Cherbourg School was connected to Malvern College at the time Lewis attended.
Finally got the chance to look through Jack’s letters from Cherbourg School today. I need to take some time to examine them in more depth, but I did notice a number of general themes/issues that stood out right at the beginning and most of them have to do with his relationship to his father.
In Surprised By Joy, Lewis noted that he was mortally ashamed of the way he had treated his father, Albert. He said that as time passed he intentionally put on a more and more elaborate mask with Albert. Jack hid his true thoughts and real self from Albert while keeping up a pretense that he really was his father’s best friend. While I’m not sure that it was intentional at this point in his life, the letters from Cherbourg appear to lay the groundwork for that later pattern:
- There is almost a formula to Jack’s letters. He seems to have a list of non-revealing discussion points that he moves through–the weather, the geography, local points of interest, trips to see the theater or hear a musical performance, and then finally requests for things he’s forgotten/needs. None of this reveals anything in particular about Jack, what he’s experiencing, or what he’s thinking. None of the important changes and revelations from Surprised By Joy make an appearance.
- In his one letter to Warnie, he is already referring to his frustrations with his father’s company–“Rows after tea and penitentiary strolls in the garden are not pleasant…” (25), even as he later entreats his father to “pour out all your troubles” onto Jack’s young shoulders. He said that he would bear the burden “as you know, very gladly.” (27) There is clearly already a bit of a dual life story being written.
- More than one Lewis scholar as noted the paucity of letters from Jack during his time at Cherbourg, and Hooper in particular takes this as evidence of the “personal renaissance” that Jack was undergoing. While I do agree with that, there seem to be hints in the text that there were a number of other letters that simply haven’t survived (something Hooper does allow for, though he emphasizes the other explanation). For instance, Jack specifically mentions to Warnie, “Please write soon (how often have I made that request and received no answer to it)…” (25). He later mentions to Albert that Warnie “seems to consider the answering of letters a superfluous occupation” (26) implying of course that he was a regular attempted correspondent.
- I think it worth noting that though there are a few possible inferences to draw from this, it would be a fallacy to attempt to do so. We would be, obviously, arguing from an absence of evidence.
Finally, a quick note on Hooper’s chronology. He dates LP IV: 49-50 (Jack’s letter to Warnie asking about Warnie’s getting the boot from his position as prefect) to “1? July 1913” and LP IV 44-5 (Jack corresponding with Albert about Warnie’s demotion) to “6 July 1913.” This seems to be out of order, for what that might be worth. In 44-6 Jack specifically mentions that “shortly after I wrote my letter to you, I decided to write him…. [emphasis added]” From the subsequent description of the letter’s contents, it is clear that Jack is describing 49-50. Therefore, if 44-5 is correctly dated to 6 July, 49-50 must have been written on the same day.
No biggie, but there it is.
Mere Lewis 