Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Re: JRRT and CS Lewis
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140110] Mo, 26 September 2005 18:35
ojevind.lang  
aelfwina wrote:

>Has anyone else seen the following article?

>http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=3D1990652005

>Of course to those of us familiar with "Letters" this is not really anythi=
ng
new. JRRT and CSL had several falling outs over time, and for various
reasons. Yet he remained fond of him even after they were no longer as

close as once they had been. But it's interesting all the same. I
wonder
at how well it will be dramatized?

Since the author of the book, Norman Stone, is responsible for the film
"Shadowlands", an abortion which had nothing to do with the real C. S.
Lewis except for a few names and distorted facts, I was suspicious as
soon as I saw his name. Then I read this item in the article:

"In CS Lewis, Beyond Narnia, Lewis and Tolkien are shown having a
violent argument about The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Lewis
wrote afterwards: 'No harm in him, only needs a smack or so.'"

In fact, Lewis wrote that after first having met Tolkien, before they
became friends and long before Lewis wrote the Narnia books. There is
quite a lot of other rubbish in the book, if "The Scotsman" is to be
trusted, for example the claim that Lewis was in the habit of calling
Catholics "Papists" and that Tolkien feared he'd "backslide" into
Ulster Protestantism.
I'd give the dramatization a pass.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140112 ] Mo, 26 September 2005 19:51
Derek Broughton  
ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net wrote:

> aelfwina wrote:
>
>>Has anyone else seen the following article?
>
>>http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1990652005
>
> Since the author of the book, Norman Stone, is responsible for the film
> "Shadowlands", an abortion which had nothing to do with the real C. S.
> Lewis except for a few names and distorted facts, I was suspicious as
> soon as I saw his name.

It was my understanding that Shadowlands was based on Lewis' own
autobiography, "Surprised by Joy" - so I was quite disappointed to find
that Joy never even appeared in "Surprised by Joy". Bummer. I still
enjoyed the movie. Perhaps it helps if you didn't actually know _anything_
about the real life of CS Lewis :-)

> Then I read this item in the article:
>
> "In CS Lewis, Beyond Narnia, Lewis and Tolkien are shown having a
> violent argument about The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Lewis
> wrote afterwards: 'No harm in him, only needs a smack or so.'"
>
> In fact, Lewis wrote that after first having met Tolkien, before they
> became friends and long before Lewis wrote the Narnia books. There is
> quite a lot of other rubbish in the book, if "The Scotsman" is to be
> trusted, for example the claim that Lewis was in the habit of calling
> Catholics "Papists" and that Tolkien feared he'd "backslide" into
> Ulster Protestantism.

It hardly said he was "in the habit" of calling Catholic's "papists" (though
it's a pretty easy habit for an Ulster protestant to fall into), it said
'When Lewis published ... English Literature in the Sixteenth Century in
1954, Tolkien was irritated by Lewis calling Catholics "papists"'. It
doesn't even really say that he said it in that book, though it's implied.
It would be hard, at this time, to prove that Lewis _never_ called a
Catholic a papist (I've been known to do it myself, when I want to get a
rise out of a pap^H^H^HCatholic friend - apparently it would have worked as
well if used on JRRT). Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to be
much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into atheism
would seem more likely.
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140124 ] Mo, 26 September 2005 22:40
Flame of the West  
ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net wrote:

> "In CS Lewis, Beyond Narnia, Lewis and Tolkien are shown having a
> violent argument about The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Lewis
> wrote afterwards: 'No harm in him, only needs a smack or so.'"
>
> In fact, Lewis wrote that after first having met Tolkien, before they
> became friends and long before Lewis wrote the Narnia books.

I noticed that too, and was going to remark on it
until I noticed that you've done it for me.

> I'd give the dramatization a pass.

I suspect it's very difficult if not impossible to
make an interesting and accurate dramatization of
the academic disagreements of two professors.
I suspect this one is going to be dreadful.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140137 ] Di, 27 September 2005 02:02
Huan the hound  
ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net posted on 9/26/05 12:35 PM:
[snip]

> Since the author of the book, Norman Stone, is responsible for the film
> "Shadowlands", an abortion which had nothing to do with the real C. S.
> Lewis except for a few names and distorted facts, I was suspicious as
> soon as I saw his name. Then I read this item in the article:

With regards to information about Lewis's life, I'm ashamed
to say that I've only read Lewis's letters and _Surprised by
Joy_, and not a single biography. So, when I watched
_Shadowlands_ I didn't notice that it was an "abortion" with
"distorted facts" aside from the film giving Joy Gresham one
son instead of two.

I trust your opinion since you've read much more than I
have. What biography do you recommend?

Huan, the hound of Valinor
--
Yet at length Draugluin escaped, and fleeing back into the
tower he died before Sauron's feet; and as he died he told
his master: 'Huan is there!'
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140151 ] Di, 27 September 2005 12:52
ojevind.lang  
Derek Broughton wrote:

>It hardly said he was "in the habit" of calling Catholic's "papists" (thou=
gh
it's a pretty easy habit for an Ulster protestant to fall into), it
said
'When Lewis published ... English Literature in the Sixteenth Century
in
1954, Tolkien was irritated by Lewis calling Catholics "papists"'. It
doesn't even really say that he said it in that book, though it's
implied.

The way the "information" is given in "The Scotsman", it is rather
implied that Tolkien was annoyed by Lewis habitually calling Catholics
"papists", something I very much doubt he did. I can't say anything
about what he wrote in "English Literature in the Sixteenth Century"
since I haven't read the book.

>It would be hard, at this time, to prove that Lewis _never_ called a
Catholic a papist (I've been known to do it myself, when I want to get
a
rise out of a pap^H^H^HCatholic friend - apparently it would have
worked as
well if used on JRRT). Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared
he'd
backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed
to be
much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into
atheism
would seem more likely.

True, it is hard to prove negatives. Can you prove that you never beat
your wife? ;-)
Carpenter, Hooper, A. N. Andrews and the other biographers of Lewis
never mention any such fear of backsliding. Of course, we know about
Tolkien's comments in a letter after Lewis, unlike Tolkien himself, had
refused to be taken in by the poet Roy Campbell's "mixture of
Catholicism and Fascism" (Lewis' phrase). One sometimes encounters
claims that Campbell was not a Fascist, but those claims are a bit hard
to uphold since the man wrote an entire book promoting his Fascist
ideas. After a meeting between Campbell, Lewis and Tolkien, Tolkien
was, apparently, upset by Lewis' lack of enthusiasm for the charming
Campbell and his hilarious "tale of greasy Epstein (the sculptor) and
how he fought him and put him in hospital for a week". Confronted with
Lewis's distaste for Campell, Tolkien smelled an anti-Catholic plot and
viciously commented: "There is a good deal of Ulster still left in
C=2ES.L. if hidden from himself". (Tolkien also declared that that
particular story told by Campbell - the one about the assault and
batter of the Jew Epstein - was the one he himself "most enjoyed".) He
also described Lewis'recent article about Campbell in "The Oxford
Magazine" as "a lampoon", stated that he (Lewis) "believes all that is
said against Franco and nothing that is said for him", declared that
"hatred of our church is after all the real only foundation of the C of
E" and claimed that "if Catholic priests are slaughtered he disbelieves
it (and I daresay really thinks they asked for it". All in all,
Tolkien's outbursts in Letter 83 are so intemperate and over the top
that I think he knew somewhere inside that he was wrong - that he
shouldn't really be so charmed by a Fascist and an anti-Semite. Notice
the phrase ""the real only foundation" - it seems Tolkien was in such a
state of hysteria that he even forgot his grammar.
Some of Tolkien's admiring comments about Campbell in that letter
make me squirm - for example his wide-eyed statement: "He speaks
Spanish fluently (he has been a bullfighter)" and that he "was in the
van of the company that chased the Reds out of Malaga in such haste
that their General (Villalba I believe) could not carry off his loot -
and left on his table St. Teresa's hand with all its jewels." Like a
little boy talking about D'Artagnan or Robin Hood.
Vans do seem to turn up in Tolkien's writings, don't they.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140152 ] Di, 27 September 2005 13:27
ojevind.lang  
Huan the hound wrote:

>With regards to information about Lewis's life, I'm ashamed
to say that I've only read Lewis's letters and _Surprised by
Joy_, and not a single biography. So, when I watched
_Shadowlands_ I didn't notice that it was an "abortion" with
"distorted facts" aside from the film giving Joy Gresham one
son instead of two.

Well, the film surgically removed all Lewis' friends (Owen Barfield,
Tolkien and the rest) and replaced them with an idiotic-looking
hanger-on simply called "Christopher". Since he seems to be about
Lewis' age I assume he is not meant to represent Christopher Tolkien.
Debra Winger, playing Joy Davidman, makes a comment to the effect that
Lewis only "surrounds himself with people he can dominate", which was
emphatically not the case, although this is the way his social life is
depicted in the film. Also, Lewis is described as an otherworldly
Oxford academic who was innocent of politics and hardly noticed WWII -
a quite remarkable way to depict the man. Lewis' activities as a layman
lecturer on Christianity are treated with contempt as the spoutings of
a man who has no idea what he is talking about, and no one who sees the
scenes from his academic life could possibly realize that he was
actually a very popular teacher. (Stone's "source" seems to have been
some student who was in the habit of stealing books at Blackstone's and
who was ultimately flunked for laziness.) There are several other
strange things in the way the story is told.
As for the removal of the older Gresham boy, that had already
happened in the preceding (and superior) TV film starring Claire Bloom
and Joss Ackland as Davidman and Lewis. I suspect David Gresham did not
want to get included in artistic treatments of Lewis' life (unlike his
younger brother, Douglas, he returned to America and his father after
his mother's death) and threatened prosecution if his name was used.
I know that many people enjoyed "Shadowlands". I think what really
annoys me about it is the smug and mendacious introductory statement
that "This is a true story". It is not.

>I trust your opinion since you've read much more than I
have. What biography do you recommend?

Most of the biographies of Lewis are too worshipful and uncritically
admiring. Then there is A. N. Wilson's biography, which goes to the
opposite extreme and, in my opinion, does a hatchet job on Lewis. The
biography I know of that I still think is the best is Humphrey
Carpenter's "The Inklings", which, of course, is about the whole circle
of friends, particularly Lewis, Tolkien and Charles Williams.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140168 ] Di, 27 September 2005 20:57
jwkenne  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> It hardly said he was "in the habit" of calling Catholic's "papists" (though
> it's a pretty easy habit for an Ulster protestant to fall into), it said
> 'When Lewis published ... English Literature in the Sixteenth Century in
> 1954, Tolkien was irritated by Lewis calling Catholics "papists"'. It
> doesn't even really say that he said it in that book, though it's implied.
> It would be hard, at this time, to prove that Lewis _never_ called a
> Catholic a papist (I've been known to do it myself, when I want to get a
> rise out of a pap^H^H^HCatholic friend - apparently it would have worked as
> well if used on JRRT). Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
> backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to be
> much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into atheism
> would seem more likely.

Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
an atheist. But he certainly never came close to it after he returned to
Christianity. (After all, he believed in Purgatory and auricular
confession!)

I don't offhand recall Lewis using the word "papist" in OHEL, though I
dare say he might have used it in an historic context (that is, in some
such phrase as "the struggle between Protestants and Papists").

--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140190 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 03:58
Flame of the West  
Öjevind Lång wrote:

> Confronted with
> Lewis's distaste for Campell, Tolkien smelled an anti-Catholic plot and
> viciously commented: "There is a good deal of Ulster still left in
> C.S.L. if hidden from himself".

I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.
Many others have echoed that comment about Lewis.
Nor do you know whether it was occasioned only by the
episode with Campbell. For all you or I know, there
might have been other minor remarks or what not
through the years that indicated a residual anti-
Catholic attitude on CSL's part. For all we know,
CSL *did* use the word "Papist" in that book and it
rankled Tolkien. I think it would be prudent to
reserve judgment on Tolkien's state of mind when
writing that statement; he may simply have been
giving his take on CSL's attitude toward Catholicism
rather than launching a "vicious" attack on it.

> He
<snip>
> declared that
> "hatred of our church is after all the real only foundation of the C of
> E"

What other foundation is there? Anglicans have
always been split into opposing camps with
incompatible beliefs and practices. Nowadays
they don't even share a common morality or a
common opinion about the existence of God. The
only thing that unified them for the first four
centuries of their existence was hostility to
Catholicism, which never wavered. Tolkien
experienced it first-hand in the shunning of
his mother by her Anglican relatives, the
resulting poverty of which led to her early
death and his own orphanhood. I woundn't be
too hard to Tolkien: with him it couldn't
help but be personal.

> and claimed that "if Catholic priests are slaughtered he disbelieves
> it (and I daresay really thinks they asked for it".

No surprise here! I have encountered the same
disbelief on this very NG about the slaughter
of priests and religious by the Spanish left
in the 1930's.

> All in all,
> Tolkien's outbursts in Letter 83 are so intemperate and over the top
> that I think he knew somewhere inside that he was wrong

With all due respect, I find your reaction to his
letter to be a bit intemperate as well. It appears
to me that you are ascribing the worst possible
motives to him.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140196 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 06:16
Larry Swain  
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> It hardly said he was "in the habit" of calling Catholic's "papists"
>> (though
>> it's a pretty easy habit for an Ulster protestant to fall into), it said
>> 'When Lewis published ... English Literature in the Sixteenth Century in
>> 1954, Tolkien was irritated by Lewis calling Catholics "papists"'. It
>> doesn't even really say that he said it in that book, though it's
>> implied. It would be hard, at this time, to prove that Lewis _never_
>> called a
>> Catholic a papist (I've been known to do it myself, when I want to get a
>> rise out of a pap^H^H^HCatholic friend - apparently it would have
>> worked as
>> well if used on JRRT). Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared
>> he'd
>> backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed
>> to be
>> much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into atheism
>> would seem more likely.
>
>
> Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
> an atheist. But he certainly never came close to it after he returned to
> Christianity. (After all, he believed in Purgatory and auricular
> confession!)
>
> I don't offhand recall Lewis using the word "papist" in OHEL, though I
> dare say he might have used it in an historic context (that is, in some
> such phrase as "the struggle between Protestants and Papists").
>
There were also the series of letters he exchanged in Latin with a
priest in Italy (I think)...can't lay my hands on the slim volume at the
moment....
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140198 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 06:39
Count Menelvagor  
=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:

> The way the "information" is given in "The Scotsman", it is rather
> implied that Tolkien was annoyed by Lewis habitually calling Catholics
> "papists", something I very much doubt he did. I can't say anything
> about what he wrote in "English Literature in the Sixteenth Century"
> since I haven't read the book.

he does call them papists. and what is weirder still is the reason he
gives for doing so. he says that calling them "catholics" wd be to
accept the claims made for the Catholic Church, while calling them
"romancatholics" wd reject those cliams. so as a compromise, he calls
them "papists." very weird, at best -- esp. since tolkien had no
problem with calling himself a roman catholic.
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140199 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 07:03
Flare  
Is it just me , or when the movie comes out the "not well informed"
reviews will repeat sentences like " here come the aussie orcs again" ,
"lotr revisited", "frodo meets harry potter" , etc ?




--

Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be
the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper
armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'.
--Rincewind, The Color of Magic
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #140201 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 08:15
the softrat  
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:58:25 -0400, Flame of the West
<FotW [at] NOSPAMsolinas.org> wrote:

>Tolkien
>experienced it first-hand in the shunning of
>his mother by her Anglican relatives, the
>resulting poverty of which led to her early
>death and his own orphanhood.

BEEEEEP!!

Wrong agin!!

Mabel Tolkien's relatives were Methodists, not Anglicans. Not the same
thing!

the softrat
Unless Barad-dur is rebuilt, twice as evil as before, Frodo has triumphed!
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
A cement mixer collided with a prison van on the Cajon Pass.
Motorists are asked to be on the lookout for sixteen hardened
criminals.
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141189 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 12:39
ojevind.lang  
Flame of the West wrote:

>=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:
>> Confronted with
>> Lewis's distaste for Campell, Tolkien smelled an anti-Catholic plot and
>> viciously commented: "There is a good deal of Ulster still left in
>> C.S.L. if hidden from himself".

>I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.
>Many others have echoed that comment about Lewis.

Really? Who, exactly? Exclude right-wing Catholics, please.

>Nor do you know whether it was occasioned only by the
episode with Campbell. For all you or I know, there
might have been other minor remarks or what not
through the years that indicated a residual anti-
Catholic attitude on CSL's part. For all we know,
CSL *did* use the word "Papist" in that book and it
rankled Tolkien. I think it would be prudent to
reserve judgment on Tolkien's state of mind when
writing that statement; he may simply have been
giving his take on CSL's attitude toward Catholicism
rather than launching a "vicious" attack on it.

For all we know, a replica of Arkady's penis the size of the Empire
State Building is circling Arcturus. Proving negatives is almost
impossible. As for Tolkien's comments - if you can't see (or
acknowledge) that they were vicious, then that is your problem, not
mine.
It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert Lewis
to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour comments
about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from agnosticism. I wish I
could have saved him from the C. of E. as well" - stuff like that.)
That does not make Lewis a bigot (Ulsterman or otherwise) who despised
other brands of Christianity than his own. It does, however, show off
Tolkien as a bit of a bigot.

>> He
><snip>
>> declared that
>> "hatred of our church is after all the real only foundation of the C of =
E"

>What other foundation is there? Anglicans have
always been split into opposing camps with
incompatible beliefs and practices. Nowadays
they don't even share a common morality or a
common opinion about the existence of God. The
only thing that unified them for the first four
centuries of their existence was hostility to
Catholicism, which never wavered. Tolkien
experienced it first-hand in the shunning of
his mother by her Anglican relatives, the
resulting poverty of which led to her early
death and his own orphanhood. I woundn't be
too hard to Tolkien: with him it couldn't
help but be personal.

Your comments about Anglicanism only reveal your extreme ignorance and
prejudice about Protestants. Of course, it is true that there are
different schools of thought inside Anglicanism. Unlike the Catholic
Church, they tolerate dissenting opinions. However, claiming that
Anglicans only exist because of hatred of the Catholic church is, and I
won't make any bones about, it, bigoted.
Furthermore, as another poster has already pointed out, the Tolkien
family were not Anglicans. They were Methodists.

>> and claimed that "if Catholic priests are slaughtered he disbelieves
>> it (and I daresay really thinks they asked for it".

>No surprise here! I have encountered the same
disbelief on this very NG about the slaughter
of priests and religious by the Spanish left
in the 1930's.

And the attitude that "I daresay really thinks they asked for it"?
Please.
Of course, in previous debates I have seen you try to claim that
Franco was not a Fascist, so your attitude that Franco was just a good
old defender of the One True Faith comes as no surprise to me. I
suspect you don't know that the troops of the great Catholic Franco
punished Republican areas for staying true to the Republic by mass
murdering the inhabitants. In some areas, they even brought out the
patients from mental asylums and slaughtered them all. Or perhaps you
think that "they asked for it"?

>> All in all,
>> Tolkien's outbursts in Letter 83 are so intemperate and over the top
>> that I think he knew somewhere inside that he was wrong

>With all due respect, I find your reaction to his
letter to be a bit intemperate as well. It appears
to me that you are ascribing the worst possible
motives to him.

I notice that you have snipped and ignored all the evidence (from
Tolkien's own letter) that he fell in love with a Jew-baiting fascist
and struck out blindly against Lewis, who saw clearer than he did.
Tolkien's comments were way over the top.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141190 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 12:41
ojevind.lang  
Count Menelvagor did:

>he does call them papists. and what is weirder still is the reason he
gives for doing so. he says that calling them "catholics" wd be to
accept the claims made for the Catholic Church, while calling them
"romancatholics" wd reject those cliams. so as a compromise, he calls
them "papists." very weird, at best -- esp. since tolkien had no
problem with calling himself a roman catholic.

Thanks for the information. I agree that that is a bit weird, but I
think you'd agree with me that it is not really evidence that Lewis was
prejudiced against Catholics.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141192 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 12:53
ojevind.lang  
=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:

>(Stone's "source" seems to have been
some student who was in the habit of stealing books at Blackstone's and
who was ultimately flunked for laziness.) There are several other
strange things in the way the story is told.

Oops! That should be Blackwell's, of course.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141200 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 15:46
Derek Broughton  
Öjevind Lång wrote:

> Count Menelvagor did:
>
>>he does call them papists. and what is weirder still is the reason he
>> gives for doing so. he says that calling them "catholics" wd be to
>> accept the claims made for the Catholic Church, while calling them
>> "romancatholics" wd reject those cliams. so as a compromise, he calls
>> them "papists." very weird, at best -- esp. since tolkien had no
>> problem with calling himself a roman catholic.
>
> Thanks for the information. I agree that that is a bit weird, but I
> think you'd agree with me that it is not really evidence that Lewis was
> prejudiced against Catholics.

I'm not sure that I would - but I'd suggest it's more like the completely
thoughtless prejudice you'll find on the part of World War II veterans who
can't help calling Germans "Huns" or Japanese "Nips". Not acceptable
today, but when your father does it you know better than to believe he's
really racist.

From the point of view of "The Scotsman" piece, it probably makes the
article literally true without necessarily _meaning_ anything.
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141201 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 15:51
Derek Broughton  
John W. Kennedy wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
>> backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to
>> be much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into
>> atheism would seem more likely.
>
> Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
> an atheist.

I confess my memory for non-fiction is even worse than my memory for
fiction, but from "Surprised By Joy", my recollection was that he was
_nominally_ a Presbyterian, but not interested in it. I seem to recall
something like "I enjoyed the singing".
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141208 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 17:49
Dirk Thierbach  
Öjevind Lång <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
> Flame of the West wrote:

>>Öjevind Lång wrote:

>>> Lewis's distaste for Campell, Tolkien smelled an anti-Catholic plot and
>>> viciously commented: "There is a good deal of Ulster still left in
>>> C.S.L. if hidden from himself".

>> I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.

Just judging from the letter, I also don't see this comment necessarily
as "vicous".

> It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert Lewis
> to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour comments
> about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from agnosticism. I wish I
> could have saved him from the C. of E. as well" - stuff like that.)

Certainly. So, would you call this a "vicious" remark? And if you put the
first remark of Tolkien in this context, would you still call it "vicous"?

>>> All in all, Tolkien's outbursts in Letter 83 are so intemperate
>>> and over the top that I think he knew somewhere inside that he was
>>> wrong

>> With all due respect, I find your reaction to his letter to be a
>> bit intemperate as well. It appears to me that you are ascribing
>> the worst possible motives to him.

I'd like to second that.

> I notice that you have snipped and ignored all the evidence (from
> Tolkien's own letter) that he fell in love with a Jew-baiting fascist
> and struck out blindly against Lewis, who saw clearer than he did.

I read your posting first, and then read the letter, and just from the
information in the letter I wouldn't judge as harshly as you do.
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about Campbell, so he may very well be as
bad as you describe him).

You may very well be right, but on the other hand, from the letter I
just get the impression that Campbell told a few entertaining stories,
and Tolkien was captivated by those and by his personality. I had
really problems finding unambigous evidence for your viewpoint just
from the letter alone.

Notice Tolkien doesn't call Epstein a "jew", and it's quite possible
to dislike one particular person (who happens to be jewish) and tell
an entertaining story about him without automatically being a
"jew-baiting fascist". Maybe Campbell was, but from the letter alone,
it doesn't necessarily look like it.

> Tolkien's comments were way over the top.

Certainly not if one reads the letter alone. Outspoken, yes, but
not over the top.

- Dirk
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141212 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 20:48
Larry Swain  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
>>>backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to
>>>be much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into
>>>atheism would seem more likely.
>>
>>Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
>>an atheist.
>
>
> I confess my memory for non-fiction is even worse than my memory for
> fiction, but from "Surprised By Joy", my recollection was that he was
> _nominally_ a Presbyterian, but not interested in it. I seem to recall
> something like "I enjoyed the singing".

Right, which would be true....most Ulter Protestants were transplanted
from Scotland, Presbyterian country, and so in Ireland most Prots are
Presbyterian.
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141222 ] Mi, 28 September 2005 23:52
Count Menelvagor  
=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:
> Count Menelvagor did:
>
> >he does call them papists. and what is weirder still is the reason he
> gives for doing so. he says that calling them "catholics" wd be to
> accept the claims made for the Catholic Church, while calling them
> "romancatholics" wd reject those cliams. so as a compromise, he calls
> them "papists." very weird, at best -- esp. since tolkien had no
> problem with calling himself a roman catholic.
>
> Thanks for the information. I agree that that is a bit weird, but I
> think you'd agree with me that it is not really evidence that Lewis was
> prejudiced against Catholics.

i'm not so sure of that. the argument for using "papist" is so strange
that i wonder whether there wasn't some self-deception involved.

CSL was certainly bigoted in his childhood and early adolescence.
there's a diary entry (or a letter?) from that period that is laced
with appalling vitriol, not against catholics, but against high church
anglicans. however, i think this attitude gradually wore off, and that
CSL moved closer to catholicism.

i think JRRT did harbour anti-protestant (not only anglican bias),
which was fostered largely by the fact that his mother's relatives all
repudiated her after she joined the church -- which he believed led to
her early death.

i agree that his thing on campbell is pretty offputting, though.
catholics tended to forget that the falangists were also hostile to
basques (guernica, etc.) and catalans, who were ALSO catholic.
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141226 ] Do, 29 September 2005 01:17
ojevind.lang  
Dirk Thierbach wrote:

>> It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert Lewis
> to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour comments
> about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from agnosticism. I wish I
> could have saved him from the C. of E. as well" - stuff like that.)

>Certainly. So, would you call this a "vicious" remark? And if you put the
first remark of Tolkien in this context, would you still call it
"vicous"?

"Saved" someone from the C. of E.? You don't find that expression at
all out of line? Especially read in conjunction with the other comments
in his letter?

[snip]

>> I notice that you have snipped and ignored all the evidence (from
>> Tolkien's own letter) that he fell in love with a Jew-baiting fascist
>> and struck out blindly against Lewis, who saw clearer than he did.

>I read your posting first, and then read the letter, and just from the
information in the letter I wouldn't judge as harshly as you do.
(Disclaimer: I know nothing about Campbell, so he may very well be as
bad as you describe him).

Read my lips: He was a self-confessed Fascist, though today some
people, amazingly, try to deny it. Besides writing a book outlining his
Fascist views, he fought for Franco in Spain, just like the Italian
blackshirts and the Nazi German Condor Legion.

>You may very well be right, but on the other hand, from the letter I
just get the impression that Campbell told a few entertaining stories,

Like how he beat up a man who as a result had to stay at the hospital
for a week?

>and Tolkien was captivated by those and by his personality. I had
really problems finding unambigous evidence for your viewpoint just
from the letter alone.

My viewpoint is that Tolkien expressed some quite unacceptable
religious prejudices in his letter, and that he was blinded by the
charming Campbell to such an extent that he refused to acknowledge what
the man stood for. In Lewis' words: "a particularly distatseful blend
of Catholicism and Fascism".

>Notice Tolkien doesn't call Epstein a "jew", and it's quite possible
to dislike one particular person (who happens to be jewish) and tell
an entertaining story about him without automatically being a
"jew-baiting fascist". Maybe Campbell was, but from the letter alone,
it doesn't necessarily look like it.

I didn't accuse *Tolkien* of being anti-Semitic; I accused him of being
so charmed by Campbell that his critical faculties completely ceased to
operate. Even his language was apparenty infected. He calls the man
Campbell assaulted "greasy Epstein". Does the expression "greasy Jew"
give you any associations?

>> Tolkien's comments were way over the top.

>Certainly not if one reads the letter alone. Outspoken, yes, but
not over the top.

Among other things, he wrote the following about Lewis: "if Catholic
priests are slaughtered he disbelieves
it (and I daresay really thinks they asked for it". I think that is
way over the top indeed.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141228 ] Do, 29 September 2005 01:32
Flame of the West  
Öjevind Lång wrote:

>>I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.
>>Many others have echoed that comment about Lewis.
>
> Really? Who, exactly? Exclude right-wing Catholics, please.

Christopher Derrick in his book "CS Lewis and the Church
of Rome." I think it's also in Joseph Pearce's similarly-
titled book and I believe that Walter Hooper may have
expressed a similar sentiment. All those men are
Catholics, although I have no idea about their politics.

BTW, why must I exclude anyone based on politics or
religion? I wasn't asserting that left-wing atheists
or middle-of-the-road Protestants echoed Tolkien's
comments, just that other people have. If all
such people were Catholics, that doesn't make my
statement any less true.

<snip> As for Tolkien's comments - if you can't see (or
> acknowledge) that they were vicious, then that is your problem, not
> mine.

How do you know they were meant viciously? Do you
know what Tolkien was thinking when he wrote them?
They do not appear particularly vicious on their face.

> It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert Lewis
> to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour comments
> about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from agnosticism. I wish I
> could have saved him from the C. of E. as well" - stuff like that.)
> That does not make Lewis a bigot (Ulsterman or otherwise) who despised
> other brands of Christianity than his own.

No it doesn't, and I don't think he was any such thing.
I think Derek's comparison with a WW2 vet who might
habitually use words like "Nips" is closer to the case.

> It does, however, show off
> Tolkien as a bit of a bigot.

Again, your description of him as "peeved" and "sour"
indicates that you know his state of mind at the time.
In fact, it's perfectly natural for a Catholic to be
disappointed that a friend would convert to Christianity
but not to Catholicism. Catholics believe that the
fullness of God's gifts is made available in the
Catholic Church but that Protestants do not avail
themselves of many of them. What kind of friend would
Tolkien have been if he had wanted Lewis not to have
had access to those gifts? Now I'm not asking you to
agree with this Catholic teaching, but you ought at
least to understand that this is what Tolkien believed
as a Catholic, and not automatically ascribe Tolkien's
disappointment to bigotry or peevishness.

> Your comments about Anglicanism only reveal your extreme ignorance and
> prejudice about Protestants.

My comments about Anglicans are correct: they have no
real principle of unity. Do you think they don't
know that?

> Of course, it is true that there are
> different schools of thought inside Anglicanism. Unlike the Catholic
> Church, they tolerate dissenting opinions.

On *everything*. There have been openly atheistic
Anglican bishops (well, at least one). I would
not want the Catholic Church to be open-minded
about that "school of thought."

> However, claiming that
> Anglicans only exist because of hatred of the Catholic church is, and I
> won't make any bones about, it, bigoted.

I claimed no such thing.

> Furthermore, as another poster has already pointed out, the Tolkien
> family were not Anglicans. They were Methodists.

I stand corrected on that score.

>>No surprise here! I have encountered the same
>
> disbelief on this very NG about the slaughter
> of priests and religious by the Spanish left
> in the 1930's.
>
> And the attitude that "I daresay really thinks they asked for it"?
> Please.

You're changing the subject! Do *you* believe the
accounts of murder of priests and religious by the
Spanish left in the 1930's?

> Of course, in previous debates I have seen you try to claim that
> Franco was not a Fascist, so your attitude that Franco was just a good
> old defender of the One True Faith comes as no surprise to me.

Franco was not a member of the Fascist party;
indeed he wasn't even Italian. He governed
as a small-f fascist; of his internal convictions
I have no idea. I have not asserted that he was
"just a good old defender of the One True Faith,"
only that his victory ended the persecution of
the Spanish Church.

> I notice that you have snipped and ignored all the evidence (from
> Tolkien's own letter) that he fell in love with a Jew-baiting fascist
> and struck out blindly against Lewis, who saw clearer than he did.
> Tolkien's comments were way over the top.

I only snip that to which I am not replying.
And I see no evidence that Tolkien struck out
blindly or viciously against Lewis. I don't
think his comments were particularly vicious.
And from Dirk's post, I see I'm not the only one.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141242 ] Do, 29 September 2005 08:35
Dirk Thierbach  
[Something is broken with your quoting -- only the first line of each
paragraph gets an extra '>'. I tried to fix it.]

Öjevind Lång <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:

>>> It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert
>>> Lewis to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour
>>> comments about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from
>>> agnosticism. I wish I could have saved him from the C. of E. as
>>> well" - stuff like that.)

>> So, would you call this a "vicious" remark? And if you put the
>> first remark of Tolkien in this context, would you still call it
>> "vicous"?

> "Saved" someone from the C. of E.? You don't find that expression at
> all out of line?

Given his strong opinions about catholicism and the Church of England,
it is certainly not "vicious". It's a strong opinion, and one I do not
share, but people sometimes have those, and they are free to believe
anything they want. But that doesn't make outspoken comments
"vicious", no matter how wrong I think their opinion is.

>> (Disclaimer: I know nothing about Campbell, so he may very well be as
>> bad as you describe him).

> Read my lips:

It's hard to read your lips on the Usenet :-)

> He was a self-confessed Fascist, though today some people,
> amazingly, try to deny it. Besides writing a book outlining his
> Fascist views, he fought for Franco in Spain, just like the Italian
> blackshirts and the Nazi German Condor Legion.

But that's not the point. The important thing is: Did Tolkien knew
that? And people can be fascists and still very entertaining, so
you often have to take a very close look. From one meeting, it's
sometimes hard to figure such things out.

>> You may very well be right, but on the other hand, from the letter I
>> just get the impression that Campbell told a few entertaining stories,

> Like how he beat up a man who as a result had to stay at the hospital
> for a week?

I don't know the story, and if told like that, Tolkien certainly
wouldn't have found it entertaining. So the interesting question
is: What was the story like when Campbell told it? And stories
about dumb or mean people that get what they "deserve" tend to
be entertaining, and people laugh at them. Just watch TV for a while.

> My viewpoint is that Tolkien expressed some quite unacceptable
> religious prejudices in his letter,

Certainly. And he doesn't express them only in this letter, but
elsewhere as well. But these are his prejudices, not Campbell's.
And it's not so hard to find other people with "unacceptable"
religious prejudices ... most fundamentalist believers fall into
this category, in my opinion :-) But that doesn't make them "vicious".

> and that he was blinded by the charming Campbell to such an extent
> that he refused to acknowledge what the man stood for.

He was certainly charmed by Campbell. I am not so sure he had actually
any chance to find out "what he stood for". From the letter alone, I
certainly cannot find out what Campbell "stood for", without looking
at other things Campbell said.

> I didn't accuse *Tolkien* of being anti-Semitic; I accused him of being
> so charmed by Campbell that his critical faculties completely ceased to
> operate.

Yes. And I say that an alternative reading is that maybe he did not
have any chance to bring his critical faculties into play, because in
this one meeting Campbell maybe didn't say anything that was
*obviously and unambigously* fascist or anti-semitic.

As I said, you may be very well right, but it's not possible for me
to come to this conclusion from the letter alone. Alternative
interpretations do exist. And for this reason, I would be a bit careful
before accusing Tolkien. Otherwise I would have to accuse you
for "being over the top" :-)

> Even his language was apparenty infected. He calls the man
> Campbell assaulted "greasy Epstein".

Yes. So Campbell probably told a story about a negative character,
who "got what he deserved". That he was a jew could be coincidental.
It only starts to get anti-semitic if he somehow tried to imply
that all or many jews are similar.

There are some people who happen to be christian or islamic which
I would also describe as "greasy".

> Does the expression "greasy Jew" give you any associations?

No. As I said, it's a description I could equally attach to non-jewish
people.

> Among other things, he wrote the following about Lewis: "if Catholic
> priests are slaughtered he disbelieves it (and I daresay really
> thinks they asked for it". I think that is way over the top indeed.

I don't know the context this topic came up in the discussions between
Tolkien and Lewis, but I can easily think of one where Lewis would
have at least some reason to think so. So it's direct and outspoken,
but not necessarily over the top, and certainly not way over the top.

- Dirk
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141244 ] Do, 29 September 2005 08:49
Morgil  
Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> [Something is broken with your quoting -- only the first line of each
> paragraph gets an extra '>'. I tried to fix it.]
>
> Öjevind Lång <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:

>>Even his language was apparenty infected. He calls the man
>>Campbell assaulted "greasy Epstein".
>
>
> Yes. So Campbell probably told a story about a negative character,
> who "got what he deserved".

Maybe because he kept insisting that Guernica MUST be rebuilt,
twice as... nevermind.

Morgil
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141250 ] Do, 29 September 2005 14:12
ojevind.lang  
Flame of the West wrote:

>=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:
>>>I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.
>>>Many others have echoed that comment about Lewis.

>> Really? Who, exactly? Exclude right-wing Catholics, please.

>Christopher Derrick in his book "CS Lewis and the Church
of Rome." I think it's also in Joseph Pearce's similarly-
titled book and I believe that Walter Hooper may have
expressed a similar sentiment. All those men are
Catholics, although I have no idea about their politics.

I know something about two of those men. Both right-wing Catholics.
Incidentally, your claim is underpinned rather prominently by the
phrases "I believe" and "I think".

>BTW, why must I exclude anyone based on politics or
religion? I wasn't asserting that left-wing atheists
or middle-of-the-road Protestants echoed Tolkien's
comments, just that other people have. If all
such people were Catholics, that doesn't make my
statement any less true.

I remember when I, some years ago, pointed out the historical fact that
for the first couple of centuries, the Bishop of Rome was not called
"the Pope", and that in fact, at first there was not even a Bishop,
just a deacon or community elder. You dismissed that as "claims by
Protestant revisionists", and hence worthless. So you are in a bit of a
PKB situation here.
The point is that right-wing Catholics supported Franco to the hilt
and still do so.

[snip]

>> acknowledge) that they were vicious, then that is your problem, not
>> mine.

>How do you know they were meant viciously? Do you
know what Tolkien was thinking when he wrote them?
They do not appear particularly vicious on their face.

That is what you and Dirk Thierbach keep claiming. That is not my
opinion. Both sides have said what they think about this matter.

[snip]

>Again, your description of him as "peeved" and "sour"
indicates that you know his state of mind at the time.
In fact, it's perfectly natural for a Catholic to be
disappointed that a friend would convert to Christianity
but not to Catholicism.

And accuse him of approving of murdering Catholic priests?

[snip]

>> Your comments about Anglicanism only reveal your extreme ignorance and
>> prejudice about Protestants.

>My comments about Anglicans are correct: they have no
real principle of unity. Do you think they don't
know that?

You agreed with Tolkien's claim that "hatred of our church is the only
real foundation of the C. of E." Now you try to cover that by lecturing
me on what Catholics believe. Yes, of course the Anglicans know that
they, unlike Catholics, tolerate diversity. I have already said so. The
fact remains that Tolkien made a very offensive statement about the
Church of England, and that you endorsed it.

>> Of course, it is true that there are
>> different schools of thought inside Anglicanism. Unlike the Catholic
>> Church, they tolerate dissenting opinions.

>On *everything*. There have been openly atheistic
Anglican bishops (well, at least one). I would
not want the Catholic Church to be open-minded
about that "school of thought."

If you mean Berkeley, he was not an atheist; he just declared that
there were very definite limits to human understanding and knowledge.
The vulgar misconception that he was an atheist is unfortunately very
common.

>> However, claiming that
>> Anglicans only exist because of hatred of the Catholic church is, and I
>> won't make any bones about, it, bigoted.

>I claimed no such thing.

You endorsed it.

[snip]

>> And the attitude that "I daresay really thinks they asked for it"?
>> Please.

>You're changing the subject! Do *you* believe the
accounts of murder of priests and religious by the
Spanish left in the 1930's?

No, *you* are changing the subject. The subject being that Tolkien
(unbelievably, if we didn't have it in one of his own letters) accused
Lewis of secretly approving of such murders.
Although my beliefs are not the subject of this discussion, I, as it
happens, know perfectly well that outside the Basque Country (where the
church was firmly on the Republican side) there were indeed many
murders of priests. There were also murders committed by Franco and his
Fascists - or Falangists, if that makes you feel any better.

>> Of course, in previous debates I have seen you try to claim that
>> Franco was not a Fascist, so your attitude that Franco was just a good
>> old defender of the One True Faith comes as no surprise to me.

>Franco was not a member of the Fascist party;
indeed he wasn't even Italian.

You can't be a Fascist unless you belong to the Italian Fascist party?
Please. Franco founded his own Fascist party called the Falangists. He
also decorated Hitler and Mussolini with "the Order of the Red Arrows"
after the bombing of Guernica.

> He governed
as a small-f fascist; of his internal convictions
I have no idea. I have not asserted that he was
"just a good old defender of the One True Faith,"
only that his victory ended the persecution of
the Spanish Church.

And revived the persecution of everybody the Spanish church didn't
like. If the Republic had not been attacked by Franco and other asshole
Generals, it is very probable that things would have cooled down after
a bit and religious tolerance reintroduced. It had been established by
the Republic a few years previously, for the first time in Spanish
history.
If I spell the fascist franco with a small "f", that won't really
change the way he smells.

>> I notice that you have snipped and ignored all the evidence (from
>> Tolkien's own letter) that he fell in love with a Jew-baiting fascist
>> and struck out blindly against Lewis, who saw clearer than he did.
>> Tolkien's comments were way over the top.

>I only snip that to which I am not replying.

You've got that right.

>And I see no evidence that Tolkien struck out
blindly or viciously against Lewis. I don't
think his comments were particularly vicious.
And from Dirk's post, I see I'm not the only one.

Yes, you and Dirk are very much in agreement. This particular
discussion has started to go around in circles; nothing new is added to
it. So I regard it as over.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141252 ] Do, 29 September 2005 14:15
Derek Broughton  
Larry Swain wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>
>>>>Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
>>>>backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to
>>>>be much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into
>>>>atheism would seem more likely.
>>>
>>>Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
>>>an atheist.
>>
>> I confess my memory for non-fiction is even worse than my memory for
>> fiction, but from "Surprised By Joy", my recollection was that he was
>> _nominally_ a Presbyterian, but not interested in it. I seem to recall
>> something like "I enjoyed the singing".
>
> Right, which would be true....most Ulter Protestants were transplanted
> from Scotland, Presbyterian country, and so in Ireland most Prots are
> Presbyterian.

But I mean _only_ nominally Presbyterian. John says he was "very much" an
Ulster protestant, and my recollection wasn't that way. He was "very much"
Ulster - it's the protestantism I'm questioning.
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141253 ] Do, 29 September 2005 14:31
Derek Broughton  
Flame of the West wrote:

> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>> Your comments about Anglicanism only reveal your extreme ignorance and
>> prejudice about Protestants.
>
> My comments about Anglicans are correct: they have no
> real principle of unity. Do you think they don't
> know that?

LOL. Having once been extremely active in the Anglican Church, and now
mostly estranged from it, I _always_ believed the same as you. Recent
events, with eastern Anglican communions coming down hard on the Canadian &
American branches only strengthens the opinion. The Church of England has
often been defined more by what it _doesn't_ believe in, than what it does.

>> Of course, it is true that there are
>> different schools of thought inside Anglicanism. Unlike the Catholic
>> Church, they tolerate dissenting opinions.
>
> On *everything*. There have been openly atheistic
> Anglican bishops (well, at least one).

Even I was surprised that Bishop Spong is tolerated in the Episcopal church
- but if he'd been _my_ bishop, I'd probably still be a practising
Anglican.

>> However, claiming that
>> Anglicans only exist because of hatred of the Catholic church is, and I
>> won't make any bones about, it, bigoted.
>
> I claimed no such thing.

The Church of England exists because Henry VIII had personal disputes with
Rome - hated wouldn't be too strong a word. If that hadn't been the case,
the Reformation would still have happened, but the result would surely not
have been the same church - and imo would have been much closer to the
"other" Protestant churches found in England. Anglicanism (particularly in
the High Church form) has retained many traditions of the Roman church that
the other churches haven't. So whether or not Flame actually used those
words, I don't have a problem with the idea that _Anglicanism_ only exists
because of hatred of the Catholic church. That doesn't mean _all_ or even
_any_ Anglicans hate all Catholics. Hating an institution is not the same
as hating it's practitioners. "Hate the sin; love the sinner" :-)
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141255 ] Do, 29 September 2005 16:10
Dirk Thierbach  
Öjevind Lång <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
> Flame of the West wrote:

> Yes, you and Dirk are very much in agreement.

Only about the "Tolkiens comments are not necessarily vicious and over
the top" part. Not about the rest. And the important word here is
"necessarily".

- Dirk
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141267 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 00:07
Flame of the West  
Derek Broughton wrote:

> Even I was surprised that Bishop Spong is tolerated in the Episcopal church
> - but if he'd been _my_ bishop, I'd probably still be a practising
> Anglican.

Actually I was speaking of David Jenkins, former Anglican
bishop of Durham. But looking into it a bit, I see he
may not have literally been an atheist, but rather an
unbeliever like Spong. (IIRC they both reject the
Resurrection of Christ or describe it in terms that
rob it of its meaning.)

> The Church of England exists because Henry VIII had personal disputes with
> Rome - hated wouldn't be too strong a word. If that hadn't been the case,
> the Reformation would still have happened, but the result would surely not
> have been the same church - and imo would have been much closer to the
> "other" Protestant churches found in England. Anglicanism (particularly in
> the High Church form) has retained many traditions of the Roman church that
> the other churches haven't. So whether or not Flame actually used those
> words, I don't have a problem with the idea that _Anglicanism_ only exists
> because of hatred of the Catholic church. That doesn't mean _all_ or even
> _any_ Anglicans hate all Catholics. Hating an institution is not the same
> as hating it's practitioners. "Hate the sin; love the sinner" :-)

Absolutely right. I think Tolkien's statement was
an exaggeration; a more accurate one might be that
"opposition to the (Roman) Catholic Church is one of
the foundations of the C of E." Although I really
don't think that's true anymore. The Anglicans and
Catholics seem to be having the same internal
arguments. The difference on the Anglican side is
that there is no center of unity to make a decision
one way or the other. This is why the North American
Anglicans and the rest of the communion are drifting
apart.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141268 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 00:18
Flame of the West  
Öjevind Lång wrote:


> I remember when I, some years ago, pointed out the historical fact that
> for the first couple of centuries, the Bishop of Rome was not called
> "the Pope", and that in fact, at first there was not even a Bishop,
> just a deacon or community elder.

That's not a fact because a fact is something that's true.

> You dismissed that as "claims by
> Protestant revisionists", and hence worthless.

Doesn't ring a bell. Google News (on the phrase "Protestant
revisionists" on *tolkien) gives nothing but your post of
today. Googling on "Pope" and "elder" gave a few unrelated
posts.

> The point is that right-wing Catholics supported Franco to the hilt
> and still do so.

Can you name one who still does?


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141269 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 00:19
Flame of the West  
Dirk Thierbach wrote:

>>Read my lips:
>
> It's hard to read your lips on the Usenet :-)

Well, on a binary NG he could send a QuickTime movie...


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141270 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 00:20
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

> Maybe because he kept insisting that Guernica MUST be rebuilt,
> twice as... nevermind.

<chuckle> I think Mr. Epstein is becoming something
of a cultural phoenomenon around here.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141272 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 00:46
Flame of the West  
Count Menelvagor wrote:

> catholics tended to forget that the falangists were also hostile to
> basques (guernica, etc.) and catalans, who were ALSO catholic.

I don't know the fine details of how close the Falangists
and Fascists were in their beliefs, but Pope Pius XI made
it clear in his 1931 encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docume nts/hf_p-xi_enc_29061931_non-abbiamo-bisogno_en.html

that Fascism was incompatible with Catholicism. This was
thirteen years before Campbell's meeting with the Inklings,
so if he really did mix Fascism and Catholicism then he
either wasn't a very good Fascist or not a very good
Catholic (or both). I don't pretend to know which.

Franco led an alliance of Catholics and Falangists.
I think people tend to overlook that and assume that
foreign Catholics were somehow rooting for the
Falange. I suspect they mostly wanted the murder of
priests and religious to stop. Once Franco won power,
he governed mostly via the Falangists as opposed to
the Catholic movements such as the Carlists. If
foreign Catholics had known that was going to happen,
it might have tempered their enthusiasm for Franco.
Usually in modern politics you only get a choice of
evils and have to settle for the lesser one.


-- FotW

Coming soon: Windows VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware,
Trojans, Adware)
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141278 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 01:21
Derek Broughton  
Flame of the West wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Even I was surprised that Bishop Spong is tolerated in the Episcopal
>> church - but if he'd been _my_ bishop, I'd probably still be a practising
>> Anglican.
>
> Actually I was speaking of David Jenkins, former Anglican
> bishop of Durham.

I didn't actually think you meant Spong, because I wouldn't have called him
an Atheist - but he's also a long way from toeing the orthodox line.
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141282 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 03:06
jwkenne  
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Larry Swain wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Equally, how do you know Tolkien never feared he'd
>>>>>backslide? I realize it's a bit hard to believe - Lewis never seemed to
>>>>>be much of an Ulster protestant in the first place, so lapsing into
>>>>>atheism would seem more likely.
>>>>
>>>>Lewis was very much an Ulster protestant in his youth, before he became
>>>>an atheist.
>>>
>>>I confess my memory for non-fiction is even worse than my memory for
>>>fiction, but from "Surprised By Joy", my recollection was that he was
>>>_nominally_ a Presbyterian, but not interested in it. I seem to recall
>>>something like "I enjoyed the singing".
>>
>>Right, which would be true....most Ulter Protestants were transplanted
>>from Scotland, Presbyterian country, and so in Ireland most Prots are
>>Presbyterian.
>
>
> But I mean _only_ nominally Presbyterian. John says he was "very much" an
> Ulster protestant, and my recollection wasn't that way. He was "very much"
> Ulster - it's the protestantism I'm questioning.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there are revealing passages in a
juvenile letter (or diary entry). And he also mentions, in "Surprised by
Joy", his vain attempts to "realize" an emotionalized devotion.


--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #141290 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 05:31
Count Menelvagor  
John W. Kennedy wrote:

> > But I mean _only_ nominally Presbyterian. John says he was "very much" an
> > Ulster protestant, and my recollection wasn't that way. He was "very much"
> > Ulster - it's the protestantism I'm questioning.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there are revealing passages in a
> juvenile letter (or diary entry). And he also mentions, in "Surprised by
> Joy", his vain attempts to "realize" an emotionalized devotion.

carpenter, in /the inklings/, mentions some other prejudices -- though
they got less over time. btw (to nitpick a bit), lewis started in the
church of ireland, not strictly speaking presbyterian.

/the inklings/ also has very interesting stuff about charles williams.
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #142304 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 14:28
Derek Broughton  
Count Menelvagor wrote:

>
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> > But I mean _only_ nominally Presbyterian. John says he was "very much"
>> > an
>> > Ulster protestant, and my recollection wasn't that way. He was "very
>> > much" Ulster - it's the protestantism I'm questioning.
>>
>> As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, there are revealing passages in a
>> juvenile letter (or diary entry). And he also mentions, in "Surprised by
>> Joy", his vain attempts to "realize" an emotionalized devotion.
>
> carpenter, in /the inklings/, mentions some other prejudices -- though
> they got less over time. btw (to nitpick a bit), lewis started in the
> church of ireland, not strictly speaking presbyterian.

Sorry - I thought the Church of Ireland _was_ strictly speaking
Presbyterian. Mea culpa.
--
derek
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #142305 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 16:48
ojevind.lang  
Dirk Thierbach wrote:

>=D6jevind L=E5ng <ojevind.l... [at] bredband.net> wrote:
>> Flame of the West wrote:
>> Yes, you and Dirk are very much in agreement.

>Only about the "Tolkiens comments are not necessarily vicious and over
the top" part. Not about the rest. And the important word here is
"necessarily".

That is fair enough.

=D6jevind
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #142313 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 23:15
danhenry  
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:32:48 -0400, Flame of the West
<FotW [at] NOSPAMsolinas.org> wrote:

>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>>>I do not see how that comment is particularly vicious.
>>>Many others have echoed that comment about Lewis.
>>
>> Really? Who, exactly? Exclude right-wing Catholics, please.
>
>Christopher Derrick in his book "CS Lewis and the Church
>of Rome." I think it's also in Joseph Pearce's similarly-
>titled book and I believe that Walter Hooper may have
>expressed a similar sentiment. All those men are
>Catholics, although I have no idea about their politics.
>
>BTW, why must I exclude anyone based on politics or
>religion?

Because members of radical factions tend to view any disagreement as
vicious assault. They lack objectivity. They are much like children who
never really grew up and cannot see past their self-centered world.
Fairness, when it does not work to their advantage, becomes someone
picking on them. So, if CSL called them on some bit of BS, they would
complain he was being vicious when nothing of the kind occurred.

Note: I have no idea whether CSL ever did make a vicious attack on
Catholicism, but there is certainly excellent reason to insist that
evidence that he did come from someone not undergoing a knee-jerk
response to possibly valid and objective criticism.

><snip> As for Tolkien's comments - if you can't see (or
>> acknowledge) that they were vicious, then that is your problem, not
>> mine.
>
>How do you know they were meant viciously? Do you
>know what Tolkien was thinking when he wrote them?
>They do not appear particularly vicious on their face.

I also would not call them vicious, although I think in one or two cases
(e.g., when he presumes to read Lewis's mind concerning killed Catholic
priests) he is unfair. And he was certainly as biased as Lewis himself
in his judgment concerning Spanish affairs.

>My comments about Anglicans are correct: they have no
>real principle of unity. Do you think they don't
>know that?

A more moderate description of the basis of the Anglican Church would be
"independence from" rather than "hatred of" the Catholic Church. After
all, the foundation of the Church of England were laid in the power
struggle between the Crown and the Pope, not raw emotion.

Again, I would not characterize this as "vicious", certainly not in
isolation, but it does show a degree of prejudice.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Re: JRRT and CS Lewis [message #142314 ] Fr, 30 September 2005 23:15
danhenry  
On 28 Sep 2005 16:17:54 -0700, "Öjevind Lång"
<ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:

>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>>> It is true that Tolkien was peeved because he failed to convert Lewis
>> to the Catholic variety of the Christian faith. He made sour comments
>> about that on occasion. ("I saved Lewis from agnosticism. I wish I
>> could have saved him from the C. of E. as well" - stuff like that.)
>
>>Certainly. So, would you call this a "vicious" remark? And if you put the
>first remark of Tolkien in this context, would you still call it
>"vicous"?
>
>"Saved" someone from the C. of E.? You don't find that expression at
>all out of line? Especially read in conjunction with the other comments
>in his letter?

No more so than that he "saved" him from agnosticism. One is no more
prejudicial than the other. If the Catholic Church holds the key to
Heaven, doesn't much matter what alternative faith or lack thereof one
gets "saved" from.

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry [at] inreach.com
Vorheriges Thema:Source of Glofindel's prophecy regarding the fall of the Lord of the Nazgul
Nächstes Thema:Silmarillion Chapter of the Week discussions
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 23:12:18 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11064 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered