I too, UnumCorpus, am gratified to find another person willing to talk about Lewis’ obvious lack of candor about Catholic history and Marian theology. I can recall only a couple of instances in which Lewis mentions Mary–and both only in passing with one a mere allusion. He writes about the banner of the Virgin being carried into battle (as I recall) in one of the conversations between Ransom and Merlin. And in The Great Divorce, he asks if a great lady who is accompanied by a large retinue of creatures and children is Mary–without mentioning Mary’s name. His acknowledgements, though welcome, are so sparse and so limited they “damn with faint praise” rather than excite any kind of interest much less devotion.
And what about Aslan? Who was his mother? Where did she come from? And how was he incarnated? He never mentions anything about these things–as if they don’t matter. Well, you can’t have an incarnation without a mother–be it human or lion. Lewis definitely tells us that Aslan is a real lion, so he had to have had a real lion mother, but Lewis is completely silent about it. As if Aslan, or Jesus, merely popped into existence without mother or family or context. For someone who was so adamant that Christ was born truly man and truly God he seems to have forgotten how that happened–as if, once again, it doesn’t matter when, of course, it matters very much indeed.
:thumbsup:Yes, exactly! I hadn’t actually thought about Aslan’s mother before, but now that you mention it, that is also a notable omission. Aslan was the son of the Emperor-over-the-Sea, but who was the lioness that conceived him?
Now that we are discussing Lewis’ lack of Marian references, I glanced over his preface to
Mere Christianity, and he made this statement on the subject:
“Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions.”
My issue though is that Lewis, in his fiction, neglects to mention Mary even in connection to the virgin birth of Christ. She is completely absent from Narnia and the universe of the Cosmic Trilogy. I wouldn’t expect a Marian narrative or focus from a Protestant writer, but the complete omission of Mary’s role in salvation history is a flaw of his fictional works.
No surprise there; in fact almost a [DUH!] moment to me.
The book was published in 1942 or 43? Based on Orwell’s contemporary journals, England was full of anti-Catholicism at the time. Making it a Marian narrative would have lost readership and maybe even a publisher.
(And how does a green-bodied Venusian in earth-year 1942 have an Earth-bodied child in 6BC???)
That is true, however Lewis was more ecumenical in his writings than most Christian writers of the period. The title of his book
Mere Christianity was actually controversial at the time because denominational labels were hugely important…calling something “merely Christian” as opposed to “Reformed” or “Methodist” caused scandal amongst many Christians of the time. As a result, Lewis wrote a preface defending his choice of title, and expressing his desire to write about what is common to all Christians.
All of Lewis’ writings, including his fiction, have a deep theological underpinning. He is one of the very few authors both Catholics and Protestants respect (for the most part). He comes very close to Catholic teachings in some of his writings, but other times he turns a blind eye to Catholic theology which would have only enriched his writings further. It’s not really a “duh” moment for me, especially given Lewis’ ecumenical stance. Though I realise it shouldn’t be entirely surprising either given that he was C of E, much to the chagrin of his Catholic friend Tolkien.
Well actually, I didn’t express the idea that Tinidril should be linked to Mary–that was UnumCorpus. But I agree that no mention of Mary is odd, considering that without Mary we’d have no Maledil and thus no premise for writing about the near fall of Tinidril. Lewis could have quite deftly woven Mary into the story. Either he never made that connection–which is rather hard to believe. Or he deliberately left out any mention of Mary. I tend to think it was the latter for the reasons I’ve given.
My apologies for being unclear. I didn’t mean to equate Tinidril with Mary, or to suggest that there is a direct link between them. There is just certain thematic elements that are similar.
In
Perelandra, there is a direct parallel being drawn between Eve and Tinidril. Both of them are the first female human in their respective worlds. I was just noting that one of Mary’s titles is actually the new Eve, and in our Catholic understanding, there is a direct parallel being drawn between Eve and Mary. Mary’s fiat reversed Eve’s fall.
I am not sure exactly how Mary would fit into the story. It is just odd that no mention is made of Mary’s place in the cosmos. For example, the
eldila are praising Maleldil in the final chapters of* Perelandra*. During their praises, they sing this:
“In the Fallen World, He prepared for Himself a body and was united with the Dust and made it glorious forever. This is the end and final cause of all creating, and the sin whereby it came is called Fortunate and the world where this is enacted is the centre of worlds. Blessed be He!”
It says “He prepared for Himself a body” but no mention of the woman by which He came to the Fallen World. Again, I wasn’t expecting a Marian narrative, but I found it strange that Mary’s place in salvation history was omitted.
The Perelandran “Eve” isn’t Mary nor does Lewis compare his “Eve” character to Mary. 
