Page 1 of 1

Ch 4c: pp 52-53

PostPosted: July 3rd, 2007, 5:51 pm
by Stanley Anderson
(Four paragraphs beginning with "By translating so much..." and ending with "...initiated into the mysteries.")

Lewis mentions that Chalcidius was responsible for transmitting what was known of Plato in the Middle Ages, and that the parts he did transmit in their incompleteness, gave a different view of Plato to the Medieval mind than the more complete canon available that later periods had (and that we currently have). It conjures up a rather humourous image of a medieval Professor (or should that be “Abbot”:-) Kirk exclaiming (in a Chalcidian-influenced incomplete knowledge of Plato) to his peasant wards or young novitiates, “It’s all in Plato – what DO they teach them in these monasteries these days!”:-)

Although I can make a guess at his meaning, I wish Lewis had said more and gone into greater detail (though perhaps he thought it outside the scope of the book) when he wrote, “…Chalcidius unconsciously supplied a corrective for the contemptus mundi inherent in neo-Platonism and early Christianity alike. It was later to prove fruitful.” I would like to have heard what those fruits were specifically.

In the next paragraph Lewis begins talking about the effect the principle of interpretation that Chalcidius used had on the Middle Ages. Lewis tells us, “In hard places, [Chalcidius] holds, we must always attribute to Plato whatever sense appears ‘worthiest the wisdom of so great an authority’; which inevitably means that all the dominant ideas of the commentator’s own age will be read into him.” I can’t help but think that this is exactly the lament of people who have noted that Christians of nearly all denominations seem to “claim” Lewis for their own, attributing views to him because they are the dominant ideas of their own peculiar theologies.

I love the unexpected conclusion in the next paragraph that Lewis makes (or rather, his silence at the obvious implication) about Plato’s declaration that “the souls of wicked men may be reincarnated as women, and if that doesn’t cure them, finally as beasts.” He says that Chalcidius tells us not to take that literally. Lewis writes, “He only means that, by indulging your passions, you will, in this present life, become more and more like an animal.”

Period.

I can almost see the wry smile on Lewis’ face as he wrote that line, refusing to comment further on the intermediary place of women in that illustration of the progression from evil men to animals. Advocates of Lewis-as-misogynist, take it away – this should give you a field day!:-)

The last paragraph of the section under consideration in this post, is about the gods – ie the “animated stars” -- contrasted with the “popular pantheon” who “our [ie Chalcidius’] ancestors” were the descendents of – ie, they were children of gods. I’m thinking that Lewis portrayed a sort of mixture of these two – animated stars with children of the popular pantheon of gods – in the section of Voyage of the Dawn Treader on Ramandu’s Island where Ramandu is a star and his daughter is to marry Caspian so that Caspian's descendents do in fact become “children of the gods (or in this case, of the animated stars).

--Stanley

-

PostPosted: July 9th, 2007, 4:28 am
by liriodendron

Re: -

PostPosted: July 9th, 2007, 6:26 pm
by Stanley Anderson