Hags.

C

CORIN THUNDERFIST II

Active member
During the meal at the Beavers, Mr and Mrs Beaver stress very strongly that not only is the White Witch herself not human, but that no human has been seen in Narnia for very many years. I wonder how much of this was true, and how much the result of anti-Jadis propaganda? The reason I ask this is because of the hags who served the witch. My understanding of the term is that a hag is basically an elderly, very ugly human, sometimes a witch, in the traditional sense of the word. So, weren't the Narnian hags human? If not, what were they? Any thoughts on the matter?
 
"Hag" is a witch in the form of an elderly woman. When real women are called "hags" it is a comparative insult. Men aren't jackasses because they are not members of the horse family. Same process.

The origin of Jadis is clearly explained in The Magician's Nephew, and since she is native to the planet Charn from an alternate reality (note, Narnia and Charn are not in our universe or each other's) she could not trace her ancestry to Adam or Eve.

If she were indeed a descendent of Lillith, she would be half demonic (her father's side).
 
That's an interesting point. Indeed "hags" were simply witches, usually old and ugly (though I think the term at one point was essentially synonymous with witch.) And if there were no humans in Narnia, what were the hags?

I think you can chalk that up to Lewis' sloppiness about the details of his story (the kind of thing that drove Tolkien mad.) Put it next to "where did Mrs. Beaver get the marmalade for the roll?"
 
Well, Narnia borrows heavily from Faerie Tales, and witches in these stories are clearly not human. Just read "Hansel and Gretel" if you don't believe me. Hags are hags. That's all there is to them. Like mice are mice.
 
You're right in a sense, WS - it's clear from some stories that hags are "from" faerie, and thus are only "kinda humanish", even as elves are. In Irish folk legend, what are euphemistically called "the little people" or "the other side" are not in the least human, though they have human forms, and you definitely don't want to meet them.

On the other hand, some legends tell of human women becoming hags or witches. I suppose someone might make a fine distinction between hags who are that way by nature and witches who are human but choose certain paths. But folklore has rarely made such careful distinctions.

The real question to me is how these creatures came to be in Narnia at all. Where did they come from? Did the Witch pervert creatures native to the Narnian universe? Or did she create them? Or make use of some gateway to other worlds to bring them in?
 
Defining what a human is in Narnia is questionable. We know from MN that the children of Frank and Helen married nymphs and wood/river gods yet somehow there were humans in Archenland, Claormene, and the islands without any explanation by Lewis.

As for hags, the traditional definition was a witch. In Narnia, witches and everyone who could do magic were not human. The only exception may have been the Hermit of the Southern Marsh, though he only used a pool that could see events currently going on elsewhere and Lucy, who merely read spells from a spellbook.

In most other stories with hags, all characters are human, including the hags.

MrBob
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
The real question to me is how these creatures came to be in Narnia at all. Where did they come from? Did the Witch pervert creatures native to the Narnian universe? Or did she create them? Or make use of some gateway to other worlds to bring them in?
Click to expand...
And what's your answer, Prince? There seem to be significant problems with each of those options...
 
As I recall Jadis was said to have some Djinn blood in her; and wasn't there someone else who had giantess blood in him/her who was evil? (This might explain why the Lady of the Green Kirtle was on such good terms with the Harfang giants.) So there may be some cross breeding resulting with hags. Alternatively, since there were doors from other worlds into Narnia, there may be a time when ancestors of hags came into Narnia; and maybe Jadis made a point to open doors for other evil evil beings to come into her service from other worlds.

However my default interpretation would be the same as Prince of the West: Lewis was a bit sloppy in mapping out the Chronicles, resulting in not a few plotholes.
 
Maybe the hags were nymphs, or something similar, that turned evil, and eventually their exteriors became ugly to reflect the condition of their souls? It's weird, but it's all I can think of.


Or maybe they were humans from Archenland or some such place.
 
I don't think hags can be human, because Peter describes them as vermin to be flung in the pit, but the dwarf's body is given to his people for proper burial. If the hag were human, surely she would be buried properly too.

The nymphs idea is interesting.

Peeps
 
Last edited:
Well, it seemed that a lot of people were talking about them possibly being human, but wondering where they could come from, if there were no humans in Narnia. I was just guessing.

I like my nymphs theory the best, though. So many of the White Witch's other creatures appear to be perverted versions of Aslan's creations.
 
Benisse said:
Alternatively, since there were doors from other worlds into Narnia, there may be a time when ancestors of hags came into Narnia; and maybe Jadis made a point to open doors for other evil evil beings to come into her service from other worlds.

However my default interpretation would be the same as Prince of the West: Lewis was a bit sloppy in mapping out the Chronicles, resulting in not a few plotholes.
Click to expand...

Quite feasible they came from some other world or worlds, and not at all unlikely that Jadis herself opened the doors to allow them in, after all, she had an extensive knowledge of magic, especially dark magic, and had absolutely no qualms about using it, as was revealed about her conduct in Charn, when she used the Deplorable word without any compassion whatsoever for those whom she deliberately murdered.

I also agree that, excellent as The chronicles of Narnia are, and they are indeed most wonderful books, there are a number of inconsistencies. Perhaps Mr Lewis never originally intended writing sequels, but was taken aback at just how popular they became.

WarriorSatyr said:
Well, it seemed that a lot of people were talking about them possibly being human, but wondering where they could come from, if there were no humans in Narnia. I was just guessing.
I like my nymphs theory the best, though. So many of the White Witch's other creatures appear to be perverted versions of Aslan's creations.
Click to expand...

Not dissimilar to the way Melkor (Morgoth) originally corrupted ents and elves to produce trolls, and goblins/orcs, a process "refined" further by Sauron and also Saruman.
 
Last edited:
CORIN THUNDERFIST II said:
Not dissimilar to the way Melkor (Morgoth) originally corrupted ents and elves to produce trolls, and goblins/orcs, a process "refined" further by Sauron and also Saruman.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Except that Trolls are stone-things while Ents are tree-things. I don't know exactly how that works. Maybe Trolls were originally good? In either the Hobbit or the appendices, it says that their wits were enhanced with wickedness. I don't know. Off-topic. Augh!
 
The nymph theory is rather a good one as in traditional folklore Hags are often seen as evil water dwelling spirits that drag the unwary (particularly children) to their doom.
In the Narnian context then their origin as corrupted Nymphs or Dryads seem to be very probable.
 
I went with Nymphs in my own fan fiction. My novel "Southward the Tigers," which still is available to read, shows some of what might have been going on in the wilderness as Jadis developed a following before she was able to invade Narnia; and I do say that Hags were ex-Nymphs. It would indeed be like Morgoth turning Elves into Orcs.

As for Tolkien's Trolls: yes, they had to have originally been innocent, but would never have been Ents.
 
Back
Top