Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Grace's parenthetical point

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... That s a fairer, clearer statement of what I was trying to imply in my post early today. DB
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:31 PM 3/27/2005 -0600, David Lenander wrote:

      >Furthermore, I would part from agreeing with Mary that an assertion
      >that women are mentally inferior doesn't mean that they are inferior in
      >some absolute sense. I'm not entirely sure that I disagree, but I
      >think that the places where people say such things usually involve a
      >particularly nasty patronizing that really betrays a belief in an
      >innate inferiority.

      That's a fairer, clearer statement of what I was trying to imply in my post
      early today.

      DB
    • David Lenander
      One thing that struck me on reading John s original post, was that, yes, I believe that CSL probably thought that women were inferior--in his earlier years.
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        One thing that struck me on reading John's original post, was that,
        yes, I believe that CSL probably thought that women were inferior--in
        his earlier years. But by the end of the 50s I'm confident that he
        would not have said that higher education was wasted on (at least all)
        women, or any more than it is wasted on many men. Mary cited a number
        of points, some of which I was forgetting, in objection to the CSL
        supposed position, but again, I think that the evidence is good that
        CSL's ideas on these subjects evolved over his lifetime. One source of
        Tolkien's irritation with Joy Lewis being inserted into properly Male
        circles was the earlier resistance of CSL to inclusion of Edith Tolkien
        in some of their activities. He felt that CSL was changing the rules
        after decades of living by them. Diana Glyer isn't alone in her
        history of CSL's evolving beliefs, but she is the person whom I think
        of as an expert in tracing these developments. I found her exposition
        at a couple of Mythcon presentations on CSL's developing ideas,
        especially as a result of his relationship with Joy, a rather
        heartening and preferable picture of a man learning and changing and
        perhaps a little confused about this in his last decade.

        I have no idea what John R was really intending in his post, and I've
        already been appropriately chastised when I mistakenly ascribed a
        meaning to his words on another subject, but I understood his post to
        be a (perhaps frustrated) concession of a number of points to CSL's
        apparent beliefs that perhaps he might not be thrilled to find
        there--concession to an expected assertion from another poster,
        probably Carl. I thought he was probably right about most of the
        points, if some, this one in particular, might be arguable. Somehow,
        in other words, I read this post as more a rhetorical device--which
        included sincere assertions about CSL's beliefs as a part of the
        rhetoric, but incidentally in making his point. I'm not entirely sure
        about what his point was, and of course, I may have completely
        misconstrued a point that wasn't really aimed at me, anyhow.

        Furthermore, I would part from agreeing with Mary that an assertion
        that women are mentally inferior doesn't mean that they are inferior in
        some absolute sense. I'm not entirely sure that I disagree, but I
        think that the places where people say such things usually involve a
        particularly nasty patronizing that really betrays a belief in an
        innate inferiority. I've had that sense with some passages in Lewis's
        works, but, I think it's quite possible that by the time he'd died he
        may have changed his mind. I'd also readily concede that I don't really
        know what was in CSL's mind at any point, or even that I'm open to be
        persuaded that CSL was able to simultaneously believe that women are
        subject to their men and not as intelligent and nevertheless equal in
        the eyes of God.

        Even today there are sincere Christians who apparently believe this, it
        may even be doctrinal in some sects. I think it may also be true of
        some other, non-Christian religions. There are also arguments that
        different sub-groups of humans are innately less intelligent or
        otherwise in need of special protection for their own good, because
        they are equal children of God, or some such reasoning. I think most
        Christian sects at least reject this today. I think it was commonly
        accepted, though, in the 1930s and 1940s in many Christian circles. I
        work in a library visited almost every day by a man who still believes
        this and actively works to advance policies that are based in this
        belief--he also opposes Christianity as an evil force in human society.
        Two years ago he ran for mayor of Minneapolis.

        On Mar 26, 2005, at 8:15 PM, mythsoc@yahoogroups.com wrote:

        > Message: 17
        > Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:07:22 EST
        > From: Walkermonk@...
        > Subject: Re: New Screwtape
        >
        > [. . . .] So until I read such a blanket statement from Lewis's own
        > works (and *when* those words were written will weigh heavily with
        > me), I will
        > continue to disagree.
        >
        > Grace Monk
        David Lenander
        d-lena@...
        2095 Hamline Ave. N.
        Roseville, MN 55113
        651-292-8887
        http://www.umn.edu/~d-lena/RIVENDELL.html
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... I think that what Grace (note: _not_ Mary) meant is that even if Lewis and Tolkien really believed that women are _as a group_ less intellectually capable
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mar 27, 2005, at 10:30 PM, David Bratman wrote:

          > At 09:31 PM 3/27/2005 -0600, David Lenander wrote:
          >
          >> Furthermore, I would part from agreeing with Mary that an assertion
          >> that women are mentally inferior doesn't mean that they are inferior
          >> in
          >> some absolute sense. I'm not entirely sure that I disagree, but I
          >> think that the places where people say such things usually involve a
          >> particularly nasty patronizing that really betrays a belief in an
          >> innate inferiority.
          >
          > That's a fairer, clearer statement of what I was trying to imply in my
          > post
          > early today.
          >
          > DB


          I think that what Grace (note: _not_ Mary) meant is that even if Lewis
          and Tolkien really believed that women are _as a group_ less
          intellectually capable than men, that does _not_ mean that they believe
          them inferior _as individual human beings_, _in the eyes of either the
          law or (if one believes in such, as Lewis and Tolkien did) of God.
          (After all, is anyone here going to argue that an individual with
          advanced intellect is somehow superior _as a human being_, or in either
          the eyes of law or of God? Or that either Lewis or Tolkien would have
          thought so?) Intellect isn't everything. In fact, for some, even
          advanced intellect clearly doesn't count for much.
        • David Bratman
          I don t care to go back and correlate this with what either Grace or Mary said. But I absolutely agree with what you are saying here. Even if Tolkien or
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't care to go back and correlate this with what either Grace or Mary
            said. But I absolutely agree with what you are saying here. Even if
            Tolkien or Lewis had believed that all women (not just women as a group)
            were all-around inferior (not just intellectually inferior) to men -- and I
            do not think that their beliefs were that extreme -- they also held that
            such inferiority would not make them as humans inferior in the eyes of God.
            Their prayers are heard and souls weighed just like anybody else's.

            As you mention the eyes of the law as well, it's worth adding that this
            equality in the eyes of God and law is what Jefferson meant when he wrote
            in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be
            self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
            their Creator with certain inalienable rights." (Had Jefferson been
            writing in today's language, he would certainly have specified that he
            meant women as well.) Jefferson's statement is often mocked by those who
            think he meant "equal natural talents," but that's not what he meant at all.


            At 11:00 PM 3/27/2005 -0500, Carl Hostetter wrote:

            >I think that what Grace (note: _not_ Mary) meant is that even if Lewis
            >and Tolkien really believed that women are _as a group_ less
            >intellectually capable than men, that does _not_ mean that they believe
            >them inferior _as individual human beings_, _in the eyes of either the
            >law or (if one believes in such, as Lewis and Tolkien did) of God.
            >(After all, is anyone here going to argue that an individual with
            >advanced intellect is somehow superior _as a human being_, or in either
            >the eyes of law or of God? Or that either Lewis or Tolkien would have
            >thought so?) Intellect isn't everything. In fact, for some, even
            >advanced intellect clearly doesn't count for much.
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            Absolutely, and its one of the reasons that Jefferson is one of my own intellectual and ethical role-models (despite his deep moral and ethical failure to
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 27, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Absolutely, and its one of the reasons that Jefferson is one of my own
              intellectual and ethical role-models (despite his deep moral and
              ethical failure to sacrifice his comfort and do what he knew was right
              by freeing his slaves).

              (I would also note that those who mock Jefferson and others who use
              "men" to mean "mankind", including both males and femals, as though
              they actually intended to specify only _males_, have likewise misread
              them.)

              Let us suppose that it could somehow be proven scientifically that
              women as a group really did have, biologically, a more limited
              intellectual capacity (whatever that might mean) than men. That still
              wouldn't make them "inferior" in my mind, in any way that matters, even
              _as_ a group. And _certainly_ it would have nothing to do with the
              intellectual potential and achievements of any _individual_ woman. I
              believe that this too is what Grace had in mind.
            • Christine Howlett
              It may be that intellect doesn t count for everything, but those who historically have deemed women innately less intellectual, such as Thomas Aquinas, were
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                It may be that intellect doesn't count for everything, but those who
                historically have deemed women innately less intellectual, such as Thomas
                Aquinas, were hardly likely to undervalue intellect. And though I, too, do
                not believe that intellect counts for everything, I believe that it is one
                of God's good gifts. Aquinas had never seen an educated woman and so
                believed that it was an impossibility - hardly an advertisement for his own
                intellectual gifts. CSL was in the same position for the most part.
                Christine
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...>
                To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 11:00 PM
                Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Grace's parenthetical point


                >
                >
                > On Mar 27, 2005, at 10:30 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                >
                > > At 09:31 PM 3/27/2005 -0600, David Lenander wrote:
                > >
                > >> Furthermore, I would part from agreeing with Mary that an assertion
                > >> that women are mentally inferior doesn't mean that they are inferior
                > >> in
                > >> some absolute sense. I'm not entirely sure that I disagree, but I
                > >> think that the places where people say such things usually involve a
                > >> particularly nasty patronizing that really betrays a belief in an
                > >> innate inferiority.
                > >
                > > That's a fairer, clearer statement of what I was trying to imply in my
                > > post
                > > early today.
                > >
                > > DB
                >
                >
                > I think that what Grace (note: _not_ Mary) meant is that even if Lewis
                > and Tolkien really believed that women are _as a group_ less
                > intellectually capable than men, that does _not_ mean that they believe
                > them inferior _as individual human beings_, _in the eyes of either the
                > law or (if one believes in such, as Lewis and Tolkien did) of God.
                > (After all, is anyone here going to argue that an individual with
                > advanced intellect is somehow superior _as a human being_, or in either
                > the eyes of law or of God? Or that either Lewis or Tolkien would have
                > thought so?) Intellect isn't everything. In fact, for some, even
                > advanced intellect clearly doesn't count for much.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Stolzi
                ... From: Christine Howlett ... own ... Oh come now! Please see 1) all that I cited before about his working life at Oxford and later
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Christine Howlett" <chowlett@...>


                  > Aquinas had never seen an educated woman and so
                  > believed that it was an impossibility - hardly an advertisement for his
                  own
                  > intellectual gifts. CSL was in the same position for the most part.

                  Oh come now! Please see

                  1) all that I cited before about his working life at Oxford and later
                  Cambridge, and some particular women he met during this time

                  Two more women whose minds he certainly respected: the poet Ruth Pitter,
                  and his cousin (?) Janie McNeill of Belfast who had not been able to get
                  higher education due to society's demands that she stay home and care for
                  her widowed mother. And, of course, there's Dorothy L. Sayers.

                  To go with Alexei's point about sexuality, somewhere I think in the LETTERS
                  Lewis remarks on the posturing and preening of =both= sexes in the "mating
                  stage" (ie the years of undergraduate study), which by that time in his life
                  he of course finds pretty silly.

                  2) what he actually says in THE FOUR LOVES under "Friendship" is that =most=
                  women of his time and place had not received an education of the same type
                  as the men of his time and place. This was simply true. I don't think
                  Lewis despised women, I think he loved intelligent conversation of bookish
                  people.

                  Guess what? I'm a woman and most women's conversations that I sit in on
                  bore ME stiff - and that's why. Endless personalities, who's getting married
                  and what the ceremony will be like, who's got a new baby and various details
                  on babies and child-rearing, what somebody bought recently (clothing or
                  jewelry) and isn't it DARLING!! Oy.

                  Since I don't get to sit in on many men's conversations, I can't report on
                  that. Men, in mixed-group conversations at venues like the very bookish
                  MythSoc, are usually tolerable conversationalists.

                  And just incidentally re Aquinas, St. Thomas could certainly have known of
                  Heloise, who lived a century or two before him and whose lover Abelard was
                  also her tutor. Not to mention that all Catholics at the time revered St.
                  Catherine, who was supposed to have boggled all the pagan philosophers of
                  Alexandria.

                  Really, Christine, where did you get this? A quick Google gave me

                  http://womenshistory.about.com/od/aquinasonwomen/

                  and the link to "Grace of Words," where he doesn't at all say what you said,
                  but concludes that women may only teach privately, not publicly. To teach,
                  you must first have been educated. (Though some modern cases may raise
                  doubts...)


                  Diamond Proudbrook
                • David Bratman
                  ... Congratulations, you have figured out exactly what Lewis s problem with female conversation was. I say Congratulations ironically, for though it
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 04:24 PM 3/28/2005 -0600, Stolzi wrote:

                    >2) what he actually says in THE FOUR LOVES under "Friendship" is that =most=
                    >women of his time and place had not received an education of the same type
                    >as the men of his time and place. This was simply true. I don't think
                    >Lewis despised women, I think he loved intelligent conversation of bookish
                    >people.
                    >
                    >Guess what? I'm a woman and most women's conversations that I sit in on
                    >bore ME stiff - and that's why. Endless personalities, who's getting married
                    >and what the ceremony will be like, who's got a new baby and various details
                    >on babies and child-rearing, what somebody bought recently (clothing or
                    >jewelry) and isn't it DARLING!! Oy.

                    Congratulations, you have figured out exactly what Lewis's problem with
                    female conversation was. I say "Congratulations" ironically, for though it
                    shouldn't be very difficult to figure it out - Lewis makes himself quite
                    clear - it's more than the authors of "Women Among the Inklings" (the
                    people I was alluding to in my previous post, who've never heard of Erendis
                    or Andreth) could do.


                    >Since I don't get to sit in on many men's conversations, I can't report on
                    >that. Men, in mixed-group conversations at venues like the very bookish
                    >MythSoc, are usually tolerable conversationalists.

                    My experience is that in the MythSoc it usually doesn't make much
                    difference what the sex mix of the conversation is. As a veteran of
                    college dormitories, though, I can say categorically that the males there
                    were much more civilized and interesting conversationalists when leavened
                    by female company. The old notion that women are a distraction from men's
                    serious work seems nonsense to me, unless their serious work is goofing
                    off, making lewd jokes about bodily functions, and even lewder remarks
                    about women. I found this very tiresome, and escaped to co-ed housing, and
                    then out of the dorms entirely, as soon as I could.

                    David Bratman
                  • Walkermonk@aol.com
                    In a message dated 3/28/2005 5:11:15 PM Central Standard Time, ... own ... Oh come now! ... I would like to address this, and also an earlier post (that I
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 3/28/2005 5:11:15 PM Central Standard Time,
                      Stolzi@... writes:
                      > Aquinas had never seen an educated woman and so
                      > believed that it was an impossibility - hardly an advertisement for his
                      own
                      > intellectual gifts. CSL was in the same position for the most part.

                      Oh come now!
                      ---

                      I would like to address this, and also an earlier post (that I can't seem to
                      find, so I must paraphrase from memory -- yikes!) about Lewis's relationship
                      with women from an early age. From "Surprised by Joy": Yes, his mother died,
                      but he mentions a governess as well as a nurse, so there were women around when
                      he was young. He has a grandmother and an aunt whom he loved and spent time
                      with. He also writes of his relationship with his mother's first cousin and her
                      daughters. He writes of all these women with respect and affection and
                      mentions their virtues and admirable qualities without any sort of condescension. In
                      his fiction, the woman he wrote of that most stands out in my mind as an
                      answer to whether he thought intellect was the measure of superiority is the woman,
                      Sarah Smith, in "The Great Divorce." If anyone hasn't read that, I recommend
                      it highly. However, in the event that some of you haven't had the opportunity
                      or inclination, I will take the liberty of quoting some of it here: "Aye. She
                      is one of the great ones.... Every young man or boy that met her became her
                      son -- even if it was only the boy that brought the meat to her back door. Every
                      girl that met her was her daughter.... Few men looked on her without
                      becoming, in a certain fashion, her lovers. But it was the kind of love that made them
                      not less true, but truer, to their own wives.... Every beast and bird that
                      came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves.... But
                      already there is joy enough in the little finger of a great saint such as
                      yonder lady to waken all the dead things of the universe." She is a wonderful
                      character, and it is the love she gave everyone she met that makes her so. It's an
                      amazing passage. Nothing to do with intelligence or education -- it is the
                      love of God that she reflects that makes her great. It has been my experience
                      that Lewis wrote about individuals -- there are plenty of bad men and good men,
                      bad women and good women. I don't see a pattern against either gender.

                      Grace Monk


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Bratman
                      ... Well, there s close relationships and there s close relationships, and John might argue that the women Lewis knew apart from his mother and Mrs. Moore
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 11:42 PM 3/28/2005 -0500, Grace Monk wrote:
                        >Yes, his mother died,
                        >but he mentions a governess as well as a nurse, so there were women around
                        >when
                        >he was young. He has a grandmother and an aunt whom he loved and spent time
                        >with. He also writes of his relationship with his mother's first cousin and
                        >her
                        >daughters. He writes of all these women with respect and affection and
                        >mentions their virtues and admirable qualities without any sort of
                        >condescension.

                        Well, there's close relationships and there's close relationships, and John
                        might argue that the women Lewis knew apart from his mother and Mrs. Moore
                        didn't qualify. But if you think there might be something tendentious
                        about such an argument, you could be right.


                        >In
                        >his fiction, the woman he wrote of that most stands out in my mind as an
                        >answer to whether he thought intellect was the measure of superiority is the
                        >woman,
                        >Sarah Smith, in "The Great Divorce." If anyone hasn't read that, I recommend
                        >it highly. However, in the event that some of you haven't had the opportunity
                        >or inclination, I will take the liberty of quoting some of it here: "Aye. She
                        >is one of the great ones.... Every young man or boy that met her became her
                        >son -- even if it was only the boy that brought the meat to her back door.
                        >Every
                        >girl that met her was her daughter.... Few men looked on her without
                        >becoming, in a certain fashion, her lovers. But it was the kind of love that
                        >made them
                        >not less true, but truer, to their own wives.... Every beast and bird that
                        >came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves....
                        But
                        >already there is joy enough in the little finger of a great saint such as
                        >yonder lady to waken all the dead things of the universe." She is a wonderful
                        >character, and it is the love she gave everyone she met that makes her so.
                        >It's an
                        >amazing passage. Nothing to do with intelligence or education -- it is the
                        >love of God that she reflects that makes her great.

                        A.N. Wilson, among others, has suggested a resemblance to Mrs. Moore at her
                        best. "Mrs. Moore was demanding, but she was also generous. Much of the
                        shopping and fetching was only necessary because she wanted to entertain
                        and to give people meals. She was naturally gregarious. Children and
                        animals loved her. She was spontaneously affectionate ... She asked much,
                        but she also gave much. She was entirely lacking in English 'reserve'. If
                        one wants to know what she meant to the young Lewis ... one should read the
                        vision in _The Great Divorce_ of a Great Lady surrounded by a procession of
                        angels, children and animals." (hardcover, p. 72)

                        To this, Kathryn Lindskoog believes it is sufficient rebuttal to write,
                        "The bitterly atheistic Mrs. Moore was never a heavenly figure to Lewis."
                        <http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/anwilsonerrata.html>

                        David Bratman
                      • Walkermonk@aol.com
                        In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:00:10 PM Central Standard Time, dbratman@earthlink.net writes: To this, Kathryn Lindskoog believes it is sufficient rebuttal to
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 28, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 3/28/2005 11:00:10 PM Central Standard Time,
                          dbratman@... writes:
                          To this, Kathryn Lindskoog believes it is sufficient rebuttal to write,
                          "The bitterly atheistic Mrs. Moore was never a heavenly figure to Lewis."
                          <http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/anwilsonerrata.html>

                          David Bratman
                          ---

                          Thank you, David, for the references. I haven't read either of them.
                          Regardless of whether Lewis is portraying a picture of Mrs. Moore or of any other
                          woman in his life, I still love that passage. I find that whole book both
                          beautiful and fascinating.

                          Thanks again,
                          Grace Monk


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bonnie Callahan
                          Hi David: This post nearly brought tears to me own eyes...My present sister IS this person. Sarah Smith is so close to being like a woman who was brought into
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 30, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi David:

                            This post nearly brought tears to me own eyes...My present sister IS this person.
                            Sarah Smith is so
                            close to being like a woman who was brought into my life in 1965 via a high
                            school modern dance class,
                            who has the same name as the sister I once had who died in 1952. Many have
                            mistaken us for sisters since
                            those days! So we finally decided, OKAY, we're TRULY sisters. Get Used To It.

                            She's more of a Sarah than I've ever been able to achieve. If Mrs. Moore was at
                            all like my sis,
                            she must've been quite a gal. Life & Art DO interact. Mythopoeism Rules.

                            Best,
                            Bonnie

                            David Bratman wrote:

                            > At 11:42 PM 3/28/2005 -0500, Grace Monk wrote:
                            > >Yes, his mother died,
                            > >but he mentions a governess as well as a nurse, so there were women around
                            > >when
                            > >he was young. He has a grandmother and an aunt whom he loved and spent time
                            > >with. He also writes of his relationship with his mother's first cousin and
                            > >her
                            > >daughters. He writes of all these women with respect and affection and
                            > >mentions their virtues and admirable qualities without any sort of
                            > >condescension.
                            >
                            > Well, there's close relationships and there's close relationships, and John
                            > might argue that the women Lewis knew apart from his mother and Mrs. Moore
                            > didn't qualify. But if you think there might be something tendentious
                            > about such an argument, you could be right.
                            >
                            > >In
                            > >his fiction, the woman he wrote of that most stands out in my mind as an
                            > >answer to whether he thought intellect was the measure of superiority is the
                            > >woman,
                            > >Sarah Smith, in "The Great Divorce." If anyone hasn't read that, I recommend
                            > >it highly. However, in the event that some of you haven't had the opportunity
                            > >or inclination, I will take the liberty of quoting some of it here: "Aye. She
                            > >is one of the great ones.... Every young man or boy that met her became her
                            > >son -- even if it was only the boy that brought the meat to her back door.
                            > >Every
                            > >girl that met her was her daughter.... Few men looked on her without
                            > >becoming, in a certain fashion, her lovers. But it was the kind of love that
                            > >made them
                            > >not less true, but truer, to their own wives.... Every beast and bird that
                            > >came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves....
                            > But
                            > >already there is joy enough in the little finger of a great saint such as
                            > >yonder lady to waken all the dead things of the universe." She is a wonderful
                            > >character, and it is the love she gave everyone she met that makes her so.
                            > >It's an
                            > >amazing passage. Nothing to do with intelligence or education -- it is the
                            > >love of God that she reflects that makes her great.
                            >
                            > A.N. Wilson, among others, has suggested a resemblance to Mrs. Moore at her
                            > best. "Mrs. Moore was demanding, but she was also generous. Much of the
                            > shopping and fetching was only necessary because she wanted to entertain
                            > and to give people meals. She was naturally gregarious. Children and
                            > animals loved her. She was spontaneously affectionate ... She asked much,
                            > but she also gave much. She was entirely lacking in English 'reserve'. If
                            > one wants to know what she meant to the young Lewis ... one should read the
                            > vision in _The Great Divorce_ of a Great Lady surrounded by a procession of
                            > angels, children and animals." (hardcover, p. 72)
                            >
                            > To this, Kathryn Lindskoog believes it is sufficient rebuttal to write,
                            > "The bitterly atheistic Mrs. Moore was never a heavenly figure to Lewis."
                            > <http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/anwilsonerrata.html>
                            >
                            > David Bratman
                            >
                            >
                            > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.