Posted by: @azog-the-defiler  

There are parts of the Bible that are outside of what we can understand, such as the horrors of Hades and the concept of the Trinity.

Actually, neither of those things are "parts of the Bible" at all. They were devised later on in the development of Christian theology. But as Lewis wasn't attempting to set out any kind of systematic theology in the Chronicles, I'm not sure how that's a relevant comparison anyway.

The simplest explanation is that he was making things up as he went along, but didn't go back over what he'd written in previous books to make sure that the later stories were consistent with the earlier ones. There are other big discrepancies between other books in the series as well, which just proves the point.

 

The Secret Hill and other things that aren't mentioned again hadn't been come across by the Pevensies, but presumably existed.

True — but what I'm getting at is that Lewis tells us these vague and mysterious things about the Deep Magic in the first book he wrote, and yet none of it ever comes up again anywhere in the series, and nothing in The Magician's Nephew fits in with any of it.

As for the Witch having a role under Divine Law, it reminds me of Satan's role in the Divine Comedy. In the lowest pits of Inferno, the worst sinners would be devoured by Satan. Perhaps Lewis was taking his inspiration from this.

Possibly. But again, in LWW the Witch's role is somewhat analagous to Satan's — never exact, because Lewis wasn't writing allegory. And yet in MN, she doesn't have that role and there's no indication whatsoever of how she got it.

Posted by: @courtenay

And with her being unable to re-enter Narnia at any time between her exile at its beginning and her return from the far north as the White Witch a millennium later, how does she know anything about the Stone Table and what is written on it and its proper use?

That's a matter of whether Narnia has Palantiri or not.

Very funny. But is there any genuine in-universe explanation?  

Posted by: @courtenay

Nothing at all is said or even implied in that story about the need for a law to put traitors to death, let alone that if this law is not fulfilled,

I assumed that was a part of Aslan's Creation song, when he set the natural laws for Narnia.

Did he set the natural laws for Narnia in his creation song? We're given no evidence of this in the book. He doesn't speak to the newly-created Talking Beasts about the moral law in any detail, except to warn them that they must not go back to the ways of dumb beasts. 

Also, the Stone Table may not have been needed early on in Narnia, but it's rather violent use may have been necessary as the world became progressively more evil.

Did Narnia become progressively more evil from its creation? We don't see enough of its entire history to be able to tell. The overall impression we get, though, is that it's far less pervaded with evil than the world we live in. Jewel's conversation with Jill in LB confirms that in between the "stirred and upset" times in Narnia's history when children from our world were brought in to help out (i.e. the parts we read about in the Chronicles!), "there were hundreds and thousands of years when peaceful King followed peaceful King till you could hardly remember their names or count their numbers, and there was really hardly anything to put into the History Books" — and "whole centuries in which all Narnia was so happy that notable dances and feasts, or at most tournaments, were the only things that could be remembered, and every day and week had been better than the last." (LB, pp. 81-82)

As for the Stone Table itself, it doesn't look like Lewis gave much thought to it after it had played its starring role in LWW and its cameo role in PC. The whole of MN is written as if he's no longer thinking about the Table, the divine law that requires traitors to be executed, and the White Witch's place in that scheme. None of that is even seriously implied in MN, and there's no place to fit any of it in. Once again, it goes to show Lewis wasn't doing any deeper planning as he was writing, just throwing in whatever suited the plot at the time — no matter how many discrepancies this left along the way. (As I said, there are plenty of others, not just the differences between LWW and MN.) 

I would like to note that Mr. Beaver is the one who called her a hangman. I don't recall Aslan confirming that. It may have been more of a matter of Aslan disowning traitors, thus, making them her property. That might resemble her "banishment" from Narnia a bit.

The Witch's entire speech to Aslan about the Deep Magic in LWW is based on Aslan already knowing everything she says. And while Mr Beaver is the only one who uses the word "hangman" for her, it's because she explicitly describes her role under the Deep Magic in this way:

"You [Aslan] at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill." (p. 128)

It's at this point that Mr Beaver makes his interjection: "So that's how you came to imagine yourself a Queen — because you were the Emperor's hangman." Aslan simply cuts him off with "Peace, Beaver," and "a very low growl."

The Witch is further challenged by the Bull with the man's head, which is when she further declares:

"Fool... do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water." (p. 129)

That's when Aslan makes his only direct response to the Witch:

"It is very true," said Aslan, "I do not deny it."

So... that's all we have to go on, but it's very clear from those passages that the Witch is specifically given "the right to a kill" for every treachery, under the law of the Deep Magic — and she repeats that assertion ("unless I have blood as the Law says") just before Aslan confirms the truth of what she is saying.

I can still only conclude that when Lewis wrote the Deep Magic chapter in LWW, he had some concepts of the Witch and her role in the Narnia-universe, and of Narnia's origins and the laws under which it operates, that he'd forgotten about by the time he wrote MN. Her character arc in the latter book is just too completely different from LWW for there to be any sensible way of reconciling them.

But all of this — as I've already said — is why it's really not much use going through the Narnia books and trying to attach specific symbolic roles or meanings to particular characters. If Lewis had been writing allegory, then for it to work, he would have needed to take much more care with each character and each event and what each one stands for. The fact that there are such huge inconsistencies even in the character and role of Jadis, let alone elsewhere in the books, just proves the point.

Posted by: @courtenay

Actually, neither of those things are "parts of the Bible" at all.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned in the Bible, thought the term "Trinity" is not. I don't understand how God can be one God but three Persons.

Posted by: @courtenay

But as Lewis wasn't attempting to set out any kind of systematic theology in the Chronicles, I'm not sure how that's a relevant comparison anyway.

I'm simply Mr. Lewis posthumous defense lawyer. It's reasonably probable that he wasn't intending it as a perfect or well-planned symbolic work, but it would make the most sense to try to reason it out from the point of view as if Narnia was an actual world. That is the purpose of this conversation I believe.

Posted by: @courtenay

And yet in MN, she doesn't have that role and there's no indication whatsoever of how she got it.

She had a role as the tempter, but also as an accuser, similarly to Satan. In Zechariah chapter 3 we see Satan's role as a prosecutor of sorts.  "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan^a]">[a] standing at his right hand to oppose him. And theLordsaid to Satan,“TheLordrebuke you, Satan! TheLordwhohas chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!Isthis not a brand plucked from the fire?” This seems to me a similarity to Jadis' accusations against Edmund.

A second example I would like to cite is God sending (or allowing) a tormenting spirit to torture Saul when he had rejected God's commandments.

Posted by: @courtenay

"there were hundreds and thousands of years when peaceful King followed peaceful King till you could hardly remember their names or count their numbers, and there was really hardly anything to put into the History Books"

This could be a reflection of how the world works today. Throughout the centuries there hasn't been a time nearly as pervaded with evil as the late-20th and early 21st centuries, at least since the western nations converted to Christianity during the Dark Ages. The appetite for violence, perversion, and vice of every kind has not been present (openly) in Europe (and it's offshoot nations) since the days of the Romans. According to Proverbs, when there is moral rot in a nation it can topple easily, but wise and knowledgeable rulers bring stability. The evils of the ape wanting to establish a dictatorship, or the Calormenes committing acts of human sacrifice isn't much different than the historical despots of the real world.

Posted by: @courtenay

The fact that there are such huge inconsistencies even in the character and role of Jadis, let alone elsewhere in the books, just proves the point.

Possibly, but it doesn't mean that we can't dissect the books. That's the purpose of this forum.

Posted by: @azog-the-defiler

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned in the Bible, thought the term "Trinity" is not. I don't understand how God can be one God but three Persons.

Neither do I, but as I belong to a non-Trinitarian branch of Christianity, I don't need to. However, this isn't a forum for theological debate, and I don't want to engage in that at all anyway. 

I'm simply Mr. Lewis posthumous defense lawyer.

I'm not intending to attack (let alone prosecute!) C.S. Lewis, if that's what you were thinking — and I'm sorry if that's how I'm coming across. I love the Narnia books more than any other works of fiction I've ever read, and these inconsistencies and unexplained things and other such quirks are actually part of their charm for me. If I found those aspects off-putting, I wouldn't keep re-reading the books, let alone discussing them with other fans online!

 

It's reasonably probable that he wasn't intending it as a perfect or well-planned symbolic work

More like absolutely certain that he wasn't intending this — he said that himself, a number of times and in various ways.

but it would make the most sense to try to reason it out from the point of view as if Narnia was an actual world. That is the purpose of this conversation I believe.

Oh yes, definitely! But the problem is that because there are so many discrepancies between the books, there just aren't any in-universe theories that reconcile everything we're told about Narnia. Which is why I find I always have to fall back on the out-of-universe explanation: Lewis didn't do much planning and thinking things through as he went along with writing the series, and he forgot a number of things along the way.

(Now if only he'd had a retcon-enabling genius idea like Tolkien did — that these stories he was "writing" were really just translations of works written down by the actual characters, and that's why not everything matches up... which was of course how Tolkien got away with making the major plot change to The Hobbit in how Bilbo obtained the Ring! But Lewis unfortunately didn't come up with anything like that.)

Posted by: @courtenay

And yet in MN, she doesn't have that role and there's no indication whatsoever of how she got it.

She had a role as the tempter, but also as an accuser, similarly to Satan. In Zechariah chapter 3 we see Satan's role as a prosecutor of sorts.  "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan^a]">[a] standing at his right hand to oppose him. And theLordsaid to Satan,“TheLordrebuke you, Satan! TheLordwhohas chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!Isthis not a brand plucked from the fire?” This seems to me a similarity to Jadis' accusations against Edmund.

A second example I would like to cite is God sending (or allowing) a tormenting spirit to torture Saul when he had rejected God's commandments.

Hmmm, yes, but I was actually referring to Jadis's role as the executioner of traitors. She does have the tempter and accuser roles in both LWW and MN, but there's nothing in MN about the role she claims for herself under the Deep Magic — "unless I have blood as the Law says" — in LWW.

Posted by: @courtenay

"there were hundreds and thousands of years when peaceful King followed peaceful King till you could hardly remember their names or count their numbers, and there was really hardly anything to put into the History Books"

This could be a reflection of how the world works today. Throughout the centuries there hasn't been a time nearly as pervaded with evil as the late-20th and early 21st centuries, at least since the western nations converted to Christianity during the Dark Ages. The appetite for violence, perversion, and vice of every kind has not been present (openly) in Europe (and it's offshoot nations) since the days of the Romans.

With all due respect, all I can say is, it doesn't sound like you've done much study of Western history. But back on topic — going by what Jewel says about Narnia's history, Lewis clearly meant it to be a far more peaceful and gentle world, and much less corrupted by evil, than this world is (and possibly has ever been).

According to Proverbs, when there is moral rot in a nation it can topple easily, but wise and knowledgeable rulers bring stability. The evils of the ape wanting to establish a dictatorship, or the Calormenes committing acts of human sacrifice isn't much different than the historical despots of the real world.

True, but that's right at the end of Narnia's history, and is also unrelated to Jadis, who's long out of the picture by then (because she isn't actually Satan, after all).

I read the first few comments only on the first page so please excuse me if I might’ve missed anything that someone said in conclusion of my own thoughts on this.

I don't believe Jadis equals either Satan or Hades in these books. I believe Charn from where Jadis was from is a world much older than Earth and could hold a more deeper history in itself that Lewis didn’t get the chance to expand on. It could be that Aslan and Jadis understood this deep magic way before the existence of Narnia.

But this is only my personal opinion. Jadis is not human after all and neither is the being that Aslan represents. I truly believe Jadis might represent the darkness before there was light.

Posted by: @courtenay

With all due respect, all I can say is, it doesn't sound like you've done much study of Western history. But back on topic — going by what Jewel says about Narnia's history, Lewis clearly meant it to be a far more peaceful and gentle world, and much less corrupted by evil, than this world is (and possibly has ever been).

Back off topic, lol, I actually read a lot of historical primary sources which are a bit different from modern history books. Since I sense that this could lead to a disagreement, I probably won't argue why I think that circa 500 AD to circa 1950 was a better time, but I did feel the need to defend my reputation as a history geek.😎 🧐

Posted by: @courtenay

But the problem is that because there are so many discrepancies between the books, there just aren't any in-universe theories that reconcile everything we're told about Narnia.

Not everything perhaps, but many things. And the rest we can leave up to A.I. for an explanation.

Posted by: @courtenay

Hmmm, yes, but I was actually referring to Jadis's role as the executioner of traitors. She does have the tempter and accuser roles in both LWW and MN, but there's nothing in MN about the role she claims for herself under the Deep Magic — "unless I have blood as the Law says" — in LWW.

Does Aslan confirm that the blood belongs to her, or simply that blood must be shed? Perhaps Jadis is assuming more of a role than she's given, based on the Narnia rule that traitors deserve death. Possibly similar to the individuals who pry in other people's business as a hobby, so they can find an excuse to cause trouble for them. 

Posted by: @courtenay

True, but that's right at the end of Narnia's history, and is also unrelated to Jadis, who's long out of the picture by then (because she isn't actually Satan, after all).

But she left her pet neevil behind.

"I don't believe Jadis equals either Satan or Hades in these books. I believe Charn from where Jadis was from is a world much older than Earth and could hold a more deeper history in itself that Lewis didn’t get the chance to expand on. It could be that Aslan and Jadis understood this deep magic way before the existence of Narnia."

(I couldn't figure out how to put it in quotes. Sorry @DaughteroftheStar) That's an interesting theory I hadn't thought of.

What it seems like is that Lewis originally intended to be somewhat theological early on, but found that to be impractical once he developed the world more.

Mod note:
This has become an enthusiastic discussion, but may I remind you that it's about Narnia, not Christian theology. 

Please can we take it back into the real subject area.

Thank you.

Yes, let's do try to stick to a discussion of the world WITHIN the page rather than discussing tenets of a particular faith.  Should you wish to discuss the latter, feel free to visit the Christianity, Religion and Philosophy thread in the Spare Oom.