• C.S. Lewis's Narnia is not an allegory

    From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to alt.books.cs-lewis,alt.books.inklings,rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.literature,alt.christnet.theology on Sun Aug 16 05:43:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.books.tolkien

    Seen recently on Facebook:

    by Jeremy Rios

    I frequently see a series of popular memes teasing at the differences
    between Lewis and Tolkien. In one panel, Tolkien laboriously creates
    Middle EarthrCOs history, languages, flora and fauna. In the other,
    Lewis haphazardly throws in every aspect of imageryrCofrom Santa Claus
    to Minotaurs. In others, Tolkien is maddened by LewisrCOs liberal use of allegory, while Lewis appears carefree and careless about what he has
    included in the Narnia books. If yourCOre like me, then if yourCOve heard
    it once yourCOve heard it a thousand times:rCLNarnia is an allegory for Christianity!rCY

    Narnia is not an allegory. It is something very different.

    Understanding this difference helps us to make sense of many of
    NarniarCOs images.

    Already I can hear objections, rCLBut Aslan is an allegory for Christ,
    isnrCOt he?rCY Of course Aslan is an image of Christ, but when we use the
    word rCLallegoryrCY we say more about how we read badly than anything
    about how Lewis crafted Narnia.

    LetrCOs start at the very beginning: genre. For Lewis, Allegory is a
    very specific, very specialized genre of literature. We know this for
    a fact because Lewis himself wrote an allegory, the first book
    published after his conversion, called "PilgrimrCOs Regress." The title
    is an obvious callback to that most famous of English Allegories,
    "PilgrimrCOs Progress." The key literary feature of both of those
    allegories is that each character has a name which embodies his entire character, outlook, and behaviour. rCLFaith,rCY rCLGreat-heart,rCY and rCLLoverCY
    are given those names because their actions, words, and relation to
    the hero, Christian, are meant at every point to illustrate the
    meanings of faith, greatheartedness, and love.

    Lewis takes this model and puts it to play narrating his own journey
    of conversion to ChristianityrCoexcept that this time the figures
    represent the various philosophies and trajectories Lewis encountered
    on his own journey to Christian faith. Now, the main character
    encounters people called things like Reason, Enlightenment, and
    Humanist. And, true to allegorical form, those characters are
    embodiments of those characteristics after which they are named.

    In addition to this literary venture, Lewis was also a longtime
    student of and frequent lecturer on SpenserrCOs famous allegorical poem,
    "The Faerie Queen." In fact, after his death, his lectures on Spenser,
    along with his literary criticism, were published in a volume called "SpenserrCOs Images of Life."

    All that to say, Lewis had a definite idea of what constituted
    allegory, and little to nothing of what is in Narnia falls within his
    own definition.

    rCLBut,rCY I hear an increasingly apoplectic reader stammer, rCLwhat about meaning? DoesnrCOt Narnia mean something, and isnrCOt that allegory?rCY

    Yes, and no. Yes, Narnia means something. Yes, the world of Narnia is explicitly Christian in its execution and imagery. But for Lewis (and,
    I might add, Tolkien), an author as allegorist is always explicit in
    his acts of meaning-making. If there is a character named rCLFaith,rCY the things that character does should all illustrate rCLFaithrCY for the
    reader. True Allegory, in this sense, is a bit like a kind of
    puppet-show, because the authorrCOs guiding hand is always driving the
    reader to an explicit conclusion.

    This is at least part of the reason behind TolkienrCOs quite strong, and
    even censorious, words about allegory in the foreword to the second
    edition of "The Lord of the Rings." In the background, various readers
    and literary critics had pestered him about the rCLsecretrCY meaning of
    his book, and in frustration he rebuffed their claims: there is no
    secret meaning to "The Lord of the Rings." rCLAs for any inner meaning
    or rCymessagerCO, it has in the intention of the author none. It is
    neither allegorical nor topical.rCY A few moments later he elaborates
    further, saying that rCLI cordially dislike allegory in all its
    manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary
    enough to detect its presence.rCY For Tolkien, the story is the story.
    Enjoy it on its own merits, or not at all. This, again, is not to say
    that "The Lord of the Rings" is not also a deeply Catholic book; it is
    to say, rather, that Tolkien didnrCOt write it with the intention that
    you become Catholic (although I expect herCOd be quite happy if you
    did).

    Genre is important. It is critically important for a professor of
    English Literature who has spent his life teaching and studying
    literature in a huge variety of genres. Here, something else in
    LewisrCOs writings is of interest. In his short book of literary
    criticism, "A Preface to Paradise Lost," he notes something of the
    process by which Milton chose rCLepic poemrCY as his genre. Lewis says,
    rCLThe author doesnrCOt just choose the poem, he chooses form of the
    poem.rCY In other words, Milton didnrCOt just set out to write the story
    of the fall and redemption of mankind, he chose to do it in the way
    and manner of an epic poem, and this had natural and necessary
    consequences on how he wrote, what he wrote, and how he completed the
    project. Lewis continues, rCLIf you choose one [genre], you lose the
    specific beauties and delights of the other: for your aim is not mere excellence, but the excellence proper to the thing chosenrCarCY I think it
    is not unreasonable to assume that Lewis was equally careful and
    intentional about the genre he chose for Narnia.

    With this in mind, let me state it quite clearly: Lewis knew what
    allegory was. He had already written one. When it came to choose the
    genre for Narnia, he did not choose allegory.

    So, if Narnia is notrCoon Lewis (and even TolkienrCOs) definitionrCoan allegory, what is it? In broadest terms, it is a ChildrenrCOs Fairy
    Story. More specificallyrCoespecially regarding how Lewis crafted his worldrCoit is a ChildrenrCOs Fairy Story written from the perspective of a Platonic Imagination.

    That last bit about the Platonic Imagination is probably the most
    important one for understanding how rCLmeaningrCY gets communicated in the Narnia books. To understand this fully, however, we have to go back to LewisrCOs own spiritual journey. Recall (as he tells it in both
    "PilgrimrCOs Regress" and "Surprised by Joy") that Lewis was hungry for
    myth but frustrated with meaning. His heart ached with longing when he
    read the Norse myths, but his mind had been hardened in a kind of self-defensive atheism. He tells his own journey much better than I
    will, but you will recall that the crisis point came during a
    late-night walk with Tolkien at Magdalen College. Like a flash of
    light, something clicked: you love the myths, what if Christianity is
    the true myth? Suddenly, for Lewis, all his searching made sense. The
    things he was looking for in Baldur and Odin and every other piece of literature were calling to his heart. They werenrCOt false, per se, they
    were merely parially true, and placing Christianity at the centre as
    the True Myth made sense not only of his own search for answers but
    also for his understanding of literature as a whole.

    Now, everything for LewisrCoevery book, picture, sunrise, and
    experiencerCohas potential to draw the soul toward God. He writes (in "Surprised by Joy"), of the literary aspect of this experience, rCLA
    young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful
    of his reading. There are traps everywhererCa God is, if I may say it,
    very unscrupulous.rCY Lewis, hungry for truth, now come to faith, began
    to experience it even retroactively in all his reading. When he
    describes this in "PilgrimrCOs Regress" he puts it this way, rCLHow if
    there is a man to whom those bright drops on the floor are the
    beginning of a trail which, duly followed, will lead him in the end to
    taste the cup itself?rCY

    So, how does this connect with rCLPlatonicrCY? Lewis came to interpret
    this process of GodrCOs self revelation through myth and image in
    Platonic terms. If you slept through that day of philosophy class, one
    of PlatorCOs beliefs is that there are rCLformsrCY and that there is the material world. The things we experience in the material world draw
    their existence, reality, and function from their participation in
    those cosmic forms. For Plato, this is the case for both material
    objects like a tree, chair, or apple, and also concepts like goodness,
    truth, and beauty. Every thing we experience and know draws, in some
    sense, its meaning from those eternal forms that exist in the mind of
    God. If you experience something good, it is because that good thing
    connects in some meaningful way to eternal goodness. If you
    acknowledge something to be true, it is an acknowledgement that the
    rCLtruthrCY connects meaningfully to an absolute truth. And so on.

    This way of looking at the world sits at the heart of how Lewis thinks
    about his conversion, his theology of heaven, and how Lewis deploys
    his imagination in crafting Narnia. The partial rCLtruthsrCY that Lewis encountered in the myths were true because they had their origin in
    the Truth that is the Christian God. This is the theological
    philosophy that sits behind LewisrCOs quite compelling vision of
    heavenrCothat we are in the rCLshadowlands,rCY that what is good on earth is good because it testifies to the true good in heaven. This is why it
    is so wicked to cling to the shadows in replacement of the
    realrCorCLmaking mud piesrCY when werCOve been offered rCLa holiday at searCY (cf.
    rCLThe Weight of GloryrCY). And that these elements are deeply embedded in
    the crafting of Narnia is explicit within Narnia itself. Recall
    Professor DigoryrCOs speech at the end of "The Last Battle," where he
    talks about the shadows, and the real, and how they had all come to
    the real Narnia. He closes his speech with these words, rCLItrCOs all in
    Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these
    schools!rCY Indeed, it has all been in Plato.

    In turn, this Plato-inflected imagination explains many of the
    conscious choices Lewis made for the imagery and characters of Narnia.
    Father Christmas doesnrCOt show up because Lewis wants to throw
    everything in the pot, he appears because what is true about Father
    Christmas will necessarily be true in Narnia as well (especially in
    light of his rCLJovialrCY personality and the planetary influence of
    Jupiter). Pan and Bacchus donrCOt show up in "Prince Caspian" because
    Lewis likes drink and wild parties, they are there (in addition to
    being linked to Mars, the governing planet of the book), because what
    is true in their inflections in Greek Mythology will be ultimately
    true in Narnia as well. I think also of that wonderful moment when, in
    "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," the children meet the star, Ramandu.
    Eustace, a little confused, speaks to Ramandu rCLrCyIn our world,rCO said Eustace, rCya star is a huge ball of flaming gas.rCOrCY And Ramandu replies, rCLEven in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what
    it is made of.rCY In other words, even in the material sciences there is
    a deeper truth behind our perception of reality.

    This is why Aslan is not an rCLallegoryrCY for Christ. Aslan is an answer
    to a question posed by the Platonic Imagination: given the truth of
    the eternal form of Christianity, what would Christ look like clothed
    in the material reality of my imaginary world of Narnia? The answer,
    in a world populated by animals, inflected by both mythology and the
    seven medieval planets, is that he would appear as the King of those
    animals, a lion. This is the way by which Lewis infuses his stories
    with Christian imagery, by linking the generative and mythological
    imagination with what is eternally true. This process is far from
    haphazard, carefree, or careless.


    This, at last, brings us to the character of Emeth. If you remember,
    Emeth is the young Calormene from Tashbaan who volunteers to enter
    the stable and meet with rCLTashlan.rCY He is sincererCohis name is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for rCLtruthrCYrCoand he is honest among
    the largely dishonest and distasteful followers of Tash. In fact, we
    find out later that the Calormenes had placed a soldier within the
    stable to kill any who entered! Emeth, by the grace of Aslan,
    sidesteps this death, and finds himself instead among the company of
    glorified children in the heavenly Narnia.

    Later, in conversation with Aslan, we learn the reason. Whenever Emeth
    was sincerely looking into Tash, the real one he was seeking was
    Aslan. At first blush, this seems a strange choice. Is Lewis proposing
    a kind of universalism? Is he saying that everyone who is sincere in
    their religion, apart from Christ, has a hope?

    I donrCOt think so. Rather, I think Emeth fits precisely within LewisrCOs
    own story of conversion and his experience of the Platonic
    Imagination.

    Emeth, in other words, is a representation of LewisrCOs own journey to faithrCothe young man in search of truth, not even aware yet of where
    that truth would ultimately lead him. Emeth also reflects the
    truismrCoas testified by Lewis himselfrCothat we cannot always identify
    the precise moment of conversion. For Lewis, he remembers being in the
    side-car of his brotherrCOs motorcycle on the way to the zoo. He writes,

    rCLWhen we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
    God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent
    the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. rCyEmotionalrCO is perhaps
    the last word we can apply to some of the most important events. It
    was more like when a man, after a long sleep, still lying motionless
    in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake.rCY Curious, donrCOt you think,
    that Emeth similarly rCLcomes awakerCY in AslanrCOs presence? Lewis is not suggesting that every religion is truerCohe is saying, in hope, that all sincere seekers of the truth will eventually find God. Or, better yet,
    will be found by Him. So, repeat after me: Narnia is not an allegory.
    Narnia is not an allegory. Narnia is not an allegory.
    --
    Stephen Hayes, Author of The Year of the Dragon
    Sample or purchase The Year of the Dragon: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/907935
    Web site: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
    Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
    E-mail: shayes@dunelm.org.uk or if you use Gmail hayesstw@telkomsa.net
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2