This is so interesting. I was talking some about it with Robert and he mentioned that when Jesus says to Peter that "...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" he said that in Caesarea Philippi, which had been called Panias or Panion which means "sanctuary of Pan." And there was a rocky cave there which was considered to be a gateway to the underworld and many horrific sacrifices were made there every year to Pan. And maybe that's exactly where Jesus was standing and part of what he was doing was challenging Pan. It gives me chills to think about that in relation to the quote about Thamus announcing that "the great god Pan is dead" from around the same time.
Well, I'll take Peter Pan off the bookshelf. This also makes me want to go find and read what C.S. Lewis says about mythology. I really love Till We Have Faces.
Fascinating article you linked, thanks! It was especially interesting when the author highlighted that we need to be on the offense, as Christians. Christ didn’t go into the red light district of Caesarea Philippi to preach tolerance and abstract “love” but to show his disciples what needs to be rooted out and overcome.
Yes, and I would add that it's an unusual kind of offense. Jesus’ method of offense and the way he rooted out that evil and stormed the gates of hell was through submission to his Father to the point of death for the love of his Father and enemies. He never compromised the truth or acted in fear and self defense and embarrassment. He was definitely on the offense but a very unexpected kind of offense.
Wow, that's a really cool tie-in. Amazing to hear that the death of Pan may have had something to do with Christ's proclamation to Peter. Thanks for taking the time to write this comment and enrich my experience of this already-phenomenal essay.
This was such a lovely article, by the way. I was astounded at the connections Ms. Finley made between Greek mythology, Barrie's own childhood, the early Church Fathers, and Nietzschian philosophy.
I agree that the actual story of Peter Pan is chaotic and has its dark side. I'll telegraph some of my thoughts as I read your piece... maybe some friendly sed contras?
When I read Peter Pan aloud to my youngest daughter (I think she was 10 or 11?), my thought was that the ending put it all into perspective.
I think deeper, enduring childhood stories acknowledge the conflict the child feels between wanting to be autonomous but knowing at some level that he doesn't have the self control and maturity to live without his parents, who are so troublesome to him and perhaps not really mature themselves. The fear engendered by this conflict is handled in the best of stories and is what gives them longevity.
The pagan elements don't trouble me in themselves. The tradition in that era of British writing is to take the delight (or humorous quality) and leave the darkness behind. Otherwise, what do we do with the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, or Mr. Tumnus, or E. Nesbit's Phoenix? There is a level where the Christian imagination is just not afraid of these characters, any more than Americans paid attention to the dark side of Indians' beliefs and just took the enchanting ones to heart.
The key to Peter Pan is in the ending. The ending brought my daughter and me to tears -- we were crying together and I could hardly finish. This might have something to do with my feeling that my "baby" (she's the youngest of my 7) would not be having stories read to her for much longer! Maybe it was my very own Peter Pan moment! But -- my thought was that it was tender and redeeming in showing the child that the order and happiness of home are best. The mother in particular stands out as being a satisfying figure for that inner child who, after all, is not doing well on his own.
It's troubling when an author has a background -- I remember being disturbed to find out that E. Nesbit was a Socialist! And I agree that Alice in Wonderland is a strange story to read to children, though we all do. I do think, though, that the art stands apart from the character of the artist, or can. If a story has stood the test of time (even if part of that time its popularity has to do with its Disneyfication), it deserves the benefit of the doubt.
But now it's been quite a long time since I've read this story. I guess maybe 16 or 17 years? So I don't know. I could be quite wrong! As I say, I'm just throwing some thoughts out there from memory!
Yes, I agree that on some level Barrie addresses that childhood conflict, and the ending does tidy some things up. Wendy and the children (and even the lost boys) return home, which is what you’d hope for from a children’s story. But the rest… the dark themes, the overt connection with Pan that channels the god’s chaotic nature rather than a warm, if pagan, aspect (such as the Piper at the gates of dawn, Mr Tumnus, et al. evoke), and Barrie’s disturbing relationship with the boys whom he modeled the story after—or used for his storytelling, all suggest, at least to me, that we are dealing with a seductive work of the romantic-diabolical imagination. I think that you could enjoy it and reap any benefits it has to offer because of your own well formed imagination!
As always, having a well formed imagination is key. People ask me about Harry Potter and so on, and I always say the child has to be *steeped* in the good old books before reading them, lest he miss the warning blips.
This is so profound! Thank you for your thoughts on this. Many years ago I read Barry's 'The Little White Bird' and his attitude towards the woman/ mother is terrible. Its a deeply sad book.
Thank you for writing this! Recognizing the two sides of the story is vital to understanding the story of Peter in my opinion.
While I agree that one must be careful to monitor what our children read, it is equally (or more) important to me to teach them consequences and how to go about making choices.
I think that with proper perspective and self confidence (which obviously takes time to build) stories can be seen for what they are. To be able to recognize Peter's actions and the consequences they invariably bring is an important skill. Moreover, Peter's condition of "forever young" is an ailment that is plaguing many today. The fields are ripe.
Don Richardson wrote "Peace child", which is about his time as a missionary among cannibals in Papua, New Guinea. As he shared the Gospel, he found the people idolized Judas and the actions he took in betraying Jesus. He was close to giving up when he discovered their tale of the Peace Child. By utilizing their story he was able to connect them to the work of Jesus and led many of them to the Lord.
He wrote another book, "Eternity in their hearts" where he lays out his argument that the Gospel is present in all societies through the stories they tell. He believes that these stories are seeds to call to eternity in the hearts of men. Make them ready for the Gospel.
In the Message translation Jesus says in Matthew 13, "That's why I tell stories: to create readiness, to nudge the people towards receptive insight.
God used wicked kings and donkeys to deliver His message through the years.
I can't help but believe that He can use the stories - whatever their source - told today to do the same.
If it was indeed demons who inspired the myths of Christ-esque demigods like Dionysius, it came back to bite them in how such myths paved the way for Christ in the human imagination, as C.S. Lewis described. God bringing good out of evil.
That's actually a really excellent point, Mary. I thought it was extremely fascinating that this was the consensus of the Early Church Fathers. And if their consensus was true, you're entirely right that it backfired for them. Yet another example of God working all things together for the good of those who love Him, in His almighty providence.
Love your work Emily! We’re expecting our first and building a home library. Do you have a list (or like anyone else’s lists) for solid children’s books to include? I know nothing can replace an intelligent, discerning parent but the task of sifting through it all feels monumental! We feel much better equipped thanks to your work, however. God bless you,
Lily, congratulations! Start with Mother Goose! Someone else asked for a list, so I’m working on something a little more comprehensive than my one-off suggestions. In the meantime, you can peruse the “moral imagination” tab that I’ve got and there I review some fantastic children’s books (we especially love Elsa Belskow and you can’t go wrong with Beatrix Potter or older versions of mother goose).
Trying to rope the Church Fathers into support of a single thesis (as if they spoke with one voice, and as if they all were always self-consistent) is always a dangerous move.
Clement of Alexandria said of the pagan poets: “The ancients taught their wisdom by means of a suggestive symbolism, and I am thinking when I say this of Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus, Homer, and Hesiod, and of all other such men as were possessors of wisdom. For the great multitude their poetic psychagogy was like a concealing curtain. ”
He also says this: “. . . the one and only God was known by the Greeks in a Gentile way, “in the way of the nations”), by the Jews Judaically, and in a new and spiritual way by us. And further, that the same God that furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks, he shows. And it is clear from this. Accordingly, then, from the Hellenic training, and also from that of the law are gathered into the one race of the saved people those who accept faith: not that the three peoples are separated by time, so that one might suppose three natures, but trained in ***different Covenants*** of the one Lord, by the word of the one Lord. [… A]t the fit time were the Law and the Prophets given to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, to fit their ears for the Gospel.”
Likewise, St. Justin Martyr, in chapter 46 of his First Apology, says this:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them…So also those who lived before Christ and did not live by the Logos were ungracious enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who lived by the Logos. But those who lived by the Logos, and those who so live now, are Christians, fearless and unperturbed.”
So, although the Fathers doubtless did not simply equate the three-fold covenants of Clement of Alexandria's scheme with each other, by the same token they were not always in a hurry to damn the pagan inheritance.
The Romantics often became savages of a far less noble kind; savages of the flesh, depraved decadents, though they maintained an exterior urbanity. As T.S. Eliot wrote in The Idea of a Christian Society, Western civilization cannot endure without a Christian foundation. The inheritance of cultural forms and Christian conditioning eventually runs dry, and those who could once be "good humanists" instead of "good Christians" lose their bearings.
I watched Peter Pan who knows how many times growing up. When I showed it to my own children (I've never read the book) as a converted adult, I was immediately alarmed by Peter sidling in through the children's window and essentially abducting them when their parents aren't home (I don't like the Cat in the Hat for this reason, either). He has a certain hungry urgency, whereas Wendy is a pure, good English girl: gross, incubus vibes. Throughout the Disney film (which is sanitized compared to the book apparently), Peter and Tinkerbell are impish, chaotic, spiteful and sprite-like, causing destruction remorselessly.
The dreams of our forebears are indeed often dark; we need a new way forward. It is part of that reactionary romantic traditionalism which I mentioned in my first comment on your blog, to idealize the past. It is natural that those of us unlearning so much would first have a natural tendency to look back with longing, but the recent past, while it has its heroes, is often more spotted than inspiring.
This is so interesting. I was talking some about it with Robert and he mentioned that when Jesus says to Peter that "...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" he said that in Caesarea Philippi, which had been called Panias or Panion which means "sanctuary of Pan." And there was a rocky cave there which was considered to be a gateway to the underworld and many horrific sacrifices were made there every year to Pan. And maybe that's exactly where Jesus was standing and part of what he was doing was challenging Pan. It gives me chills to think about that in relation to the quote about Thamus announcing that "the great god Pan is dead" from around the same time.
https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/gates-of-hell-article
Well, I'll take Peter Pan off the bookshelf. This also makes me want to go find and read what C.S. Lewis says about mythology. I really love Till We Have Faces.
Fascinating article you linked, thanks! It was especially interesting when the author highlighted that we need to be on the offense, as Christians. Christ didn’t go into the red light district of Caesarea Philippi to preach tolerance and abstract “love” but to show his disciples what needs to be rooted out and overcome.
Yes, and I would add that it's an unusual kind of offense. Jesus’ method of offense and the way he rooted out that evil and stormed the gates of hell was through submission to his Father to the point of death for the love of his Father and enemies. He never compromised the truth or acted in fear and self defense and embarrassment. He was definitely on the offense but a very unexpected kind of offense.
Wow, that's a really cool tie-in. Amazing to hear that the death of Pan may have had something to do with Christ's proclamation to Peter. Thanks for taking the time to write this comment and enrich my experience of this already-phenomenal essay.
This was such a lovely article, by the way. I was astounded at the connections Ms. Finley made between Greek mythology, Barrie's own childhood, the early Church Fathers, and Nietzschian philosophy.
I agree that the actual story of Peter Pan is chaotic and has its dark side. I'll telegraph some of my thoughts as I read your piece... maybe some friendly sed contras?
When I read Peter Pan aloud to my youngest daughter (I think she was 10 or 11?), my thought was that the ending put it all into perspective.
I think deeper, enduring childhood stories acknowledge the conflict the child feels between wanting to be autonomous but knowing at some level that he doesn't have the self control and maturity to live without his parents, who are so troublesome to him and perhaps not really mature themselves. The fear engendered by this conflict is handled in the best of stories and is what gives them longevity.
The pagan elements don't trouble me in themselves. The tradition in that era of British writing is to take the delight (or humorous quality) and leave the darkness behind. Otherwise, what do we do with the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, or Mr. Tumnus, or E. Nesbit's Phoenix? There is a level where the Christian imagination is just not afraid of these characters, any more than Americans paid attention to the dark side of Indians' beliefs and just took the enchanting ones to heart.
The key to Peter Pan is in the ending. The ending brought my daughter and me to tears -- we were crying together and I could hardly finish. This might have something to do with my feeling that my "baby" (she's the youngest of my 7) would not be having stories read to her for much longer! Maybe it was my very own Peter Pan moment! But -- my thought was that it was tender and redeeming in showing the child that the order and happiness of home are best. The mother in particular stands out as being a satisfying figure for that inner child who, after all, is not doing well on his own.
It's troubling when an author has a background -- I remember being disturbed to find out that E. Nesbit was a Socialist! And I agree that Alice in Wonderland is a strange story to read to children, though we all do. I do think, though, that the art stands apart from the character of the artist, or can. If a story has stood the test of time (even if part of that time its popularity has to do with its Disneyfication), it deserves the benefit of the doubt.
But now it's been quite a long time since I've read this story. I guess maybe 16 or 17 years? So I don't know. I could be quite wrong! As I say, I'm just throwing some thoughts out there from memory!
Yes, I agree that on some level Barrie addresses that childhood conflict, and the ending does tidy some things up. Wendy and the children (and even the lost boys) return home, which is what you’d hope for from a children’s story. But the rest… the dark themes, the overt connection with Pan that channels the god’s chaotic nature rather than a warm, if pagan, aspect (such as the Piper at the gates of dawn, Mr Tumnus, et al. evoke), and Barrie’s disturbing relationship with the boys whom he modeled the story after—or used for his storytelling, all suggest, at least to me, that we are dealing with a seductive work of the romantic-diabolical imagination. I think that you could enjoy it and reap any benefits it has to offer because of your own well formed imagination!
As always, having a well formed imagination is key. People ask me about Harry Potter and so on, and I always say the child has to be *steeped* in the good old books before reading them, lest he miss the warning blips.
I know you’ve given some before, but I would definitely love more titles of books that you do recommend!
Right? I’ve got to keep it balanced. I’ll compile one soon, but for now, check out the “moral imagination” tab for some good books.
Absolutely outstanding. Again.
My thoughts exactly. ^^
This is so profound! Thank you for your thoughts on this. Many years ago I read Barry's 'The Little White Bird' and his attitude towards the woman/ mother is terrible. Its a deeply sad book.
The Little White Bird is even more troubling than Peter Pan, but it really does provide a clue as to what is going on in that story.
Yes, it does!
Thank you for writing this! Recognizing the two sides of the story is vital to understanding the story of Peter in my opinion.
While I agree that one must be careful to monitor what our children read, it is equally (or more) important to me to teach them consequences and how to go about making choices.
I think that with proper perspective and self confidence (which obviously takes time to build) stories can be seen for what they are. To be able to recognize Peter's actions and the consequences they invariably bring is an important skill. Moreover, Peter's condition of "forever young" is an ailment that is plaguing many today. The fields are ripe.
Don Richardson wrote "Peace child", which is about his time as a missionary among cannibals in Papua, New Guinea. As he shared the Gospel, he found the people idolized Judas and the actions he took in betraying Jesus. He was close to giving up when he discovered their tale of the Peace Child. By utilizing their story he was able to connect them to the work of Jesus and led many of them to the Lord.
He wrote another book, "Eternity in their hearts" where he lays out his argument that the Gospel is present in all societies through the stories they tell. He believes that these stories are seeds to call to eternity in the hearts of men. Make them ready for the Gospel.
In the Message translation Jesus says in Matthew 13, "That's why I tell stories: to create readiness, to nudge the people towards receptive insight.
God used wicked kings and donkeys to deliver His message through the years.
I can't help but believe that He can use the stories - whatever their source - told today to do the same.
If it was indeed demons who inspired the myths of Christ-esque demigods like Dionysius, it came back to bite them in how such myths paved the way for Christ in the human imagination, as C.S. Lewis described. God bringing good out of evil.
Absolutely!
That's actually a really excellent point, Mary. I thought it was extremely fascinating that this was the consensus of the Early Church Fathers. And if their consensus was true, you're entirely right that it backfired for them. Yet another example of God working all things together for the good of those who love Him, in His almighty providence.
Love your work Emily! We’re expecting our first and building a home library. Do you have a list (or like anyone else’s lists) for solid children’s books to include? I know nothing can replace an intelligent, discerning parent but the task of sifting through it all feels monumental! We feel much better equipped thanks to your work, however. God bless you,
Lily
Lily, congratulations! Start with Mother Goose! Someone else asked for a list, so I’m working on something a little more comprehensive than my one-off suggestions. In the meantime, you can peruse the “moral imagination” tab that I’ve got and there I review some fantastic children’s books (we especially love Elsa Belskow and you can’t go wrong with Beatrix Potter or older versions of mother goose).
Thank you! I loved all these as a kid thanks to some blessed grandparents who kept all their old books. Looking forward to your next publications!
Trying to rope the Church Fathers into support of a single thesis (as if they spoke with one voice, and as if they all were always self-consistent) is always a dangerous move.
Clement of Alexandria said of the pagan poets: “The ancients taught their wisdom by means of a suggestive symbolism, and I am thinking when I say this of Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus, Homer, and Hesiod, and of all other such men as were possessors of wisdom. For the great multitude their poetic psychagogy was like a concealing curtain. ”
He also says this: “. . . the one and only God was known by the Greeks in a Gentile way, “in the way of the nations”), by the Jews Judaically, and in a new and spiritual way by us. And further, that the same God that furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks, he shows. And it is clear from this. Accordingly, then, from the Hellenic training, and also from that of the law are gathered into the one race of the saved people those who accept faith: not that the three peoples are separated by time, so that one might suppose three natures, but trained in ***different Covenants*** of the one Lord, by the word of the one Lord. [… A]t the fit time were the Law and the Prophets given to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, to fit their ears for the Gospel.”
Likewise, St. Justin Martyr, in chapter 46 of his First Apology, says this:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them…So also those who lived before Christ and did not live by the Logos were ungracious enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who lived by the Logos. But those who lived by the Logos, and those who so live now, are Christians, fearless and unperturbed.”
So, although the Fathers doubtless did not simply equate the three-fold covenants of Clement of Alexandria's scheme with each other, by the same token they were not always in a hurry to damn the pagan inheritance.
The Romantics often became savages of a far less noble kind; savages of the flesh, depraved decadents, though they maintained an exterior urbanity. As T.S. Eliot wrote in The Idea of a Christian Society, Western civilization cannot endure without a Christian foundation. The inheritance of cultural forms and Christian conditioning eventually runs dry, and those who could once be "good humanists" instead of "good Christians" lose their bearings.
I watched Peter Pan who knows how many times growing up. When I showed it to my own children (I've never read the book) as a converted adult, I was immediately alarmed by Peter sidling in through the children's window and essentially abducting them when their parents aren't home (I don't like the Cat in the Hat for this reason, either). He has a certain hungry urgency, whereas Wendy is a pure, good English girl: gross, incubus vibes. Throughout the Disney film (which is sanitized compared to the book apparently), Peter and Tinkerbell are impish, chaotic, spiteful and sprite-like, causing destruction remorselessly.
The dreams of our forebears are indeed often dark; we need a new way forward. It is part of that reactionary romantic traditionalism which I mentioned in my first comment on your blog, to idealize the past. It is natural that those of us unlearning so much would first have a natural tendency to look back with longing, but the recent past, while it has its heroes, is often more spotted than inspiring.
That’s exactly it—Barrie sold rebellion as whimsy. Disney, of course, bought it. But so did most of the Anglophone world!