The Role of the Zealot

The zealot serves as a beacon of idealism and an activist for a cause. From the perspective of the zealot, compromise, consideration of counterviews, even a moment of hesitancy is a sign of weakness or non-belief. Thus, Elijah can declare to Ahab the King of Israel without discussion and without negotiations (Kings 1 17:1): by the life of God that there will be no rain, but on my word.

However, the role of the zealot is a precarious one. The danger of being entrapped by the snare of hypocrisy is immense and the greater the zeal the more devastating any non idealistic demonstration. To live as a zealot is to live on the point of a very sharp sword for rare indeed is the man who can live up to his own ideals. A true zealot, however, can serve as an inspiration in the face of gloom, a beacon of light in the midst of darkness, and a reservoir of hope when all appears lost.

Hence the prominence of Elijah in Jewish lore. He was the greatest of zealots for he lived up to his own ideals. So much so, that when it appeared that he failed, that despite famine and miracles, he was unable to convince the Jews to repent from their evil ways, he asked God for death. While such a request is anathema to Jewish law and culture, Elijah’s particular situation is understandable. His goal was clear, his method uncompromising, and when faced with failure, he put the ideal, not himself, first, and judged himself just as harshly as he would have anyone else.

Reepicheep too displays this sort of zealotry. When Eustace first joins the expedition of the Dawn Treader, Reepicheep offers him no grace or mercy. Eustace’s understandable surprise at meeting a talking mouse and complete unpreparedness for being on a ship in a fantasyland makes no difference. Yet, despite the importance Reepicheep places in his own honor, Reepicheep puts the honor of Aslan and Narnia first. Hence, when Eustace is lost, he insists that the search must go on, for not doing so would compromise the

The properly placed zealotry of Elijah and Reepicheep is what makes them appropriate representatives to usher in the End of Days. Who was more condemning than Elijah? And thus, who is most unlikely to grant immunity? If Elijah, of all people, were to say the time for redemption there is no doubt it must be so. Similarly, if Reepicheep invited you into the Garden there is no doubt the invitation is deserved.

Reepicheep the Zealot

In our last post we demonstrated the parallels between Reepicheep’s entry into Aslan’s country, as portrayed in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, with the ascendance of Elijah the prophet in a whirlwind to Heaven. However, this final parallel serves only to emphasize that Lewis modeled Reepicheep (at least partly) after the great prophet. Along with valiance, it is Reepicheep’s similarity to Elijah that provides insight into his character and actions throughout the Chronicles of Narnia.

What trait characterizes Elijah? Elijah himself answers that question when he asserts (Kings 1 19:10), “I have acted zealously for the Lord.” Elijah the Zealot is unafraid of taking on the 200 prophets of Ba’al on Mount Carmel. Elijah the Zealot doesn’t blink when threatened with arrest and imprisonment (or worse) by a phalanx of 50 soldiers, and it is Elijah the Zealot who can be, as it were, more zealous than God, appropriating for himself the power to withhold rain from the Kingdom of Israel (Kings 1 17:1).

Is Reepicheep a zealot? Merriam-Webster defines ‘zealous’ as, “fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal,” and a ‘zealot’ as a “zealous person, especially a fanatical partisan.” While no form of the word zeal appears anywhere in the Chronicles, the description seems appropriate for Reepicheep. Reepicheep is a fanatical partisan for Narnia, the country of Aslan. Our first glimpses already demonstrate this zeal loyalty to his king and his people. He is immediately at Caspian’s disposal, and, by suggesting storming Miraz’s castle as soon as possible, demonstrates his zeal of reviving Old Narnia. At the Battle of Beruna he and his mice storm into the heart of the battle. Reepicheep’s need to crush pirates, defeat dragons, battle unknown mermen, experience adventure, and achieve glory come not only from bravery or even valiance. Rather, because is a Narnian zealot.

How dare Terebinthian pirates attack the ship of the King of Narnia, such is a blasphemous act! A merman offers a challenge, how could the representative of Aslan turn away, it would suggest Aslan is weak! A taunt of a Telmarine dares to question Aslan’s assertion, Reepicheep will march his mice into another world to stand for the truth. Turn away from a Dark Island? Not explore all that could be explored? That would brand Narnia, and Aslan, as fearful and scared.

Zealots however, sometimes receive undue criticism for lack of mercy and an inability to connect with the common man. Perhaps there is truth to that, but both Elijah and Reepicheep show mercy and understanding to those in need. 

More in our next post.

Reepicheep and Elijah

I’ve often wondered whether the characters in the Chronicles are modeled after biblical personalities. Of course, they might be modeled after Christian New Testament characters of whom I know little about. So, reformulating, are Narnian characters modeled after any biblical characters found in the Jewish bible. Can we identify King Caspian the 10th with King David, who started the Judean dynasty? Or maybe with King Josiah, who found a book of the law after apparent loss of the essence of Judaism for so many years?

Usually I find the answer to be no. There are too many fundamental differences to really compare Peter, or even a repentant like Eustace, to anyone specific. Perhaps with one exception: Reepicheep. To me Lewis based Reepicheep after none other than Elijah the Prophet, both in terms or his role in Narnia proper, and his role in death and the afterlife. For now let’s start with the latter.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader tells how Reepicheep achieves his ultimate, destined goal: to reach the Utter East. He does this by sailing in the Dawn Treader as far east as she can go. When she can go no further he goes into the boat with Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace. When that too runs aground, he sails in his coracle high over a standing wave separating the Narnian world and Aslan’s country, with only his three final companions watching, From that point on, no one again sees Reepicheep.

Let’s compare this to the death of Elijah (Kings 2 2). Elijah, accompanied by his faithful student Elisha, starts his journey in Gilgal (likely near Nablus) and travels down to Bethel. From there he travels east to Jericho, and then further east to the Jordan river. At each stop apprentice prophets alert Elisha that his master will be taken away from him. Elisha acknowledges this and continues to accompany Elijah. At the Jordan the apprentice prophets stand afar while Elijah splits the Jordan allowing himself and Elisha to pass through. On the eastern bank of the Jordan they continue to walk until reaching a chariot and horses of fire. Elijah enters the chariot and goes up to the heavens in a great storm.

Note the parallels: (1) Elijah (who retraces the steps of Joshua’s conquest of what was then the land of Canaan) and Reepicheep continuously travel east. (2) While there are those who accompany Elijah and Elisha, they run aground at the Jordan River leaving on Elisha to see Elijah’s ascension to heaven. (3) Elijah and Reepicheep both travel upwards in a vehicle traversing the separation between the human inhabited world and some sort of Godly abode. (4) Neither Reepicheep nor Elijah (at least not in the bible) are seen again though it is never stated that either of them die.

The next time we do see Reepicheep is in the “Last Battle” after the end of time. For it is Reepicheep who welcomes those who have recently died into the walled garden. So to Elijah is the one who will announce the coming of the Messiah who will transform the world into one of peace and prosperity for all of its inhabitants.

Why does Lewis parallel Reepicheep’s death and ‘life after death’ on the prophet Elijah? No doubt because of their respective actions and roles during their lifetimes. We’ll explore that more closely in our next post.

Valiance: Lucy and Reepicheep

Over the last few posts we have analyzed what makes Lucy valiant. Two themes, likely coupled themes, emerged. The first is Lucy’s ability to retain the positive aspects of childhood: all-encompassing faith, fiery enthusiasm, and tireless curiosity, even as a mature adult. The second is gaiety as reflected in her positive outlook and enthusiasm for the future.

Yet, in our last post, we saw that gaiety on its own does not encompass valiance. In fact, Lewis contrasts gaiety with that which is “clear, sharp, and valiant.” Thus, while valiance does appear to incorporate many aspects of gaiety it also reflects a sense of clarity and perhaps even urgency

With this in hand we can now turn back to Reepicheep, the most valiant of all the beasts in Narnia. We have already noted Reepicheep’s complete lack of fear and we can perhaps now suggest where it comes from. Lack of fear is not a function of bravery, or even of strength. As R’ Soloveitchik said, “Only the child with his simple faith and fiery enthusiasm can make the miraculous leap into the bosom of God…” And once in the bosom of God, what is there to fear?

Furthermore, Reepicheep’s all encompassing faith enables his complete identification with God. A sign of cowardice, such as not sailing to the Dark Island, or betrayal, such as not searching for Eustace, would suggest that these characteristics reflect God. Reepicheep is assured of protection because God is the Great Protector. He will single-handedly take on a dragon or a sea serpent for nothing is too powerful for God. He is assured of success for even in a lost battle he adheres to the will of God.

Some final thoughts on this next time.

Gaiety and Valiance

Lucy, though grownup at the end of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, remains “gay and goldenhaired,” and is thus called Queen Lucy the Valiant. Therefore, if are to understand valiance in the character of Lucy, we must first define “gay.” 

Lewis uses the word “gay” 16 times in the Chronicles (and the word "gaiety" once). Six of those times are in The Silver Chair upon Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill's discovery that the giants plan to eat them. Puddleglum directs the children to act “gay,” and gives us something of a definition: “Gay. As if we hadn't a care in the world.” Of course, as Lewis notes, Puddleglum, and Marsh-wiggles in general, are absolutely horrid at acting gay. In fact, they may be the exact opposite of "gay" given that Marsh-wiggles always expect the worst and act in direct opposition of carefree. 

Three times gay is used in the context of clothes. Perhaps clothes can also be carefree, but it’s difficult to imagine that Aravis, for example, when trying to trick her father into thinking how happy she was being engaged to Ahoshta, put on “her most carefree clothes.” Rather gay in this context presumably means the brightest, fanciest, and most merry clothes. This definition does not contradict the previous one, rather it explains that forces us to redefine carefree. Carefree does not mean not caring, but it means having an affectation of not caring because one is cheerful and optimistic. 

In Prince Caspian, the word gay is twice used with respect to flora: the rowans surrounding Aslan when he awakens the trees are called gay, and the hedges that Bacchus causes to sprout moments before they take down the bridge in Beruna are "gay with hawthorns." Both of these flora are colorful and bright and it would appear that “gay” here is used in the same way as with respect to clothes. 

Lewis also uses the word gay to describe wind (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and sound (The Horse and His Boy). The ship in the picture on the wall of Aunt Alberta’s back room (which becomes the Dawn Treader) runs before a “gay wind,” and King Lune’s hunting horn is “gay and merry.” In both of these cases the items in question presumably cause gaiety: the ship appears joyful as it sails along the waves, and the hunt is done with festivities and merriment. 

The final two occasions of the use of the description “gay” are connected with two of Narnia’s most important characters. Reepicheep, the most valiant of all beasts, is introduced as “a gay and martial mouse.” Finally, when Aslan reveals himself to Shasta in the Horse and His Boy he says “Myself,” in a voice that is “loud and clear and gay.” 

As a whole these examples suggest that “gay,” as used by Lewis in the Chronicles, means joyous, optimistic, and ready to face the future. Yet, this should not be conflated with frivolous or without seriousness (though Puddlieglum and the children likely tried to behave that in that way before the giants). After all, one would certainly not characterize Reepicheep, let alone Aslan himself, as frivolous. 

Lucy’s gaiety is what makes her so attractive to princes who value joy over graciousness, and optimism over courtliness. It is what made her so charming in the eyes of the people who saw gold in her hair. And it is what made her so beloved to Aslan in whom she placed the complete faith and devotion of a young child for a parent. 

However, “gay” alone is insufficient to characterize valiant. We see this because the two terms are also contrasted. The sound of the trumpets before King Edmund’s army on their its way to defend King Lune was “not huge and solemn like the horns of Tashbaan nor gay and merry like King Lune's hunting horn, but clear and sharp and valiant.” From this it appears that valiance has an aspect of sharpness, perhaps immediacy, that is lacking in gaiety. 

We will examine this further in our next post. 

Valiance (Part 2)

Valiance is a character trait that appears to be highly regarded by Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia especially in the person of Reepicheep the Mouse. What is the definition of valiance and why is it important to the religious persona? Quite a while ago, we started to explore this question. Then, we noted that, minimally, one who is valiant is not scared. However, that alone is insufficient to define the term, or to explain the actions of Reepicheep, the most valiant of all beasts in Narnia. 

In this post we seek to further understand valiance by concentrating on another character conferred the title of valiant, Queen Lucy. The passage calling out Lucy’s valiance is from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe:

But as for Lucy, she was always gay and golden-haired, and all princes in those parts desired her to be their Queen, and her own people called her Queen Lucy the Valiant.

Lucy’s valiance is manifest in that she is “always gay” and was the desire of many princes. This description of Lucy should be immediately contrasted with that of Susan. Susan is described as being, “a tall and gracious woman with black hair that fell almost to her feet and the kings of the countries beyond the sea began to send ambassadors asking for her hand in marriage.” Susan is gracious, while Lucy is gay. Susan is wanted by kings, and Lucy by princes. Why would kings want Susan and princes want Lucy? 

Lewis contrasts the roles of King and prince in the Horse and His Boy. In that story, Corin, surprisingly, rejoices at the appearance of his elder brother Cor exclaiming, “It’s princes that have all the fun.” King Lune agrees, explaining, “For this is what it means to be a king: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat…”

So, princes, who are out having fun and adventures would naturally want the happy and joyful Lucy. While kings, who have more serious jobs to do, would certainly rather be matched with the gracious Susan. Frankly, this comparison doesn’t look too good for Lucy. It’s almost like she’s not capable of being serious.

I think, however, Lewis has something else in mind. Lewis starts the description of the four children many years after the Great War with, “And they themselves grew and changed as the years passed over them.” Continuing with “And Peter…,” and again with “And Susan…” Then finishing with “But as for Lucy…” Why is Lucy “but” while the others are “and”? 

We are forced to say that while the other children grew and changed, Lucy did not. She remained gay and golden haired, she retained childhood. 

However, for Lewis, retaining childhood is not a negative. 

Quite the opposite, it’s valiant! 

More in my next post. 

Valiance (Part 1)

The Whole Wide World Is a Very Narrow Bridge, and The Important Thing Is to Not Be Afraid

A quick interlude to our search for a Jewish Narnia, motivated by a discussion I had with my kids… 

There are three characters in the Chronicles of Narnia described by Lewis as valiant: Queen Lucy the Valiant, Trumpkin the Dwarf, and Reepicheep, the most valiant of all the Talking Beasts of Narnia. The theme of valiance, as manifested by Reepicheep, plays an especially prevalent role in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  That book was described by Lewis (in a letter to a fan quoted in Prof. Ward’s “Planet Narnia”) as “presenting the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep).” Why is valiance so important to the spiritual life? Why does R’ Nachman of Breslov (in the above maxim) call not being afraid an ikkar, something centrally important? We will try to answer this question by understanding Reepicheep. 

There are a few useful things to know about Reepicheep: 

First, Reepicheep is bad at chess. Of course, lots of people are bad at chess, but Reepicheep is bad at chess because he sees himself in the pieces he controls. If Reepicheep was a piece, he would certainly put himself into a dangerous battle position irrespective of the likely consequences.  

Second, Caspian warns Reepicheep not to challenge a dragon single-handedly. Caspian does not see fit to warn anyone else. 

Third, Reepicheep has no problem landing on an island that is pitch-black in the middle of the day. No one else thought this was a very good idea. 

Fourth, Reepicheep jumped into the sea to fight seemingly dangerous mermen even though there was no sign of danger and no other obvious reason to do so, except that a challenge was given.   

The above clearly shows that Reepicheep is valiant. But does one really have to be so valiant? Maybe sometimes one should try to avoid danger, rather than jumping in headfirst? Maybe a bit of caution? 

There are a few stages in our quest (if we’re following Reepicheep it should be a quest) to understand the value of valiance in the spiritual persona. We will try to explore them over a few posts. 

Let us start with the concept of fear, the actual subject of R’ Nachman’s verse (now turned song). True fear, not fear that you might miss your bus, but existential fear must be reserved for God alone. Anything else borders on blasphemy (though God has commanded fear of, for example, one’s parents, this is likely because they reflect God). Certainly, one cannot fear a physical enemy knowing that God can sweep them away in a moment! 

Besides the theological pitfalls of fear, lack of fear enables freedom of action. Reepicheep is described as one who lacks fear, “... no one had ever known Reepicheep to be afraid of anything.” He, therefore, can properly judge whether Lucy should face the magician. Others have to be concerned that perhaps they are motivated, or demotivated, by fear thus coloring their judgement. Reepicheep, “could say this (that Lucy should face the magician) without feeling at all awkward.” Thus, it is Lucy’s valiance, combined with Reepicheep’s, that propels Lucy forward. 

However, lack of fear cannot explain the actions of Reepicheep. Lack of fear will allow one to explore the Dark Island, but alone it will not demand the island be explored. Reepicheep must be motivated by a positive force from which his valiance arises. We will explore this force in later posts.