The Children as Aslan's tools

Not to depart from some of the subthemes introduced pertinent to Nephew, but to introduce a couple more:

I've just finished re-reading Prince Caspian, and did so with an eye to examining how the children (and others) acted, and how Aslan could used that. I noticed a couple of interesting things:

  • Until they reach Aslan's How, the children themselves don't do much. They get pulled to the Island, bumble around helplessly for a while, and bicker a bit. The only real heroic thing they do is rescue Trumpkin. He helps them more than they help him, and with the help of things plundered from the Telmarines (the boat), they get off the Island.
  • Once ashore, their "easy as pie" plan for going up Glasswater Creek, striking the Rush River, and making their way to the Stone Table goes about as wrong as it can. They waste a day losing their way, nearly get shot by the Telmarines, and bicker some more. They catch their first glimpse of Aslan (at least Lucy does), but thier "common sense" overrules faith in revelation and they go the wrong way, wasting a lot of time and effort.

It's only once they meet Aslan that things start to go right - and even then, it's mostly His doing, not theirs. For instance:

  • He calls to Lucy in the middle of the night and tells her that she must get the others to follow her as she follows Him. She's got the faith, but they don't - especially Susan, who nearly rebels at this point. Though they all eventually come around, they have to fight their natural inclinations.
  • The boys and Trumpkin are sent off to fight what turns out to be a mutiny by Nikabrik, who wants to begin using evil means to fight the Telmarines. The girls, however, don't do much of anything but romp about with Aslan, Bacchus, and Silenus. Thereafter the boys seem to take a more active role, but it really isn't much - Peter's challenge to Miraz is about it. They don't get more recruits, restructure the army, or start any battles (though the Telmarines eventually do). And once a battle is started, we don't know how well things would have turned out because the trees show up too quickly to let the battle get fully joined.

So in what manner were the children used by Aslan in Caspian, and what did they do that He couldn't have done without them? Not much, from the looks of it - in fact, if anything it seems like Aslan's turning up was almost as much to rescue them from their own ineptitude as it was to rescue Narnia.

I think one of the ideas here is a common one in Christian history: that we do our best, and bring the feeble and inadequate offering of our somewhat-willing cooperation (i.e. a submitted heart), and Jesus takes that and multiplies it. It's not that He needs us to do anything - He can do what He wishes without any help, and often our "assistance" causes more trouble than it seems worth - but for some reason He wants us to be involved in His work.

One interesting thing I noticed for the first time: for whatever reason, Aslan chose to bring the children to the spot where Trumpkin was sent to meet them. Remember, Trumpkin was the full skeptic - he believed neither in Aslan, nor the children, nor such things as dryads. He was the equivalent of a modern materialist - what his eyes couldn't see, he didn't believe. Yet Aslan was able to use him to help the children, and redeemed him in the end.
 
OK, what I meant was that chidlren, those of Digory's age, are not fully capable of understanding the intent of their actions, thus cannot be held completely responsible. It is why a 10-year-old is not treated the same as a 13 or15-year-old.

They can, however, be made to pay for their mistakes. Had Digory and Polly been Frank's age, I wonder if their punishment for bringing evil into Narnia would have been much worse? As it was, they went on the first mission to protect Narnia. No matter what, even at very young ages, you must teach children that actions have consequences. But again, two four-year-old children having a fight is a much different animal than two ten-year-old children or two fifteen-year-old teens. The intent of the anger and fighting increases with age, but all should be punished.

And really, this discussion reminds me of a line from "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory": Who's going to watch over my factory and take care of the Oompa Loompas for me after I pass on? Not a grown-up. A grown-up would want to do things his own way. That's why I wanted a child. A kind and caring small boy. That is why Aslan chooses children on the main. They are more apt to do things exactly as Aslan wants.

Look at the rulers of Narnia. Frank was not sure if he could rule, but Aslan guided him through the qualifications and he ultimately agreed. Caspian X also told Aslan he was not sure he was ready to be King of Narnia, but accepted it anyway. Of course Aslan had been guiding the Pevensies throughout their path to become kings and queens.

On the other hand, Jadis was against Aslan and had her own agenda. Caspian I conquered Narnia and he and his descendants fought the Narnian beasts until they went into hiding. They also had their own agenda, being from a Pirate lineage.

Going back to Tash, in Emeth's story, he recounts his conversation with Aslan and how he asked whether Aslan and Tash were one. Aslan tells Emeth that he and Tash are opposites. So "Tash" was there in the beginning, but he didn't necessaily have that name or look. Jadis may have had her own deity, but since she was evil, she would have been working only with "Tash".

MrBob
 
Last edited:
well, you're right that aslan did say that Tash is his opposite in LB, which I find intriguing, since Lewis specifically argues in other works (MC I believe) that evil is a perversion of good, rather than being an opposite. Could Lewis have been oversimplifying things in order to avoid unnecessary complications here? Or is Tash really supposed to be Aslan's opposite? But even so, how does it follow that Tash was there at the beginning? To me it seems that if they were opposites in some sense, it is very clear that they are not opposites in terms of power-clearly, Aslan is more powerful than Tash and could have existed at the beginning without Tash present in Narnia.

Going back to the discussion of the children, it does seem that in PC the 4 demonstrate the most ineptitude of all of the chronicles. Your lesson from Christian history seems right on to me, POTW.
 
Where Aslan states that He and Tash are "opposites", the context indicates that He is speaking of moral orientation. Clearly, in that sense, they are opposites, in the sense of opposed to one another. But that doesn't imply that they were "opposite" in fundamental nature and power, as Zoroastrianism considers Ahriman and Ahura-Mazda to be opposites.

Thus, I don't think you can presume that Tash was "there at the beginning", as if it were necessary for Aslan to have an existential counterweight. Aslan created everything, and He created it good. Evil had to be imported - remember that Aslan tells the creatures that an evil had "entered into" Narnia, meaning Jadis. No evil thing was created when Narnia was because in Christian understanding, particularly Lewis', evil is not created. All created things are created good, but those who have free will have the ability to turn from obedience and walk in darkness.
 
Leaving MN and going into LWW, I think it is the most important that the Pevensies were children, Lucy in particular.

When Tumnus befriends and kidnaps Lucy, he later regrets it, especially after getting to know Lucy. The major reason for his regret, I believe, is because Lucy is so innocent. She is but a young girl. If Tumnus' first meeting was with a man, or even a boy Peter's age, he may not have had so much regret and could more easily give them up for the reward.

In LWW, Aslan brought in the children to make it less threatening to the Narnians and allow them to accept the prophesy. The Pevensies would also accept the law to treat all talking beasts with respect since they were still young enough to be able to befriend them with a more youthful bond.

As for the Tash discussion. First, I never suggested that Tash was in any way equal to Aslan. Second, when Narnia was created, Aslan did create only good, but as we all know, Jadis--evil--was there. In fact, Jadis seemingly acted as an eternal conduit for evil as the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time. Maybe that was part of the song that Aslan sang in MN. But there was the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time that no evil could know.

Jadis, in LWW, almost acted as a nearly immortal Tash and as the serpent (who Christians view as the Devil) in MN. The personification of evil is always changing.

MrBob
 
I agree that the reason why children were used was because of their innocence and malleability of character. An interesting exception to this seems to be Eustace, who is (to use Edmund's terms) "an ass" - but we'll get back to him shortly.

It's interesting to note that the only adults summoned to Narnia by Aslan - Frank and Helen - were childlike in nature.

An interesting thought about Jadis being a "conduit" for evil - though that very phrasing suggests that evil is a positive thing with objective existence. Of course, the question of evil in Narnia is very complex anyway.
 
Back
Top