Rebecca's Thoughts

            The Inklings were a group of people bound together through their need for criticism, religion, debate, and literature. In Philip and Carol Zaleski’s book, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams we see a timeline of the members journeys through adolescence, religion, creativity, and their eventual deaths. This is all framed through their works and the friendships that they shared with one another. Outside of the Inklings, this book also shows the relationships these men had with people outside of the literary circle and looks into relationships with childhood friends, parents, lovers, literature, and the places these men go. Due to the variety of relationships presented in this book, it is easy to see commonalities between Aristotle’s view of friendship and the relationships presented.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle portrays three different types of friendships that people can have[1]. The first type of relationships is utility, or friendships centered around the exchange of things (both physical and intangible) between people. Utility friendships are based on the usefulness of the members in the relationship and the idea of “what can you do for me.[2]” The second is relationships of pleasure. These are between people who often share common interests and is based on the enjoyment of these interest. Pleasure friendships are usually temporary and seen in young people who are guided by their feelings[3]. These can be relationships like, drinking buddies, the people on a recreation sports team, or a friend with benefits situation. Both utility and pleasure relationships are only relationships to the extent that the other is “useful or pleasant[4]” and therefore are not the pinnacle of Aristotelian friendships. That spot is reserved for friendships of virtue, or relationships based on mutual admirations and respect of another. These relationships are developed over a long period of time, and are as Aristotle puts it, a “complete friendship.[5]” Virtue friendships are based on the idea that people do things for their friends, for the sake of their friends and not some personal, or selfish reasons.

This paper will look at the many relationships seen in The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings and apply Aristotle’s three types of friendships to the Inklings and those they interreacted with. It is also important to note that as much as this book is about the Inklings and the relationships between members, it is also about how relationships outside of the literary club shaped their works and effected their commitment to each other. This book covers many people spanning over many years; therefore, this paper will discuss the relationships between the titular C. S. Lewis, and his relationship with fellow Inkling Owen Barfield, Mrs. Janie Moore, and his wife Helen “Joy” Davidman.

Although the Inklings would be considered friends in the typical sense, its hard to attach them to just one of Aristotle’s categories. The Inklings as a group, can fit into all of Aristotle’s types, yet none at the same time. Lewis summed up the groups meetings as a place where “[they] smoked, talked, argued, and drank together.[6]” This statement aligns with Aristotle’s idea of pleasure friendships and the idea that the men were friends because of the enjoyment or “pleasure” they got out of each other. However, something not mentioned in Lewis’ quote but is addressed at length in the book, is the nature of the literary club. These men would read their literary works in progress to the room and the members would critique and debate about how its written, problems with the plot, etcetera. The need and want for critique could be viewed in the Aristotelian sense as a friendship of utility. There is, in essence, a “trade” of knowledge and critique taking place, therefore, making their friendships one of utility.

It would also be fair to say that what these men had with one another could be considered a virtue friendship, as they were friends with one another for their moral characters and were committed to growing and deepening their friendship with one another. This is a bit of a generalization as each member of the group did not hold one another to an equal regard. Some had reservations about others, and were friends to varying degrees. This is something that Aristotle addresses by saying;

The proverb ‘what friends have in common’ is correct, since friendship involves community. But while brothers and companions have everything in common, what people have in common in other types of communities is limited, more in some communities and less in others, since some friendships are also closer than others, some less close.[7]

This is something that is reflective of any friend circle, so it is not surprising that the Inklings also experienced this. Not everyone in a friend group can be close and have “virtuous” friendships with everyone in the group. Additionally, Aristotle notes that virtuous friendships are rare and hard to come by.[8]

Their views on religion also did not align as Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, a branch of Catholicism Lewis could not bare to like. Barfield was an Anthroposophist and Williams an Anglican with a dash of ritual magic/sorcery[9], all things Tolkien did not like as he did not view them inline with his traditional sense of Catholicism. Lastly, Lewis someone who struggled with religion and at one point considered an atheist, was by his own definition was a “mere Christian” and eventual Christian apologist.[10] This would be both the crux and hinderance to many of Lewis’ relationships both within and outside of the Inklings.

These differences may make it hard to draw connections to Aristotle’s idea of virtue friendships, but at the end of the day, these four men were friends and as the book points out, were committed to encouraging, provoking, enlightening, and ultimately bettering one another.[11]  It would be fair to say that the Inklings as an “organization” (they were very unofficial) and their weekly meetings could be considered to respect Aristotle’s idea of sunaisthesis. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle qualifies these sunaisthesis or “virtuous” relationships by saying; “we agree that someone’s own being is choiceworthy because he perceives that he is good, and this sort of perception is pleasant in itself. He must, then, perceive his friendship’s being together [with his own], and he will do this when they live together and share conversation through thought.[12]” The way these “meetings” were conducted could be seen as ritualistic or sacred in their presentation and dynamics, making them reminiscent of a long practiced tradition or celebration. This gathering of individuals based on their love for literature, debate, and philosophy could mirror that of Aristotle’s feelings on politics and political friendships. The Inklings held no formal elections, inaugural ceremonies, or agendas, but rather were a group of equals, a “circle of friends” as Lewis observed in 1960.[13] The basis of the Inklings was that they were a “group of Christians that like[d] to write.[14]” This bond and the commonalities that they shared with one another would, as a generalization of the groups, make it seem conducive of sunaisthesis. Being apart of the Inklings made both the members lives and literary works better. As previously mentioned not all members saw eye-to-eye on every topic, and as this paper will further discuss, there are multiple levels to the relationships between the Inklings that makes it hard to definitively say whether or not this is a wholly virtuous friendship group.

Similar discrepancies can be seen when looking at individual members of the Inklings and their one-on-one relationships with other members. Lewis and Barfield’s friendship could be considered a friendship of virtue. Both men wanted what was best for the other, they both admired each other’s character, and they both saw each other as equal. Even when Lewis was at the height of his career, and Barfield a lowly solicitor, they still held each other to an equal degree. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle says,

Based people will be friends for pleasure or utility, since they are similar in that way. But good people will be friends because of themselves, since they are friends in so far as they are good. These, then are friends unconditionally; the others are friends coincidentally and by being similar to these. Just as with the virtues some people are called good in their state of character, others good in their activity, the same is said for friendship.[15]

Aristotle goes onto say “but if the absence is long, it also seems to cause the friendship to be forgotten; hence the saying, ‘Lack of conversation has dissolved many friendships.’[16]” This idea represents a lot of what Lewis and Barfield’s relationship was, especially regarding the events of the “Great War.” Lewis and Barfield met at Oxford in 1919 as undergraduate students. The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings describes their relationship early on as being a proto-Inklings circle as they would share their works, and debate about philosophy and religion. They shared a lot in common, especially their interests in mythology, traditional art, and the romantics. The one thing they did disagree on was religion, particularly the existence of God, and the nature of Christ. This disagreement led to what the book calls the Barfield-Lewis “Great War,” an almost decade long literary joust between the two men[17]

The “Great War” was not religious in nature but did touch upon the ideas of imaginations, consciousness, and truth. It was a battle of intellects and wits. It may not have been the beginning of their relationship, but it was an integral part in establishing and maintaining their friendship. This reflects Aristotle’s idea of a virtue friendship but much like the aforementioned quote, the friendship changed when the “Great War’ ended, letters became less frequent, and interest waned. After relocating to London with his wife and child, Barfield felt the need for a steady income surpassed his love of writing and dancing. He joined his fathers law firm and for the next thirty years practiced law as a solicitor.  This was the first crack in their relationship and would mark the end of the “Great War.” Their friendship came to its natural conclusion, Lewis had accepted Christianity, in the process outgrowing his need for the “Great War” and what Barfield had to offer. This is where the idea of their friendship being one of Aristotelian virtue collapses as Lewis was no longer committed to attaining virtue from the relationship, but rather from God and what he had to offer. This dismissal from Lewis would lead many to believe that this relationship was not one based on virtue, but rather one of utility and pleasure. Their relationship changed when the “Great War” was no longer fun, and the objectives had been met. Not to fully diminish their friendship, they were still close friends after the “Great War,” but their friendship lost the sparkle after the utility and pleasure of the “Great War” ended. 

Another relationship The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings covers is that between Lewis and Mrs. Janie Moore. While Lewis was training for the army, he made a deal with his bunk mate Edward “Paddy” Moore that if either of them died on the battlefield the other would take care of both their families.[18] When Paddy was killed in action, Lewis kept to his end of the deal and sought out Mrs. Moore. When the two met sparks flew and in a letter to his father Lewis said that he liked her “immensely.[19]” This infatuation with Mrs. Moore drove a wedge in many of Lewis’ relationships, especially that of his childhood friend Arthur Greeves, his brother Warren “Warnie” Lewis, and worsened the already damaged relationship with his father. Mrs. Moore was not the most popular person among his friends and Lewis banned any mention of Mrs. Moore in conversation.[20] Lewis was able to repair his relationship with his brother and Arthur, but “all that remained of [his fathers] relationship with Lewis crumbled, while Mrs. Moore became, for the rest of her life, Lewis’s companions and (as he described her) ‘mother.’[21]” In 1930, Mrs. Moore, who was estranged from her husband, moved her and her daughter into the Kilns, the residence of Lewis and his brother Warnie.

The relationship between Mrs. Moore and Lewis is also difficult to classify as it is complex and very messy. The relationship originated out of obligation to a friend but then turned into one of sexual passion. From Lewis’ perspective this would be a relationship of pleasure. He sought both companionship and sexual pleasure from Mrs. Moore, whereas Mrs. Moor saw Lewis more as a hired servant[22] or as Warnie saw it living “under” Mrs. Moore.[23] This would imply that Mrs. Moore sought utility out of their relationship. Lewis was miserable and spent much of his time walking the dog or tending to Mrs. Moore needs. There were also times where she tightened her grip on Lewis by forbidding him access to his study.[24] Besides being an objectively toxic relationship, Aristotle would also have problems with it. “Those who love each other for utility love the other not in himself, but in so far as they gain some good for themselves from him. The same is true for those who love for pleasure; for they like a witty person not because of his character, but because he is pleasant to themselves.[25]” Both Mrs. Moore and Lewis were in the relationship because of what they were getting out of it. This relationship continued when Mrs. Moore was moved out of the Kilns and into a nursing home. It eventually came to an end in 1950 when she died. Upon reflecting on his relationship with Mrs. Moore, Lewis said;

If people are already unlovable a continual demand on their part to be loved – their manifest sense of injury, their reproaches, whether loud and clamorous or merely implicit in every look and gesture of resentful self-pity – produce a sense of guilt for a fault we could not have avoided and cannot cease to commit.[26]

The part about self-pity is reminiscent of Aristotle’s view on self love and the necessity of it when pursuing friendship. One must be friends with one selves before they can become friends with someone else “since a friend is another [one]self.[27]”

Another relationship of utility found in the book can be seen with Helen “Joy” Davidman and her marriage to Lewis. Although friends prior to the marriage the reason for their marriage was based on pure utility. Facing deportation after being denied a visa renewal, Joy’s only option was to marry a British citizen.[28] Lewis set up arrangements for a swift marriage and told only those who needed to know as Lewis noted that they had “married in name only and would retain separate addresses and lives.[29] The two did eventually warm up to one another and Joy moved into the Kilns with Lewis and Warnie. They did come to love one another and when Joy fell ill with cancer “[Lewis] began to pray that he might be allowed to assume Joy’s pain.[30]” Their once relationship of utility, mutually grew into something more. This seems to go against Aristotle’s idea of a virtuous friendship as the relationship between Lewis and Joy started out as one of utility and grew into something that looks a lot like a virtuous relationship.

Not all the relationships in The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams would be deemed virtuous to Aristotle. Many relationships considered virtuous in this paper may still undermine Aristotle’s original propositions. People are not perfect and often do not prescribe their lives exactly like philosophy dictates. In sum, the relationships of the Inklings as a group and the internal relationships like those between Lewis and Barfield should be considered virtuous relationships in the Aristotelian sense. People are multifaceted and certain situations arise in peoples lives that change both themselves and the relationships they are apart of. This should not negate the relationships or make them any less “virtuous.” This concept also makes it hard to discern and qualify relationships as fulfilling the needs for sunaisthesis as itis difficult and unpractical to maintain these types of relationships in the long run. Aristotle ends Nicomachean Ethics chapter IX with this quote, and it seems fitting to end this paper with it as well, as it too sums up the relationship the Inklings held.  

Whatever someone [regards as] his being, or the end for which he chooses to be alive, this is the activity he wishes to pressure in his friend’s company. Hence some friends drink together, others play dice, while others do gymnastics and go hunting, or do philosophy. They spend their days together on whichever pursuit in life they like most; for since they want to live with their friends, they share the actions in which they find their common life… and by becoming similar to each other, they grow virtuous.[31]

---

[1] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), pp. 30-69.

[2] Ibid pp. 32

[3] Ibid pp. 33

[4] Ibid pp. 33

[5] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), pp. 33

[6] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 201

[7] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), viii 9/25, pp. 36

[8] Ibid. pp.34

[9] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 198

[10] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 198

[11] Ibid

[12] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), 1170b 10, pp. 65

[13] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 199

[14] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 198

[15] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), 1157b, pp. 36

[16] Ibid 1157b, pp. 36

[17] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 113

[18] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 79

[19] Ibid pp. 78

[20] Ibid pp. 79

[21] Ibid pp. 79

[22] Ibid pp. 219, 249

[23] Ibid pp. 97

[24] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 380

[25] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), pp. 32

[26] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 459

[27] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), pp. 65

[28] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), pp. 459

[29] Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016), Ibid pp. 453

[30] Ibid pp. 456

[31] Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics Books VIII & IX,” in Other Selves: Philosophers on Friendship (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1991), 1172a, pp. 69