But he was writing fiction not a Bible translation. Was he writing an allegory? He seems not to be to me.
Probably more than anyone wants to know, but this is what Lewis himself said about Narnia.
Lewis explicitly warns readers against trying to make a one-for-one match between Narnia and the real world. In a May 1954 letter to a fifth grade class in Maryland, he writes, "You are mistaken when you think everything in the books 'represents' something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way."
Although Lewis makes it clear that The Chronicles of Narnia isn't an allegory, he doesn't deny that some symbolism was written into the series. But, to understand his approach, you need to recognize that Lewis differentiates allegory from something he calls supposal. In a December 1959 letter to a young girl named Sophia Storr, he explains the difference:
I don't say. 'Let us represent Christ as Aslan.' I say, 'Supposing there was a world like Narnia, and supposing, like ours, it needed redemption, let us imagine what sort of Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection Christ would have there.'
Allegory and supposal aren't identical devices, according to Lewis, because they deal with what's real and what's unreal quite differently. In an allegory, the ideas, concepts, and even people being expressed are true, but the characters are make-believe. They always behave in a way reflective of the underlying concepts they're representing. A supposal is much different; the fictional character becomes "real" within the imaginary world, taking on a life of its own and adapting to the make-believe world as necessary. If, for example, you accept the supposal of Aslan as true, then Lewis says, "He would really have been a physical object in that world as He was in Palestine, and His death on the Stone Table would have been a physical event no less than his death on Calvary."
Aslan isn't an allegory of Jesus Christ. Instead, he's a supposal. Lewis emphasizes this point in a December 1958 letter to a lady named Mrs. Hook:
[Aslan] is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.
Much of The Chronicles of Narnia is built on the concept of supposal. For example:
Suppose Christ came into the world of Narnia as Aslan. What would he be like?
Suppose Aslan created Narnia out of nothing and centuries later brought it to a conclusion. How would these stories play out?
Suppose evil were introduced into Narnia. What would that be like?
Suppose a person or talking animal could freely choose to obey or disobey Aslan. What would life in Narnia be like?
By using supposal, Lewis doesn't feel compelled to have a direct 1 to-1 correlation between the experiences of Aslan and the real life of Jesus Christ. In his letter to Sophia Storr, Lewis talks of this freedom: "When I started The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I don't think I foresaw what Aslan was going to do and suffer. I think He just insisted on behaving in His own way."
Using supposal as the vehicle for getting him there, Lewis views The Chronicles of Narnia as myth. He explains that an allegory is a story with a single meaning, but a myth is a story that can have many meanings for different readers in different generations. According to Lewis, an author puts into an allegory "only what he already knows," but in a myth, he puts "what he does not yet know and could not come by in any other way."
(from Dummies.com)
|
