Into Them You Can Return

For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. 

The Magician's Nephew

In the beginning, Aslan chose from amongst the beasts he created, a few to be endowed with consciousness and understanding. He gave the land of Narnia over to his chosen Talking Beasts and ordered them to care for the unchosen, Dumb Beasts. Furthermore, the Talking Beasts were warned against returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts which, in previous posts, we have understood to mean placing instincts before morals. 

Once so defined we can understand the "punishment" to be meted out against those Talking Beasts who do return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts: they will cease to be Talking Beasts. As we have seen, this is precisely what happens to the Ginger the Cat, who joined with the Calormen to promote Tashlan. Perhaps, however, this is not simply a punishment but also a consequence. 

The Talking Beasts are chosen and given, at least implicitly, a moral framework which includes believing in Aslan, remembering and respecting the past, treating others with dignity and respect, defending those who are weak, and in general maintaining a code of honor. What happens when one breaks from that moral framework? Such an individual has, on their own volition, returned to the ways of the Dumb Beasts and, more so, has lost the uniqueness of being chosen. Thus, this individual once again becomes a Dumb Beasts.

This same moral underpinning of the chosen underlies the Exodus from Egypt that we just celebrated and commemorated on Passover. The Children of Israel were "freed" from the slavery of Pharoah only to become slaves of God. One may question whether anything was gained, are the Children of Israel not still slaves? 

The answer of course, is yes. The Exodus enabled the Children of Israel to fulfill the mission set for them by God when He chose Abraham to father the Chosen People. The midrashic literature tells that a large number of Jews were lost during the plague of darkness because they were not interested in leaving Egypt. Usually this is understood that they were killed, but perhaps they simply chose to become unchosen. They returned to the pagan ways of Abraham' father and were thus returned into them.    

Chosen for the Sake of the Un-chosen

A quick introduction to our next few posts, as we approach Passover, the holiday in which God took His chosen out of Egypt. 

The ‘chosen’ people are chosen not for their own sake (certainly not for their own honour or pleasure) but for the sake of the unchosen. (C.S. Lewis, Miracles)

How do the "chosen" fulfill what is demanded of them for the sake of the unchosen? Lewis notes that the chosen suffer for the un-chosen, but presumably would not argue the point that the chosen are to guide and teach the un-chosen the reality of the true God.

Should there be a social separation between the chosen and the un-chosen? Can members of the chosen lose their way due to assimilation or apostasy? 

In the Chronicles of Narnia the Talking Beasts are chosen from amongst all the Beasts of Narnia and have an obligation to the un-chosen, as Aslan commands:

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.

While such a chosen-ness must be different from that of humanity's chosen (only the Talking Beasts are sentient), perhaps both are commanded to remain chosen and not mimic the ways of the un-chosen. 

The Crime of Returning to the Ways of the Dumb Beasts

Over the past few posts, we have been trying to determine what causes the punishment of, “lest you cease to be Talking Beasts.” A priori, the cause should be returning to the Wild Ways of the Dumb Beasts. Yet Ginger the Cat and the beasts who earlier joined the Telmarines went dumb though they do not appear to have returned to Dumb Beast ways. So, what is the crime and for what does one receive such a punishment?

What Ginger and the beasts who joined the Telmarines have in common is that they turned against Narnia and their fellow Narnians. Ginger collaborated with the Calormens to sell his own people as slaves to the Calormen’s and even cut down the woods. The other beasts joined the Telmarines as they invaded or controlled Narnia. All suffer from a lack of loyalty, purpose, and an understanding that some things are more important than your own comfort and even your own life.

Aslan’s command was not to return to the ways of the Dumb Beasts and, yet, we did not find any concrete example of what ways should be prohibited - not Bree’s rolling, and barely even the explicit (though unmentioned) actions of the Lapsed Bear of Stormness. The reason why is that any action of that sort is superficial. Rolling is what Dumb Beasts do, but it does not define their innate character.

What defines the Dumb Beasts is that they act on instinct not on morals. Instinct says to constantly seek pleasure and enjoyment. Instinct is to save one’s life at all costs. Morals push back against instinct, putting God front and center and requiring that HIs will be placed before yours.

We do not fully know the motivations of Ginger the rest. No doubt, at least in Ginger’s case, it was for power. Perhaps they were also motivated by wealth and comfort. But by following those instincts they left Aslan behind. They turned against their homeland and their fellows. They loosened their morals and thus acted instinctively, like the Dumb Beasts which they eventually became.

With this we perhaps have solved our riddle. The prohibition against returning to the ways of the Dumb Beasts is not an action, it may not even be a direction, but rather it’s placing instinct before morals. We find examples of beasts that violated this prohibition and were indeed punished. And, while not formulating concrete rules, we do have a guideline as to when the prohibition is violated.

There are two points still to be made. First, why are Aslan’s words not mentioned, recorded, or very much considered in the Chronicles of Narnia? One would think this command would be in the forefront of the minds of the Talking Beasts, rather than being referred to in a few “throw away” statements. To address this we’ll reconsider the dynamic of Aslan’s words had they been said in a Jewish context.

Second, recall that Susan hesitated before shooting at a bear attacking her, her siblings, and Trumpkin in the woods because she was concerned that it was perhaps a talking bear. Lucy replies to Susan’s hesitation with what she calls a “horrible idea.” I won’t quote it now but take a look as it deserves quite some thought.

King of the Wood

Just something that I thought of recently not related to what we've been up to...

When Mr. Beaver describes Aslan to the four Pevensie children he refers to him as "Lord of the whole wood," and "King of the wood." No doubt this is because Narnia is a woodland, even though the rest of the Narnian world (for example Calormen) is not. This is similar to referring to God as the God of Zion, despite the fact that He is clearly not limited to a single city. 

However, Aslan is lord of another wood, the Wood Between the Worlds. Thus, Aslan is ruler of all. 

Ginger and Other Former Talking Beasts

In our last post we contrasted two Talking Beasts: the Lapsed Bear of Stormness and Ginger the Cat. The Lapsed Bear is specifically called out for going back to Wild Beast habits (though no specific habits are called out). However, he is saved through the bravery and strength of Corin Thunder-Fist and does not appear to suffer the punishment of ceasing to be a talking beast. On the other hand Ginger does cease to be a talking beast but there is no clear sign that he reverted to the habits of Dumb Beasts. So how is the punishment of losing sentience appropriate?

Perhaps we can gain some insight by noting that there are other beasts who have been afflicted by Aslan’s promised curse of ceasing to be Talking Beasts. These are identified by Trumpkin the Dwarf. As Trumpkin and the four Pevensie children make their way to Caspian’s camp, they are followed by a bear. When the bear attacks, it is Trumpkin’s arrow that takes him down, not Susan’s (though Susan is the better archer). Susan embarrassingly explains that she was worried it may have been a Talking Bear and therefore hesitated. Trumpkin, for his part, acknowledges Susan’s concern:

“That's the trouble of it,” said Trumpkin, “when most of the beasts have gone enemy and gone dumb, but there are still some of the other kind left. You never know, and you daren't wait to see.”

This is an astounding statement especially when considering that (1) at this point Trumpkin is not quite a believer in Aslan, and (2) Trufflehunter’s insistence that Beasts do not forget. Well, maybe Trumpkin is just reporting what he’s seen. As Talking Beasts join the enemies of the “Old Narnians” they cease to be Talking Beasts, they go dumb.

Again here we have the same theological question as with Ginger. What did these Beasts do to deserve the punishment they received?

I think the way to address this question is to uncover the essence of the prohibition against returning to Wild Beast habits. We’ll try to do that in our next post.

The Lapsed and the Conniver

There is one Talking Beast about whom we are explicitly told that he had, “gone back to Wild Bear habits.” That is the Lapsed Bear of Stormness, who was eventually beaten in a boxing match by Corin Thunder-Fist and became a “reformed character.” Given the short description, it is not at all clear what habits the Lapsed Bear returned to. Nonetheless, perhaps this supports our previous contention that it is an approach or trajectory towards the ways of Wild Beasts that violates Aslan’s command. The Lapsed Bear habituated himself as a Wild Beast. Whether he did something evil, dangerous to others, or even just non-thinking is not important. Simply, he did not value the gift in sentience granted by Aslan and directed his approach to life towards the ways of the Dumb Beasts.

There is also a Talking Beast explicitly struck with Aslan’s curse, “lest you cease to be Talking Beasts.” That creature is, of course, Ginger the Cat in The Last Battle who loses his ability to speak, and ceases to be a Talking Beast, after looking into the stable at “Tashlan.” Of course, we know what Ginger did wrong. As part of the plot with the Calomens (and Shift) he betrayed his own people. He disbelieved in Aslan, enough to create “Tashlan,” and attempted to sell this new god to the Narnian proletariat.

So, there’s no question that Ginger is an evil character who deserves to be punished. The challenge is that his actions are not returning to ways of the Dumb Beasts. Dumb Beasts do not deceive, connive, or scheme. How does Ginger’s punishment fit the crime?

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.