Somewhere in That Hideous Strength, CS Lewis informs us that his character, Mark Studdock, when under pressure, has neither peasant cunning nor aristocratic honor to sustain him. He is merely modern. "Cunning" and "honor" are succinct summaries of social attitudes but they also highlight Lewis' preoccupation with past social relationships and his disdain for anything "modern." Let's broaden the class perspective to include early bourgeois invention, later bourgeois calculation and proletarian solidarity.
Anderson's juxtaposition of pride and patience reminded me of Lewis' juxtaposition of cunning and honor although this comparison is fanciful and suggests that it is time for me to close the lap top for the night. In the morning, I drive my daughter and granddaughter to their Horticulture class.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I've read THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH at least twice, but I don't recall why Mark Studdock's "modernness" was a weakness or flaw when he had to contend with a crisis. Also, I would like to know what Lewis meant by "modernness" and why it was unsatisfactory.
Actually, I should simply reread Lewis' Space Trilogy!
Sean
Sean,
I quoted from memory but I think I got it right.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except we needed Lewis' definition of "modernness."
Sean
Yes.
Ransom merely regrets, e.g., that there is no longer an Emperor in Europe.
Kaor, Paul!
Probably, in this case, no longer a Holy Roman or Habsburg Emperor. I would have preferred a wider or deeper explanation from Ransom for his dissatisfaction with "modernness."
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
My note above was too brief. I should have listed two books discussing what I believe are genuine dangers, flaws, and weaknesses associated with "modernness": THE CUBE AND THE CATHEDRAL, by George Weigel; and CHRISTIANITY AND THE CRISIS OF CULTURES, by Pope Benedict XVI.
Sean
Virtues can conflict; and some can be better to contemplate at a distance, like Achilles' pride.
Incidentally, the Iliad is about the "wrath of Achilles" but what it's really about, in our terms, is pride. The incident that drives the plot is his anger at a slight to his honor -- being deprived of his just share of the spoils. By withdrawing to his tent, he shows everyone that Agamemnon really needs him.
Incidentally, this is almost identical to the emotional driver of "The Ballad of Kinmont Willie" (Child #186), one of my favorites.
The plot point is that "Kinmont Willie", a notorious reaver chieftain and outlaw, was seized by Lord Scroop, the English Warden of the West March, on a truce-day (there was a truce during court days, and he was attending).
And he was seized on the land of Buccleuch the Keeper of Liddesdale, known as "the Bold". (LIddesdale was the worst nest of bandits in the Border country, btw, which was saying something because nearly everyone on the Border was a bandit occasionally).
Bucclechh was livid because he felt his honor had been slighted, and demanded Willie's release, and Scroop refused.
So Buccleuch personally led a raid (with inside help) and broke him out of Carlisle Castle -- Willie eventually died of old age and in bed, a rare fate for one of the "riding families" in those days.
The crucial bit of the ballad is when Buccleuch gets the news:
"He has taen the table wi his hand,
He garrd the red wine spring on hie;
‘Now Christ’s curse on my head,’ he said,
‘But avenged of Lord Scroop I’ll be!
‘O is my basnet a widow’s curch?
Or my lance a wand of the willow-tree?
Or my arm a ladye’s lilye hand?
That an English lord should lightly me!"
It's precisely the same reaction: Scroop has taken him "lightly", treating him as one of no account who could be offended with impunity, by arresting a man on Buccleuch's land against custom and taking him off to be hanged.
It's a humiliation and can only be paid off either by blood, or by an equivalent loss of face.
(Nobody was killed in the raid -- Buccleuch carefully avoided that; it was a classic Border affray, careful reconnaissance and then in and out quickly before anyone had time to react.)
The Greeks had a saying: "It wasn't Achilles who took Troy."
It was the man with the "mind of many turns", Ulysses of Ithaka, who did that -- and he'd never wanted to go to Troy in the first place, and just wanted to go home to his wife while he was there. Achilles traded length of days for glory and died young, but Ulysses died by his own hearth with his grandchildren around him.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Again, thanks for writing a very interesting note. I have read Rieu's translation of the ILIAD and ODYSSEY, and I can see how the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles fits in with the similar passions seen in "The Ballad Of Kinmont Willie." With Agamemnon being the one who "lightly" treated Achilles.
Yes, it was duty, rather than ambition, which caused Odysseus to reluctantly leave Ithaca for the Trojan War. And I recall how Rieu rendered a frequent kenning for the Lord of Ithaca as "Odysseus of the nimble wits."
But I did not have "virtues" in mind when I was wondering what it was about "modernness" which C.S. Lewis plainly disapproved of in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH. What Lewis may have had in mind could, I think, be summarized from this bit taken from Anderson's revised version of "Tiger By The Tail" (Prince Cerdic speaking): "I have been in the Empire, on Terra's very self, and I have studied deeply, aided by data retrieval systems, the works of your own sociologists, and of non humans who have an outside view of your ways. I KNOW the Empire--its self-seeking politicians and self indulgent masses, corruption, intrigue, morality and sense of duty rotten to the heart, decline of art into craft and science into dogma, strength sapped by a despair too pervasive for you to realize what it is..." And while this picture of the Empire was oversimplified and probably disingenuous, there was enough truth in to hit a nerve with Flandry. And the books by Weigel and Bendict XVI discussed some very similar problems afflicting the West.
Sean
The Odyssey uses two terms for Ulysses: "polumetis", which is straightforwardly "wily, cunning" and "polytropos", which means more or less "twisty" and seems to have implied that he came at things from unexpected angles.
"Polytropos" is a compound word -- "poly", meaning "many", and "tropos", meaning "turns".
It also implied (vide Emily Wilson's recent translation) that he turned things to his advantage -- that he -thought- his way out of problems. His life took many turns, and he turned them around; it's a subtle and witty way of describing both him and his adventures.
Achilles, by contrast, mainly used his head as a battering-ram and his vocabulary was pretty much summed up as: CHHAAAAAARGE!
What you're seeing in the contrast between Ulysses and Achilles, though, ties into the cultural changes Lewis et. al. are describing.
The difference between the two men is one of degrees of consciousness and particularly of self-consciousness, of the ability to stand outside your own mind/self/viewpoint and examine it from the outside.
Recursive thought, in other words. This is a shift which radically changes the relation of the individual to custom (and hence morality), which is also why the Greeks were always uneasy about Ulysses.
Achilles is like a grown-up child in many respects; he reacts reflexively, in an un-self-examined way, and likewise accepts all the 'cake of custom' in which he's baked.
In this he reflects a stage of Greek (and most other) civilizations; their youth, you might say, in which men "just act" or "just do", wholeheartedly.
Ulysses is a later stage -- he's a man as compared to Achilles sulking, pouting teenager.
He examines his own motives and questions assumptions rather than just accepting them, which enables him to step into the minds of others.
He sees the world and his own milieu with detachment, from the outside.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Very interesting, this analysis of how Odysseus and Achilles differed from each other. The Lord of Ithaca was a mature, self reflecting man able to be objective about both himself and others while Achilles was a sulky, pouting teenager? It makes sense!
I thought of Piotr Stavarov from your Emberverse books, esp. THE PROTECTOR'S WAR and A MEETING AT CORVALLIS, as reminding me of Achilles. NOT entirely stupid, but far too prone to thinking the best way to solve a military problem was by CHARGING ahead. He was Achilles to the far more reflective Count Conrad's Odysseus.
And even Achilles could show himself in a better life at times. Think of his noble and generous treatment of King Priam when he came secretly to him to plead for his son's body.
Sean
This discussion make Achilles sound like a Leeroy Jenkins.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeeroyJenkins
Kaor, Jim!
I'll look up Leroy Jenkins.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment