Lewis and Beauty

littlemanpoet

littlemanpoet

New member
Time I came back to this forum after a long, long absence. Sorry if this topic has been hashed over already, my search did not reveal anything along these lines.

So I'm rereading "That Hideous Strength" (3rd time) and I come across this fascinating quote, which Jane Studdock absently thinks, then reads in the only book in the room.

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male, and it is no accident that the goddess of Love is older and stronger than the god. To desire the desiring of her own beauty is the vanity of Lilith, but to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve, and to both it is in the lover that the beloved tastes her own delightfulness."

Lewis has been accused of misogyny of a typical mid-20th century variety. Or was he right, and modern Western culture wrong? He did call himself a Dinosaur for a reason, right? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
 
Well, he at least was NOT so anti-woman as to make Susan and Lucy and Jill and Aravis and Polly helpless wimps.

If (shameless plug) you read my "Alipang Havens" fiction thread, you'll see a LOT of discussion of male-female relationships, coming from a viewpoint which I consider to be fairly close to that of Mr. Lewis.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Just out of curiosity, lmp, what aspect of that quote do you think could be interpreted as misogynous?
Click to expand...
:)

"The beauty of the female is the root of joy to the female as well as to the male, and it is no accident that the goddess of Love is older and stronger than the god. To desire the desiring of her own beauty is the vanity of Lilith, but to desire the enjoying of her own beauty is the obedience of Eve, and to both it is in the lover that the beloved tastes her own delightfulness."

Essentially the whole thing. I can imagine a woman saying that this is putting women on a false and limiting pedestal, viewing them as objects rather than as human beings. Having read my share of Lewis, I know that his retort to this line of thinking might be something along the lines of, "Of course women are objects; so are men. And it is inevitable that men and women view each other as such. That does not for one minute exclude women and men both being viewed as subjects as well." But that only refutes (if it does) half of it. The other half of the problem is raising women on a pedestal that turns them into some kind of ideal that men either worship or learn how to become heads of. Or is that a problem? Is there something in that hierarchical nature of looking at it, that brings to mind the curses in Genesis 3 and the descriptions from St. Paul in Ephesians about the relation of men to Christ and women to the Church? It's certainly not settled in my mind. It's a very curious thing. To me, the end comes to, how does this affect us in our daily relations with those of the other gender and those of the same gender as ourselves?
 
Last edited:
When I was married to Janalee, before she was called home to Aslan's Country, I spent the whole time helping her in one way or another to cope with her disabilities. I found MY headship in striving always TO DO HER GOOD. Only on a very few occasions did I ever have to say to her, "This is the way it HAS TO BE;" and those were ALWAYS occasions in which I was acting for her well-being. With that kind of headship, Jan certainly never felt herself oppressed!

Now, "Alipang Havens" is not hard to find, but I'll make it still easier:

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24514

You will find that Alipang's romantic interest, Kimberly, is a character who has a problem with allowing her physical beauty to be enjoyed by others. When the hero comes into her life, I try to show her adjusting by stages to the realization that this guy DOES feel a physical attraction to her, BUT it is an attraction GOVERNED by his Christian principles.

P.S. The link did not seem to "take" as an active link; but you can cut and paste it...or just GO to the Writing Club.
 
Wow, lmp, I've studied Lewis my whole life and can't imagine for a moment him agreeing that women (or men) should be considered objects. And I don't see that in the quote, either. I see it stating that beauty is an attribute of women, but not as something that objectifies them. I can appreciate the beauty of a woman without turning her into an object (though I admit it's difficult in this culture.)

The focus of the excerpt is that of mutual self-giving, which is the heart of the well-ordered worldview. It isn't that anyone possesses anyone else as an object; it is that we give ourselves to one another, and thus receive ourselves back again. That's why there's a contrast between Lilith and Eve - according to legend, Lilith would not be willing to submit (i.e. give herself) to Adam. Lewis is presenting that as an example of one who would not take part in the dance of obedience.

The central theme of that passage, and indeed of Strength, is that of properly ordered obedience. That is not misogyny, but it is obscenity to the modern mind. In our pride, we do not want to hear of obedience - even the word grates on our ears (Notice that we don't obey laws any more? We "comply" with "directives".) Certainly some moderns would claim misogyny - throughout his life, Lewis' enemies would use any club they could against him. But that only displayed their misunderstanding and prejudice. The great message of Lewis' works - not just Strength but The Great Divorce, The Silver Chair, and particularly Till We Have Faces - is that properly ordered obedience brings freedom, while disordered grasping for power brings slavery.
 
I don't see anything offensive about the quote. I don't take it as objectifying women, and this is coming from someone highly sensitive to that.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Wow, lmp, I've studied Lewis my whole life and can't imagine for a moment him agreeing that women (or men) should be considered objects.
Click to expand...
No doubt you are correct. I suppose I was trying to handle what I expected to be objections to my comments before they came. :eek:

... properly ordered obedience brings freedom, while disordered grasping for power brings slavery.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is well said. Thanks for that, PotW. :)

miss reepicheep said:
I don't see anything offensive about the quote. I don't take it as objectifying women, and this is coming from someone highly sensitive to that.
Click to expand...
Good. Because I didn't really think so, either. I really do think it's a powerful and deep statement. Only one disagreement would I have with it, if by it Lewis assumes that a woman's beauty is the possession of her lover only. Her beauty in the larger sense belongs to every relationship, and if she is a godly woman then her calling is to bring rich blessing into every relationship, not just her lover's.
 
One of the heavy ironies of the whole story is the back-and-forth of the story line between Belbury and St. Anne's, and the contrasts that are shown.

Belbury is "modern" and has supposedly shed all those archaic notions of hierarchy and obedience. Wither even calls them a "family". But it's there that you find the brutal hierarchy of raw political power and pride-driven ambition. You have to know who holds the power and kowtow to them - and it may not be the people on the organization chart. Everyone's looking out for himself, and is ready to do in his neighbor if the situation warrants. Everyone ultimately becomes a cog in a brutal administrative machine that has no mercy or consideration.

St. Anne's is founded on the old-fashioned principle of authority and obedience. There's no "power" - everyone is submitted to the Director (though some would not put it that way), freely giving themselves to his authority. He, in turn, is not interested in controlling or using them, but accepts the gift they give him only to turn around and give it away - to each other, to Logres, and ultimately to Maleledil. As a result of this, they become more fully human - a transformation most obvious in Jane.
 
This reminds me that the rule of law is good. It is law that give us liberty. It is natural Law that gives us real freedom. And it is the Law of the Spirit through which we are free indeed, to borrow from St. Paul.

Obviously, there is a modern distaste for hierarchy, but as you point out, law necessitates authority and obedience. One must observe the lower law if one is to attain to the higher. Jesus had to atone for our sins on the cross to satisfy the law of sin and death before the higher Law of Life and Spirit could be opened (revealed) to us.
 
Right! Lewis unpacks this whole theme poetically and powerfully in Perelandra in the chapter "The Great Dance". You see echoes of it in the Chronicles, such as when Dr. Cornelius reassures the young Caspian that Tarva and Alambil will not collide because the lords of the sky know the steps of their dance too well.
 
Welcome back, poet!

I love that quote in THS, for some reason I have always connected with it. It sort of gives a woman permission to feel the satisfaction she feels when she's looking good. Women like to dress up and look fantastic, I find, lots more than men do, or lots more than men care about. But women can appreciate each other's clothes and shoes and even body types -- and that quote seems to give a nod to that, that we enjoy our own beauty, and that it's good we do.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Wow, lmp, I've studied Lewis my whole life and can't imagine for a moment him agreeing that women (or men) should be considered objects. And I don't see that in the quote, either. I see it stating that beauty is an attribute of women, but not as something that objectifies them. I can appreciate the beauty of a woman without turning her into an object (though I admit it's difficult in this culture.)

The focus of the excerpt is that of mutual self-giving, which is the heart of the well-ordered worldview. It isn't that anyone possesses anyone else as an object; it is that we give ourselves to one another, and thus receive ourselves back again. That's why there's a contrast between Lilith and Eve - according to legend, Lilith would not be willing to submit (i.e. give herself) to Adam. Lewis is presenting that as an example of one who would not take part in the dance of obedience.

The central theme of that passage, and indeed of Strength, is that of properly ordered obedience. That is not misogyny, but it is obscenity to the modern mind. In our pride, we do not want to hear of obedience - even the word grates on our ears (Notice that we don't obey laws any more? We "comply" with "directives".) Certainly some moderns would claim misogyny - throughout his life, Lewis' enemies would use any club they could against him. But that only displayed their misunderstanding and prejudice. The great message of Lewis' works - not just Strength but The Great Divorce, The Silver Chair, and particularly Till We Have Faces - is that properly ordered obedience brings freedom, while disordered grasping for power brings slavery.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this response. Clearly you have studied and journeyed with Lewis many miles. Your explanation of Lewis’s understanding of “properly ordered obedience “ as opposed to the grasp for power is deeply helpful in the current battles of our time. Here is a newly established discussion of That Hideous Strength that might interest you: https://faithandarts.wordpress.com/...tudy-and-discussion-guide-for-our-crazy-time/
 
Welcome aboard, DavidNotSolomon! You've just made a positive splash with an intelligent observation.

NO MATTER HOW a girl or woman dresses, it NEVER gives any man any right to behave badly toward her. Also, dressing modestly is NO guarantee of safety. In certain societies where women are commanded to hide themselves entirely in mountains of cloth, it STILL can happen that they become victims of bad behavior by selfish men-- and then the women get blamed for it!

All this being said, your observation remains an excellent one. The apparent narcissism of your former girlfriend is in fact a highly toxic phenomenon. Her physical beauty is rooted in her genetic heritage, and this heredity is no accomplishment of hers-- although, in fairness to her, she may have legitimately enhanced and preserved it through efforts at physical fitness. Anyway, she chooses to believe that she deserves to be admired and adored SIMPLY FOR EXISTING.

If I were twenty years old again, I would completely ignore any girl with a Lilith attitude, no matter how attractive she was-- in favor of some girl who was capable of love, kindness and loyalty.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
Wow, lmp, I've studied Lewis my whole life and can't imagine for a moment him agreeing that women (or men) should be considered objects. And I don't see that in the quote, either. I see it stating that beauty is an attribute of women, but not as something that objectifies them. I can appreciate the beauty of a woman without turning her into an object (though I admit it's difficult in this culture.)

The focus of the excerpt is that of mutual self-giving, which is the heart of the well-ordered worldview. It isn't that anyone possesses anyone else as an object; it is that we give ourselves to one another, and thus receive ourselves back again. That's why there's a contrast between Lilith and Eve - according to legend, Lilith would not be willing to submit (i.e. give herself) to Adam. Lewis is presenting that as an example of one who would not take part in the dance of obedience.

The central theme of that passage, and indeed of Strength, is that of properly ordered obedience. That is not misogyny, but it is obscenity to the modern mind. In our pride, we do not want to hear of obedience - even the word grates on our ears (Notice that we don't obey laws any more? We "comply" with "directives".) Certainly some moderns would claim misogyny - throughout his life, Lewis' enemies would use any club they could against him. But that only displayed their misunderstanding and prejudice. The great message of Lewis' works - not just Strength but The Great Divorce, The Silver Chair, and particularly Till We Have Faces - is that properly ordered obedience brings freedom, while disordered grasping for power brings slavery.
Click to expand...
Very well stated. Thank you.
 
I sense a roomful of Americans having a problem with subtle differences in British and American English. The object of my affections is not objectified.
 
Back
Top