C. S. Lewis Reading Day: On Affection without Familiarity

 But Affection has it's own criteria. It's objects have to be familiar. 

(The Four Loves)

Welcome to my slightly early post for C.S. Lewis Reading Day. As I explained in my last post, C.S. Lewis Reading Day (November 29) this year comes out on Saturday. And since the Sabbath doesn't end until nightfall, I'll miss the festivities over at Pints with Jack. I could wait until Saturday evening to post, but I'd rather be a day early than wait until late on the Reading Day itself. 

This year's theme is storge, which is, in Lewis' analysis in The Four Loves, called Affection. Affection includes includes familial love and all others with whom we are a part of our usual day-to-day lives. With that in mind, I start my post.

Of the four types, or genres, of Love defined by the Greeks, Lewis considers Affection to be the most humble and least showy. It lacks the sparkle of romance and the excitement of friendship. Yet, in some way, it underies them all. When the passion has subsided or the adventure has passed, the lovers or friends bound by affection can pause, and enjoy the comfort of each other's company. 

That is why Affection is the love used to describe the relationship between members of a family (and here I concentrate on the nuclear family). It's the love that allows siblings to drive each other crazy but immediately stand up for each other against an outsider. It's the missing dynamic when one member is not at home. It is what comes into question when (Genesis 2:24), "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife..." 

However, the challenge opposite 'leaving' arises as well, because Affection requires familliarity. It is the comfort, the feeling that everything is as it should be, that makes Affection tick. So what happens when someone new is added to the family and (correctly) expects affection?

I've been thinking about this, because last week my daughter got engaged!

Now, of course, we are very happy about this. And her finace is a wonderful young man from a fine, upstanding family. So, the question or challenge that I raise is not to look for some sort of excuse. It's more to explore Lewis' point - does Affection require familiarity?

Naturally, when it comes to such relations we explore the biblical corpus and see what we find. Unfortunately, we don't find much, and that which we do find is more a warning than a model. Jacob and Laban whose story we read in this week's Torah portion clearly didn't get along. But even they did better than David and Saul. Despite Isaac's love for Esau, Esau's wive caused him and Rebecca much pain, and let's not even talk about Tamar and Judah. Now, we do find Moses and Jethro and that one seems to work out well. And perhaps we see echoes of that story in Lewis corpus and the relationship between Aravis and King Lune. 

To review, Moses escapes the Pharoah's wrath by fleeing Egypt for Midian. There he sees Jethro's daughters (now there is some questions on exactly who is Jethro versus Re'uel, but we'll keep it simple) are being abused by the other (presumably male) shepherds at the well. Moses saves them, and waters their sheep himself. Apparently this abuse was a regular occurrence because when his daughters returned home, Jethro could not believe how quickly they were able to water the sheep. The daughters explained that they were saved by a stranger and Jethro (who, based on this question, was clearly meant to join Judaism) replied, and you didn't invite him to eat!? So, they invite Moses in, he stays, and eventually marries one of the daughters. 

To summarize there was a conflict, the protagonist emerges victorious thanks to the help of a stranger, the protagonist tells the story of victory to his/her father, the stranger is invited in by the protagonist's father, and eventually the stranger marries the protagonist. 

That same structure is found in The Horse and His Boy. The protagonist (Shasta/Cor) is in a conflict (attempting to escape Calormen), and his helped by a stranger (Aravis). Upon emerging victorious, Aravis is invited to live in the palace by Shasta's father King Lune and eventually Shasta and Aravis marry.    

And perhaps is that outline is the key for having a relationship of Affection without the immediate familiarty. I don't need the familiarity with my future son-in-law because I have been told it by my duaghter. The relationship she has built with my son-in-law can be shared by increasing familiarity through story, if not through direct interaction. I can invite him into the family with Affection because I am used to him through my daughter. Affection is familiarity and as my daughter transitions to fulfill the demands of Genesis, her Affectionate connection with her nuclear family enables us to grow our familiarity and Affection for him.

Welcome to the family! 

Further updates will be shared as warranted.  

C.S. Lewis Reading Day 2025

This Saturday the folks at Pints with Jack are spearheading the third annual C.S. Lewis Reading Day in commemoration of Lewis' birthday. This year's theme is familial love and everyone is again asked to take a moment to read and reflect on lessons they've learned from C.S. Lewis.

Again, this year there will be Reading Day livestream. Unfortunately, Nov 29 is on a Saturday so the planned livestreams won't work for Sabbath observers like me.  

I'm hoping to again have a dedicated post which I will put up Friday before sundown. 

Looking forward!  

On Strawberries and the Use of Magic

Photo by Natasha Skov on Unsplash

In our last post we noted that Peter's shield had an image of a lion in a red "as bright as ripe strawberries." This led us to notice that Strawberry, the horse of the cabbie who was to become King Frank, like Peter, came from our world.

Strawberry is a rather down-to-earth kind of fellow. He was chosen to be a Talking Beast and rememberd our world as if only a dream. Nonetheless, he volunteers to help Digory by bringing him to Aslan, and then, after Aslan transforms him into a flying horse, he takes Digory and Polly on a quest to find an apple for Aslan. On the journey, he simply eats grass and tells the children that Aslan likes requests rather than granting things upfront. Polly refuses to use her own magic to get dinner and instead 'roughs it' with Digory eating only taffies. 

Hold on, that ties a few things together. Polly could have used magic but does not. Aslan could have used magic but likes being asked. And King Peter is given no magic. It's almost as if he is not given magic because Aslan likes to be asked. 

In a world of magic, those without may feel helpless, or at least at a disadvantage. And they are, if they have nothing more powerful. But Father Christmas reminds Peter that there is something, or someone, more powerful, Aslan himself. 

And perhaps that's the answer. Peter is given no magic so that he always remembers Aslan. 

Peter's Sword and Shield

Of Magic he learned only the theory, for Doctor Cornelius said the practical part was not proper study for princes...

I was thinking of King Peter's sword... You see when it comes to the gifts Father Christmas gave the three Pevensie children, we discussed at length Susan's horn, how it serves as a wordless prayer with a guaranteed but unknown answer. Then there's Lucy cordial which magically heals. And then, there's Peter's sword and shield... which are just a normal sword and shield! 

Why?

Wouldn't we expect there to be something special or magical about them?

And then I realized that Lewis already answered the question when describing Prince Caspian's studies under his tutor Dr. Cornelius. Practical magic is improper study for princes. But why? Susan and Lucy can have magical items, but Peter cannot? 

Presumably the difference is that Peter will be the High King and he, and perhaps only he, cannot use magic. I think there are a number of possible reasons why not: 

(1) Peter's sword, despite not being magical, does garner some attention in the Chronicles of Narnia. He forgets to clean it after killing the wolf, he draws it and pronounces its name when discovering it in the ruins of Cair Paravel. But Peter's shield is kind of ignored. Maybe it shouldn't be, because the shield has upon it an image of a red lion. So red they are "as bright as ripe strawberries at the moment when you pick it." 

Hold on, strawberries? That's a strange way to describe red. I would have thought the natural (and certainly Christian) description would be red as blood, after all this is Aslan's image we're talking about here. And, in fact, when Prince Rilian's shield goes from "without device" to silver color with an image of a red lion (exactly like Peter's shield) the red is described as, "redder than blood or cherries." That makes sense... but strawberries?

Do we have strawberries elsewhere in the Chronicles? 

Of course, the answer is yes. Strawberry, the horse of the cabby who was to become King Frank, and who was renamed Fledge the father of all flying horses. Interesting, as both Peter and Strawberry came from our world, where there is no magic, were given quests in Narnia and were given no magic. What did they rely on instead of magic? They relied on the word of Aslan. 

So... where does that leave us? 

I guess we'll see next time...

Letters to Malcom: Letter 3 (Part 1)

OK, there's a lot in this Letter so we'll go one step at a time... 

Of course, as with others of Lewis' books, we only see one side of the conversation. Here we do not see Malcom's letters, so we don't have an exact formulation of the parallel he attempted to draw between prayer and a man making love with his wife. Yet, it's clear that Lewis, rightly so in my mind, is not at all impressed. Two points to make on this part. 

1) Jewish literature and liturgy uses many parallels to provide insight into the relationship between God and the Children of Israel / the individual (anyone interested can read some of my thoughts on the subject here, though since then I've developed it a lot further). These include: Father/child, Husband/wife, Master/slave, and Shepherd/sheep. In different context different ones of these parallels are used. In Jewish prayer we find heavy usage of the Father/child and Master/slave parallels sometimes even juxtaposed like in the sixth blessing of the amidah. 

However, the Husband/wife parallel is rarely used in prayer (perhaps the Friday night L'chah Dodi is an exception) and for good reason. It's completely out of place. A wife should never have to ask a husband for sustenance, clothes, healing, etc. these are all part of the husband's obligations! What kind of husband doesn't provide for his wife - that would be clear grounds for divorce (not to mention it seems like a horrible relationship). Which means, that to pose as God's wife and then ask for one's daily bread would be accusing God of not fulfilling His obligation - which seems like a pretty horrible thing to do. 

2) I would just point out, that Judaism commands humanity to have children, be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7), or 'He formed Earth for habitation' (Isaiah 45:18) and therefore the sexual act can not only be for the glory of God (which would be to strengthen the family unit) but also a (possibly) explicit part of fulfilling God's command.  

Letters to Malcom: Addendum to Letter 1

Going back to the first letter, I realized there was another point I wanted to mention. Lewis makes this rather depressing statement with regard to church service, "The business of us laymen is simply to endure and make the best of it. Any tendency to a passionate preference for one type of service must be regarded simply as a temptation." 

Again, I really do not see where Lewis is coming with such a pessimistic view. The goal of the service is speak to God, to praise Him, thank Him, to come closer to Him. Sometimes that involves unburdening ourselves to Him, or including Him in our festive mood. But to do that, the mode of service does matter. Some people like singing, for example, some do not. Some prefer a slow pace, others a faster pace. It matters because we concentrate better, we pay more attention, and our mind matters less when the service fits our style. It's easy to say one does not need a style when in comes to prayer, but I don't think it's true. If the cantor starts with an operatic rendition of a service my concentration will dissipate. That's not a good thing and perhaps it's something for which I should better train myself, but it's true. 

Lewis complains of the shepherds going off on their own way and vanishing over distant horizons. But maybe all of those paths lead to the same place, but some people like mountain climbing while others prefer to go around. 

But even beyond that I'm bothered by Lewis' formulation. A prayer service is an opportunity to connect with God, and the best we can do is endure?

Malcom appears to disagree with Lewis from a different perspective. He claims that the goal of the service is to glorify God and thus the priest must do what he can in his way to achieve that goal. Lewis disagrees with Malcom because the glorification of God is when the people truly woship Him. The priest is presumably to be that connection. 

Letters to Malcom: Addendum to Formalized Liturgy

I just to add a couple of other perspectives on formalized liturgy that perhaps are worth contemplating:

1) Words have an underlying, perhaps mystical meaning, that is understood and appreciate only by religious masters such as our Sages who instituted and concretized the liturgy. This is the reason, for example, why the Talmud records it was so difficult to identify someone who could compose an extra blessing against the heretics in the amidah service. If the task was simply to compose a paragraph, how hard could it be? However, only a uniquely talented and wise individual could include in that paragraph deep religious themes, shades of meaning, hints, and mysticism. 

Though the typical individual may not appreciate the richness, beauty, and religious importance of the words of the formal liturgy, they are there. And praying it sensitizes a person to all held within in a way similar, l'havdil, to why high-school kids read Shakespeare, though there is no hope they will at this point understand the depth of his writing.

A more extreme form of this argument (which I admit to not resonating with) is to say, that the words of the Sages-composed prayer fill mathematics like equations that are known to influence God is certain ways. It is these words that must be said for the prayer to achieve maximum effectiveness. Other words may seem to say the same thing on their surface. Nonetheless, no matter how much intent or concentration one prays with, these words are simply better. 

2) One might also take the opposite approach. What right does finite man have to pray to the Infinite God? How can we ever give enough praise, enough thanks, or even make enough requests for the myriad of things that we need to go about our seemingly un-miraculous, 'daily routine'? How is it even possible? The answer is that we can't and it is impossible. In truth, “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2). Even attempting to start to praise or make requests of God is insulting.

So, how can we? 

Because our ancestors did - and only by following in their ways can we do so as well. Hence, it is necessary to follow the set liturgy, because deviating from it is at best hopeless, because how can we approach the Infinite, and, at worst, smacks of insolence, as if we have the right to approach Him. 

OK, hopefully next time we'll go further...