CS Lewis is one of the great loves of my life. As is the case for so many others. One of the most compelling things about Lewis’s work, is its ability to appeal to minds from so many different backgrounds, and philosophical perspectives. While firmly grounded in Christianity, his scholarship and critical mind has made him the ‘thinking man’s’ Christian, while, at the same time, his imaginative and creative genius has allowed him to create masterful children’s stories which can be enjoyed both the most simple, and profound levels. Never was this as obvious as the day I watched The Narnia Code, a documentary which sheds new light on Lewis’s creative and metaphysical perspectives:
The theme of C.S. Lewis’ ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ is based on the seven planets forming the heavens in medieval astrology, says a scholar whose theory has been examined in a BBC documentary.
The theory, proposed by Reverend Dr Michael Ward, has come after more than 50 years of literary and theological speculation arguing whether Lewis formed the classic children literature bearing a particular pattern in mind or painted his characters and incidents randomly, reports the Daily Telegraph.
In his book Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of CS Lewis, Ward has claimed that Lewis, a leading medieval scholar who never revealed the hidden theme behind the series, had based the theme of each of the book on the basis of the characteristics traced to the seven planets.
This discovery only adds fuel to the fire for some (who have claimed Lewis was everything from Occultist to Illuminati), but more than anything, it reflects Lewis’ deep connection with medieval philosophy, and an interpretation of the universe with has been lost with the advent of modern science. The ‘God-drenched’ meaningful cosmology of old has been replace with an empty-space cosmology, which, for good reason, Lewis was reluctant to embrace as the end-all of cosmological understanding.
This is an enduring problem in our day. Popular physicists, like even the young, hip Professor Brian Cox, refer to astrology as “rubbish,” but certainly have never scientifically researched the subject matter. Why is it so controversial to think that that matter has ‘meaning?’ As human beings, if a scientist were to tell us that we are combinations molecules of basic elements determined by DNA output, we’d say “Yes, that is what we are made of.” But that is not what we are. What we are made of is not the same thing as what we are. Why should we think that we know what the planets are, just because we know what they are made of?
So, when I hear thing like this — like that CS Lewis had a secret affinity for astrology — it makes me smile. A man refused to let go of the concept a completely meaningful universe, in the face of science. The cosmology of the medieval world was based on everything in the universe being an intentional, meaningful manifestation of creation. The planets are meaningful and they are meaningful to our existence. As Lewis himself wrote in The Space Trilogy, as his hero found himself in outerspace, he “found it night by night more difficult to disbelieve in the old astrology: almost he felt, wholly he imagined ‘sweet influence’ pouring in or even stabbing his surrendered body.”
As in all dialectics, we have an action, a reaction, then a synthesis — ideally in truth. Science and technology have allowed us a very rational reaction to our early, spiritual understanding of the world. BUT, that early spiritual understanding was not wrong. Each day, as science fills in the voids, it is harkening us back to our early days. In time, I have no doubt that science will prove the very things that it, in its infancy, dismissed. Until then, the rest of us can enjoy knowing the secrets.
1 comment
Scott Gentry says:
July 25, 2011 at 12:11 am (UTC -7)
It was so illuminating crossing paths with CS Lewis via your writing. I have, as of late, been undergoing a passionate attempt at reconciling an intuitive god-like approach, a Christology, if you wil, to Cosmology. Lewi’s perspective on old cosmology revealed “truths” that I have flirted with in an attempt to arrive at that reconciliation. I’ve been giving considerable thought to a different type of apologetic, if you will, in explaining the Christ of biblical antiquity with regard to modern cosmological thinking. I’m a Christian with a long history of conventional religious thought and because of the emergence of a new social norm, especially in the United States today, I felt it necessary, to try and preserve the “truths” of Christology and integrate the selected writings of the synoptic gospels with the moral “truths” of today. That, of course, requires a pick and choose approach from the stand point of the body of works contained in the bible. I’m not going to go into the logical arguments required to support my contentions that Jesus’s teaching, notwithstanding the epistles of St. Paul, let’s say, is compatible with todays new social norm or morality. The blog contained herein, offers a new, for me anyway, cosmological view that might include that apologetic that was referred to previously. As my arguments develope I’ll contribute my evolving perspective within this forum. Thanks so much for your introduction to CS Lewis.