I have read Charles' Williams's The Place of the Lion many times over a span of several decades; and almost accidentally found myself doing so again last week (actually, re-listening to the audiobook version).
I thoroughly recommend trying PlotL; if you are at all interested in grappling with Charles Williams; or if you want to understand the mature and best fictions of JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis - it really is time well spent.
The book strikes me differently almost every time I read it. It has some great aspects that have proved lastingly memorable, and also dull and/or irritating parts - but these are not necessarily the same on each time of reading!
This time; I found the first half of the book (the set-up, the basic idea) much the best - indeed even better than I remembered. And the later parts less interesting and satisfying.
What I continually found myself pushing against was an aspect of Charles Williams's basic metaphysical assumptions, and indeed those of a very large majority of intellectual Christians throughout history! - which is that he regards the abstract as the ultimate reality; and the personal as secondary - merely and expression of such abstractions as principles, ideas, archetypes, energies, pattern, hierarchy and functional subdivision.
In short: Williams's conceptualisation of ultimate reality is in terms of physics, mathematics, geometry.
I have come to regard this as a besetting sin of theologians and philosophers; and in the context of this book it leads to a fundamental incoherence in the plot, that makes the main action seem arbitrary and indeed wilful.
The set-up is that the Platonic ideas or ultimate archetypes are invading and absorbing the modern mundane world; and reducing individual animals, persons, objects to their dominating principle. Among those who realize what is happening, some welcome this as a restoration of primal reality.
Some of these welcomers try to use the archetypes to gratify their immediate personal desires; but others surrender to their archetype and die in an apparent state of bliss - as their personalities are reabsorbed into the relevant part of the primal pattern of reality - which pattern is (apparently) later to be reabsorbed into a state of undifferentiated and perfect oneness.
The plot concerns Anthony, who opposes this reabsorption - but on what seem the feeblest, most short termist and superficial grounds!
Such as; that a takeover of earth by the Platonic Archetypes will interfere with the completion and award of his girlfriend's doctoral thesis! This is stated; along with other similarly unconvincing and almost silly reasons for preserving individuality of human and other beings.
Anthony prevails, by a process of connecting-with and "channeling" the archetype of Adam; and thereby Naming, hence re-differentiating, the key specific principles of this world, in the forms of their animal images.
What I perceive here is that Charles Williams's metaphysical assumptions contradict his intuitions. I sense that CW's intuitions are clear and strong that it is good that the world has many people of many kinds, and distinct animals, plants and artefacts; and that these many deserve to exist.
He believes that the many deserve to be - and ought not to have their individuality dissolved away into categories (or into unity).
Such is Williams's intuition, and that is why the climax of the book is the defeat of the Archetypes and restoration of multiplicity.
But Williams cannot properly explain this intuition, and the argument in favour of Anthony is reduced to rather silly explanations: seemingly arbitrary explanations, that appear simply to reflect... whatever happens currently to please Anthony (such as his love of, or initially his one-sided obsession-with, his girlfriend*).
This seems like a very poor reason for one man taking it upon himself to reshape the universe!
*Much would, I feel, be explained here; if we assume that girlfriend Damaris is very good looking!
9 comments:
Well, if the personal takes precedence over the abstract, love of a particular person is actually a very good reason to reshape the universe.
@Wm - Well, yes If that was the assumption of the novel's values.
But my point is that Charles Williams repeatedly asserts that ultimate reality is abstract.
But (apparently) his intuitions and therefore the plot contradicts this.
The result (at least on this reading) was that Anthony (the hero) seemed to be motivated wrongly, arbitrarily, in an unprincipled fashion - according to the deeper morality of the novel.
The "real hero", if judged by the novel's metaphysics, is an ascetic and self-abnegating character called Richardson; who has a kind of Buddhist spirituality, and does not want the world saved from the archetypes - he chooses to self-immolate in an inextinguishable magical fire burning at the place where the invasion of ideas begins.
My sense is that Williams's head is with Richardson, but his heart is with Anthony.
Thank you for your essay. I would think Christianity created the abstraction since God died and left this world for another one. Whereas, in paganism the gods are always part material beings, forever.
It's why Helen, mother of Constantine the Great, collected and worshipped the first relic – a part of the cross Jesus died on. The relic was confirmed as a more abstract, disembodied version of God by performing a miracle.
I haven't read the book, but that's an interesting idea. I suppose it has to do with the idea that the problems of mortal life are inextricably tied to time and can only be overcome in timelessness.
Though there are other ideas like the resurrection of the dead believed in by the 1st century Jews, where it will be like Earthly life, but perfected. Implicit in that is the belief that the problems of mortality are inextricably tied to time or other characteristics of mortal life.
@alexsyd - That's not how I would understand it - but that's for some other time.
@NLR - I don't know anything about the ancient Jewish idea of "resurrection"; but it was apparently (from IV Gospel) *very* different from what Jesus was proposing.
I agree, the ancient Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead seems like a restoration of an earthy paradise, rather than a transformation of Earthly life. Though both agree that time is not inextricably bound up with the problems of mortal life.
@NLR - " the problems of mortality are inextricably tied to time or other characteristics of mortal life"
- I'm not sure what you mean by this?
What I had in mind was ideas like the translunary realm, where the heavens were thought to be, if not quite timeless (since planets were revolving), a different kind of time. Also envisioned as being above the realm of generation and corruption. But the heavens were viewed as a more rarified environment, but also where less was happening, no plants, no animals, no minerals, even.
But the idea of the resurrection of the dead viewed a paradisal life on Earth as possible. While the Aristotelians would say, it's not possible even in principle. Earthly life being as it is, it's subject to corruption.
Then there's also the Buddhist idea that life is suffering. Life with the character it has is suffering, even for people reincarnated as gods. Only by entering a state of being of an an entirely different character is it possible to escape suffering. So the Buddhists would also view an Earthly paradise as impossible in principle.
Basically, I meant that some philosophies have held that Earthly life, with the qualities it has (different varieties of beings, of different characters, the existence of a variety of colors, sounds, and different kinds of activities, all of those characteristics) can't be healed of its defects, the problem is with what it itself is, it can't be perfected.
On the other hand, there were others who, at least in imagining even an Earthly paradise, disagreed with that.
What brought about this train of thought was this sentence from the post: "I sense that CW's intuitions are clear and strong that it is good that the world has many people of many kinds, and distinct animals, plants and artefacts; and that these many deserve to exist. "
@NLR - Thanks. But I don't think CW was making any assumption about an earthly paradise. I think it would be more that the small things of mortal earthly life are actually eternal and timeless. In Descent into Hell, he states that everything is always happening, there is no linearity to time. So the choice of a heroine was also made and took effect some 400 years before.
Also in what the cross means to me, he says that Jesus's sufferings at the crucifixion (and all other sufferings) is always happening.
To me, this is incoherent (disguised by extreme abstraction and paradoxical formulations) - but that's the kind of thing he asserts - again, apparently, because of his metaphysical assumptions - relating to God being omni and creating ex nihilo, and what follows from that.
Post a Comment