Re: [mythsoc] a Lewis question
- It's to Cecil and Daphne Harwood, Sep. 11, 1945 (v. 2, p. 669-70).
"Re Jane, she wasn't meant to illustrate the problem of the married woman and her own career in general: rather the problem of everyone who follows an imagined vocation at the expense of a real one. Perhaps I shd have emphasised more the fact that her thesis on Donne was all derivative bilge."
>From: John Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
>Sent: May 24, 2013 2:17 PM
>To: "Mythsoc (email@example.com)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: [mythsoc] a Lewis question
>Okay, I admit defeat. A few weeks ago I came across a passage in one of Lewis's letters in which he remarked that Jane Studdock from THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH was a poor scholar who would have produced mediocre work had she ever completed her thesis; that her true vocation was to be a housewife. I've just been going through all the references to THS in the index of Vols II and III but not found the relevant passage. Is there any Lewisians (Ludovicians?) on this list more familiar with the 3900 pages of CSL's COLLECTED LETTERS who might be able to point me to the letter in question? For what it's worth, I had been looking up things in the 1942 and 1954 sections, though I did skim some in other sections so it might be pretty much anywhere.
>Any help much appreciated.
>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
- On May 24, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Croft, Janet B. wrote:Duly noted; I'll try that next time.Re. the Damaris comment, I'd actually been looking this one up (successfully) to juxtapose with CSL's first letter to Eddison when I'd fortuitously come across the Jane S. piece and thought it also relevant to the point. I've been successful in finding the Damaris quote again but the Jane reference eluded my follow-up search; hence my earlier post. So now I have all three pieces of the puzzle; many thanks.One more Lewis question for the group: CSL uses the phrase "house woman" in his second letter to Eddison -- is that a term anyone here's familiar with? I haven't been able to trace it, so I don't know what its connotation might be or what he's implying by the term. As always any help much appreciated.--John R.