Considers why Williams refers to a non-existent Gnostic tradition in a conversation between Anthony and Mr. Richardson. Is this mere error or purposeful

Haykin, Michael

English

SWOSU Digital Commons (Southwestern Oklahoma State University)

Volume 5 Number 2 Article 12 10-15-1978 A Note on Charles Williams’ The Place of the Lion Michael Haykin Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore  Part of the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons Recommended Citation Haykin, Michael (1978) "A Note on Charles Williams’ The Place of the Lion," Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 12. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol5/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mythopoeic Society at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact phillip.fitzsimmons@swosu.edu. To join the Mythopoeic Society go to: http://www.mythsoc.org/join.htm Mythcon 51: The Mythic, the Fantastic, and the Alien Albuquerque, New Mexico • Postponed to: July 30 – August 2, 2021 Abstract Considers why Williams refers to a non-existent Gnostic tradition in a conversation between Anthony and Mr. Richardson. Is this mere error or purposeful? Additional Keywords Williams, Charles. The Place of the Lion This article is available in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol5/iss2/12 A NOTE ON CHARLES WILLIAMS' The PLACE of the LIONby M ichael HaykinOn page 80 o f  Faber & F a b e r 's  1952 e d i t io n  o f  C h a rles  W illia m s' The P la c e  o f  th e  L io n  we readsFrom o u ts id e  th e  b o o k s e l le r 's  he p eered  c a u t io u s ly  i n .  A n ic e - lo o k in g  o ld  gentlem an was show ing c h i ld r e n 's  books to  two o ld  l a d i e s ; a t a l l  gaunt man was p u t t in g  o th er  books in t o  s h e lv e s .  Anthony hoped th a t  th e  f i r s t  gentlem an  was Mr. M artin and th e  o th e r  Mr. R ich­ard son . He went in  w ith  a q uick  d e te r ­mined s te p , and s t r a ig h t  up to  the  young man, who turned  to  m eet him."Have you by any chance an e d i t io n  o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s '  t r e a t i s e  a g a in s t  th e  G n ostics?"  he asked  in  a low  c le a r  v o ic e .The young a s s i s t a n t  look ed  g r a v e lyback."Not f o r  s a le  I'm  a f r a i d ,” he s a id ."Nor i f  i t  comes to  t h a t ,  the G n ostic  t r e a t i s e s  a g a in s t  S t .  I g n a t iu s .""Q uite,"  Anthony answ ered. "Are you Mr. R ichardson?""Yes," th e  o th e r  s a id ."Then I a p o lo g iz e  and a l l  t h a t ,  but I sh ou ld  v er y  much l i k e  to  ta lk  to  you about modem G n ostic ism  or what appear to  be i t s  e q u iv a le n ts ."Anthony s a id  r a p id ly ,A nthon y's main in t e n t  i n  t h i s  p assage  i s  to  engage Mr. R ichardson  i n  c o n v e r sa t io n . The q u e s t­io n  about th e  p o s s i b i l i t y  o f  o b ta in in g  a copy o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s '  t r e a t i s e  i s  th u s a p lo y . What i s  in t e r e s t in g  in  th e  r e fe r e n c e  to  S t .  I g n a t iu s '  t r e a t i s e  a g a in s t  th e G n o stic s  i s  th a t  no such  t r e a t i s e  e x i s t s  nor i s  su sp e c te d , by P a t r i s t i c  s c h o la r s ,  to  have even  e x i s t e d .  I s  t h i s  th en  an o b v iou s m istak e  on b e h a lf  o f  W illiam s? Or has he con fu sed  S t .  I g n a t iu s  w ith  a n o th er  author?I t  i s  c e r t a in ly  th e  c a se  th a t  when S t .  I g n a t iu s  l iv e d  and w rote ( c ir c a  A.D, 1 0 0 -1 1 7 ), th e  p resen ce  o f  G n ostic ism  was b eg in n in g  to  be f e l t  in  the  C h r is t ia n  Church. In  th e  sev en  e p i s t l e s  o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s  known to  be d e f i n i t e l y  gen u ine, 1 p a r t  o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s '  con cern  i s  to  combat v a r io u s  erron eou s  o p in io n s  (h e te r o d o x ia i)  w hich are c ir c u la t in g  among h is  C h r is t ia n  b re th re n . L.W. Barnard i d e n t i f i e s  th e  group a g a in s t  whom S t .  I g n a t iu s  d ir e c t s  h is  p o lem ic  2 as b e in g  a form o f  Judaeo- G n o stic ism , which d en ied  th e  b o d ily  r e a l i t y  o f  J e su s  C h r is t ,  e s p e c ia l ly  H is d eath  and p a s s i o n . 3 However, none o f  th e  seven  gen u ine e p i s t l e s  o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s  i s  a form al t r e a t i s e  a g a in s t  th e G n o stic s  ( n e ith e r ,  f o r  th a t  m a tter , are any o f  th e  e p i s t l e s  which are s p u r io u s ly  a t t r ib u t e d  to  S t .  I g n a t iu s ) .S t .  I g n a t iu s ’  a t ta c k  a g a in s t  th e  G n o stic s  i s  woven in  w ith  h i s  o th e r  con cern s in  th e  seven  e p i s t l e s .Mr. R ich a rd so n 's  r e p ly  co n cern in g  " th e  G n ostic  t r e a t i s e s  a g a in s t  S t .  Ig n a tiu s"  i s  e q u a lly  b a f f l in g  to  th e  stu d en t o f  P a t r i s t i c  h is t o r y )  no such t r e a t i s e s  are known or even  su sp e c ted  to  e x i s t .There i s  th e  p o s s i b i l i t y  th a t  W illiam s has co n fu sed  S t .  I g n a t iu s  w ith  S t .  Iren a eu s ( c ir c a  A.D. 1 3 0 -2 0 0 ), th e  B ishop o f  Lyons, who w rote the  im p ortan t A d v e rsu s omn e s  H a e re se s , w hich i s  a d e t a i le d  a t ta c k  upon G n o stic ism .Yet we must a ls o  b ear in  mind th a t  C h arles  W illiam s w rote The D e sc e n t o f  th e  Dove s u b t i t le d  "The H isto ry  o f  th e Holy S p ir i t  in  th e Church."In  t h i s  work, W illiam s r e v e a ls  a c le a r  knowledge o f  who S t .  I g n a t iu s  was, and a c e r t a in  acq u ain tan ce  w ith  h is  work. W illiam s a ls o  u nd ertak es a f a i r l y  le n g th y  e x p la n a tio n  and exam in ation  o f  G n ostic ism  and g iv e s  an in d ic a t io n  o f  h is  knowledge o f  S t .  Iren aeu s as an " in d iv id u a l a n ti-G n o s t ic  w r ite r ,"  (See The D e sc e n t o f  th e  D ove, pp 2 0 , 2 2 -2 6 , 2 8 ,46) I t  i s  th u s ex trem ely  u n lik e ly  th a t  W illiam s  would have con fu sed  S t .  I g n a tiu s  and S t .  Ir en a eu s. Furtherm ore, i f  W illiam s had gone to  th e tro u b le  to  in c lu d e  a r e fe r e n c e  to  S t .  Ig n a tiu s  and to  h is  G n ostic  opponents in  The P la c e  o f  th e  L io n  i t  i s  a ls o  ex trem ely  l i k e l y  th a t  he would have done a l i t t l e  r e se a r c h , and e a s i l y  d isco v e re d  th a t  th ere  i s  no ev id en ce  w h atsoever fo r  th e  two t r e a t i s e s .Why then  d id  he in c lu d e  a cou p le  o f  h i s t o r i c a l  r e fe r e n c e s  f o r  which th e re  i s  no fa c t u a l  ev id en ce?The reason  prob ably  l i e s  in  th e n atu re o f  G n ostic ism  i t s e l f .  G n osticism  th r iv e d  on e s o te r ic  t e x t s ,  which th e y  c la im ed  were u n iq u e ly  t h e ir  own. Thus, in  th e f i r s t  c e n tu r ie s  o f  Church h is t o r y ,  we f in d  such pseudonymous G n ostic  works as the  G ospel o f  Thom as, th e  G ospel o f  P e te r , th e  A pocryphon  o f  Jo h n  [the E v a n g e l i s t ] , and one which W illiam s  m en tion s, th e G ospel o f  B a rn a b a s, (The D e sc e n t o f  th e  D ove) p . 24 ) .  Because o f  the nature o f  the  e s o t e r ic  te a c h in g  con ta in ed  w ith in  th e se  works, th ey  were on ly  g iv e n  to  th o se  who were " s p ir itu a l"  (p n e u m a tik o i) ,  th e  i l lu m in a t i ,  who a lon e  had the c a p a c ity  to  r e c e iv e  them.T h erefo re , when Anthony e n te r s  th e bookshop se e k in g  to  t a lk  to  Mr. R ichardson , he a lrea d y  b e l ie v e s  th a t  Mr. R ichardson i s  p a rt o f  a group o f  "modern G n o stic s ."  In  view  o f  the p r a c t ic e s  o f  a n c ie n t  G n ostic ism  i t  would in d eed  be t y p ic a l  fo r  a "modern G nosticism " to  have an im aginary t r e a t i s e  such as S t .  I g n a tiu s  a g a in s t th e  G n o s tic s , upon which th ey  m ight base t h e ir  h eterod ox  (and in  the  ey e s  o f  th e orthodox Church, h e r e t ic a l )  b e l i e f s  and p r a c t ic e s .Mr. R ich ard son 's r e p ly , "N o r, i f  i t  comes to  t h a t ,  th e  G n o s tic  t r e a t i s e s  a g a in s t  S t .  I g n a t i u s . "  in  the  l i g h t  o f  th e above, can e i t h e r  be viewed as sim ply  a humorous t w is t in g  o f  A nthony's p h rase, or as a s e r io u s  a s s e n t io n ;  he b e l ie v e s  such works to  e x i s t ,  and th ey  m ight t r u ly  e x i s t ,  as fo r g e r ie s  o f  a " modern G nostic"  group. The l a t t e r  i s  more l i k e l y ;  Mr. R ichardson look ed  grave r a th e r  than amused. F urth er he b eg in s  h is  r e p ly  by sa y in g , "N ot f o r  s a le "  v ery  l i k e l y  becau se such works m ight e x i s t  a s the  p ro p erty  o f  a "modern G nostic" group, but because  o f  t h e ir  e s o t e r ic  c h a ra c ter  th ey  are on ly  fo r  members o f  th e group. T his would a ls o  g iv e  sen se  to  A nthony's ap o logy) he has asked fo r  som ething  th a t  i s  meant to  be a s e c r e t .The u n su sp e c tin g  reader m ight e a s i l y  overlook  such  a p a ssa g e , y e t  the a n a ly s is  o f  t h i s  b r ie f  s e c t io n  has re v e a le d  som ething o f  the f i c t io n a l  accu racy  o f  The P la c e  o f  th e  L io n , The t i e s  betw een c e r t a in  modem G n o st ic s , such as Mr. F o ster  or Dora Wilmot (who becomes a s e r p e n t) ,  and c e r ta in  a n c ie n t  G n o stic s  such as the C a in ite s ,  who regarded  th e  God o f  th e Old Testam ent as e v i l  (and thus e x a lte d  a l l  who stood  a g a in s t  Him, e .g .  C ain , Esau, and Judas I s c a r io t )  are thus made c le a r e r .  The ways37o f  a n c ie n t  and modern G n ostic ism  are th e  sam e: th e  same em phasis on e s o t e r ic  te a c h in g  and se c r e c y  (which th e  modem G n o stic s  i n  The P la c e  o f  th e  L io n  r e c e iv e d  from Mr. B e r r in g e r ) , th e  same em phasis on s p e c ia l  w r it in g s .  Y et, we must n o te  th a t  th e re  i s  a v a s t  d i f f e r e n c e  betw een some o f  th e s e  modern G n o stic s :  some, l ik e  Mr. R ich ard son , and e v e n tu a lly  Anthony and Damaris T ig h e , tu rn  ou t to  p o s s e s s  a tru e  g n o s is , w h ile  o th e r s  l ik e  Mr. F o s te r  and Dora Wilmot tu rn  out to  be under th e  power o f  d a im o n ia , who d e s tr o y  them.1i . e .  th e  E p i s t l e s  to  th e  E p h esia n s , M agnesians, Romans, T r a l l ia n s ,  P h ila d e lp h ia n s , Sm ym aens, and to  P o lycarp .2L.W. Barnard "The Background o f  S t .  I g n a t iu s  o f  A ntioch" V ig il ia e  C h r is tia n a e  17 ( 1963) pp. 193- 206 .3 The d e n ia l  o f  th e  b o d ily  r e a l i t y  o f  J e su s  C h r is t  i s  c a l l e d  D ocetism . See S t .  I g n a t iu s ’ a t ta c k  on t h i s  h e r e sy  in  M a g n esia n s X I.A WORD FROMMISTRESS ELLWOODMy name i s  G racia Fay E llw o o d , and I am th e  new e d it o r  o f  M y th lo re .In tr o d u c in g  o n e s e l f  c a l l s  fo r  a s o r t in g  o u t o f  th e  d i f f e r e n t  d im en sion s o f  o n e 's  p e r s o n a l i ty .P eop le tend  to  d e f in e  th e m se lv e s  p r im a r ily  by what th ey  do ("I am a w r ite r " )  or by r e la t io n s h ip s  ("I  am a m o th er .” ) I t  i s  a l s o  p o s s ib l e ,  though l e s s  n e a t ,  to  d e f in e  o n e s e l f  by o n e 's  m ajor preoccu pa­t io n s .  G oing t h i s  r o u t e ,  I  would say  th a t  what I th in k  ab out m ost i s  th e  G reat A d ven tu re, and th a t  i t  i s  th e  p o in t  o f  u n i f i c a t io n  f o r  a lm o st e v e r y ­th in g  e l s e  t h a t  i n t e r e s t s  me.The G reat A dventure: a h e r o ic  f ig u r e  en co u n tersd a n g ers, e v i l s ,  m y ste r io u s  e v e n ts ;  s t r u g g le s  d e s ­p e r a te ly  w ith  them and i s  a lm o st b e s te d , but u lt im ­a t e ly  w ins handsom ely.The form s o f  th e  Adventure th a t  I en cou n tered  f i r s t  were c h ie f l y  from th e  B ib le ,  and in v o lv e d  th e  h e r o e s ' e n te r in g  th e  b e l ly  o f  a f i s h ,  or a p i t  or p r iso n  or c a v e , a l l  im ages c l o s e l y  an a logou s to  th e  womb, so  th a t  r e b ir t h  s t i l l  i s  to  me th e  m ost b a s ic  image o f  what ta k e s  p la c e  in  th e  Happy E nding.As a f e m in is t  I a l s o  f in d  my d e e p e s t  sp r in g  in  th e  A d venture; c e n te r in g  in  God a s  g iv e r  o f  new b ir t h ,  as u lt im a te  m other.I am a ls o  in t e r e s t e d  in  p s y c h ic a l  r e s e a r c h ,  p a r t ic u la r ly  r e t r o c o g n it io n .  T h is r e la t e s  to  th e  Adventure in  s e v e r a l  w ays. The t a l e s  t h a t  I m ost en joy  in v o lv e  o th e r  w o r ld s , w ith  m arvels and won­d ers som etim es an a logou s to  th o se  I  stu d y  as a p ara­p s y c h o lo g is t .  Both in  f i c t i o n  and h i s t o r y ,  th e n , I lo v e  th e boundary where w orld s m eet. S ec o n d ly , i t  has been ob served  th a t  p erso n s who have had e s p e c ­i a l l y  g r u e l l in g  o r d e a ls  and v iv id  e x p e r ie n c e s  o f  r e b ir th  o f te n  emerge w ith  supernorm al pow ers. T h ir d ly , in s ta n c e s  o f  r e t r o c o g n it io n  ( i . e .  v i s i o n s  o f  p a s t  e v e n ts )  f r e q u e n t ly  in v o lv e  sym bols o f  th e  Return to  th e  Womb, but seldom  do th ey  in c lu d e  the  Happy Ending; i t  i s  a s  though th e  Adventure were a r r e s te d  in  m id -co u rse . In  W illia m s' D e sc e n t I n to  H e ll th e  v is io n a r y  P a u lin e  o f f e r s  r e s o lu t io n  and r e b ir th  to  a b e le a g er ed  h e r o , but seldom  in  r e a l  l i f e  have v i s i o n a r ie s  th ou gh t to  do s o .Then th e r e  i s  p sy c h ic  k in s h ip ,  th e s o r t  o fth in g  t h a t  ca u ses  p eop le  to  th in k  "I have been h ere  before"  a t  a f i r s t  v i s i t ,  or "You have been mine before"  a t  a f i r s t  m ee tin g . I am in tr ig u e d  by th e  p o s s i b i l i t y  t h a t  th e  c o - in h e r e n c e  o f  th e s e  "fam­i l i e s , "  spread  o u t over  sp ace  and t im e , may be th e  means whereby ap p aren t d e f e a t s  o f  j u s t i c e  f in d  t h e ir  r e s o lu t i o n s ,  and one p e r so n ’s  r e b ir t h  may be shared  by many.A l l  t h i s  i n t e r e s t  in  ad ven tu re d oes n o t mean th a t  my d a i ly  l i f e  c o n ta in s  much o f  i t  a t  p r e s e n t ,  which  i s  f in e  w ith  me, A dventures are n a sty  d is tu r b in g  uncom fortab le th in g s  th a t  make you l a t e  fo r  d in n e r .My p e r so n a l p r e d i le c t io n s  are n o t  n e c e s s a r i ly  to  be tak en  as in d ic a t o r s  fo r  th e  d ir e c t io n  o f  M y th lo re  from now on. M y th lo re  w i l l  co n tin u e  to  p r in t  a r t ­i c l e s  d e a l in g  w ith  many a s p e c ts  o f  myth and fa n ­t a s y ,  to g e th e r  w ith  p o etry  and artw ork . H o p efu lly  th e  l e t t e r  column w i l l  be l i v e l y  w ith  new i n s i g h t s , agreem ent and d isa g re em en t. (L e t te r s  n o t p r in te d ,  or s u b s t a n t ia l ly  e d i t e d ,  w i l l  be answered p erson ­a l l y .  )* * *A problem  a r i s e s  o c c a s io n a lly  i n  th e  m atter  o f  a d d r e ss in g  fem ale  c o r re sp o n d en ts . Some women ob­j e c t  to  "Mrs." or "Miss" becau se th ey  r e j e c t  the  id e a  th a t  th ey  are  to  be p u b l ic ly  d e f in e d  by t h e ir  r e la t io n s h ip ,  or ab sen ce t h e r e o f ,  to  a man. Be­cau se our c u ltu r e  has lo n g  p e n a liz e d  s in g le  women, and becau se I  d o n 't  want anyone to  h u rt l i k e  t h a t ,I have fa v o red  th e  use o f  "Ms." O th ers , however, d i s l i k e  "Ms;" th ey  are u ncom fortable w ith  i t s  a s s o c ­i a t i o n s ,  or (a s  E v a n g e lin e  W alton charm ingly  put i t )  " I t  makes me f e e l  to o  much l i k e  a m an u scrip t."U n fo r tu n a te ly , u n le s s  p eop le  in d ic a t e  how th ey  want to  be a d d r e sse d , I  c a n 't  t e l l  which to  u se .I t  occurred  to  me to  go back , in  such  c a s e s ,  to  th e  term fo r  w hich  "Mrs," "Miss" and "Ms." were a l l  once a b b r e v ia t io n s ,  nam ely, " M istre ss ,"  Of cou rse  th e word has a cq u ired  a n e g a t iv e  m eaning s in c e  th e n , but n o t as a t i t l e ;  and i t  has a p le a s a n t ly  a r c h a ic  f e e l  to  i t .* * *May a l l  your A dventures have Happy E ndings. . . .38

A Note on Charles Williams’ \u3ci\u3eThe Place of the Lion\u3c/i\u3e

https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1509&amp;context=mythlore

A Note on Charles Williams’ \u3ci\u3eThe Place of the Lion\u3c/i\u3e

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SWOSU Digital Commons (Southwestern Oklahoma State University)