The Shabbos Model applied to Aslan's Commands

Treat [the Dumb Beasts] gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways... 
The Magician's Nephew

What would happen should we apply the Shabbos model (defined in the last post) to Aslan's command? 

(We again note that this command consists of a positive and a negative which are opposites of each other. For now, we're only going to concentrate on the negative the command) 

OK, we first need to determine what might be included in the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Could the prohibition include seemingly innocent actions like when Talking Horses roll or when Talking Beavers build dams? Well, it might, after all Aslan my command whatever he wants even if our logic doesn't agree. 

But perhaps a more fruitful way to determine prohibited actions would be to look at the command in context. Aslan has just commanded the Talking Beasts to "Love. Think. Speak... be Talking Beasts." Perhaps returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts is doing the opposite of these commands. Let's try this out starting with "Love."

Who should the Talking Beasts love? Well, Aslan of course. But also each other, both of the same species and of different species. 

Great, now we're getting somewhere. Let's say a Talking Beast would hunt or eat another Talking Beast. Well, that's certainly what Dumb Beasts do, and so if a Talking Beast were to do so (say a Talking Owl were to hunt a Talking Mouse) that would violate Aslan's command of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. 

However, that is not enough. What's the definition of hunting? What if a Talking Beast just hunted his fellow for fun? Or what if a Talking Beast ate another Talking Beast that was already dead? Would that violate the prohibition? 

Once we walk down the road of definitions, categories, and rules we're kind of stuck. New questions appear, novel technologies develop. All of these may effect the way I love my fellow Talking Beast and needs and thus needs to be explored in that context. 

The same would be true if we analyze the requirement to love Aslan. Dumb Beasts don't recognize a creator nor do they show deference. So, if a Talking Beast failed to love Aslan or honor him, that might be another category of prohibited actions under the rubric of returning to the ways of the Dumb Beast. 

For example, Aslan has both a crown and a standard. If someone were to carelessly misuse the standard, perhaps that would violate the need to love Aslan. Or perhaps if someone did not pay proper respect in some other way. Again, all of these possibilities should be defined and outlined via logical derivation of Aslan's words. 

Furthermore, the care and love the Talking Beasts have for Aslan's commands should motivate them to ensure that Aslan's commands are not violated even by accident. 

There is no evidence that the Narnians ever did such things. 

But there's another Jewish model one can use to approach Aslan's commands. We'll explore that approach next. 

Aslan's Commands (Part 1)

Trigger warning: in this post I likely disagree with Lewis. 

In our last post we noted that Aslan’s inaugural address to his creations included three commands all related to their origins as Dumb Beasts. Narnians are to (1) treat the Dumb Beasts gently, (2) cherish the Dumb Beasts, and (3) not go back to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. (At least) the last of these commands comes with a warning/punishment, “lest you cease to be Talking Beasts.” Let’s take some time to consider these commands starting with the first two.  

First, the laws themselves: what does it mean to treat the Dumb Beasts gently? What does it mean to cherish them? 

Actually, there doesn’t seem to be much of a direct answer anywhere in the Chronicles of Narnia. So, let’s throw out some possibilities of specific actions that might be thought of as violating “gentle” and “cherish” and see if they fit. 

What about eating Dumb Beasts? That actually seems pretty reasonable given the physical similarities between Talking and Dumb Beasts. However, it’s simply not the case. There is no indication that Narnians are vegetarians (the only beings in the Chronicles of Narnia who are definitely vegetarians are Eustace’s parents and we know what Lewis thinks of them). Puddleglum, for example, realizes the tragedy of eating a talking stag, but everyone eats meaty sausages at the end of The Silver Chair. In Prince Caspian, Trumpkin shoots a Dumb Bear for food, and numerous characters throughout the Chronicles have bacon. So, eating meat (and even killing to eat meat) doesn’t seem to be a violation of Aslan’s commands. 

What about hunting Dumb Beasts for sport? That certainly seems relevant as even in our world there are non-vegetarians who would come out against the sport of hunting. Actually, it’s Nikabrik who levels the charge of hunting for sport against Prince Caspian and Trufflehunter the Badger who comes to Caspian’s defense. By way of stating his case, Trufflehunter notes the great divide between Talking Beasts like himself and the Dumb Beasts. 

Maybe wearing furs would violate these commands? I don’t think that’s it - everyone seems to wear fur in Narnia, even Father Christmas. 

Perhaps these commands mean not to work the Dumb Beasts or ride them? Well, that can’t be it either: Cor has a pony, Susan has a beautiful horse, Trumpkin has his donkey-chair.

I have to admit, I’m pretty much out of possibilities. In our world (besides the above), we might debate things like using animals for scientific experiments. That actually does have a Narnian parallel in Uncle Andrew’s using guinea pigs to test his rings. Digory points out the unfairness of this, but the exchange does not appear to carry over to Narnia.  

The one place I could recall where we see a hint of these commands coming up is in The Last Battle when Puzzle retrieves the lion skin. Puzzle wants to bury the lion skin rather than wear it as a coat saying, “even if the skin only belonged to a dumb, wild lion, oughtn't we to give it a decent burial? I mean, aren't all lions rather - well, rather solemn? Because of you know Who.” Still, that’s only one place. 

Of course, one may object that the rules are not important. In fact, rules or specified actions would force Narnian religion into dry, ritual, legalism. Aslan’s word provides a moral imperative (perhaps Lewis would say a path towards love), and nothing more is necessary. That seems like a pretty empty argument to me. What moral principle requires nothing for its fulfillment?

It goes without saying that such lack of detail would never stand in traditional Judaism. Myriads of aspects of biblical law, rabbinic decrees and enactments, and even custom have been, and continue to be, subjected to rigorous analysis as legal theory, statutory law, case law, and even mysticism. 

Perhaps such analysis is not necessary in Narnia? 

Well, we still have one more command to analyze…