What do you think?
Rate this book
Aspects of Power #3
The Place of the Lion
The veil between the worlds has been torn, and terrible powers are coming through...
A magician has caused a rift in the fabric of the universe, and platonic ideals are now roaming the English countryside, taking the form of giant animals and generally wreaking havoc on the small town of Smetham. While others flee, a young student named Anthony Durrant realizes that it is up to him to face the monstrous powers before they destroy the world.
The Place of the Lion is one of Charles Williams' most beloved novels. C.S. Lewis called reading it "one of the major literary events of my life". Along with Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, Williams was member of the Inklings, an informal group of writers in Oxford, England, who changed the world with their mythopoetic vision.
A magician has caused a rift in the fabric of the universe, and platonic ideals are now roaming the English countryside, taking the form of giant animals and generally wreaking havoc on the small town of Smetham. While others flee, a young student named Anthony Durrant realizes that it is up to him to face the monstrous powers before they destroy the world.
The Place of the Lion is one of Charles Williams' most beloved novels. C.S. Lewis called reading it "one of the major literary events of my life". Along with Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, Williams was member of the Inklings, an informal group of writers in Oxford, England, who changed the world with their mythopoetic vision.
150 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
140 people are currently reading
2595 people want to read
About the author
Charles Williams
74 books388 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 233 reviews
June 11, 2011
As an author, Charles Williams writes stiffly, his stories are strange enough to be nearly inaccessible, and his characters who find clarity start speaking in a way which makes The Fairie Queene look folksy. All that being true, I love this man. After finishing this one I slept not just better, but more happily (merrily, even?) then in months. Goodness became more solidly true than usual. A few days later I was taking a shower and suddenly thought of the Idea of the Lion and Plato's Butterfly and houses in otherworldly flames - well, I started laughing at myself and the book, but not out of condescension. How does a man who writes about things which appear pretty crazy from nearly any perspective make them so rational, so fair? Charles Williams has Plato's ideas crash into our world and it's a rather ordinary thing. In another book the Holy Grail is found, and when the good guys aren't getting into dizzy car chases or bumping into cherubim, they're just hanging out being light-hearted and finding everything a good joke. Or the dead walk into a kitchen and chat with the living because it's the thing to do, or a man shacks up with a succubus, or someone promises to bear the burden of a doppleganger which is terrorizing a friend.
Now, we can encounter those things in a comic-book story, or video game, or one of the many pseudo-sci-fi/fantasy films which mixes an ancient name and time travel (or some variation thereof) into a senseless mess but is fun to look at and kinda rad. But while we abandon the straight, unadorned narratives and tales of good and bad for escapism, we are not supposed to take the shadows behind the stories seriously. Myth must be a synonym for False. All the peoples of the world which did not take a flat, neatly divided and accounted for view of reality were obviously ignorant. They were leading up to us, the people who would condemn their naivety and steal their stories as fodder for the entertainment-consumption industry, while failing to understand the people or their stories on their own terms. The better ones regret the domination, but do not hesitate to ignore, mock, or capitalize on their beliefs.
This isn't an acceptable way to approach any people or their stories, and it not an acceptable way to approach Williams. This story in particular illustrates why this is such a terrible thing to do (I'm being generous picking only one negative adjective). Williams is not intending to entertain you or allow bad ideas to go unexamined. This is not the place for cheap fantasy or a cape of a different color. He wants and intends to make you take all of this magical realism as being, yes, supernatural, but also yes, very very real.
That may seem ridiculous, but while I can laugh and say "Oh, of course it is!", I also find Charles Williams' ideas and vision moving enough that I cannot reject his philosophy/religion. I have to take his worldview seriously because it produces an utterly convincing image of goodness which far surpasses most others I've encountered. We can say we should all love one another and do good, but we seem to be best at not living up to that whatsoever. If we could see the way to do so as clearly as Charles Williams the person did, if our eyes were changed, I suspect we'd find a goodness wildly colorful that achieved far more than our platitudes and good intentions. The supernatural happenings in the stories seem integral to finding that goodness. And perhaps the reason his prose is so heavy and his stories so old and odd is because he has something very good to say which English can't quite contain. The tongue and pen can't say some things without upside-downing the world and living a bit in one age and then another and then outside of time.
I think his works are weirder and more original than pretty much anything else in the past thirty years. Stranger than Murakami (whom I love), more intriguing and provocative than the mind-benders which are yesterday's news in a moment, and there is always the joy of something old and lost like the Grail or Plato being reawakened. The great medieval masters went back again and again to the old stories, not because they could not make their own, but because they wanted to rework the great ones, to make them more true, to reveal something hitherto unseen. Williams is like that. Here are old legends and visions mixed up in our world, and the result gives a better understanding of people and life and death than any rootless fantasy ever could. Unfashionable and clumsy it may be, but here is a book that is both a story and a way to goodness.
Now, we can encounter those things in a comic-book story, or video game, or one of the many pseudo-sci-fi/fantasy films which mixes an ancient name and time travel (or some variation thereof) into a senseless mess but is fun to look at and kinda rad. But while we abandon the straight, unadorned narratives and tales of good and bad for escapism, we are not supposed to take the shadows behind the stories seriously. Myth must be a synonym for False. All the peoples of the world which did not take a flat, neatly divided and accounted for view of reality were obviously ignorant. They were leading up to us, the people who would condemn their naivety and steal their stories as fodder for the entertainment-consumption industry, while failing to understand the people or their stories on their own terms. The better ones regret the domination, but do not hesitate to ignore, mock, or capitalize on their beliefs.
This isn't an acceptable way to approach any people or their stories, and it not an acceptable way to approach Williams. This story in particular illustrates why this is such a terrible thing to do (I'm being generous picking only one negative adjective). Williams is not intending to entertain you or allow bad ideas to go unexamined. This is not the place for cheap fantasy or a cape of a different color. He wants and intends to make you take all of this magical realism as being, yes, supernatural, but also yes, very very real.
That may seem ridiculous, but while I can laugh and say "Oh, of course it is!", I also find Charles Williams' ideas and vision moving enough that I cannot reject his philosophy/religion. I have to take his worldview seriously because it produces an utterly convincing image of goodness which far surpasses most others I've encountered. We can say we should all love one another and do good, but we seem to be best at not living up to that whatsoever. If we could see the way to do so as clearly as Charles Williams the person did, if our eyes were changed, I suspect we'd find a goodness wildly colorful that achieved far more than our platitudes and good intentions. The supernatural happenings in the stories seem integral to finding that goodness. And perhaps the reason his prose is so heavy and his stories so old and odd is because he has something very good to say which English can't quite contain. The tongue and pen can't say some things without upside-downing the world and living a bit in one age and then another and then outside of time.
I think his works are weirder and more original than pretty much anything else in the past thirty years. Stranger than Murakami (whom I love), more intriguing and provocative than the mind-benders which are yesterday's news in a moment, and there is always the joy of something old and lost like the Grail or Plato being reawakened. The great medieval masters went back again and again to the old stories, not because they could not make their own, but because they wanted to rework the great ones, to make them more true, to reveal something hitherto unseen. Williams is like that. Here are old legends and visions mixed up in our world, and the result gives a better understanding of people and life and death than any rootless fantasy ever could. Unfashionable and clumsy it may be, but here is a book that is both a story and a way to goodness.
April 16, 2018
I thought I had read Williams' All Hallows' Eve, but I am reading it now and it is unfamiliar, so I think it must have been this one that I read years ago.
Come to think of it, I do have a vague memory of a character seeing a lion... that may be autosuggestion, though.
Come to think of it, I do have a vague memory of a character seeing a lion... that may be autosuggestion, though.
May 2, 2018
Now that I've reread this I can confirm that yes, it is the Charles Williams book I read like 20 years ago. I think it is less theological orthodox but more imaginative than his other book I've read in between, All Hallows Eve. Giant ferocious animals that are Platonic Forms that are Angelic Powers stalk through a small English town, bringing disaster to those who align themselves too excessively with one quality or another. Because too much of anything is a bad thing!
Read
February 12, 2024The Third Inkling
I've been struggling with this review for several weeks now. I've already burned two neurons trying to understand the author's intentions with this book, and they were pet neurons. I liked them...
The Place of the Lion will never be a Hollywood blockbuster. Inkling or not Charles Williams didn't write fantastical epics like Tolkien or magical dreams like Lewis. Williams' texts address more primitive emotions, hidden under the layers of "civilization" that centuries have accumulated in us but that float to the surface whenever some inexplicable terror assails us in the middle of the night when an unidentified noise wakes us with a start and it leaves us with cold sweats down our spines staring into the impenetrable darkness of our fears.
C. S Lewis sums it up in a letter to a friend:
I just finished reading what I think is a really great book, The Place of the Lion. It is based on the Platonic theory of the other world in which the archetypes of all earthly qualities exist: and in the novel, due to a little machinery that doesn't matter, these archetypes begin to suck our world.
Williams has been dubbed as "the oddest Inkling"!
Charles Wrenn, a participant in the Inkling meetings, on one occasion expressed that a conversation with Williams made him understand why inquisitors in the Middle Ages thought it right to burn people….
Charles Williams was a member of the Church of England; for him religion was an important part of life. He was more of a theologian than a novelist. However, this did not stop him from manipulating atheistic rationalism in his literary production.
With a dichotomous intelligence that sought to analyze the various "sides" that an argument can have in order to reach a rational conclusion, he had classical training based on the Hellenic philosophy, which undoubtedly shaped his way of thinking and analyzing. Being a religious man who wrote several theological essays, he was not dogmatic and if we were to classify him he would probably be a "Thomas" sceptic. T.S. Elliot said of C.W. that He was concerned with communicating traditional religious concerns in modern literary forms, fulfilling an important function in life, that of instilling sound doctrine in people... without them knowing it. But Elliot also pointed out that theories of Williams were sometimes "tinged with heresy".
Williams' works revolve around two themes central to his philosophical and religious vision: the concept he called Co-inherence, to denote a universal spiritual principle, and the romantic love that solidifies the coexistence of all creatures, or at least that's what I understood.
Some books, in order to be properly assimilated and appreciated, need specific complements in one area or another, otherwise, the plot/text seems disconnected and meaningless.
In this book, Williams uses Plato's Theory of Forms to create a mystical allegorical romance of cosmic proportions.
The defect, in my opinion, of The Place of the Lion is its form and the theme of the novel's structure; we need at least some prior notions about some of Plato's ideas, Biblical Exegesis and the influence of the first monotheistic religions on Plato and the influence of his thought on Abrahamic monotheistic theologies in order to understand what Williams wanted to tell.
Anyone who approaches the book without any background knowledge in these areas will feel lost and find the book to be dull and meaningless.
And indeed, on a cursory reading, we have a bland and disjointed story about supernatural beings invading and subsuming our world and we have a pair of unlikely "heroes" fighting this invasion, with a biblical final solution that leaves something to be desired.
Many of Plato's ideas influenced and shaped in various ways the three Abrahamic religions, and consequently the Anglican church of which Williams was a part. One of the best-known Platonic concepts is his dualistic view of Creation, with an upper world, the spiritual realm where ideas or Forms exist, and a lower world, the physical realm of matter, where imperfect copies of those Forms or Archetypes exist, our world. It is the Theory of Forms, which in the Abrahamic religions can perhaps be translated as "Man was created in his image and likeness".
In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms states that the physical world is not really the "real" world it is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms; instead, an Ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world. What is this if not the Abrahamic concept of an earthly material life that aspires to a higher spiritual Paradise? This invisible world, which for Williams would only be accessible through Reason and which for religious theologians can only be reached through Faith.
Plato discusses this theory in some of his dialogues, including his most famous one, "The Republic".
This and other concepts of Plato slowly but firmly and securely in their logical soundness changed and shaped the way of thinking of their time and consequently changed the future of thought and the world.
For example, Plato's "Triad" in Philebus was supposedly composed of Truth, Beauty and Proportion, united by a "Force" which Plato called "The Good" which fused the three into "One". It is believed that over time, this triad gave rise to the idea of a tripartite God. The founders of the three Abrahamic religions were, probably, scholars of Greek philosophy, and identified Plato's "Good" with God, and from the Platonic triad, they extracted the holiest Trinity, founding the Christian version of the divine triad of philosophy. Historian Edward Gibbon, in his "History of Christianity", summarizes the Greek influence in adopting the doctrine of the Trinity.
So what are these Forms or Archetypes according to Plato? Explained in a rough way they would be the Standard Mold of everything that exists and that allows each one of us to "see", "feel" and "think" about; for example: "Beauty" is slightly different from one person to other, but at the same time we all know what "Image" or "Concept" each one of us refers to despite the imperfections and differences; there is something in our mind or in our subconscious that unites all those different versions in a Universal truth. You and I share a similar concept or ideal of what "Beauty" is, although our images and concepts of beauty are slightly different. To put it in Plato's terms, the absolute ideal archetype of "Beauty" resides in the Realm of Forms and is perfect and unchanging.
An archetype refers not only to abstract objects and concepts but also represents the universal pattern of human nature. Carl Jung touches on this concept, in my opinion, with his theory of the collective unconscious, where he described the animus as the unconscious masculine side of a woman, and the anima as the unconscious feminine side of a man, each transcending the personal psyche. Jung's theory states that the anima and animus are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. He believed they are the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self.
And an important question, it seems to me, is: from what "base" did Plato develop these ideas?
Plato was supposedly born around 428/427 BC and his way of thinking, and theories were in turn, possibly infiltrated and influenced by the two philosophies that gave rise to the first two monotheistic religions (which one was exactly the first is difficult to say since until now it has not been possible to accurately determine the exact dates of the two events): Zoroastrianism, between 1500 and 500 BC, considered the first monotheistic religion, which was created by Zoroaster, 1500-1000 BC born in Persia and also known as Zarathustra, is regarded as the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism (Nietzsche anyone?) and brought to Greece by the Persian invasions (492-479 BC) which may explain his influence on Plato's ideas.
As well as Atenism, with its Sun God Aten, the religion created by Akhenaten (Nefertiti people…) around 1350 BC.
Akhenaten has often been referred to as the pioneer of monotheism (a claim Freud developed in his Moses and Monotheism).
It is possible that both theological concepts are at the origin of the concept of Forms and of "The Good" that would have been transformed into the thought of God (divine conceptualism). Since several scholars have already highlighted the influence of Plato's ideas on the three Abrahamic religions, it is here that Williams would have gone to look for the inspiration for his novel.
Joobin Bekhrad argues that what many take for granted as Western ideals, beliefs and culture may in fact have Persian roots.
Around 1500-1000 BC, the Persians worshipped various deities. Zarathustra the prophet condemned these religious practices, preaching that only Ahura Mazda (the Creator and only god of Zoroastrianism) should be worshipped. This commandment was seen by many as the birth of monotheism.
But at the base of Zoroastrianism (as opposed to the religion of Akhenaten) are also other basic notions or principles that can be found in the three Abrahamic religions. The idea of a single god was not the only "novelty" of Zoroastrianism to find its place in other religions, mainly in the "big three": Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the revelation of the end of the world, and angels and demons all originated in Zarathustra's teachings. Even the idea of Satan is fundamentally Zoroastrian; in fact, the entire faith of Zoroastrianism is based on the struggle between the forces of Good and Light (represented by the Holy Spirit, Spenta Manyu) and Ahriman, and the forces of Darkness and Evil. As for human beings, we have to choose which side we will join...
Historically, the unique characteristics of Zoroastrianism, (monotheism, messianism, belief in free will, judgment after death, a conception of heaven, hell, angels and demons), very likely influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Abrahamic religions, Gnosticism, Buddhism and Greek philosophy.
Without this basic knowledge and probably many others that eluded me, it is not possible to fully appreciate and understand "The Place of the Lion". And I haven't even touched on a theory I read in a review by Sorina Higgins of the book where she clarifies that Williams makes a parallel between the Archetypes that arise to subsume our world and the complex Christian angelic hierarchy with its "infernal" counterparts.
I had a great-uncle who was an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church (Minor Archbishop…whatever that means…) and who, being strangely and secretly an atheist, believed deeply in Jesus Christ and was convinced that his role in life was to indoctrinate all heathen infidels.
But unlike C. Williams he was as subtle and delicate as a bulldozer at full throttle. Against the onslaught of this moralistic and avenging blind bat, I was always protected by my father, agnostic by nature and spirit, who always destroyed any theological debate with a simple word; "Why?"
He was a man of small stature (1.67m) but possessed unshakable determination. And despite the fact that he had far less formal education than I did, he possessed a much sharper intelligence than mine and most people I knew.
Supported by the certainty that he knew little or nothing, he always sought to understand all and never allowed any mystical fervour of blind beliefs to shake the logic of reason. To my great-uncle's accusations that my father was an unbelieving and faithless man, my father replied that if we were created by some certain god, in his image and likeness then we are all children of an unbelieving father without faith.
My father was a man who suffered a lot fighting his own convictions to protect his family. First expelled from Africa, where he was born, and from a life full and rich in its simplicity, because of a war that did not concern him and with which he did not agree. He was expelled from Portugal a few years later by an organized band of illiterate communists who thought Marx was the true Christ reincarnated and had never heard of Engels while my father who was never a communist regularly quoted "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" and "Das Capital".
When I read a book like this (or any other) I try to remember what my father and my great-uncle, two men who lived at the antipodes of Reason, would say about it. I believe that both would have been very disappointed with The Place of the Lion even if for antagonistically different reasons.
Whatever Williams' intention was, when I finished reading the book, after looking for comments from others and having consulted the references I found and which I have mentioned in part here, I was left with more doubts than before. Doubts about the quality of Charles Williams as a writer and evangelist and even greater doubts about my intellectual capacity to understand him.
I advise you to read the book because it addresses ancient and fundamental themes in the shaping and evolution of what we all are today. But Williams does it in such an inept, confused and obscure way that it is better, before starting to read, to equip yourself with as much patience as possible, pencil and paper (an AI as powerful as you can find can also be useful) and most important than everything else, a good dose of anti-acids…
Good luck to everyone.
I've been struggling with this review for several weeks now. I've already burned two neurons trying to understand the author's intentions with this book, and they were pet neurons. I liked them...
The Place of the Lion will never be a Hollywood blockbuster. Inkling or not Charles Williams didn't write fantastical epics like Tolkien or magical dreams like Lewis. Williams' texts address more primitive emotions, hidden under the layers of "civilization" that centuries have accumulated in us but that float to the surface whenever some inexplicable terror assails us in the middle of the night when an unidentified noise wakes us with a start and it leaves us with cold sweats down our spines staring into the impenetrable darkness of our fears.
C. S Lewis sums it up in a letter to a friend:
I just finished reading what I think is a really great book, The Place of the Lion. It is based on the Platonic theory of the other world in which the archetypes of all earthly qualities exist: and in the novel, due to a little machinery that doesn't matter, these archetypes begin to suck our world.
Williams has been dubbed as "the oddest Inkling"!
Charles Wrenn, a participant in the Inkling meetings, on one occasion expressed that a conversation with Williams made him understand why inquisitors in the Middle Ages thought it right to burn people….
Charles Williams was a member of the Church of England; for him religion was an important part of life. He was more of a theologian than a novelist. However, this did not stop him from manipulating atheistic rationalism in his literary production.
With a dichotomous intelligence that sought to analyze the various "sides" that an argument can have in order to reach a rational conclusion, he had classical training based on the Hellenic philosophy, which undoubtedly shaped his way of thinking and analyzing. Being a religious man who wrote several theological essays, he was not dogmatic and if we were to classify him he would probably be a "Thomas" sceptic. T.S. Elliot said of C.W. that He was concerned with communicating traditional religious concerns in modern literary forms, fulfilling an important function in life, that of instilling sound doctrine in people... without them knowing it. But Elliot also pointed out that theories of Williams were sometimes "tinged with heresy".
Williams' works revolve around two themes central to his philosophical and religious vision: the concept he called Co-inherence, to denote a universal spiritual principle, and the romantic love that solidifies the coexistence of all creatures, or at least that's what I understood.
Some books, in order to be properly assimilated and appreciated, need specific complements in one area or another, otherwise, the plot/text seems disconnected and meaningless.
In this book, Williams uses Plato's Theory of Forms to create a mystical allegorical romance of cosmic proportions.
The defect, in my opinion, of The Place of the Lion is its form and the theme of the novel's structure; we need at least some prior notions about some of Plato's ideas, Biblical Exegesis and the influence of the first monotheistic religions on Plato and the influence of his thought on Abrahamic monotheistic theologies in order to understand what Williams wanted to tell.
Anyone who approaches the book without any background knowledge in these areas will feel lost and find the book to be dull and meaningless.
And indeed, on a cursory reading, we have a bland and disjointed story about supernatural beings invading and subsuming our world and we have a pair of unlikely "heroes" fighting this invasion, with a biblical final solution that leaves something to be desired.
Many of Plato's ideas influenced and shaped in various ways the three Abrahamic religions, and consequently the Anglican church of which Williams was a part. One of the best-known Platonic concepts is his dualistic view of Creation, with an upper world, the spiritual realm where ideas or Forms exist, and a lower world, the physical realm of matter, where imperfect copies of those Forms or Archetypes exist, our world. It is the Theory of Forms, which in the Abrahamic religions can perhaps be translated as "Man was created in his image and likeness".
In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms states that the physical world is not really the "real" world it is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms; instead, an Ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world. What is this if not the Abrahamic concept of an earthly material life that aspires to a higher spiritual Paradise? This invisible world, which for Williams would only be accessible through Reason and which for religious theologians can only be reached through Faith.
Plato discusses this theory in some of his dialogues, including his most famous one, "The Republic".
This and other concepts of Plato slowly but firmly and securely in their logical soundness changed and shaped the way of thinking of their time and consequently changed the future of thought and the world.
For example, Plato's "Triad" in Philebus was supposedly composed of Truth, Beauty and Proportion, united by a "Force" which Plato called "The Good" which fused the three into "One". It is believed that over time, this triad gave rise to the idea of a tripartite God. The founders of the three Abrahamic religions were, probably, scholars of Greek philosophy, and identified Plato's "Good" with God, and from the Platonic triad, they extracted the holiest Trinity, founding the Christian version of the divine triad of philosophy. Historian Edward Gibbon, in his "History of Christianity", summarizes the Greek influence in adopting the doctrine of the Trinity.
So what are these Forms or Archetypes according to Plato? Explained in a rough way they would be the Standard Mold of everything that exists and that allows each one of us to "see", "feel" and "think" about; for example: "Beauty" is slightly different from one person to other, but at the same time we all know what "Image" or "Concept" each one of us refers to despite the imperfections and differences; there is something in our mind or in our subconscious that unites all those different versions in a Universal truth. You and I share a similar concept or ideal of what "Beauty" is, although our images and concepts of beauty are slightly different. To put it in Plato's terms, the absolute ideal archetype of "Beauty" resides in the Realm of Forms and is perfect and unchanging.
An archetype refers not only to abstract objects and concepts but also represents the universal pattern of human nature. Carl Jung touches on this concept, in my opinion, with his theory of the collective unconscious, where he described the animus as the unconscious masculine side of a woman, and the anima as the unconscious feminine side of a man, each transcending the personal psyche. Jung's theory states that the anima and animus are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. He believed they are the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self.
And an important question, it seems to me, is: from what "base" did Plato develop these ideas?
Plato was supposedly born around 428/427 BC and his way of thinking, and theories were in turn, possibly infiltrated and influenced by the two philosophies that gave rise to the first two monotheistic religions (which one was exactly the first is difficult to say since until now it has not been possible to accurately determine the exact dates of the two events): Zoroastrianism, between 1500 and 500 BC, considered the first monotheistic religion, which was created by Zoroaster, 1500-1000 BC born in Persia and also known as Zarathustra, is regarded as the spiritual founder of Zoroastrianism (Nietzsche anyone?) and brought to Greece by the Persian invasions (492-479 BC) which may explain his influence on Plato's ideas.
As well as Atenism, with its Sun God Aten, the religion created by Akhenaten (Nefertiti people…) around 1350 BC.
Akhenaten has often been referred to as the pioneer of monotheism (a claim Freud developed in his Moses and Monotheism).
It is possible that both theological concepts are at the origin of the concept of Forms and of "The Good" that would have been transformed into the thought of God (divine conceptualism). Since several scholars have already highlighted the influence of Plato's ideas on the three Abrahamic religions, it is here that Williams would have gone to look for the inspiration for his novel.
Joobin Bekhrad argues that what many take for granted as Western ideals, beliefs and culture may in fact have Persian roots.
Around 1500-1000 BC, the Persians worshipped various deities. Zarathustra the prophet condemned these religious practices, preaching that only Ahura Mazda (the Creator and only god of Zoroastrianism) should be worshipped. This commandment was seen by many as the birth of monotheism.
But at the base of Zoroastrianism (as opposed to the religion of Akhenaten) are also other basic notions or principles that can be found in the three Abrahamic religions. The idea of a single god was not the only "novelty" of Zoroastrianism to find its place in other religions, mainly in the "big three": Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the revelation of the end of the world, and angels and demons all originated in Zarathustra's teachings. Even the idea of Satan is fundamentally Zoroastrian; in fact, the entire faith of Zoroastrianism is based on the struggle between the forces of Good and Light (represented by the Holy Spirit, Spenta Manyu) and Ahriman, and the forces of Darkness and Evil. As for human beings, we have to choose which side we will join...
Historically, the unique characteristics of Zoroastrianism, (monotheism, messianism, belief in free will, judgment after death, a conception of heaven, hell, angels and demons), very likely influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Abrahamic religions, Gnosticism, Buddhism and Greek philosophy.
Without this basic knowledge and probably many others that eluded me, it is not possible to fully appreciate and understand "The Place of the Lion". And I haven't even touched on a theory I read in a review by Sorina Higgins of the book where she clarifies that Williams makes a parallel between the Archetypes that arise to subsume our world and the complex Christian angelic hierarchy with its "infernal" counterparts.
I had a great-uncle who was an integral part of the Roman Catholic Church (Minor Archbishop…whatever that means…) and who, being strangely and secretly an atheist, believed deeply in Jesus Christ and was convinced that his role in life was to indoctrinate all heathen infidels.
But unlike C. Williams he was as subtle and delicate as a bulldozer at full throttle. Against the onslaught of this moralistic and avenging blind bat, I was always protected by my father, agnostic by nature and spirit, who always destroyed any theological debate with a simple word; "Why?"
He was a man of small stature (1.67m) but possessed unshakable determination. And despite the fact that he had far less formal education than I did, he possessed a much sharper intelligence than mine and most people I knew.
Supported by the certainty that he knew little or nothing, he always sought to understand all and never allowed any mystical fervour of blind beliefs to shake the logic of reason. To my great-uncle's accusations that my father was an unbelieving and faithless man, my father replied that if we were created by some certain god, in his image and likeness then we are all children of an unbelieving father without faith.
My father was a man who suffered a lot fighting his own convictions to protect his family. First expelled from Africa, where he was born, and from a life full and rich in its simplicity, because of a war that did not concern him and with which he did not agree. He was expelled from Portugal a few years later by an organized band of illiterate communists who thought Marx was the true Christ reincarnated and had never heard of Engels while my father who was never a communist regularly quoted "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" and "Das Capital".
When I read a book like this (or any other) I try to remember what my father and my great-uncle, two men who lived at the antipodes of Reason, would say about it. I believe that both would have been very disappointed with The Place of the Lion even if for antagonistically different reasons.
Whatever Williams' intention was, when I finished reading the book, after looking for comments from others and having consulted the references I found and which I have mentioned in part here, I was left with more doubts than before. Doubts about the quality of Charles Williams as a writer and evangelist and even greater doubts about my intellectual capacity to understand him.
I advise you to read the book because it addresses ancient and fundamental themes in the shaping and evolution of what we all are today. But Williams does it in such an inept, confused and obscure way that it is better, before starting to read, to equip yourself with as much patience as possible, pencil and paper (an AI as powerful as you can find can also be useful) and most important than everything else, a good dose of anti-acids…
Good luck to everyone.
April 20, 2024
Here is my summary of this book! https://theoddestinkling.wordpress.co....
July 15, 2015
In some ways "The Place of the Lion" is as remarkable as the two previous volumes written by Charles Williams. The supernatural that imposes itself on the mundane world is the Platonic world of primary images from which all conceptual ideas derive. The world of the senses is portrayed as an illusion—a mere reflection of the “real world” from which it derives. This makes for some absolutely spellbinding scenes as individuals find themselves suddenly confronted with a reality they cannot comprehend.
Again, we see that Williams is able to create remarkable visionary episodes—powerful disclosure moments during which characters must wrestle with a transcendence, the nature of which reflects qualities in themselves. From these experiences they find a “Way”. In the cases of Mr Foster and Miss Wilmot, the Way is evil and destructive for they embrace an evil use of the energies of the Images.
Anthony and Richardson, each adopting a unique perspective, find that it leads to an epiphany. They see that the Images reflect the creative forces within themselves and as such are guides to the Creator.
Damaris Tighe must confront her own distorted attitude to knowledge and Quentin finds himself simply unable to cope with the vision at all. Damaris finds her answer with the help of Anthony and Quentin with the aid of Damaris.
So there is a nice balance with the three pairs of characters. The Images are elemental creations. To worship them as sources of power is evil. To accept them as being Images of the soul leads to sanctity. And some must learn their nature with the help of others.
Some of the visionary scenes are quite powerful. Chapter Ten, “The Pit in the House” is an example. Anthony experiences a completely different reality overlaying the ordinary world. Chapter Eleven, “The Conversion of Damaris Tighe” is another. Here, there is a distinct touch of horror.
But there are areas in the novel which are less successful.
The characterisation is not convincing. At the beginning, Damaris seems a quite believable person. She is devoted to study but perhaps tends to look down on those who don’t share her interests. Anthony loves her and wants to get married. Damaris, though, wants to finish her degree. What’s so terrible about that? Yet Anthony (and Williams) seems to think that she has her priorities all mixed up. I don’t find the “conversion” chapter all that convincing. Damaris does not grow as a person she is simply infantilised in a most irritating way.
Anthony himself does not have a very rounded personality and there is no real need for Richardson who makes no impact as a character. Quentin is another person who is little more than a sketch. It’s hard to care about what happens to him at all.
The final chapters, in my opinion, simply do not work as a reasonable conclusion to the novel. In fact, in Chapter Fifteen, “The Face of Friendship”. Williams seems to have forgotten that he is writing a novel with a plot and we get what is in effect an extended philosophical essay. The final chapter, “The Naming of the Beasts”, ties up the strings concerning Richardson in a most unsatisfactory manner, making us wonder why he has been in the book at all and Damaris has a vision of Anthony as Adam—the primal man which often seems silly.
This is not to say that there are no fine moments in this part of the novel. There are just too few of them.
One last thing—I can’t help wondering if the giant lion in this novel was an inspiration for Aslan in the Narnian series.
Again, we see that Williams is able to create remarkable visionary episodes—powerful disclosure moments during which characters must wrestle with a transcendence, the nature of which reflects qualities in themselves. From these experiences they find a “Way”. In the cases of Mr Foster and Miss Wilmot, the Way is evil and destructive for they embrace an evil use of the energies of the Images.
Anthony and Richardson, each adopting a unique perspective, find that it leads to an epiphany. They see that the Images reflect the creative forces within themselves and as such are guides to the Creator.
Damaris Tighe must confront her own distorted attitude to knowledge and Quentin finds himself simply unable to cope with the vision at all. Damaris finds her answer with the help of Anthony and Quentin with the aid of Damaris.
So there is a nice balance with the three pairs of characters. The Images are elemental creations. To worship them as sources of power is evil. To accept them as being Images of the soul leads to sanctity. And some must learn their nature with the help of others.
Some of the visionary scenes are quite powerful. Chapter Ten, “The Pit in the House” is an example. Anthony experiences a completely different reality overlaying the ordinary world. Chapter Eleven, “The Conversion of Damaris Tighe” is another. Here, there is a distinct touch of horror.
But there are areas in the novel which are less successful.
The characterisation is not convincing. At the beginning, Damaris seems a quite believable person. She is devoted to study but perhaps tends to look down on those who don’t share her interests. Anthony loves her and wants to get married. Damaris, though, wants to finish her degree. What’s so terrible about that? Yet Anthony (and Williams) seems to think that she has her priorities all mixed up. I don’t find the “conversion” chapter all that convincing. Damaris does not grow as a person she is simply infantilised in a most irritating way.
Anthony himself does not have a very rounded personality and there is no real need for Richardson who makes no impact as a character. Quentin is another person who is little more than a sketch. It’s hard to care about what happens to him at all.
The final chapters, in my opinion, simply do not work as a reasonable conclusion to the novel. In fact, in Chapter Fifteen, “The Face of Friendship”. Williams seems to have forgotten that he is writing a novel with a plot and we get what is in effect an extended philosophical essay. The final chapter, “The Naming of the Beasts”, ties up the strings concerning Richardson in a most unsatisfactory manner, making us wonder why he has been in the book at all and Damaris has a vision of Anthony as Adam—the primal man which often seems silly.
This is not to say that there are no fine moments in this part of the novel. There are just too few of them.
One last thing—I can’t help wondering if the giant lion in this novel was an inspiration for Aslan in the Narnian series.
September 2, 2019
Some books give you the sense that the author behind them is a brilliant person, but that somehow that brilliance did not translate into a good book. I believe it is more common in non-fiction, or at least the non-fiction I've had occasion to read.
Sadly, such is the case with Place of the Lion. There is a fairly straightforward premise behind it: what if virtues or concepts took physical form and interacted with our world? At least I think that is the premise. I wandered through so many pages in a fog I'm not sure I actually got the basic thread. And if I did get it, I did not get much else.
The characters here are bland, the writing is clunky, the plot is almost non-existent, and the imagery so disjointed it leaves one to wonder at the end if you've really been reading a book or you just dreamt that you did.
On the positive side, the book will keep you guessing. It kept that up all the way through the end so perfectly that after putting it down I'm still guessing. What just happened? What does it all mean? Why did the author even write this?
Numerous references to antiquity, literature, and philosophy provide some value for erudite readers. But they come at random. I'm sure they had something to do with the story, but most of the time it is simply unclear what the author is getting at. It's almost as if Williams wanted to write some sort of synthesis between epic poetry and philosophy. If so, he ought to have chosen one of the two and certainly not chosen to put "A Novel" in the title. It's as if he knows he needs to convince us. "Yes, it really is a novel, trust me."
I'm sorry, Mr. Williams. I can tell you made a game effort here, but this is just a hot, runny, non-sensical mess.
If you want symbology go read the prophets. They are lucid compared to the words penned here. This one was less than 200 pages but it felt like 400. This gets a hard pass from me. Disappointing on nearly every level.
Sadly, such is the case with Place of the Lion. There is a fairly straightforward premise behind it: what if virtues or concepts took physical form and interacted with our world? At least I think that is the premise. I wandered through so many pages in a fog I'm not sure I actually got the basic thread. And if I did get it, I did not get much else.
The characters here are bland, the writing is clunky, the plot is almost non-existent, and the imagery so disjointed it leaves one to wonder at the end if you've really been reading a book or you just dreamt that you did.
On the positive side, the book will keep you guessing. It kept that up all the way through the end so perfectly that after putting it down I'm still guessing. What just happened? What does it all mean? Why did the author even write this?
Numerous references to antiquity, literature, and philosophy provide some value for erudite readers. But they come at random. I'm sure they had something to do with the story, but most of the time it is simply unclear what the author is getting at. It's almost as if Williams wanted to write some sort of synthesis between epic poetry and philosophy. If so, he ought to have chosen one of the two and certainly not chosen to put "A Novel" in the title. It's as if he knows he needs to convince us. "Yes, it really is a novel, trust me."
I'm sorry, Mr. Williams. I can tell you made a game effort here, but this is just a hot, runny, non-sensical mess.
If you want symbology go read the prophets. They are lucid compared to the words penned here. This one was less than 200 pages but it felt like 400. This gets a hard pass from me. Disappointing on nearly every level.
September 19, 2019
I found it to be very odd, weird in fact, and strange, and while yes, the structure was hard and I got lost several times...low and behold I liked it. It was certainly different than most anything I have read. I did come to enjoy the sense of the supernatural, it was like I too walked with Anthony and did not know why or how, but I didn't need to because I was caught up in the moment. Oh, that I walked daily in the supernatural power of Jesus. Oh, that I just submitted myself to his ways and let the spirit of the eagle flow!
February 22, 2009
So beautiful. The platonic forms come down and wreak havoc and reward us poor mortals. Reminds me of C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength."
Read
April 4, 2019Don’t know what to think or what to rate this.
March 27, 2022
As always with Williams, it's strange, but it's also amazing how all the main characters begin so much at odds with themselves, and so in a sense a task for the reader, but end peacefully in both regards.
September 17, 2014
What can I say about this deeply odd book?
I'd read a couple of Charles Williams' novels along time ago. They were out of print and it was fun tracking them down, before the internet destroyed the fun of hunting for books in ramshackle stores.
The fantastical story of The Place of the Lion moves along at a fair pace. Some of the strange phenomena are rather beautifully described. Beyond that? Anomalies and contradictions... Unlike his drinking partners, Tolkien and Lewis, Williams makes explicit his Christian message in his battle between Good and Evil. This stretches credence from time to time as his rather stuffy and academic characters are turned into super-heroes. It's like imagining your local vicar transformed into the Incredible Hulk. It's not really clear whether the appalling class prejudice is Williams' own or supposed to be the folly of his characters. Much of the dialogue comes straight out of a Biggles adventure and the obscurantism of the vocabulary deployed suggests the petty elitism of Will Self.
What can I say, then? You won't read anything else like it, that's for sure...
I'd read a couple of Charles Williams' novels along time ago. They were out of print and it was fun tracking them down, before the internet destroyed the fun of hunting for books in ramshackle stores.
The fantastical story of The Place of the Lion moves along at a fair pace. Some of the strange phenomena are rather beautifully described. Beyond that? Anomalies and contradictions... Unlike his drinking partners, Tolkien and Lewis, Williams makes explicit his Christian message in his battle between Good and Evil. This stretches credence from time to time as his rather stuffy and academic characters are turned into super-heroes. It's like imagining your local vicar transformed into the Incredible Hulk. It's not really clear whether the appalling class prejudice is Williams' own or supposed to be the folly of his characters. Much of the dialogue comes straight out of a Biggles adventure and the obscurantism of the vocabulary deployed suggests the petty elitism of Will Self.
What can I say, then? You won't read anything else like it, that's for sure...
March 16, 2018
I really wanted to like this book a lot more, but Charles Williams' status as the odd Inkling out is not entirely undeserved. His style, to say the least, is both dense and eccentric. For the most part readable, but difficult to fully enjoy.
This book can perhaps be most worthwhile if you pretend it's an archaic text that's been badly translated and adapted/revised in places. To Williams' credit, speckled throughout are truly fascinating, "out-there" mystic concepts, and some gems of real wisdom that are a treat to meditate on. But even these are never fleshed out to any satisfying degree. Furthermore, the characters, for the most part, are utterly forgettable and difficult to keep track of, and the plot makes functional sense only at the best of times, culminating in a rather awkward conclusion. If you're at all interested in mysticism, this may be of interest, but as a novel it seems objectively rather lackluster.
This book can perhaps be most worthwhile if you pretend it's an archaic text that's been badly translated and adapted/revised in places. To Williams' credit, speckled throughout are truly fascinating, "out-there" mystic concepts, and some gems of real wisdom that are a treat to meditate on. But even these are never fleshed out to any satisfying degree. Furthermore, the characters, for the most part, are utterly forgettable and difficult to keep track of, and the plot makes functional sense only at the best of times, culminating in a rather awkward conclusion. If you're at all interested in mysticism, this may be of interest, but as a novel it seems objectively rather lackluster.
May 27, 2019
I've never read anything quite like this book. It's easy to see how he was one of the Inklings, because he is as deep and provocative in his way as Lewis or Tolkien. His language is both thrilling and challenging. The book takes a minute to get going, but the conclusion is fantastic. Mind bending writing throughout. I would have enjoyed meeting this fellow. The premise alone is unique. The "forms" from Plato's world of forms are entering the world we occupy. The collision produces unexpected results, both wonderful and otherwise. Not all of Plato's forms are represent good, beautiful, or true things. There is "perfect" corruption, apparently. This is a wild ride, with an ending that is just about perfect.
May 28, 2011
So confusing but so good. I can't imagine how this came out of his head and onto paper. I think that above all is what so intrigues me about him, are his intangible imaginings that become very tangible. For instance, occasionally I feel confused with a bunch of important brain clutter, and I can only fix it by going somewhere quiet and talking out loud to myself in order to marshal my thoughts and make sense of the fender bender of ideas and emotions. He consistently organizes those elusive thoughts, with profound poetic accuracy. Thoughts that you say "YES! That's it!" or "I couldn't have said it better" happens often. The story itself appeals only to Lewis Carroll fans.
May 23, 2012
This is a hard book to review. I cannot claim that it is a compelling read. I have now read it twice. Once at 19 and now at 50. At 19 the fantasy was the most alluring part of the story and I spent several years reading many of the books in the style of George MacDonald's Phantastes. At 50, I am better able to understand the philosophy. I now know who Abelard is and I have read much about order and creation. Still the book was a slog. I am willing to admit that I am the deficient one though. In fact, I can see how the ideas in the book would be good preparation for the annual Circe Conference and especially this year's conference The Contemplation of Creation.
February 22, 2022
Ah philosophy!
This book was challenging to read but completely worthwhile!
This second reading was well worthwhile
This book was challenging to read but completely worthwhile!
This second reading was well worthwhile
March 17, 2025
I mean. It's a book about the Platonic Forms coming to life and invading a small English village, with the basic lesson being Love and Friendship are the best things ever, second only to worshipping God. Written by a Christian wizard who was friends with basically every big-name postmodernist Western writer. What's not to love?!
January 3, 2025
This story felt like it lived between Lewis, Chesterton, and MacDonald. Very fun
September 27, 2019
Platonic realities, archetypes, come crashing in to every day life when a modern day wizard of sorts sets up shop in the UK: the Place of the Lion.
A great book by one of the Inklings (Tolkien and Lewis being other members of such group along with some Anthroposophists). Now for the devil of me, I find it too coincidental Ouspensky, the wizard of the 1900’s, set up shop in his grand mansion called “Lyne Place” just 1 hour east of where the Inklings were meeting in the exact same decade, the 1930’s, when Charles Williams wrote this work.
Also Charles Williams was described by others at that time as always disappearing off to some place to meet with other groups and then coming back to the Inklings. They say when he passed the sort of neutralizing force between Tolkien and Lewis passed too and the latter two began drifting away from each other (not just because Joy came).
Now add to this that Ouspensky was an apt pupil in Theosophy working with Blavatsky’s chapters, renewing them rather than abnegating them, especially there in the UK with Lady Rothemere his matron, and you have here a veritable spiritual movement of magnitudinal force going on then around London in the 30’s to 50’s.
All of this was not unrelated but directly related to the Pre-Raphaelites who practically single-handedly there in Kensington created the Ascetic, literature and art that defined the whole “Victorian” Era with Morris who knew Lewis Caroll who was friends with George MacDonald and so on.
I could go on with Yeats friendship with Blavatsky and Dulac’s and C.S. Lewis’s friendship with Yeats and Orage with Ouspensky and Chesterton and so on but you get the picture.
It is fascinating how certain places on earth become, just like the Shiite’s “Hub Imam’s,” the center spoke for the wheel of the lotus of esoteric center in a given age.
This book does a good job in a fictional form of catching that mood and momentum.
A great book by one of the Inklings (Tolkien and Lewis being other members of such group along with some Anthroposophists). Now for the devil of me, I find it too coincidental Ouspensky, the wizard of the 1900’s, set up shop in his grand mansion called “Lyne Place” just 1 hour east of where the Inklings were meeting in the exact same decade, the 1930’s, when Charles Williams wrote this work.
Also Charles Williams was described by others at that time as always disappearing off to some place to meet with other groups and then coming back to the Inklings. They say when he passed the sort of neutralizing force between Tolkien and Lewis passed too and the latter two began drifting away from each other (not just because Joy came).
Now add to this that Ouspensky was an apt pupil in Theosophy working with Blavatsky’s chapters, renewing them rather than abnegating them, especially there in the UK with Lady Rothemere his matron, and you have here a veritable spiritual movement of magnitudinal force going on then around London in the 30’s to 50’s.
All of this was not unrelated but directly related to the Pre-Raphaelites who practically single-handedly there in Kensington created the Ascetic, literature and art that defined the whole “Victorian” Era with Morris who knew Lewis Caroll who was friends with George MacDonald and so on.
I could go on with Yeats friendship with Blavatsky and Dulac’s and C.S. Lewis’s friendship with Yeats and Orage with Ouspensky and Chesterton and so on but you get the picture.
It is fascinating how certain places on earth become, just like the Shiite’s “Hub Imam’s,” the center spoke for the wheel of the lotus of esoteric center in a given age.
This book does a good job in a fictional form of catching that mood and momentum.
Read
February 2, 2020Charles Williams, the third Inkling, wrote perhaps the most obscure novels of the three (Tolkein and Lewis). I don't profess to understand all the symbolism of this novel. For instance, I can understand the image of the butterfly as a symbol of beauty, but it's not a particularly common symbol for beauty. Nevertheless, a basic grasp of Christian theology gives you the general logic of this story. **Spoiler warning**
The story opens with a lioness that has escaped, which foreshadows the main problem of the story: that the Archetypes or spiritual beings given charge over the forms of creation suddenly begin to break through the fabric of material reality, so that humans encounter them directly. It is never fully disclosed why this occurred, but it seems that a magician (Mr Berringer) did something to provoke this response.
Central to the story is the notion that humans are a microcosm: each person contains all the Principalities in both heavenly and animal form, representing the 'divine' and 'animal' sides of human nature. It is the proper nature of humans to keep their several parts in harmony and balance: not to say that the eye is greater than the hand. Should one part be given more place that is its due, the human becomes demonic and monstrous, subject to a particular vice, passion or evil. It is therefore necessary that a harmonising principle rules our lives, which can only come from God, as he is the only thing whose infinity can encompass the endless multiplicity of our natures and creation. This harmony was lost in the fall, when the connection between God and man was sundered. Central to the Incarnation is solving this problem: Christ took the entire world into himself and harmonised all the different parts of our nature, restoring the connection between God and man. The angels were properly arranged in our nature, and the demonic forces, who parody their angelic counterparts, overthrown. Finally, the animals are seen to represent the Principalities on earth. With this background in place, The Place of the Lion makes sense.
The role of Anthony Durrant is hinted at when he is named as an editor of a periodical called "The Two Camps", that is, he is set up as a mediator between two worlds. The Archetypes begin to appear, beginning with the Lion, then the Serpent, as well as the Butterfly, Eagle, Horse, Unicorn and Lamb, making seven animals in all. The final Archetype is that of the two trees in Eden. The destructiveness of the Archetypes when moved from their place in the heavens is seen, for instance, when all the butterflies are drawn into the Butterfly. As destruction progresses, houses that have not known human use begin to collapse, then those that have known some human use and love. That is, those that do not have any vestige of the harmonising principle fall first. There seems to be some differences between the Archetypes: the Lion and Serpent are the most destructive, while the Lamb and Eagle are less so. I think this may be because, for instance, the Lion represents the opposite of the Lamb: innocence juxtaposed with justice. Only when a little child (Anthony, who is not a literal little child) leads both are they held in check.
It is perhaps also a theme that all the archetypes are representatives of Christ in some way. The Unicorn is used as an explicit symbol consistent with medieval bestiaries, as it appears in a Eucharist service. The eagle is perhaps a symbol of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of philosophy, the Divine Muse. Those who do have not given their love to divine philosophy (or perhaps an archetype in its harmonised form), the eagle (or to Beauty, the Butterfly), are overthrown. They instead encounter the Principalities in their diabolical form: the pterodactyl instead of the Eagle. This is similar to the Orthodox teaching that the fire of hell and the fire of God's love are the same fire, but experienced differently by people, depending on their disposition towards God.
Although there are several images of how man maintains harmony (Anthony riding the Horse with the Eagle on his shoulder), order is ultimately restored when Adam (Anthony), accompanied at a distance by Eve (Damaris; it is interesting to note that they have not yet been married), names the animals. That is, he asserts man's place as ruler of the animals and of the Principalities they represent. Entering the terrible fire of the two trees, one black, the other flame, he is safe, as he is protected by Eagle.
A couple of notes. Mr Berringer and his housekeeper are destroyed by the otherworldly fire that is ignited in his house, which is likely a reference to Adam and Eve who died for their sin. The fire is unquenchable by ordinary means, and is explicitly compared to the flaming sword of the Cherubim.
Quentin appears as the fugitive from the Lion, that is the Justice of God. He is exposed because he is too weak to pledge allegiance to Christ, but yet not so weak as to desire power over others. Only when the Lamb appears with the Church (Damaris) is he saved, and the Lion circles Christ, the Church and fugitive as a guard. Richardson is perhaps the most tricky character. He does not appear to commit to Christ, but rather nothing, or negation, or perhaps God as unknowable: the language is somewhat unclear. He walks directly into the fire and is not seen again. Whether he met God or was consumed is not cleared up. It is possible he performs the function of sacrifice, giving himself up, making himself nothing so that others can be saved, although this is a somewhat speculative conclusion.
Although I understand that the response and transformation of people when the archetypes were manifested to them depended on their commitment to the harmonising principle, that is, Christ, there seemed to be some inconsistencies. Damaris and her father both bury themselves in their work, philosophy and entomology respectively, and thus appear to have the same fault, that of neglecting others, but one experiences their archetype as destructive, the other as beauty. Perhaps a careful re-reading is necessary to sort this out, as it seems a rather obvious error.
All in all, this was a good read. It expresses well a more pre-modern view of the world, where the supernatural is integrated with the material world, and leaves enough mystery to warrant another reading (or two).
The story opens with a lioness that has escaped, which foreshadows the main problem of the story: that the Archetypes or spiritual beings given charge over the forms of creation suddenly begin to break through the fabric of material reality, so that humans encounter them directly. It is never fully disclosed why this occurred, but it seems that a magician (Mr Berringer) did something to provoke this response.
Central to the story is the notion that humans are a microcosm: each person contains all the Principalities in both heavenly and animal form, representing the 'divine' and 'animal' sides of human nature. It is the proper nature of humans to keep their several parts in harmony and balance: not to say that the eye is greater than the hand. Should one part be given more place that is its due, the human becomes demonic and monstrous, subject to a particular vice, passion or evil. It is therefore necessary that a harmonising principle rules our lives, which can only come from God, as he is the only thing whose infinity can encompass the endless multiplicity of our natures and creation. This harmony was lost in the fall, when the connection between God and man was sundered. Central to the Incarnation is solving this problem: Christ took the entire world into himself and harmonised all the different parts of our nature, restoring the connection between God and man. The angels were properly arranged in our nature, and the demonic forces, who parody their angelic counterparts, overthrown. Finally, the animals are seen to represent the Principalities on earth. With this background in place, The Place of the Lion makes sense.
The role of Anthony Durrant is hinted at when he is named as an editor of a periodical called "The Two Camps", that is, he is set up as a mediator between two worlds. The Archetypes begin to appear, beginning with the Lion, then the Serpent, as well as the Butterfly, Eagle, Horse, Unicorn and Lamb, making seven animals in all. The final Archetype is that of the two trees in Eden. The destructiveness of the Archetypes when moved from their place in the heavens is seen, for instance, when all the butterflies are drawn into the Butterfly. As destruction progresses, houses that have not known human use begin to collapse, then those that have known some human use and love. That is, those that do not have any vestige of the harmonising principle fall first. There seems to be some differences between the Archetypes: the Lion and Serpent are the most destructive, while the Lamb and Eagle are less so. I think this may be because, for instance, the Lion represents the opposite of the Lamb: innocence juxtaposed with justice. Only when a little child (Anthony, who is not a literal little child) leads both are they held in check.
It is perhaps also a theme that all the archetypes are representatives of Christ in some way. The Unicorn is used as an explicit symbol consistent with medieval bestiaries, as it appears in a Eucharist service. The eagle is perhaps a symbol of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of philosophy, the Divine Muse. Those who do have not given their love to divine philosophy (or perhaps an archetype in its harmonised form), the eagle (or to Beauty, the Butterfly), are overthrown. They instead encounter the Principalities in their diabolical form: the pterodactyl instead of the Eagle. This is similar to the Orthodox teaching that the fire of hell and the fire of God's love are the same fire, but experienced differently by people, depending on their disposition towards God.
Although there are several images of how man maintains harmony (Anthony riding the Horse with the Eagle on his shoulder), order is ultimately restored when Adam (Anthony), accompanied at a distance by Eve (Damaris; it is interesting to note that they have not yet been married), names the animals. That is, he asserts man's place as ruler of the animals and of the Principalities they represent. Entering the terrible fire of the two trees, one black, the other flame, he is safe, as he is protected by Eagle.
A couple of notes. Mr Berringer and his housekeeper are destroyed by the otherworldly fire that is ignited in his house, which is likely a reference to Adam and Eve who died for their sin. The fire is unquenchable by ordinary means, and is explicitly compared to the flaming sword of the Cherubim.
Quentin appears as the fugitive from the Lion, that is the Justice of God. He is exposed because he is too weak to pledge allegiance to Christ, but yet not so weak as to desire power over others. Only when the Lamb appears with the Church (Damaris) is he saved, and the Lion circles Christ, the Church and fugitive as a guard. Richardson is perhaps the most tricky character. He does not appear to commit to Christ, but rather nothing, or negation, or perhaps God as unknowable: the language is somewhat unclear. He walks directly into the fire and is not seen again. Whether he met God or was consumed is not cleared up. It is possible he performs the function of sacrifice, giving himself up, making himself nothing so that others can be saved, although this is a somewhat speculative conclusion.
Although I understand that the response and transformation of people when the archetypes were manifested to them depended on their commitment to the harmonising principle, that is, Christ, there seemed to be some inconsistencies. Damaris and her father both bury themselves in their work, philosophy and entomology respectively, and thus appear to have the same fault, that of neglecting others, but one experiences their archetype as destructive, the other as beauty. Perhaps a careful re-reading is necessary to sort this out, as it seems a rather obvious error.
All in all, this was a good read. It expresses well a more pre-modern view of the world, where the supernatural is integrated with the material world, and leaves enough mystery to warrant another reading (or two).
November 16, 2010
This book is very much "its own" thing. I like it and I recommend it. It is one of the most esoteric reads I've experienced in a long time, but it's a great book. You'll need your brain in gear for this one...but it's worth it.
I love C.S.Lewis and discovered Williams as he was one of Lewis's favorite writers. Williams' books take a little work to track down (though I have noticed Amazon does have a pretty good selection LOL). On the whole they are worth tracking down however.
The (I suppose) Archetypes encountered here from lion to butterfly carry a spiritual significance, and the story will move you given it's chance. This book can be read on many levels from a type of allegory to a supernatural thriller of sorts. Enjoy.
I love C.S.Lewis and discovered Williams as he was one of Lewis's favorite writers. Williams' books take a little work to track down (though I have noticed Amazon does have a pretty good selection LOL). On the whole they are worth tracking down however.
The (I suppose) Archetypes encountered here from lion to butterfly carry a spiritual significance, and the story will move you given it's chance. This book can be read on many levels from a type of allegory to a supernatural thriller of sorts. Enjoy.
February 12, 2010
Once again, Williams has taken me to the edge of the physical and provided a peek of the metaphysical. His allegories are revealing of what we will all face, in one form of another. His reading is not for the easily distracted or for the faint of heart regarding future events.
January 22, 2012
Currently one of my favorite books, this is a re-read.
January 28, 2017
I just can't stay with this -- a lion, a butterfly, philosophy -- I think I'll first read more about the author, one of the Inklings.
Want to read
March 10, 2018See one review here.
August 14, 2018
Weird, complex, and wickedly absorbing. I’m not quite sure how to process this. I’ve never read anything quite like it, but I love it!
September 23, 2024
Weird, delightful, and mysterious as only Charles Williams can be.
August 13, 2017
Much better, in my opinion, than All Hallows Eve (which I kind of admired but couldn't ever really get into), though still not really my kind of fantasy. But it's good enough to work for my class; I wonder how my students will respond. In this story, Williams comes up with a fantastical approach to Neoplatonism, which the Forms that stand behind our mental ideals of courage or desire, etc.--Williams usually refers to them as "Principals," though Christian talk of angels is mixed into their descriptions as well; they appear, without exception, as great beasts like lions, eagles, etc.--come into the real world and, alternately, inspire people or drive them mad or, in a couple of occasions, possess them such that they turn into snakes or unicorns or such. Williams's highly elliptical and mystical style is still very much present, but it's tied to a more concrete plot, I thought, as a few key individuals small English village becomes slowly aware that something very weird is happening to the fabric of reality, and in various ways attempt to respond to it. There is a very, very slight sexual theme present in the book, which I think Williams either didn't know how to or just couldn't bring himself to bring forward more fully; the relationship between the hero and heroine of the book's adventure is, to me, not very adequately (not to mention rather sexistly) expressed, and as a result their triumph over the Forms (again, Williams never calls them that, but that's what I kept calling them in my head)--which is conjoined with their intellectual and emotional connecting with each other--felt kind of anticlimactic. But still, a bizarre and kind of wonderful fantasy story, with multiple powerful scenes (an old man, who had always hunted butterflies, beholding the true Form of a Butterfly was particularly great, as was a later moment where our hero, spotting the Form of a Horse in the street, mounts it and finds himself embodying the idea of Swiftness). The short book is crammed to the gills with references to all sorts of Platonic and Scholastic philosophy (the heroine is an aspiring philosopher studying Abelard), Greek mythology, Christian mysticism and more, but don't worry if the references throw you; unlike the other Williams book I tried, you can still follow the story in spite of all the verbiage.
January 11, 2022
It’s not exactly what I’d call an “easy read.” XD
On the surface it’s a religious fantasy story about supernatural powers appearing on earth and the one man who is brave enough to stop them. But I must admit, there were several paragraphs where, after having read every single word out loud, I would step back and think, What the heck did any of that even mean? Maybe it was the author’s complex literary style. Maybe it’s because the words were in English but ordered with British syntax that doesn’t quite make sense to an American like me. And I’m fairly certain that some of the words were twisted variations of what we find in today’s dictionary. But in the end, all I really know is that I’m glad the book is over – read it only if you dare.
I will say, there were a few scenes where the symbology that was utilized was rather fun – particularly the religious representations. There’s a scene midway through where the hero, Anthony, tangles with the forms of the lion and the serpent; he refers to it as Ephesus, “where St. Paul had trouble with the wild beasts.” There’s a scene late in the book, when two of the characters are taking shelter by a lamb, while the lion pursuing them is unable to draw near. And of course, the grand finale, where Anthony takes on the form of Adam himself, but instead of naming the creatures as was his role in Genesis, he names the invading “powers” and by doing so is able to send them back from whence they came. It was comforting to see that even when the text “waxes philosophical” and loses comprehension, the light and truth of God still shines through.
I have more to say on this book (and others!) in my blog! Check it out here:
http://www.lynnwallaceauthor.com/blog...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 233 reviews