Talk:C. S. Lewis

Northern Ireland

Guv, your comment shows you lack knowledge of history, and as such, should not be here. At the time of Lewis birth, there was no "northern Ireland" in existance. It was simply Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.220.87 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Was Irish

C.S. Lewis Was Definitely 100% Irish He HATED england,In An Interview He Himself Said That He is AN IRISH NOT English or British. C.S. Lewis was 100 % IRISH AND BY THE WAY PEOPLE OF Ireland are Called as IRISH. OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.57.130 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Was Definitely 100% Irish He HATED england,In An Interview He Himself Said That He is AN IRISH NOT English or British. C.S. Lewis was 100 % IRISH AND BY THE WAY PEOPLE OF Ireland are Called as IRISH. OK.[1]

You are imposing your Anglophobic hatred of England and the English onto a third party, which is not very encyclopaedic. Anyway, I've altered the main feature to read that he was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) as opposed to Befast, Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is Ireland, Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Lewis was British. Guv2006 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This has been debated many times at this page, (not least at the top of this page) and the result of that debate is what you now see in the header. "Irish" is a problematic designation, since it usually implies being a citizen of the ROI, which Lewis was not. However he was a citizen of the UK, which certainly deserves a mention, and makes him "British" by any reasonable measure. While he may have had some dislike of the countryside of England, and even some aspects of English life, I have nowhere seen any reliable indication that he "hated" England. It's pretty unlikely, since he stayed there for more than forty years. In any case, please make your case on the talk page, and let others discuss it, if you think you have a better wording. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you DJ Clayworth, I'm glad I'm not the onlyone trying to handle this properly :)

Although it is true that he didn't like England at first, he DID love Britain, and he DID accept and publicly state that was British. Not only that, but over time he came to appreciate England, despite finding his first few years rather jarring.

I would like to point out that even if he did hate England that does NOT change the fact that you're British. There have always been 4 constituent countries which make up the UK and there still is; it is not a requirement to love all of them to be British.

To the rather crazed-sounding editor who started this new discussion - he is British born and bred. He is NOT Irish in terms of nationality, only ethnicity, and therefore his nationality will NOT be listed as Irish, but British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.87.231 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get too carried away here. Lewis also self-identified as Irish on several occasions. What we have to remember is that he came from a time when Irish and British were not exclusive, and you could claim to be either or both at different times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In the sources cited in the last attempt to assert the "Irish" wording, Lewis was specifically contrasting his Irishness with Englishness, not with Britishness. I still haven't seen a source, first-person or otherwise, stating that he wasn't British. Deor (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not really getting carried away, is it. You said it yourself, the terms were not mutually exclusive at that time. He stressed that while he was Irish, he was also British - in the same sense that an Englishman is English and therefore also British. He made it clear that he regarded himself as British. It's also worth noting that as soon as Irish and British became mutually exclusive in terms of nationality, he regarded himself as "Northern Irish".

And as Deor says, there is no evidence for him rejecting the British citizenship that he undeniably had as per British nationality law. Without any proof that he rejected his Britishness, we are required to leave the article's lead as it is.

I think this is pretty much done and dusted now, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.136.87 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish means being born on the Island of Ireland. There are two separate and distinct political entities on the island, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, neither of these existed when Lewis was born, and Ireland was simply an Island within the British Empire, no different than Scotland or Wales. We would never deny a person born in Scotland or Wales the designation of Scottish or Welsh because they do not have full Independence. Britain refers to the Island of Great Britain, hence the UK is actually the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However, this distinction did not exist when Lewis was born, and he was in fact born on the Island of Ireland. We we to use the Irish-British designation for anyone born in Northern Ireland since 1921 and anyone born across the entire Island prior to that, we would have to say that Ghandi was British-Indian, Mel Gibson is English-Australian and Celine Dion is British-Canadian (since Australia and Canada are Commonwealth members and the Queen is still head of state.) CS Lewis was born on the Island of Ireland to Irish parents and British Grandparents. He is therefore Irish in the same way Connery is Scottish, Zeta-Jones is Welsh, etc. Laurencedunne (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling Lewis an "Irish writer" would be like calling Barack Obama a "Hawaiian politician" -- in some sense technically correct but profoundly misleading on many levels. Irish doesn't mean just "born on Ireland"; otherwise we could have sorted this out long ago. Can't we short-circuit what is obviously a very emotional issue by saying what we mean: "C. S. Lewis was an academic, writer, and Christian apologist. He was a British subject, born in what is now Northern Ireland, who spent most of his life and his professional career in Oxford and Cambridge." Elphion (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this argument many times before, and the current statement represents consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

By the dessicated skull of Mogg's grandfather! Unless we can call up Lewis himself "either from dead Saltes or out of ye Spheres beyond", there's no satisfactory answer to this question. Indicate that there's a difference of opinion, provide a source for each viewpoint and have done with it. This kind of discussion makes Wikipedia look infantile and unprofessional. ccdesan (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It was stopped until you restarted it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He was both Irish and British. He served in the British army. He identified as Irish and he didn't regard the terms as mutually exclusive. He took out a passport from the Irish Free State. He also derided (vituperatively) the Irish Free State. In later life he would sometimes clarify his Irish identity as Northern Irish. For these reasons British is legitimate (Irish would also be legitimate). He had a blended identity. There are a million people in Ireland with a blended British / Irish identity and the nationality should be locked as is. The discussion is sterile. 79.97.74.237 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Mountainyman

Do you have a source for "took out a passport from the Irish Free State", because that would be useful information for the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense. When Lewis was born, Ireland was wholly integrated within the United Kingdom. The nationality of all those who resided within the isle of Ireland during that time were British in terms of nationality. Every. Single. Last. One. Lewis was included in this.

Of course this changed in he 1920's - for some anyway. Those in Northern Ireland remained British. Again, Lewis was included in this, and openly stated that this is where he stood.

There are no two ways about it. There can be no further compromises. Lewis was always a British citizen, from birth till death. Irish is NOT acceptable as it is FAR too confusing - it suggests that he has ROI citizenship, which he does not. The current state of the article explains the situations sufficiently, and it shall not be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.27.150 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If everyone in Ireland was British at that time, then there would be no citizenship requirement for Lewis to be considered Irish as well, because every Irishman was an British "citizen" (in the loosest sense of that word possible". Gtbob12 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why then is Charles Dickens referred to as English in the first paragraph of his article, and Robert Burns classed as a Scot... It is the most stupid statement I've ever read in the first paragraph of this article, Irish born British Writer?!?!--NorthernCounties (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The following moved here to be in chronological order -- Elphion (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The essay that I alluded to saying that Lewis was Irish appeared in a respected peer-reviewed academic journal (the Irish Studies Review - Vol. 18, No. 1, Feb., 2010, p. 17-38) and was very persuasive. I quote relevant parts of it below (it specifically handles the Irish versus British issue and provides references to Lewis referring to himself as Irish):

HERE IT IS------- "We have the words of Lewis himself to dispute any idea that he must have lost his Irish identity after so many years in England. In 1954, when Lewis was firmly established as a world-famous author, he wrote an essay arguing for the importance of Ireland to the work of Edmund Spenser, and in it, Jack described himself as 'an Irishman'. (Lewis, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, 126.) In 1958, during a recording session for a radio production, Jack –now aged 60 and five years from the end of his life – was told that his heavy breathing was having a bad effect on the sensitive sound recording. In frustration, he cried out, 'I’m Irish, not English. Did you ever know an Irishman who didn’t puff and blow?' (Bresland, The Backward Glance, 116.)

Other indications that Lewis saw himself as Irish include the fact that, throughout his adult life (as late as 1955), he referred to Ireland as ‘home’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 221, 644; Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 102, 214, 945; Lewis, Surprised By Joy, 234.) or ‘my own country’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 170; Lewis, 1950 preface to Dymer, Narrative Poems, 4.) in his letters and writings…

All of this emphasis on Lewis’s Irishness may make us lose sight of the fact that because Lewis was an Ulster Protestant, a British identity was also available to him. Lewis makes clear in The Four Loves, however, that he sees ‘Britishness’ as a supranational identity comprised of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples, (Lewis, The Four Loves, 23.) and, as we saw from the quotes mentioned earlier, he regarded his nationality within the British scheme as Irish. This is not unusual among Ulster Protestants. A quick look at the list of people who have accepted OBEs for services rendered to the British Empire reveals several Protestants from Northern Ireland who also trade on their ‘Irishness’, such as the musicians Van Morrison and James Galway, playwright Marie Jones, and politician David Bleakely. (Interestingly, Lewis refused a CBE offered to him by Winston Churchill in 1951. He ‘feared that acceptance would play into the hands of “knaves” who accused him of “covert anti-leftist propaganda” in his religious writings and of “fools” who believed the accusations.’ (See Bleakley, C.S. Lewis: At Home in Ireland, 58.)) We see Lewis’s acknowledgement of his own Britishness in a letter to his father from 1920. Referring to reports of the unrest in Belfast caused by the Anglo-Irish War, Lewis wrote, ‘When I come home I shall (like Lundy in the play) buy favour with green on one side and orange on the other, turning the appropriate colour outwards according to circumstances.’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 500.) This seeming ambivalence, however, was probably a bit overstated for his Unionist father, because, even if Lewis saw himself as British, he certainly did not see himself as an Orangeman. Repeatedly in adult life, he expressed, in his own words, his ‘natural repulsion to noisy, drum-beating, bullying Orangemen’, (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 330.) comparing them to the Klu Klux Klan and McCarthyites. (Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism, 127.) Lewis rejected his father’s suggestion that he join the U.V.F. to avoid serving in France during World War I, (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 391–392.) and, in an infamous passage cited by Unionists to prove that Lewis is not a true Ulsterman, he once commented:

'The country [around Ulster] is very beautiful and if only I could deport the Ulstermen and fill their land with a populace of my own choosing, I should ask for no better place to live in. By the by it is quite a mistake to think that Ulster is inhabited by loyalists: the mountains beyond Newcastle and the Antrim ‘hinterlands’ are all green.' (Lewis, All My Road Before Me, 105.)

He found many of his Unionist relations to be full of ‘provincialism, narrow Ulster bigotry and a certain sleek unreality’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 566.) and was disgusted when they told him the ‘story of a “decent man” shooting Catholics outside one of the [voting] booths’ on election day. (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 561.) He asked his scandalised relations how they could say that ‘the Sinn Feiners made a great attempt at intimidation... [when] they were in the minority?’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 561.) He also disliked ‘the most unpleasant feature of an Irish [Anglican] service – the large number of people who have obviously no interest in the thing, who are merely “good prodestants” [sic]... I am sure the English practice of not going unless you believe is a much better one.’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 2, 132–133.)

Lewis also showed no love for the British monarchy or the agents of the British state in Ireland. In The Great Divorce, both Henry V and Henry VIII are said to be in Hell. (Lewis, The Great Divorce, 21, 54.) On one of his crossings to Ireland in 1929, Lewis was told the name of the boat he was travelling on and it sounded to his ears like the ‘Ulstermanic’. Lewis commented: ‘I thought it an odd name but nothing like so bad as the name they have actually given her’ (Lewis, Collected Letters, Vol. 1, 813.) – the ‘Ulster Monarch’. Then, writing in 1958, Lewis responded to the question of whether or not man is getting more enlightened by listing off several recent evils. He listed the Black and Tans alongside Hiroshima, the Gestapo, Ogpu, brain-washing and Russian slave camps. (Lewis, Essay Collection. 747.) Would an English writer have remembered the Black and Tans with such venom in 1958? This quote, along with his anti-Black and Tans remarks in That Hideous Strength (Lewis, That Hideous Strength, 154.) and The Four Loves, (Lewis, The Four Loves, 27.) also brings balance to his seeming indifference regarding the War of Independence in the letter to his father from 1920." - - - - -

I hope that clears things up a bit, and that we can change it to "Irish" writer without causing too much offense, especially in light of Lewis's own views. Stjohnfitzball (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

end move -- Elphion (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted the above a week ago and nobody has protested/responded. Since the scholarly article I quote cites references in which Lewis self-identifies as "an Irishman" in 1954 and as "Irish" in 1958 - not Northern Irish, English or British - and cites references in which he describes "Ireland" as "home" - not Northern Ireland or Great Britain - as late as 1955, can I assume it's OK to change it to "Irish writer" now? Stjohnfitzball (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's less that no one objects than that everyone is weary of discussing the same matter over and over again every time a new editor comes along wanting to change CSL's nationality to "Irish". If you look in this page's archives, you will find that the matter has been discussed a number of times, and the consensus for the current compromise wording seems fairly solid. If you change the nationality again, I will certainly revert you; and we'll be off again on another round of useless back-and-forth generating more heat than light. I don't think that the articles you want to cite change the matter one whit, since if it were widely accepted that he was Irish (in nationality rather than in sentiment), there would have been no need to write an article "proving" so. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I won't change it then. My last word on it, though, is to point out that there is such a thing as "cultural imperialism". Over the centuries, numerous writers who have described themselves and regarded themselves as Irish have been coopted as "English" or "British" simply because the economic/political situation in Ireland required them to move to England to pursue their careers. To this day, you still see writers like Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw, Elizabeth Bowen, and William Trevor described as "English" despite the fact they self-identified as Irish and their families lived in Ireland for centuries before they themselves moved to England. Lewis is merely another example of that phenomena (in Lewis's case, his Warren anscestors had been in Ireland for 800 years by the time he went to Oxford). A more powerful, economically successful culture has claimed him simply because it could. I don't want to be a part of that phenomena, especially in the case of a North Irish Protestant writer who repeatedly distanced himself from those in the North who have insisted on the "British" label to the exclusion of the "Irish" one. Enough of my preaching! Happy editing, all... Stjohnfitzball (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think its ridiculous when we look at articles such as Robert Burns and Charles Dickens they do not fall under the canvas of British. They're classed there respective nationalities. I bet if Lewis had been responsible for something horrific, we'd no doubt have any problem in arguing he was Irish. Especially when he considered himself to be so, and was born on the Island of Ireland. And a family background in the Church of Ireland (Unionist in stance it may be, but still named what it is!) But hey it's not the first time, I ask you to look up the Samuel Jackson - Kate Thornton interview on Colin Farrell...--NorthernCounties (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore and finally I'd like to add wikipedias definition that "nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots." Scots? Hmmm I guess that could include Irish as well then...--NorthernCounties (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Trilemma - mostly criticism?

It seems to my reading that the section on Lewis Trilemma is essentially a listing of criticism of it, from a selection of different sources. Seems a strange way to define an argument, by listing the criticism made against it!

Less than half of the section is criticism of the trilemma. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, half of the section essentially defines the trilemma and the other half criticizes it, exemplified by statements like: Although widely repeated in Christian apologetic literature, it has been largely ignored by professional theologians and biblical scholars, as it fails to take into account the possibility that Jesus' claims to divinity may have been significantly misunderstood, or the possibility that the Gospels themselves may be inaccurate. For these reasons, Lewis's argument is regarded by some as logically unsound and an example of false dilemma.
The obvious truck that can be driven through that statement is that Lewis is talking about the Jesus of the Gospels. If one wants to assume that those parts of the Gospel that Lewis refers to in his arguments (those in which Jesus either directly or indirectly refers to Himself as god) are somehow suspect but that those which demonstrate Jesus to be the "wise and admirable teacher" are somehow less suspect then one isn't making statements based on the Jesus of the Gospels at all, but some Jesus of one's own fancy. As further evidence of this the "great teacher" theorists also have to ignore those points, for example, at which the Gospels report that Jesus clearly states that those who are not saved will spend eternity in torment in Hell.
Yet, somehow, the incredibly weak arguments forwarded by the "wise and admirable teacher but not God" proponents somehow never receive even that superficial level of criticism
Lewis, on the otherhand, is quite open and honest that he's speaking precisely of the Jesus of the Gospels, because to talk of any other Jesus is to arrogantly talk of a Jesus modelled on one's own presuppositions. Unless accepted on faith, there is no such thing as an "historical" Jesus that can be discovered by clever suppositions about which parts of the Gospel must be correct and which parts must be incorrect - and even such cynical approaches which are self-deemed to be "honest and unbiased" criticism have historically been shown to be nothing other than narcissistic projections of one's own attitudes onto a caricature of Jesus

It is, OF COURSE, absolutely fair to take the position that the Gospels are inaccurate. But that is an argument OUTSIDE of C. S. Lewis' argument. Lewis CLEARLY states: A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. That's the basis of the argument. If Lewis had started the argument out otherwise then the criticisms against the trilemma are valid. We have a text and in that text Jesus says things. One CANNOT look at the things Jesus says in that text and conclude He is not claiming divinity. In the context of the Gospels: if Jesus is God He's telling the truth; if Jesus in not God but thinks He is, He's insane; if He knows He's not God and says He is then He is something far worse than insane. If one accepts the text those are the only conclusions
One CAN discount the text, but then drawing ANY conclusion from the text AT ALL is simply dishonest. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY REMEMBER - Lewis didn't invent the trilemma and didn't bring the argument up in a void - Lewis forwarded the argument to point out the absurdity of the "Jesus is a great and wise moral teacher but not God" argument. One CANNOT reach the "moral teacher but not God" in any other way than selective discounting on the text. That's the argument that is obviously the most absurd, because the ONLY way to reach it is to say that SOME of the Gospel statements are true and SOME simply aren't with nothing other than personal opinion for which are which.
And with all due respect to N.T. Wright's criticism in the main article reference, he states that Lewis' argument that Jesus claims to be God is that Jesus claimed to forgive sins. Even though it is the best argument Jesus makes for divinity (if one understands what the Bible says about sin and its effect) it's not the only argument Lewis puts forward and Wright should know that. In fact, Jesus knows that as astounding as that claim actually is even Chrsitians like N. T. Wright would have difficutly accepting it as definitive regarding His identity and says regarding that:
Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." And the man got up and went home. Matthew 9:5-7
So Jesus' claims to divinity hinge on claiming He can forgive sins? Obviously not. Yet these shallow criticisms are deemed as somehow devastating to Lewis' argument. Pitiful, really. A trivial reading of statements attributed to Jesus in the Gospels has Him adopting titles assigned ONLY to God in the Old Testament and claiming that He is ONE with the Father (as is, "Hear O Israel, God is One...") and He is criticized by Jews who understand what He is saying as making Himself equal with God. If one READS the Gospels instead of "clever" criticisms of them, one sees that Jesus claims to be God in them. Throw the Gospels out or keep them. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

By ALL means leave the criticisms of Lewis' Trilemma in the main article, but they criticisms should be balanced.--74.206.26.144 (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)mjd

also he did in fact live in Little Lea, Ireland, Please explain how he is not an Irish writer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.159 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Theologian

I just undid an (entirely good faith) removal of Lewis from the category "Anglican theologians" on the grounds that he was an English professor. I entirely understand this point of view, but I think in view of Lewis' popular but nonetheless theological works, I would put him in this category. Other opinions? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

His religious writings were apologetics, not theology. He had no grounding in theology, and most of his Christian arguments don't hold water, even by theological standards. The trilemma is a good example. Is there any evidence that the Anglican Church takes him seriously as a theologian? Elphion (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The category was only recently added by an IP. The discussion should have taken place before you added it back. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The timing isn't such a big deal. Lets just hash it out now and go from there. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was a recent add. Actually I agree with Elphion's point now he makes it - I'm fine with taking it out again unless someone has a different argument. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I decided to revert my own (entirely good faith) revert of the original revert. Lewis is no longer a theologian. Feel free to continue discussion if needed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Lewis himself said in one of his books that he was not a theologian. 173.73.176.239 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

There is a very high ratio of ananymous vandalism. Check this revision comparison [2]. Out of 19 edits, 8 were anonymous eidts that were reverted, only 1 was a productive edit by a named user. This is a waste of everyone who watches this page's time. Can we get this page semi-protected? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can try at WP:RPP and see what the admins say. Deor (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Added, we'll see what they say. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we've gotten semi-protection for 3 months. Looks like we can give our (undo) button a rest. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)