Five senses; an incurably abstract intellect; a haphazardly selective memory; a set of preconceptions and a.s.sumptions so numerous that I can never examine more than a minority of them-never become even conscious of them all. How much of total reality can such an apparatus let through?
I will not, if I can help it, shin up either the feathery or the p.r.i.c.kly tree. Two widely different convictions press more and more on my mind. One is that the Eternal Vet is even more inexorable and the possible operations even more painful than our severest imaginings can forbode. But the other, that "all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."
It doesn"t matter that all the photographs of H. are bad. It doesn"t matter-not much-if my memory of her is imperfect. Images, whether on paper or in the mind, are not important for themselves. Merely links. Take a parallel from an infinitely higher sphere. Tomorrow morning a priest will give me a little round, thin, cold, tasteless wafer. Is it a disadvantage-is it not in some ways an advantage-that it can"t pretend the least resemblance resemblance to that with which it unites me? to that with which it unites me?
I need Christ, not something that resembles Him. I want H., not something that is like her. A really good photograph might become in the end a snare, a horror, and an obstacle.
Images, I must suppose, have their use or they would not have been so popular. (It makes little difference whether they are pictures and statues outside the mind or imaginative constructions within it.) To me, however, their danger is more obvious. Images of the Holy easily become holy images-sacrosanct. My idea of G.o.d is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself. He is the great iconoclast. Could we not almost say that this shattering is one of the marks of His presence? The Incarnation is the supreme example; it leaves all previous ideas of the Messiah in ruins. And most are "offended" by the iconoclasm; and blessed are those who are not. But the same thing happens in our private prayers.
All reality is iconoclastic. The earthly beloved, even in this life, incessantly triumphs over your mere idea of her. And you want her to; you want her with all her resistances, all her faults, all her unexpectedness. That is, in her foursquare and independent reality. And this, not any image or memory, is what we are to love still, after she is dead.
But "this" is not now imaginable. In that respect H. and all the dead are like G.o.d. In that respect loving her has become, in its measure, like loving Him. In both cases I must stretch out the arms and hands of love-its eyes cannot here be used-to the reality, through-across-all the changeful phantasmagoria of my thoughts, pa.s.sions, and imaginings. I mustn"t sit down content with the phantasmagoria itself and worship that for Him, or love that for her.
Not my idea of G.o.d, but G.o.d. Not my idea of H., but H. Yes, and also not my idea of my neighbour, but my neighbour. For don"t we often make this mistake as regards people who are still alive-who are with us in the same room? Talking and acting not to the man himself but to the picture-almost the precis precis-we"ve made of him in our own minds? And he has to depart from it pretty widely before we even notice the fact. In real life-that"s one way it differs from novels-his words and acts are, if we observe closely, hardly ever quite "in character," that is, in what we call his character. There"s always a card in his hand we didn"t know about.
My reason for a.s.suming that I do this to other people is the fact that so often I find them obviously doing it to me. We all think we"ve got one another taped.
And all this time I may, once more, be building with cards. And if I am He will once more knock the building flat. He will knock it down as often as proves necessary. Unless I have to be finally given up as hopeless, and left building pasteboard palaces in h.e.l.l forever; "free among the dead."
Am I, for instance, just sidling back to G.o.d because I know that if there"s any road to H., it runs through Him? But then of course I know perfectly well that He can"t be used as a road. If you"re approaching Him not as the goal but as a road, not as the end but as a means, you"re not really approaching Him at all. That"s what was really wrong with all those popular pictures of happy reunions "on the further sh.o.r.e"; not the simple-minded and very earthly images, but the fact that they make an End of what we can get only as a by-product of the true End.
Lord, are these your real terms? Can I meet H. again only if I learn to love you so much that I don"t care whether I meet her or not? Consider, Lord, how it looks to us. What would anyone think of me if I said to the boys, "No toffee now. But when you"ve grown up and don"t really want toffee you shall have as much of it as you choose"?
If I knew that to be eternally divided from H. and eternally forgotten by her would add a greater joy and splendour to her being, of course I"d say, "Fire ahead." Just as if, on earth, I could have cured her cancer by never seeing her again, I"d have arranged never to see her again. I"d have had to. Any decent person would. But that"s quite different. That"s not the situation I"m in.
When I lay these questions before G.o.d I get no answer. But a rather special sort of "No answer." It is not the locked door. It is more like a silent, certainly not uncompa.s.sionate, gaze. As though He shook His head not in refusal but waiving the question. Like, "Peace, child; you don"t understand."
Can a mortal ask questions which G.o.d finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask-half our great theological and metaphysical problems-are like that.
And now that I come to think of it, there"s no practical problem before me at all. I know the two great commandments, and I"d better get on with them. Indeed, H."s death has ended the practical problem. While she was alive I could, in practice, have put her before G.o.d; that is, could have done what she wanted instead of what He wanted; if there"d been a conflict. What"s left is not a problem about anything I could do. do. It"s all about weights of feelings and motives and that sort of thing. It"s a problem I"m setting myself. I don"t believe G.o.d set it me at all. It"s all about weights of feelings and motives and that sort of thing. It"s a problem I"m setting myself. I don"t believe G.o.d set it me at all.
The fruition of G.o.d. Reunion with the dead. These can"t figure in my thinking except as counters. Blank cheques. My idea-if you can call it an idea-of the first is a huge, risky extrapolation from a very few and short experiences here on earth. Probably not such valuable experiences as I think. Perhaps even of less value than others that I take no account of. My idea of the second is also an extrapolation. The reality of either-the cashing of either cheque-would probably blow all one"s ideas about both (how much more one"s ideas about their relations to each other) into smithereens.
The mystical union on the one hand. The resurrection of the body, on the other. I can"t reach the ghost of an image, a formula, or even a feeling, that combines them. But the reality, we are given to understand, does. Reality the iconoclast once more. Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem.
And, more than once, that impression which I can"t describe except by saying that it"s like the sound of a chuckle in the darkness. The sense that some shattering and disarming simplicity is the real answer.
It is often thought that the dead see us. And we a.s.sume, whether reasonably or not, that if they see us at all they see us more clearly than before. Does H. now see exactly how much froth or tinsel there was in what she called, and I call, my love? So be it. Look your hardest, dear. I wouldn"t hide if I could. We didn"t idealize each other. We tried to keep no secrets. You knew most of the rotten places in me already. If you now see anything worse, I can take it. So can you. Rebuke, explain, mock, forgive. For this is one of the miracles of love; it gives-to both, but perhaps especially to the woman-a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted.
To see, in some measure, like G.o.d. His love and His knowledge are not distinct from one another, nor from Him. We could almost say He sees because He loves, and therefore loves although He sees.
Sometimes, Lord, one is tempted to say that if you wanted us to behave like the lilies of the field you might have given us an organization more like theirs. But that, I suppose, is just your grand experiment. Or no; not an experiment, for you have no need to find things out. Rather your grand enterprise. To make an organism which is also a spirit; to make that terrible oxymoron, a "spiritual animal." To take a poor primate, a beast with nerve-endings all over it, a creature with a stomach that wants to be filled, a breeding animal that wants its mate, and say, "Now get on with it. Become a G.o.d."
I said, several notebooks ago, that even if I got what seemed like an a.s.surance of H."s presence, I wouldn"t believe it. Easier said than done. Even now, though, I won"t treat anything of that sort as evidence. It"s the quality quality of last night"s experience-not what it proves but what it was-that makes it worth putting down. It was quite incredibly unemotional. Just the impression of her of last night"s experience-not what it proves but what it was-that makes it worth putting down. It was quite incredibly unemotional. Just the impression of her mind mind momentarily facing my own. Mind, not "soul" as we tend to think of soul. Certainly the reverse of what is called "soulful." Not at all like a rapturous reunion of lovers. Much more like getting a telephone call or a wire from her about some practical arrangement. Not that there was any "message"-just intelligence and attention. No sense of joy or sorrow. No love even, in our ordinary sense. No un-love. I had never in any mood imagined the dead as being so-well, so business-like. Yet there was an extreme and cheerful intimacy. An intimacy that had not pa.s.sed through the senses or the emotions at all. momentarily facing my own. Mind, not "soul" as we tend to think of soul. Certainly the reverse of what is called "soulful." Not at all like a rapturous reunion of lovers. Much more like getting a telephone call or a wire from her about some practical arrangement. Not that there was any "message"-just intelligence and attention. No sense of joy or sorrow. No love even, in our ordinary sense. No un-love. I had never in any mood imagined the dead as being so-well, so business-like. Yet there was an extreme and cheerful intimacy. An intimacy that had not pa.s.sed through the senses or the emotions at all.
If this was a throw-up from my unconscious, then my unconscious must be a far more interesting region than the depth psychologists have led me to expect. For one thing, it is apparently much less primitive than my consciousness.
Wherever it came from, it has made a sort of spring cleaning in my mind. The dead could be like that; sheer intellects. A Greek philosopher wouldn"t have been surprised at an experience like mine. He would have expected that if anything of us remained after death it would be just that. Up to now this always seemed to me a most arid and chilling idea. The absence of emotion repelled me. But in this contact (whether real or apparent) it didn"t do anything of the sort. One didn"t need emotion. The intimacy was complete-sharply bracing and restorative too-without it. Can that intimacy be love itself-always in this life attended with emotion, not because it is itself an emotion, or needs an attendant emotion, but because our animal souls, our nervous systems, our imaginations, have to respond to it in that way? If so, how many preconceptions I must sc.r.a.p! A society, a communion, of pure intelligences would not be cold, drab, and comfortless. On the other hand it wouldn"t be very like what people usually mean when they use such words as spiritual, spiritual, or or mystical, mystical, or or holy. holy. It would, if I have had a glimpse, be-well, I"m almost scared at the adjectives I"d have to use. Brisk? cheerful? keen? alert? intense? wide-awake? Above all, solid. Utterly reliable. Firm. There is no nonsense about the dead. It would, if I have had a glimpse, be-well, I"m almost scared at the adjectives I"d have to use. Brisk? cheerful? keen? alert? intense? wide-awake? Above all, solid. Utterly reliable. Firm. There is no nonsense about the dead.
When I say "intellect" I include will. Attention is an act of will. Intelligence in action is will par excellence. par excellence. What seemed to meet me was full of resolution. What seemed to meet me was full of resolution.
Once very near the end I said, "If you can-if it is allowed-come to me when I too am on my death bed." "Allowed!" she said. "Heaven would have a job to hold me; and as for h.e.l.l, I"d break it into bits." She knew she was speaking a kind of mythological language, with even an element of comedy in it. There was a twinkle as well as a tear in her eye. But there was no myth and no joke about the will, deeper than any feeling, that flashed through her.
But I mustn"t, because I have come to misunderstand a little less completely what a pure intelligence might be, lean over too far. There is also, whatever it means, the resurrection of the body. We cannot understand. The best is perhaps what we understand least.
Didn"t people dispute once whether the final vision of G.o.d was more an act of intelligence or of love? That is probably another of the nonsense questions.
How wicked it would be, if we could, to call the dead back! She said not to me but to the chaplain, "I am at peace with G.o.d." She smiled, but not at me. Poi si torn all" eterna fontana. Poi si torn all" eterna fontana.
About the Author
CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS (18981963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day. He was a Fellow and tutor in English literature at Oxford University until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include (18981963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day. He was a Fellow and tutor in English literature at Oxford University until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, The Four Loves, The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, The Four Loves, The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity. For more information about C. S. Lewis, visit www.cslewis.com.
Visit www.AuthorTracker.com for exclusive information on your favorite HarperCollins author.
BOOKS BY C. S. LEWIS
A Grief Observed
George MacDonald: An Anthology
Mere Christianity
Miracles
The Abolition of Man
The Great Divorce
The Problem of Pain
The Screwtape Letters (with (with "Screwtape Proposes a Toast") "Screwtape Proposes a Toast")
The Weight of Glory
ALSO AVAILABLE FROM H HARPERCOLLINS
The Chronicles of Narnia:
The Magician"s Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Horse and His Boy
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Last Battle