TILL WE HAVE FACES
C.S. Lewis’ “Finest Work”
Discussion
Group Outline by Charlotte Ostermann
TWHF is a retelling of the classical myth, Cupid and Psyche, in
which Venus, jealous of Psyche’s beauty, instructs her son Cupid to make her
fall in love with a hideous monster.
Instead, Cupid falls in love with her himself and becomes her unseen
husband, visiting her only at night.
Psyche disobeys his orders not to look at him, loses him, and must
undertake a series of difficult tasks set by Venus to win him back. Cupid pleads their cause to the gods and
gains Psyche’s immortality when they are married in heaven.
It is interesting that CSL chose the form of myth and also that
he completed this book at about the same time he completed his autobiographical
“Surprised by Joy” (SbJ). It seems to Peter Schakel,
author of “Reason and Imagination in C.S. Lewis” (R&I), that these two
books actually tell one story:
Orual’s account of
her life, like Lewis’ account of his own in SbJ, is
retrospective, subjective, and selective.
It is striking, then, that suddenly he is able to complete successfully
two stories he had long sought to tell but had been unable to: his own story
and that of Cupid and Psyche. That he
can now tell them, the one as pure autobiography and the other as pure myth, is
perhaps the best evidence of a second major change in his life, and of the
nature of that change. …he finds [the
two stories] are one. The story of Orual,…is also the story of SbJ. Each is a story
of consciousness, and of the achievement of wholeness
through sacrificial death; and each is the story of Lewis himself. …He clearly
feels closer to Orual, [than to Psyche] the character
caught in a tension, attracted to the imaginative but held back from it by the
rational, and thus unable to assent fully to the one or the other. That closeness to Orual
is reflected in the fullness with which her character is developed. ….For Lewis, like Orual,
was seeking wholeness. Orual in one sense spoke for Lewis when she said, ‘I saw
that for years my life had been lived in two halves, never fitted together.’ [p.
151]…The result is presentation through myth of the essential Christian
experience: one is given a ‘taste’ of Reality through the story of Orual’s achievement of wholeness of self and with God. (PS
in R&I)
There are so many fascinating angles to consider that it is
worthwhile to have a preview of some and then a post-reading discussion of
others.
Where does the title come from?
P. 294: “How can
[the gods] meet us face to face till we have faces?
CSL, in “Letters to Malcolm”:
We are always completely and therefore equally known to God…But
when we a) become aware of the fact…and b) assent with all our will to be so
known, then we treat ourselves, in relation to God, not as things but as
persons. We have unveiled. Not that any veil could have baffled His
sight. The change is in us. The passive changes to the
active. Instead of merely being
known, we show, we tell, we offer ourselves to view.
Who are the major characters?
Psyche, the
beautiful sister, described by CSL as having a ‘naturally Christian spirit’,
not a type of Christ, but of Christ-likeness in everyman, represents intuitive
knowing, non-rational
Orual, Psyche’s ugly sister who loves her dearly if a bit
selfishly
The
Fox, the sisters’ Greek tutor, represents rationalism, Stoicism
Bardia, Soldier of the King (the girls’ father) who tries
to help Orual help psyche
How are CSL’s other writings connected to/related to this
piece?
The Four Loves – written after TWHF, develops the theme that natural loves degenerate if not infused with agape, and may then turn to hatred; Orual’s love for the Fox (storge), for Psyche (philia), and for Bardia (eros) all are distorted
Pilgrim’s
Regress – in both books the central personality is divided between two
characters who must be brought together: Orual
(clear, rational, reason) ® Psyche
(thick, longings, imaginings) / John (sweet desire, pagans) ® Vertue (rules, shepherds) “The truth
is that a Shepherd is only half a man, and a Pagan is only half a man, so that
neither people was well without the other.” (CSL in PR)
The Great
Divorce – In TGD we see recurring use of sight images, ‘seeing’ as apprehending
reality in various ways, with the metaphor changing at the highest level of
experiencing reality to ‘feed’ and ‘taste’; “Although TGD talks of tasting
reality, it does not itself offer such a taste, for it is not myth; its effect
is to convey a message, not to give an imaginative experience.” (PS in R&I)
Surprised by
Joy – connections noted above in quote from PS in R&I
The Problem
of Pain – seems to anticipate TWHF: “To surrender a self-will inflamed and
swollen with years of usurpations is a kind of death.”; “[Pain] removes the
veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul.” (CSL in
PP)
Dymer – CSL’s pre-conversion
narrative poem: "…the main subject of Dymer
. . . is without doubt the temptation of fantasies--fantasies of love, lust,
and power" (George Sayer's essay "C. S.
Lewis's Dymer."); interesting to look at
his pre- and post-Christian takes on paganism
Why did an apologist for the
Christian faith write a pagan myth?
“What flows
into you from the myth is not truth but reality (truth is always about
something, but reality is that about which truth is), and, therefore
every myth becomes the father of innumerable truths on the abstract level.”
(CSL in “Myth Became Fact”)
“Myth has the
potential for joining the outside view with the inside view, contemplation with
enjoyment, and the rational with the imaginative.” (PS in R&I)
Sacred story
as preparatio evangelica
Interesting things to look at as you
read: the ‘smell’ of holiness, the symbolism of the veil, the distortion of
human loves, the tension between clarity and mystery, redemptive suffering, the
role of writing/narrative/autobiography, what is ‘real’?
Are there any Christian elements in the story? Any ‘type(s)’ of Christ? Any Scriptural parallels?
How does Orual’s suffering benefit
Psyche? Discuss CSL’s
(not only his idea…his and Charles Williams’ and others’) concept of the Way of
Exchange:
“We can and should ‘bear one
another’s burdens’ in a sense much more nearly literal than is usually dreamed
of. Any two souls can (under the
Omnipotence) make an agreement to do so: the one can offer to take another’s
shame or anxiety or grief an the burden will actually
be transferred.” (CSL, “Arthurian Torso: Containing the Posthumous Fragment of
‘The Figure of Arthur’ by Charles Williams and a Commentary on the Arthurian
Poems of Charles Williams”)
What role(s) does the veil play?
Does holiness transcend the senses? Is sensory experience a deterrent to, an
affront to, an aid to holiness?
Where do we see the tension, or interplay between
Rationalistic/Materialistic and Intuitive/Imaginative knowing? Is one or the other shown to be the higher
mode?
How might a people accustomed to Ungit
react to the Christian message?
How did the use of myth enhance or detract from the story?
What role do dreams play in the development of characters and plot?