Jack Pascua

with which it reaches forward” (Lewis 76). His statement vaguely represents the movement of perichoresis, which is entered through willful submission and by invitation of God. However, Weston’s version deviates by aspiring for the invitee to be the lead conductor of the movement. There is no subordination, no exaltation, or love for another but only oneself. It contrasts the hierarchical movement of the true Great Dance, where the lesser beings are given importance, but God remains the lead dancer. Weston argues that man should become the lead dancer or manipulator of said movement. Such temptations are what Weston used against the Green Lady in order to lure her out of Maleldil’s will. However, in a paradoxical fashion, Weston serves as the necessary means to mature the Green Lady by opening the capacity of her free choice to step out of Maleldil’s movement (Lewis 109). His offering of another movement outside of God’s was planned for her to exercise her free will. It is in this temptation that the perichoretic movement is intensified as another movement attempts to counter it. She is invited to remain in the movement of Maleldil or join the Unman. She, like Ransom, stands at the center of the universe and has the choice to direct its course by God’s design. While Ransom serves as the agent to enter into the perichoretic movement of God, the Green Lady serves as the agent to remain in it, and Weston is the force that challenges the perichoretic movement. Therefore, perichoresis helps to illuminate Lewis’s imagery of the Great Dance within Perelandra. The theological concept serves to portray the preordained movement of God and man’s free will.

Works Cited

Clarke, Richard L. W. “Paradise Retained: C. S. Lewis on the Nature of Knowledge, Reality, and Morality in Perelandra.” Sehnsucht: The C.S. Lewis Journal, vol. 11, 2017, pp. 63–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/48579654. Accessed 19 Nov. 2020. Dickerson, Matthew, and O’Hara, David.“Perelandra: Creation and Conscience.” Narnia and the Fields of Arbol: The Environmental Vision of C. S. Lewis, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 2009, pp. 182–207. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jchzg.11. Accessed 20 Nov. 2020. Eddings, Sarah. “The Use of the Vertical Plane to Indicate Holiness in C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy.” Mythlore, vol. 34, no. 2 (128), 2016, pp. 33–45. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26816033. Accessed 5 Nov. 2020. Hilder, Monika B. “‘The Packed Reality of Heaven’: C. S. Lewis’s Imaginative Re-Education of the Modern Pilgrim.” Sehnsucht: The C.S. Lewis Journal, vol. 12, 2018, pp. 93–120. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/48579687. Accessed 12 Nov. 2020. Lewis, C. S. Perelandra. Samizdat, 2015. Ebook. Moltmann, Jürgen. “Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology.” In Meeks, M. Douglas. Ed. Trinity, Community, and Power: Mapping Trajectories in Wesleyan Theology, 2000, pp. 111–126. https://oimts. files.wordpress.com/2013/01/06_1997_moltmann.pdf Muth, Benita Huffman. “Paradise Retold: Lewis’s Reimagining of Milton, Eden, and Eve.” Mythlore, vol. 37, no. 1 (133), 2018, pp. 23–44. JSTOR, www. jstor.org/stable/26809322. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020. Scarf, Christopher. “Lewis and the Hierarchy.” The Ideal of Kingship in the Writings of Charles Williams, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien: Divine Kingship Is Reflected in Middle-Earth, 1st ed., The Lutterworth Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2013, pp. 83–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j. ctt1cgf7k7.12. Accessed 12 Nov. 2020. Stramara, Daniel F. “Gregory of Nyssa’s Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis.” Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 52, no. 3, 1998, pp. 257–263. JSTOR, www.jstor. org/stable/1584502. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020. Tiffany, Grace. “C. S. Lewis: The Anti-Platonic Platonist.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 63, no. 3, 2014, pp. 357–371. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26194758. Accessed 30 Nov. 2020.