Are the Emerald Witch and the White Witch the same person.

Josh said:
Lets settle this once and for all. Are they the same or not.
Click to expand...

Four words: No, No, No, and (drum roll, please) No. There is no hint in the books that Jadis was alive after LWW. I think you're missing the significance of the triumph over evil in LWW if you believe that Jadis could have survived the defeat. How about the Emerald Witch? Was she still viable after Prince Rilian killed her?
 
You're right Sopespian, that IS the whole point. If the book is about Aslan's victory over evil then it's a failure. Evil returns regardless of the outcome. Rather, if Aslan defeats, but does not destroy, then it shows that he has an ultimate purpose to FINALLY defeat evil which happens in the last battle. IF Jadis is the embodiment of evil being brought into the world it stands to reason that she remains so to the end.

And Inky - not at all - I said having a different personality does NOT make you a different person therefore I still disagree that their different.
 
That's it! :eek: Inky and WHB are the same person!!! :eek:

I can't believe I never noticed this before.
 
since we basically both have the same glorious soul in Christ, by your reasoning, we must be the same person. :)
 
The question of the presence of evil in Narnia isn't an easy one to deal with. For one thing, Lewis knew enough to understand that evil was nothing more than a rebellious will (as he illustrated beautifully in Jadis). You can't really have a "fount" or "source" of evil, because it's not a positive thing, but a negative one. When Aslan spoke of the "evil" coming into His land of Narnia at the beginning, He was speaking of the unsubmitted will of Jadis (and, interestingly, Uncle Andrew, though he was too lazy and timid to do anything about it.) All the other creatures had submitted wills, as indicated by their assent to Aslan's command when He gave them the gift of speech.

So Narnia didn't have a Fall, a loss of saving grace for all sentient inhabitants, as our world did. But as long as Narnians had a free will, they had the potential to refuse to align that will with Aslan's. He warned them against this, with the first consequence being the loss of speech (and, presumably, sentience with it.)

This is why I think the paradigm of looking for some kind of "source" or "kernel" of evil that endures through the generations is a false trail. Even in our world, Satan is not the "source" of the evil in each one of us - our own sin-damaged nature is. He can oppress us, and exploit our weaknesses, but ultimately it's we who make the decision to sin.

Likewise in Narnia. Individual beings made their own choices, and could make rebellious enough ones to become as wicked as the Emerald Witch without anyone's help.
 
waterhogboy said:
So following from that then, the evil includes Digory, Polly, Frank, Helen and I suppose Strawberry??
Click to expand...
How do you get there? Jadis was evil because she hated Aslan and wouldn't submit her will to his ... but all the others loved Aslan and submitted to his will ...
 
Beat me to it, Ink. Granted that it's a fantasy story with a simplified presentation of complex realities, the pivotal question becomes, "Has this person submitted his will to Aslan?" In the case of Jadis and Uncle Andrew, the answer is no, in the case of Frank, Helen, Polly, and Digory, the answer is yes.

Interestingly, the figures of Jadis and Uncle Andrew illustrate a point that Lewis makes elsewhere, borrowing from the classical tradition: that the greater a thing is by nature, the worse it is when it goes wrong. Uncle Andrew was unsubmitted, but he was weak. This made him cruel, petty, spiteful, and cowardly, but he wasn't nearly as great a danger as Jadis was. She was strong, determined, and assertive - things that are, of themselves, good. But the fact that they were unsubmitted to Aslan made them very dangerous, since she was using those strengths for herself rather than others. Imagine the strength and determination it took to run from Lantern Waste to the Hidden Garden, day and night, in order to get there before a flying horse could! One can understand why Uncle Andrew would admire the "pluck" of such a woman. It was his blindness to his own rebellion and ambition that made him blind to those attributes in Jadis.
 
Ah - well I suppose this comes down to more of a theological discussion and I decided long ago to avoid them on this site!! :D

All I'll say is that I don't think you could ever say anyone is fully submitted to the will of 'Aslan' at all times - Digory certainly wasnt when he rang the bell.

And with Strawberry, all creation was included in the fall so would technically be included.

Basically, my opinion is that the bringing of Jadis into Narnia due to Digory's 'lack of submission to Aslan's will' if you like it that way, was the 'Fall of Narnia'. By his actions the world entered a fallen state that, as Aslan said, would have to be remedied by the humans. Although Jadis' role may not mirror that of Satan in Eden, I think it's close enough to show that her 'role' in Narnia is equivalent.

I understand it's mainly subjective, but you've got to remember that arguing against it is just as subjective! We're discussing something beyond what was written in the pages of the books and only alluded to at best. I think it is closely connected to Lewis' theology and I suppose it is from that that we can come up with the best answers. I suppose my understanding of Narnia is based on my own understanding of theology... hmmm... I've just thought of this - do you reckon that has anything to do with it - and my crazy views!? :D
 
Yes. your crazy views are what is keeping you from seeing the obvious and objective fact that Jadis is dead. In the fictional story. Er.
 
I quote: "When those who were still living saw that the witch was dead, they either gave themselves up or took flight." LWW. Chap. 17, paragraph 2. Once and for all. That settles it. :D :D :D
 
Technically, that only means her followers thought she was dead. For instance, if I wrote something like Our plan was simple. First John and I would have a massive fight in the garden. By dinner, we would be coldly ignoring each other; for breakfast we would conspicuously appear from different rooms. When Grandmother saw we had broken up, she would be so pleased that she would reinstate me in her will--the narration uses pretty much the same wording as Lewis, but it's clear that the characters haven't broken up; the narration explains what the grandmother sees, not what's really there. Likewise, Lewis could have easily said Once they saw the Lion lay dead on the table, the Witch's followers were assured of victory.

The passage tells you what the Witch's followers saw, but has no explanation for whether the witch was dead (or, I suppose, how dead she was) or whether she would stay that way.
 
Are you proposing if Lewis had intended for the witch to be dead, he would instead have written:

"The witch was dead. When her followers saw this concrete fact ..."

I mean ... sounds pretty much to me like she's dead, and he would have to go a long way round to prove to skeptics like Jonny that she was, in fact, dead. Would have sort of broken up the narrative ...
 
Back
Top