loved into wholeness, made whole to be loved: discovering the

-- ~ - - - -- --

Loved into Wholeness, Made Whole to be Loved:

Discovering the Animus in C.S. Lewis's

Till We Have Faces

by

Sarah E. MacFadyen

AN HONORS THESIS SUBM ITIED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS

Jeffrey Bilbro, 8 .D. Assist ant Professor of English

Spring Arbor University April 2013

.. · '

RunningHead:ENG490SENIORHONORSTHESIS 1

ENG490SeniorHonorsThesis

LovedintoWholeness,MadeWholetoLove:

DiscoveringtheAnimusinC.S.Lewis’sTillWeHaveFaces

SarahE.Macfadyen

SpringArborUniversity

ENG490SENIORHONORSTHESIS 2

LovedintoWholeness,MadeWholetoLove:DiscoveringtheAnimusinC.S.Lewis’sTillWe

HaveFaces

Tobebeautiful,whole,andtrulylovedarethelongingsofOrual,theprotagonistand

narratorofC.S.Lewis’sfinalnovel,TillWeHaveFaces(1956).Theprocessbywhichsheis

abletorealizethesedesiresisillustratedthroughoutthenovelthroughtheimageofbeing

givenaface—thatis,acompletepsycheorsoul,—andOrualmustknowandacceptthis

facebeforeshecanstandinthepresenceofthegods;thequestion,“Howcantheymeetus

facetofacetillwehavefaces?”(Lewis,p.257)iscentraltoherspiritualandpsychological

development.Whilethequestionseemsratherobvious,theprocessthatitpromptsis

certainlynoteasyorpainless.Orual’snarrationtracesahighlycomplexprocessof

developmentthat,withoutcloseexamination,iseasilymisunderstood.Astheculmination

ofLewis’sfictionalworksand,inmanyways,acapstonetohislifeandcareer,TillWeHave

Facesisabeautifulandintricatelywoventalethatcangiveabundantenjoyment,butwhich

alsodeservesandrequiresexactinganalysis.

AmethodbywhichtodelveintotheworldofOrual’smindistostudyandapplythe

psychoanalytictheoryofSwisspsychotherapistCarlGustavJungtoOrual’sdevelopmental

processandjourneytocompletion.Orual’spersonalandspiritualgrowthisinextricably

connectedtoherstrugglewithgenderandtheconflictingqualitiesexistingwithinher

unconsciousmind;byrecognizingthesequalitiesandseekingtotracetheirmovement

fromherunconscioustoherconsciousmindbyapplyingJung’stheoryofarchetypes—and,

morespecifically,oftheanimus—itispossibletodiscernhowOrual,withthedirectionof

thegods,isabletogainafaceandtocommunewiththegodsasabeautiful,complete,

loved,andfullyindividuatedcharacter.


TheAnimusArchetype

AccordingtoJungiantheory,thereexistwithineachindividualasetofarchetypes;

thatis,primordialimagesthathavebeenengrainedwithinthepsycheandinheritedby

eachgenerationfromthelast.IntheirintroductiontoJungianpsychology,HallandNordby

(1973)describethesearchetypesas“thecontentsofthecollectiveunconscious”(p.41),

abstractformsthataregenerallyunderstoodatbirthbutnotnecessarilyexperiencedyetin

aconcrete,physicalreality.Thesearchetypesaresimilartoinstinctinanimals,whichare

bornwithsomeunderstandingaboutsuchthingsaswhatfoodisgoodtoeat,howtoattract

amate,andhowtoavoidpredators.Inhumans,theseinnateideasarecountless,butJung

citesGod,magic,thehero,thedemon,thepersona,theanima,theanimus,theshadow,and

theselfassomeofthecentralarchetypesembeddedwithinthehumanpsyche(p.41‐42).

Humanstendtoinitiallyjudgeactualexperiencebasedupontheirconceptionofthese

archetypes,yetinamaturepsyche,theconcreteexperiencewillalterthearchetypebefore

seriousdiscomfortensuesasaresultofdisunitybetweenarchetypeandreality.

Althoughthearchetypesformcombinationsastheyrelatetooneanother,and

thereforeofteninfluenceeachother,asinglearchetypestandsasparticularlyprominentin

TillWeHaveFaces.Thearchetypeoftheanimusis“themasculinesideofthefemale

psyche”(Hall&Nordby,1973,p.46)andhasaconsiderableinfluenceuponthe

developmentofthecharacterofOrual.Herinabilitytointegrateherfemininitywithher

masculinity(heranimus)causesdiscordwithinherpsycheandkeepsherfromachieving

individuationor,inLewis’sterms,fromhavingatrueface.Thepersonalwholenessthat

occursatindividuation,asD.L.Hart(2008)explains,“isachievednotbyanypsychic

structurewhichoccursunconsciously,butrather...onlyinthecontextofbecoming


consciousofthoseconflictingelementswhichmakeupthepsyche”(p.101).Junghimself

explainsthearchetypeofawoman’sanimus—andofaman’sanima,orinternalfeminine

personality,—inTheRelationsBetweentheEgoandtheUnconscious(1938),wherehe

statesthatonemust“bringthesecontentsintothelight;andonlywhenthistaskhasbeen

completed,andtheconsciousmindhasbecomesufficientlyfamiliarwiththeunconscious

processesreflected”intheanimuswillitfunctionasitought(p.181).ThestoryofTillWe

HaveFacesisthereforeanaccountofOrual’sbattlewithheranimusandtheprocessby

whichsheisable—withtheinterventionofthegods—touncoverheranimusandbringit

intoconsciousness.

Theintegrationofthecontra‐sexualaspectofahumanpsycheis,although

necessaryforeachgender,decidedlydifferentinamaleandafemale.Althoughthe

animus,themasculinepersonalitythatexistswithinawoman,isofprimaryimportance

herebecauseofthecentralroleofwomeninTillWeHaveFaces,acomparisonofthetwois

helpfulindefiningtherolethattheanimusplaysinthedevelopmentofawoman’sSelf.R.

Robertson,inC.G.JungandtheArchetypesoftheCollectiveUnconscious(1987)compares

thetwo,saying:“WhileAnimaisGreekforsoul,AnimusisGreekformindorspirit”(p.

122).Aman,therefore,mustlearntounitehissoul—hisfeelings,passions,and

emotions—withtherestofhisSelf,andawomanmustlearntointegrateherspirit—her

ideas,beliefs,andthoughts—withherSelf.Robertsongivesanaccountforthisdifference,

statingthatthediscrepancyexists“becausethecourseofdevelopmenthasalreadyforceda

mantointegratehismind,awomanhersoul”(p.122).Thetaskofanimaoranimus

integrationisthereforetorestorethatpartofoneselfwhichismissingoris

underdeveloped.


Therearisesinthisinterpretation,however,theuncomfortableandcurrentlymuch

debatedquestionofgenderrolesandsocialexpectationofbeliefandbehaviorbasedsolely

uponone’ssex.Arewomenlesslikelytodeveloptheirspiritbecausetheytrulylackit,or

becausesomanysocietieshavehistoricallyandcontinuetoplaceuponwomenthe

judgmentthattheyarenaturallylessrational,logical,andreasonablethanmen?Aremen

lesslikelytodeveloptheirsoulsbecausetheyarelessemotional,affectionate,andintuitive

orbecausetheyaregenerallyregardedwithdisdainforexposingthissideofthemselves?

Inheressay“Anima/Animus,”V.Kast(2006)presentsherbeliefthat“indescribinganima

andanimus,Jungisbasicallyusingtheestablishedgenderstereotypesofhistimetodefine

whatisfemaleandwhatismale”(p.113).Inadditiontothis,Jungtendstodepictthe

anima—thepartofamanassociatedwiththefeminine—asweakerthanthemalepartof

women,theanimus.Jung’swife,Emma,helpedhimextensivelyinhisunderstandingand

interpretationoftheanimusfor,beingaman,hewaslessabletopresentanaccurate

descriptionoftheanimus.In“OntheNatureoftheAnimus”,EmmaJung(1957)explains

thetaskofmen,who“havetoacceptwhatisregardedaslessvaluable,whatisweak,

passive,subjective,illogical,boundtonature—inaword,femininity”(p.41).Sucha

definitionoftheword“femininity”certainlyseemstosuggestsexismintheJungian

evaluationoftheanimusandanima.

Thesetwocomplaints—toogreatarelianceupongenderrolesandthepresenceof

sexisminJung’stheoryoftheanimusandanima—can,however,beevaluatedandaccepted

withouthavingtodismissthemaintenetsofthetheory.Itmustbeseriouslyconsidered

thatmenandwomenarepsychologicallydifferentaswellasphysicallydifferentandthat,

althoughmanysocietieshaveassignedtheattributesmostcommonlyheldbywomenless


importancethanthoseheldbymen,itmaybeobjectivelytruethatthesequalitiesactually

dobelongmoretoonegenderthantotheother.Therefore,Jungcouldbecorrectinsaying

thatwomenaremorelikelytohaveintegratedtheiremotionalsensibilitiesthantheir

rationalsensibilitiesandthatmenaremorelikelytohaveintegratedreasonthanintuition,

butthisneednotmeanthatonegenderisaccordinglyofmoreorlesssignificancethanthe

other.Withoutbothreasonandintuition,nooneiswhole;bothareimportantregardlessof

thejudgmentstraditionallyheldbymostsocieties.Intheaforementionedstatementmade

byE.Jung,thisisacknowledgedintheword“regarded.”Sheisnot,then,sayingthat

weakness,passivityandillogicalityarefeminineattributes,butthatbecauseofaccepted

genderroles,suchqualitiesaregenerally“regardedaslessvaluable”(p.41)andare

clothedinnegativelanguage;therefore,toacceptfemininecharacteristics,menmust

overcomethesocialstigmathatthequalitiespossess.

JungianPsychoanalysisintheThoughtofC.S.Lewis

Thereiscertainlynonecessitywhenapplyingtheworkofonepersontothatof

anotherfortheretobeanydirectinfluenceorknowledgebetweenthetwo.Afaithful

interpretationofonetextbyanotherwillrelyonlyuponthelegitimacyofthetexts

themselvesinconjunctionwithoneanotherandtheusefulnessoftheconclusionsdrawn

fromthestudy.However,insuchacaseasevaluatingJungianelementsinthefictionofC.S.

Lewis,itoughttobenotedthatLewiswasveryfamiliarwiththeworkofJung(Myers,

2004,p.7).InherdetailedstudyofTillWeHaveFacesentitledBareface,DorothyMyers

makesnotethat“Lewis’sstudyofJungwaslifelong”(p.197).Suchanextensiveinfluence

shouldnotbeignored,forinadditiontolendinglegitimacytotheinterpretiveapproach,it

alsohasthepotentialtolendfurtherinsighttothestudybyallowingforotherofLewis’s


ownwritingstoaidintheJungianinterpretationofhisfinalnovel.TillWeHaveFaces,

althoughnotstrictallegoryinthesamemannerasLewis’sChroniclesofNarnia,certainly

containsallegoricalelements.Itspeaksdirectlytothehumanconditionandemploysmany

themesthatarecentraltoChristianity,suchastheideaoffollowersofChristbeingHis

bride(asPsychebecomesthebrideofagod)andthecentralityofsacrificial,self‐giving

love.MyersnotesthecomplexityofthevariouselementsthatinteractinTillWeHaveFaces

byrecognizingthat“thestoryiscomplicatedbytheintegrationoftheJungianprocesswith

Christianspiritualwisdom”(p.202).ThesedifferentaspectsofLewis’sworkneednot,

however,standinoppositionwithoneanother;theyaremostfullyintegratedinoneofthe

centralthemesofLewis’slifeandthought:myth.

TheSignificanceofMythinJung’sArchetypes

Jung’sarchetypesarebasedontheideaofengrained,ancientideasexistentwithin

eachperson’sunconsciousmind.Becauseoftheirprimordialnature,theyareoftenbest

expressedanddescribedintherealmofmyth.Inhisessay“ArchetypesandGender:

Goddesses,Warriors,andPsychologicalHealth,”C.Z.Enns(1994)explains,“archetypes

appearmostfrequentlyinthemythsandprimitiveloreofcultures”(par.3).Theancient

qualitythatdefinesthearchetypeiscommunicatedmostaccuratelythroughmyth.Lewis

himselfsupportsthisinhisdirectanalysisofJungiantheoryentitled“Psycho‐Analysisand

LiteraryCriticism”(1969),stating,“Myths,oratanyratetheolderandgreatermyths,are

suchimagesrecoveredfromthecollectiveunconscious”(p.297).Theseimages,ofcourse,

areJung’sarchetypes,andareofsuchanaturethattheyareinseparablefromthemythical

form.


Jungunderstoodtheimportanceofmythinthecomprehensionofarchetypes.In

Aion:ResearchesIntothePhenomenologyoftheSelf,Jung(1959)offersanexplanationof

whymythmustcontributetoone’sunderstandingofarchetypes:

Itispossibletodescribethiscontentinrational,scientificlanguage,butinthisway

oneentirelyfailstoexpressitslivingcharacter.Therefore,indescribingtheliving

processesofthepsyche,Ideliberatelyandconsciouslygivepreferencetoa

dramatic,mythologicalwayofthinkingandspeaking,becausethisisnotonlymore

expressivebutalsomoreexactthananabstractscientificterminology,whichis

wonttotoywiththenotionthatitstheoreticformulationsmayonefinedaybe

resolvedintoalgebraicequations.(p.13)

Although,asLewisconcedes,itcanbetemptingtoacceptJung’stheorytoounreservedly

becauseofitsbeautyandtheemotivepowerofsuchanidea(creatingaconnection

betweenourselvesandtheancientpastthroughmythiscertainlypoeticregardlessofits

veracity),thissameemotionalpoignancyservesas“proofthatheisquiterightinclaiming

thatcertainimages,inwhatevermaterialtheyareembodied,haveastrangepowerto

excitethehumanmind”(Lewis,p.299).Itis,therefore,morethanpossiblethatinwriting

TillWeHaveFaces,hisretellingofthemythofErosandPsyche,Lewishadthesearchetypal

imagesinmindandwasconsciousoftheirpresenceinhisstory.Todecipherthese

archetypes—astheanimusarchetypeisherebeinganalyzed—isthereforenotonlyto

discoverJung’sinfluenceuponLewis,butalsotodiscovertheinfluenceofthesearchetypes

uponhumanity.Mythfunctionsasamediumthroughwhichthearchetypesofeachhuman

unconsciouscanberevealed.


TheFourStagesoftheAnimus

DemonstratedinLewis’smytharebothexamplesofhowtheanimuscanremain

detachedfromawoman’spsycheandhowitcanbeintegrated,foralthoughOrualdenies

herfemininitythroughoutmostofthenovel—andindoingsoallowsheranimustopossess

her,—thestoryisalsoOrual’sjourneytoindividuationandafullunificationofanimuswith

psyche.BeforeembarkinguponachronologicalstudyofOrual’spathtoindividuationand

animusintegration,ageneralstudyofhowpossessionbytheanimusand,alternatively,

acceptanceofit,willalteraperson’sbehaviorandpsyche,willbeveryhelpfulforan

accurateanalysisofOrual’spsychologicalstateateachpointinthenovel.

Ennsdescribesthestateofanimuspossessionanditsconsequencesobserving,

“Jungbelievedthatwomencouldbecomepossessedbytheanimus,astateinwhichthe

animusisoftencorrupted,resultinginhostility,obstinacy,dogmatism,power‐driven

behaviors,andirrationalandopinionatedperspectives”(par.6).Thisreactionoccurs

becausetheanimusisresponsibleforrationalityandreason.Iftheanimusisnotallowed

tobecomeconsciousandisthereforenotfullydevelopedandintegrated,then,although

opinionscontinuetobeheldstrongly,theyareoftenillogicalandunexamined.Inthesame

waythatmen,inthegripoftheiranima,arelikelytofeelthingsstronglyandirrationally

andyetnotbeabletoidentifythesourceoftheiremotions,womenpossessedbythe

animusareunabletoevaluatetheiropinions(Robertson,1987,p.133).

Apositive,integratedfunctioningoftheanimuscanoccuronlywhentheanimusis

fullyrealizedandacceptedbytheindividual.Robertsonpresentsfurtherinsight,

remarking,“Forawoman,integratingthepersonalcontentsoftheAnimusenablesherto

acceptthatrationalthoughtsareanecessarypartoflife.Sheisabletoactinboththeinner


andouterworldwiththeswiftnessofthought”(p.134).Yetsuchintegrationdoesnot

occurwithoutmucheffortbytheindividualtobringtheanimusintoconsciousness.

AnthonyStorr(1973)inhisintroductiontoJungandhistheoriesstates,“itisonlywhena

manorwomanunderstands,becomesfamiliarwith,andfacesthesepersonificationsof

subjectivedesireandemotionthattheyceasetooperateasautonomouspersonalitiesin

oppositiontotheconsciouswill”(p.46‐47).Theprocessofunderstandingandaccepting

theanimusisthereforeinvolved,andcantakemuchtime,effort,andevensorrow.

Therearefourmainphasesthroughwhichawomanmustpassbeforetheanimus

canbeintegratedandindividuationfinallyachieved.Thesephasesareoutlinedinmost

detailinEmmaJung’sessay,“OntheNatureoftheAnimus”(1957).Inordertoaccurately

explainthefourphases,EmmaJungusestypesofmenasexamplesoftheanimusateach

stage;thisapproachissimilartoCarlJunginusingmythtodescribeandillustratethe

archetypes.Thefirststage,theManofPower,ischaracterizedbyphysicalstrengthorby

strengthofwill.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthewomannecessarilyfocusesuponherown

strength,butthatshemaybedrawntosuchfiguresas“theheroesoflegend,orpresent‐day

sportscelebrities,cowboys,bullfighters,aviators,andsoon”(p.3).Thewomanprojects

heranimusontosuchfiguresatthisstageinparticular,asthefoundationalandmost

primalstageofanimusdevelopment.

FollowingthisisaconcentrationontheManofDeed,orthosewhofocustheir

strengthuponaparticulargoal.Atthisstagetheintellectbeginstoassertitselffor,instead

ofdirectionlesspower,significanceisbeingsought.M.L.vonFranzin“TheProcessof

Individuation”(1978)givesexamplesofthetypesofmenwhowouldbeembodimentsof

theanimusatcertainstagesofitsdevelopment.Suchmenwouldeitherappearinthe


dreamsofawomanduringthisphase,wouldexemplifytheprojectionsofthewomanupon

othermen,orwhosevalueswouldbeenactedinthewoman’sownlife.Whilethefigureof

TarzancorrespondstotheManofPowerfromthefirststage,vonFranzassigns19th

CenturyBritishRomanticpoetPercyShelleytothesecondstage(p.205).Actionbasedon

strengthandreflectionismostvaluedatthisstage,andtheManofDeedimage

demonstratesthisprinciple.

Thethirdstage,symbolizedbytheManoftheWordassumesanevengreatermental

powerandcannowbe“understoodasbeingaspiritualguideandasrepresentingthe

intellectualgiftsofthewoman”(Jung,1957,p.4).E.Jungdescribesthisstageasoneofthe

mostimportantanddangerousstages,foralthoughwomenatthisstageare“active,

energetic,brave,andforcefulwomen”(p.4),thereisalsothepotentialfortheanimusto

overcomethewoman’spsycheandstifleherfemininity,causinghertobecomebrutaland

over‐aggressive.Inahealthyanimusdevelopment,theseanti‐feminine,hostileelementsof

theanimuswillhavebeensubduedinphaseonewiththeestablishmentoffeminine

lifestyles.Positiveanimusdevelopmentisessentiallyastruggletoharmonizethe

masculinespiritwithinawoman,“tolearntoknowthesefactors,tocoordinatethemso

thattheycanplaytheirpartinameaningfulway”(p.5).

Finally,thefourthstageispersonifiedbytheManofMeaning,thecatalystof

spiritualtruthandwisdom,andisrepresentedbyvonFranzbythefigureofGandhi(p.

205).Thisisthestageofindividuationwhentheanimusisfullyconscious,fullyexamined,

andfullyintegratedintoawoman’spsyche.Eachstageisnowpresentandunderstood,and

theirunionformsthe“logos,thequintessenceofthemasculineprinciple”(Jung,1957,p.3).

Bythisstage,awomanwillhavelearnedtocriticizeandevaluateherownopinions,to


standfirminherdecisionsaftertheyhavebeenmade,andtosynthesizethesegenerally

masculinequalitieswithherownfemininenature.

TheFourStagesofOrual’sAnimus

ThestoryofTillWeHaveFacesfocusesnotonPsyche,thecentralcharacterofthe

originalmyth,butuponhersister,Orual.Orualnarratesthestory,anditscontentsform

herhonestaccounttothegodsofthewaysinwhichshebelievestheyhavewrongedher.

Theaccount,becauseofitshonestyanddepth,givesuniqueinsightintothedevelopmentof

Orual’sownanimus.Throughoutthecourseofthenovelitispossibletodiscerneachofthe

aforementionedfourstagesofOrual’sanimusdevelopment.Althoughthephasesdotend

tooverlap,forthesakeofanalysisthestageswillherebedefinedinfourparticular

chronologicalstages:(1)ChildhoodandYouth,(2)Post‐Sacrifice,(3)Queenship,and(4)

Individuation,orReceivingaFace.StageonewillincludedeathofOrual’smother,her

childhoodwithRedivalandPsyche,hereducationwiththeFox,andherrelationshipwith

herabusivefather,theKing.StagetwowillincludePsyche’ssacrifice,Orual’sangerand

rage,herdiscoveryofPsycheinthemountains,hermanipulativeplantomakePsyche

returnhome,andtheexileofPsycheasaresultofherdisobedience.Thethirdstage—the

longest,inaccordancewiththeimportanceitholds—willspanamajorityofOrual’slifeand

mostofhertimeasQueen.Itwillcoverherdecisiontoalwayswearaveil,herbattlewith

Argan,andherdecisiontowritehercomplaint.Finally,thefourthstagewillincludethe

tasksshemustcompleteinherdreamsandvisions,herreunitingwithPsyche,andher

unionwiththegod.


ChildhoodandYouth

Correspondingtothefirststageofanimusdevelopment,thestageofstrengthandof

will,Orual’schildhoodandyouthareparticularlyformative,foritisherethatshefirst

encounterstensionwithinherpsyche,stemmingfromheranimus.AccordingtoJungian

theory,“thefirstprojectionoftheanimusisonthefather”(Hall&Nordby,1973,p.47).As

aphysicallyabusivemantoallthosearoundhim,KingTromcertainlyfulfillstheroleofa

ManofPower.Orualisverylikeherfather,particularlyintheearlystagesofherlife,and

thesimilaritiesaremostcommonlybaseduponstrengthandstubbornness.Forexample,

whenOrualbecomesangrywiththepeopleofGlomeforcallingPsyche“TheAccursed”

whensheisunabletohealthemfromtheirsicknesses,Orualeruptsinragedeclaring,“Oh,I

couldteartheminpieces!”(Lewis,p.35).Psycherecognizestheangerofherfatherwithin

Orual,whichoftenmanifestsitselfinherbehavior,andrebukesOrual,exclaiming,“You

lookjustlikeourfatherwhenyousaythosethings”(p.35).ThischastisementcausesOrual

aseverewoundthat,sheadmits,stillcausesherpainsometimes,anditislargelythetruth

ofthestatementthatmakesitsosearing.Shehasadoptedherfather’srage;heranimus

beginstostifleherfemininityandbecomesuncontrollable.

Toaddtothisemphasisuponthemasculineinherlife,thenarrativeopenswiththe

deathofOrual’smother(p.4).AlthoughwearenottoldofthedispositionofOrual’s

mother,thelossofsuchacentralandformativerolemodelisparticularlysignificantto

Orual’sgenderdevelopment.Shehashenceforthlostanystablefemaleinfluenceinherlife.

AsHelenM.Lukenotesin“TheWayofWoman,”(1992),“Thereisnotruehumanwomanin

Orual’senvironment”for,nowthathermotherhasdied,sheisleftwithonlyherpompous

nurseBattaandhervainsisterRedivalasexamplesofwomanhood(p.45‐46).InAnthony


Steven’sintroductiontoJung(1994),theimportanceofbothfatherlyandmotherlylovein

achild’slifeishighlighted,forthetwoaredifferentandeachisnecessaryforthe

developmentofthemasculineandfemininenatureofachild:“thefather’sloveis

contingentlove”orlargelydependantuponthechild’saccomplishmentsandconduct,

“whilethemother’sloveislargelyunconditional”(p.52).Hecontinues,associating

motherlylovewithEros—“theprincipleoflove,intimacy,andrelatedness”—andfatherly

lovewithLogos—“theprincipleofreason,judgment,anddiscrimination”(p.52).These

threedescriptorsoffatherlylove,orLogos,willberecognizedfromthepreviousdiscussion

oftheanimus,foritisrepresentativeoftheseprincipleswithinthefemalepsyche.In

relationtoOrual’sfamilysetting,therefore,shehasfrequentlyhadLogosmodeledforher

andcouldeasilyprojectituponhermainadultrolemodel,herfather.Thissituationalone

couldexplainherfuturetendencytorelytoostronglyuponheranimusandtoletit

consumeherfemininity.

Toaddtothealreadypresenttendencytowardsthemasculine,Orualhasamannish

appearance,andisconstantlycalleduglybyherfatherandotherpeopleofthecourt.King

Tromharborsintensebitternessatnothavingbeenabletohaveasonasanheir,and

releasesthisangerbyabusingOrual.Hecallshernamessuchas“curdface”(Lewis,p.17)

and“hobgoblin”(p.78).TheseoutburstsleaveOrualwithnodoubtofheruglyappearance,

andcertainlycontributetotheharmfulwayinwhichheranimusassertsitselfwithinher

psychelaterinlife.

Inmanycases,becausegirlsareexpectedtoassumeafemininerole,“thepersona

takesprecedenceoverandstiflesthe...animus”(Hall&Nordby,1973,p.48).Theeffectof

thisunderstandingofgenderroleswould,insuchcases,causetheanimustobetooweak


andundevelopedwithinanindividual,andwouldcreatetheneedforthemasculinetobe

betterunderstoodandallowedtobecomeanacceptedpartofone’spsycheandbehavior.If

thisisnotallowedtooccur,theanimuswouldeitherhavetoolittlepower,orthepower

thatitdidhavewouldbeusedonlyforill,fortheopinionsitsostronglyholdswouldbe

entirelyunexamined.Orual’schildhoodisnotlikethis,however.Sheisnevertoldbyher

fathertofulfillherfemininerolesand,becauseofherlooks,isdeniedthechancetoeven

try.TheKingtellstheFox,aslavewhoistoeducateOrual:“Seeifyoucanmakeherwise;

it’saboutallshe’lleverbegoodfor”(p.6).Tobewisewas,intheKingdomofGlomeandin

manysocieties,aparticularlymasculinecalling.Becauseofherlooks,Orualneverhasto

assumeafemininepersona,suchasawifeoramother,andallowsheranimustopossess

allaspectsofherlife.

InhischargetoeducateOrualandtomakeherwise,theFoxbecomesanother

significantinfluenceuponthedevelopmentofOrual’sanimus.AsaGreekmanwhowas

capturedasaslavebytheKingdomofGlome,acivilizationmuchlessdevelopedthanthat

ofhishomeland,theFoxbecomesafigureofreasonandrationalismamidstthe

superstitiouspeopleofGlome.TheFoxistheclosestthingtoafriendthatOrualhasbefore

thebirthofPsyche,andafterPsyche’sbirth,thethreeofthemoftenareoftentogether,

learningandplaying(Lews,p.20‐21).TheFox,soonknownas“Grandfather”toOrual,

becomestoher“asecondfather:awiseandgentleman,aphilosopher,arationalist,the

bestkindofhumanistwhothoughthehadoutgrownbeliefintheoldgodsandtheir

superstitions”(Luke,1992,p.45).Hisactionsandattitudeinmanywaysstarklyoppose

thoseoftheKing:wheretheKingisbrutal,theFoxiskind;wheretheKingisfearful,the

Foxisconfident.


TheFox’sinfluenceprovidesforOrualapersonificationoftheanimusinitsthird

stage,forhiswillhasbeentamedandhisloveisfortheword,andforwisdom.Yeteventhe

influenceoftheFoxisincomplete,forhecannotacceptanymeaningbeyondanearthly

realm.Hedeniestheexistenceofthegods,callingtheideairrational;thereasoningofthe

PriestofUngithedismissesas“nonsense”(p.44).AtnopointcanOrual,despiteher

aptness—becauseofthecontrolofheranimus—tostronglyrelyonherintellectoverher

emotions,fullyacceptthesystemofbeliefheldbytheFox.AsH.M.Lukecontinues,Orual

“remainedawoman,and,tryasshewould,shecouldnotsimplyaccepttheFox’s

reasoningsastheonlytruth,forintuitivelysheknewthegodsexisted”(p.50).TheFox’s

rationalism,likeherfather’sstrength,urgedhertowardsanacceptanceofheranimusbut

didnothingtodemonstratetheneedforabalancebetweenherfemininesensibilitiesand

hermasculineideas,causingdisunitywithinherpsyche.

ItmustnotbeforgottenthatalthoughOrual’sanimusbecamethemostprominent

partofherbecauseofthesituationinwhichshegrewupandthechoicesthatshemade,the

masculineisnevertheonlypartofOrual.Althoughtheanimusdominatesherpsyche,

femininequalities—andevenlongingstoexhibitfemininequalities—doexistwithinher.

ThisbecomesthesourceofmuchofOrual’smalicetowardshersisterRedival.Asa

beautifulgirl,RedivaloftenbecomesacanvasontowhichOrualprojectshershadowside:

“Orual,whiledespisingRedival’svanityandmeanness,displayedtheseburiedqualitiesin

herself”(p.47).Redival’sveryfemininenature—qualitiesthatOrualsuppressesbut

cannotdestroy—causesresentmentinOrualand,althoughRedivalisoftenbothvainand

mean,Orualaccentuatesthesequalities,dismissingRedival’svalueentirely.Intheaccount

ofTillWeHaveFaces,OrualspeaksofRedivalwithcontempt,andreadersarerarely


promptedtorememberthat“[Redival]grewupwithnothingtolovebutherownpretty

face”(p.45).Orualisabletorecognizelonelinessastheprimarymotiveforhersister’s

behavioryearsafter,uponachievingindividuation,allthroughoutherchildhoodandmost

ofheradultlife,OrualusesRedivalasascapegoatofsorts,uponwhichsheprojectsboth

herfemininenatureandthebitternessharboredwithinheratnotassertingthisnature.

Post‐Sacrifice

ItisafterOrual’sbelovedsisterPsycheissacrificedtothegodoftheGreyMountain

thattherelationshipbetweenthetwosistersbeginstobetheprimaryarenainwhich

Orual’sanimusissueismostevidentlyseen.Althoughherroleasacharacterinherown

rightmustnotbeneglected,itmustberememberedthatthestoryofTillWeHaveFacesis

predominantlyaboutOrual’sspiritualdevelopmentandjourneytoindividuation.Itistold

byherandfromherownperspective;therefore,eventheothercharactersarepresentedas

Orualperceivesthem,andnotnecessarilyastheytrulyare.WhileOrual’sstoryisher

honestaccountwrittensothatallmayjudgebetweenherconductandthatofthegods,

Orualdoesnotprovetobeanentirelytrustworthynarratorinsomeinstances.Most

blatantisherclaiminchaptertwelvethatshe“eithersaworthought[she]sawtheHouse”

inwhichPsychelivedwiththegodandwhichwasatfirstinvisibletoOrual(Lewis,p.118),

whichdisagreeswithherlaterstatementthattheideathatshehadseenthecastlewasa

“twistedfalsit[y]”(p.213).Sheisnotcompletelyunbiasedinheraccount,afactwhich

oughttoremindreadersoftheformofthenovel.

Takingthisformintoaccount,onecanmoreaccuratelyunderstandhowOrual’s

relationshipwithPsycheaffectsheranimus,andalsohowheranimusaffectsthe

relationship.H.M.Lukedescribesthesignificanceofsamegenderrelationshipsaccording


toJungiantheoryexplaining,“whileweprojecttheimageoftheanimusoranimaontothe

oppositesex,weareapttoprojecttheSelfontoourown,anditisthisthatmakeslovefor

someoneofourownsexextremelydangerousaswellasanintenselycreativeopportunity”

(1992,p.70).ForOrual,thedangerisalwaysverynear;shebecomessopossessiveofher

sisterthattheloveconsumesherthoughtsandheractions.Inaphysicalwaythis

voraciouslovenearlydestroysher,forsheiswillingtokillherselfifitmeansthatshecan

persuadePsycheawayfromhernewhusband.Thisisfarfromasacrificialact—although

thatiswhatOrualhaspersuadedherselftobelieve—foritservesonlyOrual’sowndesires

withnoregardforPsyche’swillorduty.Yetparalleledwiththisdanger,therealsoexists

creativity—aconstructive,beautifulpassion—withinOrual’sloveforPsyche.Orual’slove

allowsherapurposewherepurposehadbeenrefusedher,andbringsherjoywhere

hopelessnesshadabounded.Becauseofherappearance,Orualwasdeniedtheopportunity

tohavechildrenofherown,andbecauseofhersituation,friendsofherownageand

genderwereveryscarce.WiththebirthofPsyche,Orualbeginstoknowhappinessand

delight,actingasamothertothechildandexperiencingmuchofthejoyamotherfeels:“I

laughedbecauseshewasalwayslaughing,”sheacknowledges(p.19).

BecauseOrualnarratesherrelationshipwithPsyche,thecharacterofPsychecanbe

seentobeapartofOrualherself.InmanywaysPsycheis—ashernamesuggests—a

representationofOrual’sownpsyche.UponPsyche’sdisobediencetothegodofthe

Mountain,thegodbanisheshertoexileandaimlesswandering,anddeclarestoOrual:“You

alsoshallbePsyche”(p.152).AlthoughOrualfirstbelievesthatshetoowillbeforcedinto

exile,itbecomesapparentthroughoutthecourseofthestorythatthedeclarationwasless

apunishmentandmoreapromise.ShewillbecomePsyche,beunitedwithinherSelf.


Itisinthis,thesecondstageofheranimusdevelopment,thatthedestructivenessof

Orual’srelationshipwithPsycheismostevident,and,accordingly,thatheranimusmost

activelyresistssynthesisorcooperationwiththeSelf.Jungexplainsin“TheRelations

BetweentheEgoandtheUnconscious,”(1938),that“Amancannotgetridofhimselfin

favorofanartificialpersonalitywithoutpunishment.Eventheattempttodosobringson,

inallordinarycases,unconsciousreactionsintheformofbadmoods,affects,phobias,

compulsiveideas,backslidings,vices,etc.”(p.164).ThesameistrueofOrual,who

becomescompulsivelycontrollingofPsyche.Orualinflictsharmuponherself,forcing

PsychetochoosebetweendisobeyingherhusbandandOrual’sownlife.Inanattemptto

persuadePsychetoreturnwithhertothecastleinGlome,OrualdemandsthatPsychelook

atherhusband’sface—anactforbiddenbythegod—whenhecomestoherthatnight.

OrualbelievesthelightPsycheusestoseeherhusbandwillexposeabeggarorruffianand,

horrifiedathermistake,PsychewillwillinglyandapologeticallycometoOrualforcomfort.

AlthoughPsycherefusesatfirst,Orualthreatenstokillherselfand,toproveher

seriousness,stabsherarmdramaticallywithadagger.Becauseofthisemotionalcoercion,

Psychereluctantlyagreestodisobeythegod—achoicethatresultsintheexile.

Thisinteraction,giventhepreviousexplanationofhowJung’stheoryoftheanimus

canbeappliedtoOrual’scharacterdevelopment,revealsthattheanimushasnowtaken

possessionofOrual’sunconscious,andisnowusingforce—developedinthefirststage—to

accomplishthespecificgoalofcontrollingherpsyche.Thesecondstageoftheanimus,that

ofdeeds,isthereforedemonstratedprimarilyinOrual’sinteractionwithPsyche.Herbelief

thatshemustemotionallycoercePsycheintodisobedience,althoughshecontemplatesthe

actionbriefly,islargelyunexamined,anothercharacteristicoftheManofDeeds.Atno


pointdoesitoccurtoherthatsuchanactionisnotlove,butselfishnessandoppression.

PsychedoesbringthistoOrual’sattention,statingthatOrual’skindofloveisno“better

thanhatred,”“atool,aweapon,athingofpolicyandmastery,aninstrumentoftorture”

(Lewis,p.146),yetOrualrefusestoacknowledgethevalidityofPsyche’sstatement.Orual

continuestoact,toforcePsyche’sdisobedience,withnofurtherthoughtaboutheractions.

ThesecondstageofthedevelopmentofOrual’sanimusiscertainlyharmful,bothto

herownpsycheandtohersister.Yet,inastrangeway,Orualmustpassthroughthisstage

toeventuallyachievewholeness.H.M.Lukein“TheWayofWoman,”recognizesandseeks

togiveanaccountforthesituation’scomplexity:

Itisnowthattheparadoxes,incredibletothereasoningmind,ofthewayto

individuationbreakthroughtous,andwebegintosensehowwithouttheworstin

us,thebestwouldremaininanunconsciousstate,unabletoknowthatsheknows.

OrualhorriblybetrayedherloveforPsyche;butwithoutthatbetrayalPsyche

herselfwouldhavecontinuedtoexistinaninfantileparadiseofinnocenceremote

fromhumanlife.(p.52)

TherisetopowerofOrual’sanimus,althoughitseffectsarewrong,unpleasant,andpainful,

arenecessaryfortheeventualintegrationofheranimusintoherpsyche,for“Self‐

knowledgeisthepathtoself‐realization”(Hall&Nordby,1973,p.52),andOrualmustpass

througheachofthefourstagesofanimusdevelopment,learningtoknowandunderstand

bothhermasculineandfemininenatures,beforeshecanreachself‐realization.Tofurther

illustratethispoint,H.M.LukepointstoOrual’sdescriptionofthegod’svoice,“likeabird

singingonthebranchaboveahangedman,”(Lewis,p.153),saying:“Thosewhocandeeply

experiencethejoyofthebirdandthehorrorofthehangedmanasonerealityhavesaidyes


tolifeandtothe‘dreadfulbeauty’ofthegod”(Luke,p.53).Thisexplanationdescribesthe

extentofthefearandthejoythatOrual’sjourneytoindividuationcontains.Oneisnot

possiblewithouttheother,forexperiencingthedreadandpainthatshedoesisnecessary

forhertodeeplyandconsciouslyunderstandherselfthatshemayknowhertruefaceand

beabletocommunewiththegodasawholeperson.

Queenship

ThethirdphaseofOrual’sanimusdevelopmentisthestageinwhichtheanimus

exertsthemostinfluenceoverher,stiflinghertrueselfalmostcompletelyunderitspower.

Unlikethetransitionfromstageonetostagetwo,themovetostagethreeisnotvague,but

canbeseentooccurataparticularmoment.Uponreturninghomefromherdisastrous

questtoreclaimPsyche,Orualdetermines:“that[she]wouldgoalwaysveiled”(Lewis,p.

159).Thisveilactsasapersona,definedbyJungas“acomplicatedsystemofrelations

betweenindividualconsciousnessandsociety,fittinglyenoughakindofmask,designedon

theonehandtomakeadefiniteimpressionuponothers,and,ontheother,toconcealthe

truenatureoftheindividual”(p.162).TomorefirmlygrasptheextentofOrual’spersona,

herdesiredimpressionwillfirstbeinvestigated,followedbythatwhichshedesiresto

conceal.

VerysoonafterOrualreturns,herfatherbecomesill,falls,anddiesafewdayslater.

Inadditiontogainingherveil,therefore,OrualalsogainsQueenship,andthetwobecome

inextricableinOrual’smindandinthemindsofhersubjects.Beforeherfatherdies,sheis,

withthehelpofhernewpersona,abletoassertherselfoverhiminawayinwhichshe

previouslynevercould.Herfatherrebukesherforwearingtheveil,callingit“frippery”

andcommandinghertoremoveit.Orualrefuses,calmlyandfirmly,andtellsusthather


father“neverstruck[her],and[she]neverfearedhimagain”(p.160).Theconcealmentof

herface,whathadpreviouslybeenasourceofembarrassmentandvulnerability,allows

Orualanewstrength.Hergoal,sheexplains,is“tobuildupmoreandmorethatstrength,

hardandjoyless,...bylearning,fighting,andlabouring,todriveallthewomanoutof

[her]”(p.162).Suchagoaliscertainlyanexampleofthepowertheanimusnowexerts

overherfor,asJungexplains,“Awomanpossessedbytheanimusisalwaysindangerof

losingherfemininity,heradaptedfemininepersona”(Jung,1938,p.180).Sheassumesthe

androgynousmaskoftheveil,andbecomesaformidablefigure—forwhodoesnotfeel

somediscomfortinthepresenceofonewhomyoucannotsee,butwhocanseeyou?Yet

sheisagoodQueen,belovedbypeopleforherbravery,justice,andwisdom.

WhattheQueenrepressesprovidesagreateropportunityforJungianevaluation.

Underherveil,theQueendesiresthatOrual“vanishaltogether”(p.177).Sheexplains:“the

QueenofGlomehadmoreandmorepartinme...Orualhadlessandless.IlockedOrual

uporlaidherasleepasbestIcouldsomewheredeepdowninsideme;shelaycurledthere”

(p.198).Beneathherpersonaandtheoppressiveinfluenceofheranimus,Orual’strueself

issuppressed.Althoughasaresultofheranimuspossessionsheisabletogrowinstrength

andwisdom,thisgrowthisofnouse,foritremainsdetachedfromherpsyche.D.Myers

discussesthisprocess,remarkingthattheQueen“haddevelopedobjectivityandcontrolof

heremotions,butattheexpenseoflivingalmostcompletelyinherconsciousmind.There

comesatime,though,whenthespiritual,transcendentpartofahumanbeingcannolonger

beneglected”(p.120).EvenOrual,hiddenbehindherveil,couldnotstayrepressedbyher

animusforever.


Intheevenings,whenOrualwouldretiretoherbedchamberandremoveherveil,

shewasagainawareofthestrugglesthathadbeenragingwithinhersincechildhood.At

thistimeofday,shehearsthewindrattlingthechainsofawelloutsidethecastle,makinga

soundthatcouldeasilybemistakenforagirl’swailing.Psyche’stormentinexilehaunts

Orualintheevenings,bothinwakefulnessandsleep.Totrytofurthersuppresssuch

remindersofheroldlife,Orual“builtstonewallsroundthewellandputathatchedroof

overitandaddedadoor”(p.205).Orualherselfunderstandsthesignificanceofthis

action,stating:”Ihadwalledup,gaggedwithstone,notawellbutPsyche(orOrual)

herself”(p.206).H.M.LukeagreesthatOrual’s“truepsycheweepsasshesearchesforthe

god”(p.58).Asadoortounderground,awellisaparticularlysignificantimageforsuchan

idea,for,asJ.R.Christopherexplainsin“ArchetypalPatternsinTillWeHaveFaces,”(1977),

“theunconsciousmindofpsycho‐analyticstudiesispopularlypicturedasbeneaththe

consciousmindandpopularlycalledthesubconscious”(p.205).Intryingtoblockupthe

well,Orualblocksupherunconsciousandrefusestoallowhertruepsychetoencroach

uponthepersonaassumedbyheroverassertiveanimus.

AnotherdeviceusedbyOrual’sanimustosuppressthefemininenaturenow

existentmostlywithintheunconsciousisthetypicallymaleactofswordfighting.Inorder

tosolidifyherpoliticalstandinguponbecomingQueen,Orualchoosestoenterintohand‐

to‐handcombatwithArganinabattlewhichwilldeterminethefateofthekingdomandof

PrinceTrunia,apoliticalallywhoseeksrefugefromQueenOrual.Fromthetimeof

Psyche’ssacrifice,Orualhasbeentakingsword‐fightinglessonsfromBardia,thehead

warriorofthearmyofGlome,andbelievesshecantriumphoverthisenemy.Orual

explicitlyassociatesthepowerandcouragetokillwiththemasculinepersonawhichshe


nowwears,asisdemonstratedwhenitissuggestedthatsheslaughterthepigforthe

sacrificeinpreparationforthebattle.Attheproposition,shewrites:“IfIshrankfromthis

therewouldatoncebelessQueenandmoreOrualinme”(p.182).Becauseheranimusis

stillunwillingtoallowtheSelfanycontroloverheractions,Orualbrushesasideherfear

andisabletosacrificethepigandtodefeatherfoewithrelativeease.

AlsosignificanttothepresenceoftheanimusinthebattleisOrual’sresponseto

killingArgan:“Ifeltmyselfchangedtoo,asifsomethinghadbeentakenawayfromme.I

haveoftenwonderedifwomenfeellikethatwhentheylosetheirvirginity”(p.193).

AlthoughtheprocessofrecoveringherSelfandreducingtheanimustoitsappropriate

positionisnotresolveduntilmuchlaterinOrual’slife,thisisanexampleofthecontinued

existenceofthefemininewithinher.Althoughhermasculinepersonaexertsastrong

influenceoverOrualduringthisphaseinherlife,femininefeelingscontinuetoexist

underneaththemaskoftheQueen.HerresponsetothekillingofArganisoneofthe

primaryinstancesinwhichOrualbeginstointrudeuponthelifeoftheQueen.Her

suppressedfemininityandtheelementsofhertrueSelfassociatedtherewithconsistently

trytoassertthemselvesovertheQueenevenasheroveraggressiveanimusattemptsto

subduethem.

Orual’sdiscomfortwithherassumedmasculineidentityisevenmoreexplicitly

revealedatthecelebrationfeastheldafterthefight.Here,she“couldlaughloudanddrink

deeplikeamanandawarrior”(p.196),butingivingthefeastwasalso“allwomanagain

andcaughtupinhousewife’scares”(p.195).Orualisdesperatelytryingtodenyher

femininenature,butsheisunabletoridherselfofitcompletely.Forinstance,whilesheis

atfirstacceptedasamanbythepeopleofGlome,thisimagefadeswithtime.Shesaysof


Bardia,whohasbecomeherfriendandtrustedadvisor:“I’minhisman’slife”(p.204).

Thosearoundher,whoknowofheruglyface,cometoacceptherandinteractwithheras

thoughshewereamanratherthanawoman.Thosewhodonotknowofherappearance

however—anumberthatsignificantlyincreasesbythelateryearsofherreign—areless

easilypersuadedtoviewherasaman,asshedesirestobeviewed.PrinceTrunia,for

example,believesthatshehidesherfaceinmodesty,becauseofextremebeauty.He

complimentsheronherbeautifulvoiceandthroughtheencounterwearetoldthatOrual

alsohasaniceform,forsheneverhadchildrenasmostofthewomenofGlomedid.As

yearspassitbecomesmoreandmoredifficultforOrualtoperpetuatetheviewinothers

thatsheshouldbetreatedasanyman.

ContributingtothefailingpresentationofheranimuswasherloveforBardia.

Althoughthelovewasneverdeclaredorreciprocated—itwasnot,infact,evenfully

comprehendedbyOrualuntilafterBaria’sdeath—herdesiretobewithBardiainsucha

relationshipdemonstratesanaspectofOrual’sbeingnotinfullcongruitywithheranimus.

Despitetheauthorityoftheanimuswithinher,Orualisstillfragmented.H.M.Lukelabels

heratthispointas“anundifferentiatedman‐woman.ShewantsBardiatoloveherasa

woman,Psychetoloveherasaman”(p.58).ForyearsOrualisplaguedbyherrelationship

withBardiabecause,whilehebecomesoneofhermosttrustedcounselorsandbest

friends,sheknowsthatshecanonlybeapartofhismanworld.Shetellsusofthiswoe,

lamenting:“Iwashiswork;heearnedhisbreadbybeingmysoldier.Whenhistableof

workforthedaywasdone,hewenthomelikeotherhiredmenandtookuphistruelife”(p.

196).Sheisnotsatisfiedwiththerulingofheranimuswithinher,andyetshelivesinthis

conflictformuchofherlife.


ItisBardia’sdeaththatfirstawakensherneedtoacknowledge,inaminorway,her

largelyunconsciousfemininenature.OrualvisitsBardia’swife,Ansit,topayher

condolencesandtoofferwordsofsympathy.Whilethere,Ansitiscoldandangry,forshe

feelsasthoughOrualmonopolizedherhusbandbyexploitinghisintensesenseofdutyand

demandingtoomuchofhistimeandenergy.ShebelievesthatbecauseOrualdesiredtobe

withBardiaasmuchasshecould,shehadworkedhimtodeath.Orualisastoundedby

Ansit’saccusation,foruntilthispointOrualhassuppressedanyknowledgeofhertrueSelf

becauseofheroveraggressiveanimusandthepaininvolvedinbeginningtobringher

psycheintoharmonywithitself.Stunnedbythisfirstmomentofclarity,sheasksAnsit,“Is

itpossibleyou’rejealous?”(p.229),rippingtheveilfromherfacetoexposeheruglinessto

Ansit.YetAnsitdoesnotseeugliness;sheseeslove.“Youlovedhim.You’vesuffered,too”

(p.230)isherresponse.Andtheybothweep.ThisisamomentinwhichOrualfinally

admitshertruenature.Althoughshehasnotreachedindividuation—heranimusquickly

reassertsitselfandshehurriedlyresumestheveil—thisisacriticalmomentatwhichOrual

beginstogainknowledgeaboutherself.

Totrulyreachthisself‐knowledge,however,Orualmustengageinataskuniqueto

thethirdstageofanimusdevelopment,thestagecharacterizedbyanemphasisonthe

word.AswarnedbyE.Jungin“OntheNatureoftheAnimus,”thethirdstageisdangerous,

anditparalyzesOrual’sdevelopmentformanyyears.YetafterhearingthemythofPsyche,

toldbyapriestinatempleofPsyche,sheresolvestowritehercomplainttothegods,a

complaintthathasbeenbrewingandfesteringformanyyearsbothconsciouslyand

unconsciously.Itistheactofwritingthatisanofficialharbingerofthethirdstage,for,as

Junghimselfstates,“Thepurposeofthedialecticalprocessistobringthesecontentsinto


thelight”(p.181).Justasshemustsortseedsinthefirsttaskassignedtoherbythegods

inhervisions,inwritingherbookshemustsortthroughpainfulmemoriesandpreviously

unacknowledgedmotives(H.M.Luke,p.60;E.K.Gibson,1980,p.251;D.T.Myers,p.202).

Towriteistobeginthetaskofachievingtheself‐knowledgethatisnecessaryifOrualis

evertoachieveindividuation.

Individuation

Occurringinthefinalfourchaptersofthebook,thefourthstageofOrual’sanimus

developmentandtheconcludingincidentsintheprocessofherindividuationtranspire

largelyindreamsandvisions.Becausetheultimatechangemusthappeninthemind—the

verysphereinwhichdreamsoperate—theeventsthatprecipitateOrual’sindividuation

neednot,however,beanylessrealthaniftheyhadactuallyhappened.Inthesameway

thatmythcanoftenconveygreaterormoreaccuratetruththanscience,Orual’sdreamsare

morerealandinfluentialinshapingherpsychethanphysicalevents.HallandNordby

observe,“Knowledgeoftheselfisaccessiblethroughthestudyofone’sdreams.More

importantly,throughtruereligiousexperiencesonecanunderstandandrealizetheself”(p.

52).Orualencountersbothdreamsandreligiousexperiences—communicationwiththe

gods—andisabletocometoacompleterealizationofherlife,hermind,andevenherown

complainttothegods.ThisrealizationistherepresentationoftheManofMeaningofthe

fourthstageofanimusdevelopment.

OnceOrualhascometothisdegreeofself‐knowledge,sheisthenabletoachieve

individuation.Itishere,perhaps,thatLewismostdiffersfromJung’stheory,forwhere

Junganticipatesanindividualcomingtowholenessandindividuationhimorherself,Lewis

includestheworkofthegods;infact,itisthegodsthatdirecttheentireprocess.Orual


doesnottakeherveiloffherself,butsays:“Handscamefrombehindmeandtoreoffmy

veil—afterit,everyragIhadon”(p.253).Itisthegodswhoaidherinreunitingheranimus

withhertruepsyche,thatherpsychemaybewholeandthattheanimusandtheSelfmay

workinharmonywithoneanother.Thissynthesisisillustratedinthereunificationof

OrualandPsyche.

Afterbothsistersaccomplishthetaskssetforthembythegods—metaphoricalor,

moreaccurately,mythical,representationsoftheirindividualjourneystoindividuation—

thetwocometogetherinthepresenceofthegod.Inthismoment,Orualis“unmade,”and

thenremadeintothelikenessofPsyche(p.268).Finally,thegod’spromise,“Youalsoshall

bePsyche”(p.152),hascometofruition,andOrualismadebeautifulandcomplete.She

doesnotloseheranimus—indeed,couldnothavecompletedhertaskswithoutit—yether

masculineandherfemininearenowinperfectbalance,for“thetruesymboloftheSelfis

alwaysaunionofopposites”(H.M.Luke,p.70).Inthisunion,Orualisabletoknowherself

asthegodsknowher,andassuchisabletobegintoknowthem.

Conclusion

TheprocessofOrual’sindividuationislifelongandexceedinglycomplex.Such

factorsasanemotionallyandphysicallyabusivechildhoodandbeingbornwithamannish

appearancecontributetotheoveremphasisofheranimus,hermasculinepersonality,and

thesuppressionofherfemininity.Throughoutherlife,Orualmustlearntoknowherown

psyche,tobringwhatisunconscious—suchastheoverreactionofheranimus—intoher

consciousness,aprocesswhichisdifficultandpainful,butwhichrequiressorrowandpain

inorderthathereventualjoymaybecompleteinbeinggivenafacebywhichtoknowand

communewiththegodsandwithherbelovedsister,Psyche.Theoppositesnecessarily


existentwithinhermind—mostsignificantly,masculineandfeminine,—mustbeunitedin

Orual’spsychethatshemaybetrulycomplete.Thistask,althoughunderstandablewithout

theknowledgeofJung’stheories,becomesevenmoreconsequentialwheninterpreted

throughaJungianlens,foralthoughOrualisafictionalcharacter,thearchetypesshe

experiencesfunctioninallhumanmindsandpsyches.TillWeHaveFacesexemplifies

Jung’sbeliefthatarchetypesarebestunderstoodthroughmythratherthanthroughplain,

scientificlanguage.ExploringthecomplexitiesofthedevelopmentofOrual’spsycheand

herlongbutfruitfuljourneytowardsunity,wholeness,andthegainingofa“face,”andby

viewingthisjourneythroughJung’sarchetypaltheory,onecomestounderstandthe

complexitiesofallhumanpsyches;intheactofknowingher,wecanbetterknowourselves.


Bibliography

Carnell,C.S.(1974).Brightshadowofreality:C.S.Lewisandthefeelingintellect.

GrandRapids,MI:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCompany.

Christopher,J.R.(1977).ArchetypalpatternsinTillWeHaveFaces.InSchakel,P.J.

(Ed.),Thelongingforaform:EssaysonthefictionofC.S.Lewis.Eugene,OR:Wipf&

Stock.

Cox,D.(1968).Modernpsychology:TheteachingsofCarlGustavJung.NewYork,NY:

Barnes&Noble,Inc.

Edinger,E.F.(1972).Egoandarchetype:Individuationandthereligiousfunctionof

thepsyche.NewYork,NY:C.G.JungFoundationforAnalyticalPsychology.

Enns,C.Z.(1994).Archtypesandgender:Goddesses,warriors,andpsychological

health.JournalofCounselingandDevelopment:JCD,73(2),127‐127.

Retrievedfrom:

http://ezproxy.arbor.edu:80/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/2191

03214?accountid=13998

Filmer,K.(1993).ThefictionofC.S.Lewis.Houndmills,UK:MacmillanPressLtd.

Gibson,E.K.(1980).C.S.Lewisspinneroftales:Aguidetohisfiction.GrandRapids,

MI:WilliamB.EerdmansPublishingCo.

Hall,C.S.andNordby,V.J.(1973).APrimerofJungianPsychology.NewYork,NY:

TheNewAmericanLibraryInc.

Hart,D.L.(2008).TheclassicalJungianschool.InYoung‐Eisendrath,P.and

Dawson,T.(Eds.),TheCambridgecompaniontoJung.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge

UniversityPress.


Jung,C.G.(1959).Aion:Researchesintothephenomenologyoftheself.NewYork,

NY:BollingenFoundationInc.

Jung,C.G.(1938).Therelationsbetweentheegoandtheunconscious.InDeLaszlo,

V.S.(Ed.),ThebasicwritingsofC.G.Jung.NewYork:TheModernLibrary.

Jung,E.(1957).“OntheNatureoftheanimus.”InJung,E.(Ed.),AnimusandAnima.

Dallas,TX:SpringPublications,Inc.

Lewis,C.S.(1969).Psycho‐analysisandliterarycriticism.InHooper,W.(Ed.),

SelectedliteraryessaysbyC.S.Lewis(286‐300).Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Lewis,C.S.(1956).TillWeHaveFaces.NewYork,NY:TimeIncorporated.

Luke,H.M.(1992).Thewayofwoman.InBaker,R.(Ed.),Kaleidoscope:Thewayof

womanandotheressays.NewYork,NY:ParabolaBooks.

Kast,V.(2006).Anima/animus.InPapadopolous,R.K.(Ed.),Thehandbookof

Jungianpsychology.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Labouvie‐Vief,G.(1994).PsycheandEros:Mindandgenderinthelifecourse.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Myers,D.T.(2004).Bareface:AguidetoC.S.Lewis’slastnovel.Columbia,MO:

UniversityofMissouriPress.

Neumann,E.(1956).AmorandPsyche.NewYork,NY:BollingenFoundationInc.

Robertson,R.(1987).C.G.Jungandthearchetypesofthecollectiveunconscious.

NewYork,NY:PeterLang.

Stevens,A.(1994).Jung.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Storr,A.(1973).C.G.Jung.NewYork,NY:TheVikingPress.


vonFranz,M.L.(1964).Theprocessofindividuation.InJung,C.G.(Ed.),Manand

hissymbols.London:DellPublishing.

Young‐Eisendrath,P.,&Dawson,T.(Eds.).(2008).TheCambridgecompanionto

Jung.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Zogby,EdwardG.(2007).TriadicPatternsinLewis’sLifeandThought.In

Schakel,P.J.(Ed.),TheLongingforaForm:EssaysontheFictionofCS.Lewis.Eugene:

WipfandStockPublishers.

loved into wholeness, made whole to be loved: discovering the

Documents