Just to expand a little bit on @Paulie_D's quotation
According to the author, <PERSON> is not an allegorical portrayal of <PERSON>, but rather a suppositional incarnation of <PERSON> Himself
Serendipitously, I was just reading <PERSON> The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (spoiler alert: it's no coincidence that his name rhymes with "heir of the Pater"), which strenuously asserts the difference between childish allegory and true symbolism. <PERSON> writes:
As one of <PERSON> Oxford students reminds us, "attaching to the symbol for its own sake apart from its higher meaning," the mistake of the materialists, separates man from the greater, transcendent life for which he is designed [...] (<PERSON>, Symbol and Archetype, p. 4).
Please note that symbolists are not writing "allegories." Allegories are story-puzzles that are often just ironic or satirical retellings of other stories, sometimes historical, sometimes "spiritual," but all are about our world and its realities as we experience it. <PERSON>, a symbolist extraordinaire, resisted every attempt to categorize The Lord of the Rings as an allegory with tremendous verbal violence; he felt there could be no greater misunderstanding of what he was doing than to explain it as an allegory of the second world war or some other event. If anything, the second world war was a symbol of the eternal conflicts and verities The Lord of the Rings illumined. The same can be said of <PERSON>' fiction and <PERSON>'s; this is writing of a different kind than the allegorical Gulliver's Travels, or even Pilgrim's Progress. 247
(For <PERSON>' careful distinction between "Allegory, Supposal, and Symbolism," especially as it applies to his Chronicles of Narnia, see <PERSON> <PERSON>: Companion & Guide, pp. 423–429.)
In this "symbolist" worldview, a symbol (such as <PERSON>'s appearance as a lion) is not a mere rebus ("Aha, the lion stands for <PERSON>!"), but rather a "window" through which we glimpse the higher reality — concepts such as power, majesty, loyalty, empathy, self-sacrifice, redemption.
So when <PERSON> says "In your world, I have another name," he doesn't mean that he "secretly is" or "represents" some person from our world; this isn't "Guess Who?" or <PERSON>. <PERSON> embodies and symbolizes higher realities that are symbolized in our world as well — just as they are symbolized in every world.
So, yes, absolutely, <PERSON> is <PERSON> (especially bearing in mind that <PERSON> was a devout Christian, and bearing in mind that <PERSON> said so :)). But it's not a simple matter of the two being equivalent, or one allegorically "representing" the other. For example, if <PERSON> had meant to write a strict allegory, we could fault him for how the <PERSON> story mixes up bits of <PERSON>'s sacrifice with bits of <PERSON>'s hair-shearing. As an allegory, the details are all wrong. But as symbolism, we know that <PERSON> and <PERSON> both act as windows onto a higher reality through which we glimpse eternal truths — majesty, betrayal, sorrow, self-sacrifice — and <PERSON> does too. 674