the means of making Him more real to you. Because He could have used anyone -- as He made a donkey preach a good sermon to Balaam."
* "Tell Laurence from me, with my love: 1. Even if he was loving Aslan more than Jesus (I'll explain in a moment why he can't really be doing this), he would not be an idol worshipper ... God knows quite well how hard we find it to love Him more than anyone or anything else, and He won't be angry with us as long as we are trying. And He will help us. 2. But Laurence can't really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that's what he's doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or saying are the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before."

[CSLewisFan]

Yes, of coure, Narnia is a fictional place, and Aslan is a fictional character, and no one is saying CON is Scripture. But Lewis saw no problem in introducing children to Jesus as Aslan.
I don't think anyone is saying that the CoN is Scripture either :)

I think Lewis thoroughly enjoyed showing children Jesus through Aslan, but certainly not as Jesus.

"But Laurence can't really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that's what he's doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or saying are the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before."

In this quote I don't think Lewis is saying that Aslan is the equivalent of Jesus, I think this quote more so seems to view Aslan as a fictional character that has ideals in common with Jesus.

So is Aslan an allegorical representation of Jesus? Yes and no. As Narnia scholar Andrew Rislen has stated, "Aslan both is and is not Jesus." According to C.S. Lewis himself, Aslan takes the role of a Christlike figure, though he is not an allegorical portrayal of Christ: "If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality, however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world, as He actually has done in ours?' This is not an allegory at all."

This is somewhat my current opinion.

Aslan is a Christ-like figure, but he is not the Narnian equivalent of Him.

-Austin

[inkspot]

I said "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."
It seems clear Aslan is the "Son of God," and there is no other Son of God but Jesus ... so I am not following how
Aslan is a Christ-like figure, but he is not the Narnian equivalent of Him.
Although the quote about Laurence does not say ASLAN IS JESUS, it says that in loving Aslan, Laurence is really loving Jesus, and I did not see your response to the quote:
"It makes me, I think, more humbled than proud to know that Aslan has allowed me to be the means of making Him more real to you."
Clearly Lewis is talking about Jesus, but he uses the name "Aslan." (For surely Lewis knew that Aslan was a fictional character and there was no way Aslan could be using him to make himself more real to a young fan, that would be Jesus, correct?) So obviously in Lewis' mind, Aslan=Jesus. You don't have to think of it that way, but it seems clear the author did.