CS Lewis based his Narnia Chronicles on Medieval Cosmology - Earth NOT a globe!

What did CS Lewis know, and when?





For many years, decades in fact, literary critics trashed CS Lewis for writing what was (paraphrased) "a discombobulated, aimless & wandering narrative which is incoherent & thoroughly disconnected from any identifiable thematic purpose". Now I don't have a source for that quote, but please trust me, the critics were panning him. For DECADES. JRR Tolkien (who wrote the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and other works connected to that lore) got off more lightly - he was viewed generally as quite the genius, and only a mild disconcerted discomfiture with his evident Christianity appeared as a negative in his reviews. But CS Lewis was panned, liberally. The two men were firm friends & dined/drank beer together & smoked their pipes in the same public house in Oxford for many years while CS Lewis was lecturing at Magdalen College at the university there.

And yet, in the end, only quite recently, his secret was revealed, and he was vindicated in quite the stunning 'coup de grace'. He had based his entire Narnia Chronicles series on Medieval Cosmology & Alchemical associations thereof - specifically, each of the seven books in his Narnia Chronicles were based upon the planets as seen in the medieval conception of the arrangement of planets in our so-called 'solar system'. For those who don't know, in the medieval period astrologer-astronomers believed there were seven planetary bodies, including the Sun & Moon. The extra planets were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn, with the celestial (starry) sphere surrounding the planetary spheres, with Heaven beyond the stars. The spheres were visualised as orbits around the Earth plane (NOT a globe). Neptune & Uranus were unknown at the time, also unknown were the supposed 'dwarf' planets, Ceres & Pluto.





Looking at the diagram above, you will see the general conception idealised as described. Earth was seen as a central planar body, surrounded by concentric spheres which provided areas of orbital operation for the various planets, Sun & Moon included. The Sun was viewed as orbiting in the fourth orbital sphere removed from the Earth plane.

CS Lewis took each of the seven recognised planetary bodies from medieval cosmology & based each book in the Narnia series upon them, styling them with veiled references to alchemical & religious (Christian) allegories & lore. There was a rather wonderful documentary produced a few years ago named 'The Narnia Code', produced by a director named Norman Stone. Reviews for the documentary can be seen below:

Norman Stone's engrossing documentary explores the theory that C.S. Lewis based The Chronicles of Narnia on medieval cosmology, with each book corresponding to a planet. The brainchild of the former chaplain of Peterhouse, Dr Michael Ward, it is a persuasive argument for the series' "hidden third layer", with explanations delivered here with verve, acuity and self-deprecation. Comprised largely of erudite talking heads and superior reconstructions, it is a winningly old fashioned slice of film-making"

- Helen Stewart, The Sunday Times



"I was particularly gripped by The Narnia Code"

- A.A. Gill, The Sunday Times



"The Chronicles of Narnia: anthropomorphic guff or masterpiece of literary concealment? . . . Focussing on the generally accepted theories of one Michael Ward - a self-effacing Cambridge brainiac who posits that each of C.S. Lewis's seven books corresponds with one of the planets - the film's delivery may be a little bicycle clips-and-brilliantine for some, but its staid exterior belies a thoroughly involving take on one of literature's most enduring conundrums"

- Sarah Dempster, The Guardian



"Hold the front page: the puzzle of the Chronicles of Narnia series of children's fables by C.S. Lewis has been solved! Many have previously looked to these books for hidden meanings - the seven deadly sins, the seven sacraments - but not until now has the so called 'Narnia Code' been unlocked"

- Stephen Mulkearn, Metro



"An exciting piece of literary detective work"

- Ben Felsenburg, London Lite



"Did C.S. Lewis's beloved Narnia Chronicles contain a secret code hidden within the text and the fantastic storytelling of magical creatures and far-off lands? That is the question being asked by investigator Dr Michael Ward who presents his findings in this fascinating dramatization"

- Brian McIver, Daily Record


Documentary - the Narnia Code (Planet Narnia)

A particularly good review by a blogger reads as follows, describing the central thesis of the man who inspired the documentary, Michael Ward, PhD:

The Narnia Code, inspired by Michael Ward's book Planet Narnia, was broadcast on BBC1 last week. . . The show brought back to me just how important a figure C.S. Lewis is. . . The show started with a brief review of Lewis's life up until he began to write the Narnia chronicles. It was illustrated by some poignant vignettes from his life such as the death of his mother, being tutored by the Great Knock and the Inklings arguing in the Eagle and Child pub. These dramatic reconstructions worked extremely well and I could have happily sat through a much longer programme just telling the story of Lewis's life. . . What of the Narnia code itself? Ward's thesis is that each of the seven Narnia books is modelled on the attributes of one of the seven planets in the medieval universe. . . The experts on the show disagreed about whether Ward's theory is right, but as I've said before I think it is plausible. Like most medievalists, I learnt about the worldview of the Middle Ages at Lewis's feet, from reading The Discarded Image.

- read more from James Hannam at Quodlibeta

The final book that CS Lewis wrote - the Discarded Image - is perhaps one of his most important, in that it ties together the beliefs/ worldview that inspired his Narnia Chronicles, and PERHAPS, contains secrets that are revealed in the reading which could & should inform us today, in the modern age.

We consider ourselves so scientifically sophisticated these days, but really all we have is 90 years of propaganda, deception, subterfuge & image manipulation, all of which work in concert in a grand plan to reveal an apparent reality that we are pointless participants in. Yet really, there is every chance that as I have described, we have been lied to on a literally cosmic scale by those with the most power & influence in this world, who wickedly desire that we believe that we are irrelevant, inwardly spiritually dead, utterly pointless specks of nothingness in a vast cold universe that cares nought for us.

The Christian beliefs of CS Lewis, combined with his emphatic nod to the discarded cosmology of the Middle Ages (before the scientific revolution brought us to this place of grand delusion) inform me that this cold, heartless schema for the cosmos we inhabit is utterly false. Instead, we live in a glorious, purposely-constructed realm, which is designed to enable each of us together to reach our spiritual & material potential, with a God operating behind the entire facade of Nature, beyond the stars, who loves us each individually, for He is infinite.

Thanks,


FITO.

Wonderful thread FITO 👍

Emanations of the deity

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

That was "fiction"?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Allegory.

a reply to: Dalamax

Thank you.

I loved these books when I was growing up!

S&F

This is my weekend research project.

A question for you, you posted this:

We consider ourselves so scientifically sophisticated these days, but really all we have is 90 years of propaganda, deception, subterfuge & image manipulation, all of which work in concert in a grand plan to reveal an apparent reality that we are pointless participants in.

what is your reason why you think they are manipulating?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

C.S. Lewis most certainly did not believe in a flat Earth. In his essay The Discarded Image, he wrote:

Physically considered, the Earth is a globe.

You can read his words for yourself here.

a reply to: Astyanax

Fair point. I believe, however, that he may have felt it impossible to write of his true beliefs on the subject. The burgeoning weight of evidence based on all of his writings suggests to me that he was well aware of the flat earth reality. It seems we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. Thanks for the contribution.

a reply to: theatreboy

Professor Auguste Piccard created a high altitude balloon in 1931, with which he ascended to over 51,000 feet altitude. When asked what the Earth looks like from that height, he stated very clearly -it looks like a flat disc with a slightly upturned edge". His comments were immediately misquoted in the press as alleged "proof of the curvature of the Earth". Ever since then, all scientific agencies asscociated with the exploration of the higher altitudes above the Earth have manipulated imagery, and made agreements concerning Antarctica, for example, which prove that there are some mighty suspicious shenanigans going on.

On 27 May 1931, Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer took off from Augsburg, Germany in a hydrogen balloon, and reached a record altitude of 15,781 m (51,775 ft; 9.806 mi)

Auguste Piccard Wikipedia Shenanigans

Furthermore, there is abundant practical evidence that the Earth is flat. I draw your attention to the longest-distance photograph that has ever been taken on the Earth, which can be seen here below:



SOURCE - Beyond Horizons; Home of the longest distance photograph in the world

As you will note, the distance is over 440km, a vista which would be UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CAPTURE on a fictional Globular Earth, because the horizon would totally obscure the distant mountain peaks at even a tenth of that distance. In & of itself, this is the most powerful & irrefutable evidence that the Earth is flat. No other arguments matter in the face of this undeniable evidence.

If anyone believes otherwise, would they kindly care to explain the 'magical physics' that makes this photograph possible. If you cannot prove why the photograph is possible on a globe Earth, kindly accept that the Earth is flat, and accept that we have been egregiously lied to for over 90 years, since that inaugural flight of Professor Auguste Piccard. The reason we have been lied to, is to present to the masses the impression that science is God, that God doesn't exist, that we live in a cold, dark, accidental universe that is vast & cares naught for us. The wicked rulers of the Earth desire to separate you from the knowledge that the Earth is a perfectly created bio-habitat for all life & especially for the sentient creatures known as humans, who occupy a special place in the mind & heart of the infinite Creator. When you accept that the Earth is flat, you will understand that it is a habitat created specifically for the spiritual ascension of Humanity, the kings over the Earth & all its glories, under the aegis of the Sovereign Lord Almighty.

'Mike Drop'.

Seriously, oh you mighty doubters & debunkers, please explain that photograph - or accept the ultimate defeat.

FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I suggest you read the rest of the paragraph, and a few of the paragraphs that follow. They are directly relevant to your thread topic.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Astyanax

The burgeoning weight of evidence based on all of his writings suggests to me that he was well aware of the flat earth reality.

For his writing.

But there is no evidence in everyday life and reality the earth is flat.

Because in reality the earth is spherical as demonstrated by a simple dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere and why they are accurate at predicting the night sky.

Can you show that CS Lewis didn’t believe atlases to be accurate.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Explained and demonstrated in many a forum. A picture of one high place to another high place with refraction by the earth’s atmosphere.

As pointed out in other posts. The father mountain is taller than from where the person took the picture, then why is the viewing angle down to look on the taller mountain.


If it’s not refraction. Why on a day when refraction is minimized does a ship going to sea start to disappear bottom up at four miles from the viewer at sea level.

Anyway more on the refraction and mirage.

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

www.abc57.com...


The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon. That’s still not far enough to see Chicago, at least at ground level. The Willis (Sears) Tower is 1,450 feet to the top. Doing the same calculations you could see it from up to 65 miles away on Tower Hill.

That day on the shores of Lake Michigan at Warren Dunes State Park, just 50 some miles to the west, Chicago was hard to see on the slightly overcast day. Looking towards the south less than 20 miles away you can see Michigan City, the power plant and Blue Chip Casino.

“It depends on where you are. Here at Warren dunes you have a better chance at seeing Chicago, up at St. Joe every once in awhile,” Nowicki said.
“Earlier this year there was a good opportunity, It looked like 40 or 50 buildings which is the most I've ever had the chance to see."

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.

If the earth is flat.

Why do you have to climb a 250 foot hill to look across Lake Michigan to see the builds of Chicago over that are over 1000 feet tall.

Why does the number of buildings visible and how much of their lengths depend on how much atmospheric refraction.


Flat earth has been dead for a long time and doesn’t help anyway in my hobbies. From lunar eclipses to a solar eclipse, to the dip of the horizon.

a reply to: Lazy88

Lewis knew and affirmed that Earthis a spheroid, not flat. As, it need hardly be said, is in fact the case.

He was a university professor, not some crank.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Lazy88

Lewis knew and affirmed that Earthis a spheroid, not flat. As, it need hardly be said, is in fact the case.

He was a university professor, not some crank.

When do flat earthers let actual facts get in the way…

😂😂😂😂

a reply to: Lazy88

For Heaven's sake! (literally I suppose)...

Why will none of the skeptics admit that the photograph presented in one of my posts on page one of this thread is proof positive that the Earth is flat? Don't you get it? The photograph simply should not exist if the Earth is a globe. The horizon would be totally obscuring the distant peaks which are clearly visible - this would be true even at a tenth of the distance from the camera. If you simply look at the photograph, note its characteristics, and recognise that a globe Earth would necessitate a horizon that thoroughly blocks any view of those peaks at 440km distant from the photographer, then your eyes would be opened & you will see the truth - and the truth shall set you free. It will set you free to believe in a very practical & logical way that there is a Creator who designed this habitat for us, exclusively for our benefit, intending us to rule over the things of nature that He created.

I'm sorry, but until one of you addresses the 'impossible photograph' then it's not worth responding to any of your points. The photograph debunks the globe in one fell swoop!!! How can the photo exist if the Earth is a globe? It's truly stunning to witness the highbrow snobbery of cognitive dissonance in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that the Earth is flat as a pancake.

No matter what anyone says about any other aspect of this topic, until the 'impossible photograph' is addressed & properly explained in a manner that befits the truth of the situation, then there is simply no need to respond to your comments which seek to debunk the premise. Deal with the photograph, then we'll talk.

a reply to: Lazy88

Refraction as a supposed explanation of the evidently visible flat planar expanse which is contiguous without break or warping of the image is utter nonsense. Next you'll be talking about superior mirages over Lake Michigan. Throw some mathematical diagrams at me & claim the atmosphere magically draws pictures of distant mountain peaks which SHOULD be something like 18 miles below the horizon in the form of a continuous flat landscape stretched out before your very eyes. It's blatant bull#.

To those with intellectual honesty & personal integrity - keep searching, believe the evidence of your eyes & ignore the carefully crafted mathematical paradigms they throw up in claims that they can explain what is in fact literally impossible if the Earth is a globe.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment

Why will none of the skeptics admit that the photograph presented in one of my posts on page one of this thread is proof positive that the Earth is flat?

Because it doesn’t. It’s explained by taking a picture from a high place to another high place, and refraction.

Care to answer the question. The father mountain is taller than from where the person took the picture, then why is the viewing angle down to look on the taller mountain.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Don't you get it? The photograph simply should not exist if the Earth is a globe.

Refraction is well known. Flat earthers post the same thing concerning the Chicago Skyline across Lake Michigan. But they willfully ignore the pictures they refer to are possible because they are taken from a 250 foot hill and refraction.

“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

www.abc57.com...

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
The horizon would be totally obscuring the distant peaks which are clearly visible -

Which it does, except when weather conditions produce the needed refraction. Like why you can’t stand on the actual lake shore of Lake Michigan and see the Chicago skyline. Why you need to be on a hill 250 feet tall.


Now answer the questions. When weather isn’t producing crazy refraction, why does a boat going out to sea from a viewer at sea level start to disappear bottom up at four miles.

Why does a simple dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere accurately predict the night sky.


More on your photo..

Make-of: New World Record
How did we achieve a extraordinay feat of a New World Record in Distant Landscape? Here it is the complete story!

beyondrange.wordpress.com...

We are lucky to live near the Golfe du Lion, as it gathers some of the very particular conditions that allow very long lines of sight: 2 high mountain ranges (Pyrenees and Alps) next to a flat (sea level) terrain. The view runs unblocked from one range to the other, covering distances of more than 400 km.

Great refraction on that morning made the sun to be a little to the left, rising behind the closer Tête de Chabriere. The view was incredible and we were able to capture the farthest picture on Earth by that time, and as well gather important information to fine tune our tool for the next adventures.

Straight from the people that captured the imagine. From a high mountain that extends the view to the horizon of a spherical earth. Of a mountain that rises above the curvature of the earth. With the help of the atmosphere bending light called refraction.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Lazy88

Next you'll be talking about superior mirages over Lake Michigan.

I already cited that before your post and you ignored it.

The view of the skyline of Chicago changes with the weather. And the pictures in question are from a hill 250 feet tall.

If the earth was flat, why can’t you stand at the base of the hill on the actual lake shore and see the tops of Chicago’s buildings

Now.

Do you understand why people in South American, Australia, and Africa can look south and see the southern cross?



Because the earth is spherical.

The southern celestial sky and the role the southern cross plays in navigation makes no sense if the earth was flat. South would be meaningless.



Do you understand how a simple dial star atlas works? Do you understand the reason a simple dial star atlas of the southern night sky is accurate because the earth is spherical. They even come with a warranty. What flat earth map comes with a warranty.

Added photo..

The Night Sky is a rotating star finder (planisphere) that allows the user to recognize the constellations for any time of night, any day of the year. The sky appears to rotate (due to the rotation and orbital motion of the earth), so to be successful recognizing the constellations a beginner needs to know which stars are above the horizon at any time.
This is the full-sized version of The Night Sky most suitable for Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa and South America. We have versions for the following latitude zones: 50°-60°, 40°-50°, 30°-40°, 20°-30°, and the Southern Hemisphere. We also have pocket-sized versions available for the same latitude zones.

www.amazon.com...=asc_df_0961320737/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693534629985&hvpo s=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3863847738636421890&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016695&hvtargid=pla-569631853344&psc=1&mcid=12a173 bfa3eb359197aa387822db6267&gad_source=1

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Why will none of the skeptics admit that the photograph presented in one of my posts on page one of this thread is proof positive that the Earth is flat.

There, there, don't take on so. Of course it is...

And the Statue of Liberty just gave birth to twins.