Bree and the Ways of the Dumb Beasts

In our last post we noted that there is one Talking Beast, the horse Bree from The Horse and His Boy, who is highly attentive to not acting in the ways of the Dumb Beasts. His angst is mainly centered on his habit of rolling, an extremely pleasant activity for Bree, but one he fears may be a slovenly outgrowth of having been assimilated into the life of the Dumb Beasts of Calormen. Shasta and Aravis (and presumably Lewis) are amused by what they perceive as Bree’s vanity and don’t seem to think there’s much wrong with rolling. This despite Aslan’s command at the creation of Narnia that Talking Beasts should not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts.

However, there is another way in which Bree acts like a Dumb Beast which perhaps does violate Aslan’s command. When the Lion (though at that point in the story they do not realize it is Aslan) is chasing Aravis and Hwin, Shasta courageously turns back to help, while Bree does not. It is Bree himself who realizes his wrongful action and pronounces his own punishment, to return to slavery as a Dumb Beast:

Slavery is all I'm fit for. How can I ever show my face among the free Horses of Narnia? - I who left a mare and a girl and a boy to be eaten by lions while I galloped all I could to save my own wretched skin!

And, upon Aslan’s word, that is in fact, the appropriate punishment for returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts.

Nevertheless, Bree is brought back from the edge by the Hermit who provides them safety. The Hermit says that Bree has lost nothing but his self-conceit. While Bree was a great horse compared to the dumb Calormen horses, he is not necessarily destined to be particularly great in Narnia. And that’s OK as long as he remains humble.

The hermit is certainly correct. Bree has never once mentioned his fear of violating Aslan’s command, but appears much more worried about his image and reputation. A situation that forces Bree to confront that he is not as great as he thinks is quite positive for his character development. Still, though Bree may not be aware of Aslan’s command we are (of course, if we read the books in the proper publication order we don’t yet know of Aslan’s command when we read The Horse and His Boy the first time, but I assume everyone has already read the complete series). Does Bree deserve the grace offered by the Hermit?

It appears to me that what the Hermit is saying is as follows: the courage it takes to turn around and face imminent danger rather than run from it is a valiant action that will not come naturally even to a Talking Horse or other sentient being. It is a level to strive for, and as long as one recognizes the need to strive for that level, they have not returned to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. Bree’s action was indeed what a Dumb Horse would have done. However, comprehending the necessity for continual improvement is already beyond what is possible for Dumb Beasts.

If this analysis is correct, we have some possible clarity as to what it means to return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts. It’s not rolling, perhaps it’s not even shying away from some valiant action. Perhaps it’s not so much an action as an approach or a trajectory. Is that all? Possibly, but are there any actions that are just beyond the pale?

Still, we’ve got a few more examples to figure it out.

Aslan's Commands (Part 2)

In our last post we noted the lack of practical clarity attached to two of the three commands Aslan gives in his inaugural speech to the Narnians. While cherishing the Dumb Beasts and treating them kindly are surely fine moral imperatives, we were not able to identify practical ramifications of those laws in the Chronicles of Narnia.

The third command of Aslan, however, provides us with a bit more evidence as to its practical ramifications especially as it comes with a punishment, “Do not go back to their [the Dumb Beast’s] ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts.” What is included in the ways of the Dumb Beasts? Well, we’re never really told, but if a Talking Beast suffers the prescribed punishment, we can perhaps assume that said Beast violated Aslan’s command.

However, before we look at which Talking Beasts did cease to be Talking Beasts, there is one Talking Beast who is explicitly highly concerned with returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts.

That character is Bree, and Lewis doesn’t seem to very much value his concern.

The Horse and His Boy tells the story of Bree and Shasta and their great escape from Calormen to Narnia. Bree is a Talking Horse who was kidnapped from Narnia as a young foal and has spent years posing as a Dumb War Horse of a great Tarkaan (Calormen Lord). Shasta is a young boy who knows nothing of Narnia and is simply trying to escape from being sold as a slave by his adopted father.

During their long journey Bree’s method of relaxation is to roll on the ground. Shasta finds this habit quite and amusing and laughs at how funny Bree looks on his back, Bree immediately becomes self-conscious:

“You don't think, do you," said Bree, "that it might be a thing talking horses never do - a silly, clownish trick I've learned from the dumb ones? It would be dreadful to find, when I get back to Narnia, that I've picked up a lot of low, bad habits…”

Shasta, of course, doesn’t think that Bree should bother with such thoughts, and their soon to be found compatriots, Hwin, another Talking Horse, and Aravis, a young Tarkheena, both think Bree is being vain. Nonetheless, Bree becomes more and more anxious the closer they get to Narnia.

Is Bree really just being vain? The response of the other characters suggests that Lewis wants us to think so. Yet maybe Bree is onto something? Aslan explicitly commanded that Talking Beasts should not return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts and who’s to say that, for horses, rolling is not one of those forbidden ways? Or, if not an explicitly forbidden return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts, perhaps its a part of a downward slope that will eventually lead him to returning to their ways?

No doubt Lewis would turn to principle over practice. Who cares about horses rolling? These surface level similarities in action are irrelevant. We would not prohibit eating because Dumb Beasts eat! And, likely, such an argument is, in this case, correct. Especially as Bree’s stated concern is more picking up bad habits that other Talking Horses would find offensive, rather than worrying about the command of Aslan and becoming a Dumb Beast. So, it seems reasonable that allowing Talking Horses to roll is unlikely to transform them into evil or mindless creatures. But where is the line drawn, or is there a line at all?

What determines whether a given action is following the ways of the Dumb Beasts?

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…   

Aslan's Inaugural Adress

At first glance it may appear that the comment of Strawberry on which we ended the last post was ignored by Aslan who continues to address his creations. But in fact, a close reading of Aslan’s address demonstrates that he addresses Strawberry directly, Aslan is telling the creatures what they need to know.

Creatures, I give you yourselves. I give to you forever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers. I give you the stars and I give you myself. The Dumb Beasts whom I have not chosen are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts. For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. Do not do so.

In a few short lines, these inaugural words of Aslan to his creatures synthesize parts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In Genesis 1, God gives Adam, “... every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit…” (Genesis 1:29). All of this is given to man as food. In addition, upon creating man, God declares, “They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth” (Genesis 1:26). Aslan gives the Talking Beasts, the woods, fruits, rivers, the stars, and even himself (in the bible, God does not give Himself to man, instead, in Genesis 2 God gives Adam a helpmate, we’ll have to try to address this later).

In Genesis 2, God commands man, just as Aslan issues commands. God commands man not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge lest man die (Genesis 2:17) and return to the dust from which he came (Genesis 3:19). Aslan commands the Talking Beasts not to return to the ways of Dumb Beasts from which they have been chosen lest they cease to be Talking Beasts.

It is worth noting a comment of Sforno which brings the Narnian creation story even closer to that of the bible. Clarifying the verse (Genesis 1:26), “Let us make man in our image…,” Sforno interprets that God is advising His Heavenly Court concerning the creature man. This creature had been created with all the rest, but now God sees fit to endow it with His “image” and “likeness.” Like the chosen beasts of Narnia, in this reading the bible also endows with godliness creatures that are first created as one of the beasts.

The two-step process towards godliness is apparently fundamental in creation and requires further explanation.

Returning to Aslan’s commands (remembering that there is at least one more coming up in The Magician’s Nephew), they are the response to Strawberry’s self-doubt. Simple knowledge of oneself and one’s capabilities is not sufficient to fulfill Aslan’s purpose in creating Narnia. Aslan’s commands provide that knowledge. They can be used to distinguish right from wrong, what is proper and appropriate and what is slovenly and unacceptable.

Let’s take a closer look at these commands in our next post.  

Back to Pints with Jack

It's been just about a year since I announced that I was invited as a guest on the podcast Pints with Jack (the interview aired in April and can be listened to here). Apparently, it wasn't bad as I'm happy report that I was invited back,  

For those not familiar, Pints with Jack is a wonderful resource for all things related to C.S. Lewis. Its centerpiece is the podcast hosted by David Bates, Matt Bush, and Andrew Lazo. Every podcast season is dedicated to a different book of Lewis and the hosts do an amazing job exploring and analyzing these works. 

This year the podcast is dedicated to Out of the Silent Planet which is the first of Lewis' Space Trilogy. This is an important book in the development of Lewis' writing in general but particularly for Narnia. Perhaps shockingly many reviewers of Out of the Silent Planet did not realize its theological undertones! This caused Lewis to remark, "any amount of theology can now be smuggled into people’s minds under cover of romance without their knowing it" (note that Lewis uses the classic definition of the term romance).    

Besides the central book of every season, the Pints with Jack podcast hosts review a volume of The Chronicles of Narnia, have dedicated mini-themes related to Lewis, and host a plethora of guests. 

I'm looking forward to discussing with David a new book by theologian P. H. Brazier called, "A Hebraic Inkling" subtitled, "C. S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews." I must admit that I was not aware of this book until David invited me to talk with him about it and I found its existence somewhat surprising. While there are mentions of Jews and Judaism in Lewis' works, and of course, Lewis eventually married a Christian convert from Judaism, I really didn't think there was much to say on the subject. 

Well, turns out I was wrong, because Brazier has plenty to say. 

So, I don't want to give anything away at this point, but please tune in and we'll probably expand on everything here after the podcast comes out (scheduled once again for April).

We Know

As we have discussed previously, Aslan’s declaration of Narnia consists of three parts: a call awakening Narnia, a series of four commands, and a descriptive fulfillment of Narnia’s awakening with the proclamation to be walking trees, talking beasts, and divine waters.

The response of Narnia’s sentient creatures (talking beasts, dwarfs, dryads, river gods) appears to parallel Aslan’s opening declaration. They salute Aslan and acknowledge and pledge to fulfill his four commands.

The creatures then make one additional assertion, “We know.” 

From the perspective of formulation, this statement is consistent with the creature’s acknowledgements of Aslan’s commands, “We love, we think…” But Aslan does not command the creatures to “Know” as he does to love and think. So, to what end is the creature’s assertion that they know?

Structurally, “We know,” is then in response to the third and final part of Aslan’s declaration, “Be walking trees. Be talking beasts. Be divine waters.” To the creatures to “Be” is to “Know.” The creatures may be reassuring Aslan that they know who and what they are. They know they are walking trees, they know they are talking beasts, and they know they are divine waters. The creatures even know that they love, think, and speak and perhaps even that they do so for Aslan’s command has instilled those capabilities within them.

Is such knowledge enough? 

Is knowing one’s origin and one’s capabilities (as instilled by Aslan) sufficient to fulfill Aslan’s purpose in your creation? 

Is that all that Aslan means when he calls for Narnia to awaken?

It is Strawberry who meekly raises some doubt. Though only as a dream, he has a dim recollection of another world. A world where there seem to be other things to know, but less capability to do so. He faintly remembers work, social interactions, punishments, but also rewards. The work is hard, the social rules mysterious, the punishments painful, but the sweet rewards wonderful.

So he humbly adds, “But please, we don't know very much yet.”

In this new country is there more to know?

Hail Aslan

Hail, Aslan. We hear and obey. We are awake. We love. We think. We speak. We know. 

The response of the talking beasts and other creatures of Narnia to Aslan, is very much in parallel to Aslan’s command. Aslan calls Narnia into being and commands them, the creatures salute him in return and pledge their service. They acknowledge Aslan’s commands to love, think, and speak, and their own capacity to do so.  Finally, they claim to know which does not appear to have a parallel in Aslan’s commands. This latter point will have to be addressed later, for now we concentrate on the creature’s response to being awakened, “We hear and obey.” 

In our last post we noted that the structure of Alsan’s opening speech to the new world of Narnia emphasizes the commands. To “be,” as Alsan asserts, is to be commanded. The creatures submit to being commanded (not necessarily the specific commands as they acknowledge each of those separately) by responding, “We hear and obey.” Aslan commands, the creatures hear his will, and execute. 

The biblical account, however, is different. After Moses descends from Mount Sinai, he tells the Children of Israel the "words of God and his statutes." The Children of Israel simply respond (Exodus 24:3), “We will do,” similar to Lewis’ “we obey.” However, there is no “we will hear.” An explanation as to why not to include a step prior to obedience is as follows. Stating “we will hear” as in we register the sound as comprehensible speech, is a given. Of course, one cannot obey if the command does not register. “We will hear,” may instead imply comprehension, understanding, and agreement. But none of these are necessary. God’s command is sacrosanct and must be obeyed even in the absence of agreement or even comprehension. The straightforward response, "We will do," leaves no room to do anything else.

Interestingly, the Children of Israel do proclaim “we will hear” a few verses later (24:7). After Moses' reading of the Book of the Covenant the Children of Israel declare, “All that God speaks we will do, and we will hear.” This appears to be in the wrong order! Hearing should be before obeying. Ibn Ezra sites two explanations for this order: (1) we will fulfill God’s current commands and hear His future commands, (2) we will perform his positive commands and do (or guard) his negative commands. But perhaps a more straightforward explanation flows from what we said above. Comprehension and understanding of God’s commands has its place, but not at the expense of fulfillment.