A narrow turf war?

This rather obscure book analyzes the 1925-30 philosophical correspondence between C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield, humorously referred to as "the Great War". At the time, Lewis was still an idealist, while Barfield was already an Anthroposophist. The Anthroposophical Society is a new religious movement founded by Rudolf Steiner. It has some "Christian" traits, but is otherwise more akin to what we would regard as New Age or even occultist beliefs. Later, C.S. Lewis would convert to Christianity and become one of the leading Christian writers of the 20th century. Barfield, by contrast, remains obscure to this day, perhaps even among his fellow Anthroposophists. (Another reviewer calls him "my favourite unknown writer".)

"The Great War" is interesting to scholars studying Lewis, since it took place the years immediately preceding his conversion. Did Barfield influence Lewis in any way, and if so, how? Barfield once quipped: "I'm not sure in what way I was supposed to have influenced Lewis. I mean, he never listened to what I said!" After reading Lionel Adey's book, I tend to concur with Barfield's assessment.

The main difference between the two men revolves around Lewis' firm belief in an absolute distinction or duality between subject and object, and the related idea that imagination has to do with meaning but not facts. Also, there was a streak of nominalism in Lewis, not to mention a kind of anti-evolutionary perspective. Barfield, apparently following Rudolf Steiner, believed in a kind of pantheism in which the subject-object distinction isn't absolute, and where the imagination therefore *can* make factual statements. Also, he was a realist rather than a nominalist, and believed in a fundamental ontological polarity, something Lewis regarded as laughable and even mocked. As a good Anthroposophist, Barfield also had an "evolutionary" perspective on God, humanity and consciousness. Lewis, for his part, seems to have regarded Steiner's movement as either laughingly absurd or somewhat sinister. He wanted to "de-convert" his friend from the clutches of the Anthroposophical Society.

It's easy to see the very same tendencies at work in the later, Christian career of Lewis: the anti-evolutionary perspective (usually hidden in Lewis' apologetical works, however), the "nominalist" emphasis on the individual rather than on society or History, and the strong belief in an objective outside world. Lewis, of course, was fond of writing allegorical novels, and I always got the impression that he *somehow* believed that myths could be true. However, if Adey and other scholars are to be believed, this was not really his position. It was rather the position of Barfield and Tolkien. Lewis, rather, believed that allegories could convey meaning precisely because they were *not* factually true. In some sense, it seems that Lewis baptized his old ideas when he converted to Anglicanism freshly out of the Great War.

Lionel Adey's book "C.S. Lewis' Great War with Owen Barfield" is an interesting survey and analysis of the unpublished correspondence between the two men. Barfield was still alive when Adey did his original research for the book, and gladly contributed with his own explanations and expositions. The book has a foreword by G.B. Tennyson, who edited the anthology "Owen Barfield on C.S. Lewis". It's not clear what relation Adey and Tennyson has to Anthroposophy, a new religious movement I frankly regard as crackpot. My lingering suspicion is that they indeed are Anthroposophists.

Adey believes that Lewis' apologetics for Christianity were a tragic failure, being too conservative and traditionalist. I disagree. I disagree with Lewis on most issues, but he was surely *anything but* a failure. Everyone interested in Christianity essentially has to read and come to terms with his books, and more than one atheist-agnostic has been struck by their honest, reasoned and almost "rational" character. Barfield or Steiner is another thing entirely...

"C.S. Lewis' Great War with Owen Barfield" is not a biased book, however. Adey presents the issue with admirable objectivity. It should be noted that the book is too complicated, philosophical and "abstract" for the general reader. The chapters have headings like "Imagination and Truth", "Self-consciousness" or "Form, Will and Meaning". This is a book for a very special kind of philosophy students, perhaps those who feel too old fashioned for a utilitarian-Wittgensteinian-postmodern philosophy faculty? A very advanced student of Steiner's writings could perhaps digest it as well, or somebody with an almost cultish interest in Coleridge (Barfield was a great fan of Coleridge - what Goethe was to Steiner, the British poet was to Barfield, amen).

I readily admit that I found this book somewhat too narrow!

Yet, it deserves five stars on its own turf.