This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Kingship in Narnia

Please don't close the door behind you.

Kingship in Narnia

Postby Silence » February 4th, 2008, 10:40 am

Don't let the name fool you; I'm hamlet. I lost both my password and old e-mail address, and after months of frustration, I finally gave up and just signed up for a new account. You may remember me from this: http://cslewis.drzeus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7829

I wanted to pursue the old topic of Kingship in Prince Caspian, but after consideration decided that the subject is much broader, and deeper than just one book. Heck, it spans the writings of not only CS Lewis, but the history of mankind itself.
What interests me is Kingship itself, and more particularly, Christian Kingship (or its inherent form in the subconscious of man- take your pick). But the stumbling block here is every modern preconception and prejudice besetting 'monarchy' (be it historical or fictitious,) and Christianity.

The only way I could examine the 'ideal' of kingship was to do as Lewis and Tolkien did; explore it in the realm of fantasy. This is a safe zone, where we are allowed to shed our complex 'adult' side and search out truth and beauty.
Narnia is an untainted world where the fruit of knowledge was never eaten. There, we need not get into the speculation on the fallen natures of men, instead going straight to the celebration of Aslan, the son of the Emperor Over the Sea, as King over all Kings. By knowing him there, transcending the fallen self in the form of children, we are better able to know him here.

Thoughts for future posts: anything about the character of kingship in the Narnia books- and when I say character, I mean the 'mantle' of kingship all good kings and queens (sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, native Narnians, etc.) display, perhaps gained through the sacrificing of self to an ideal- or more precisely, to Aslan, and through him, all Narnia. OR the opposite, misuse or misinterpretation of Kingship, as found in Tash, the Calormens, Miraz, the Lone Islands Governor, etc.

For the sake of Aslan, through Aslan, because of Aslan. To look through the page into his great solemn eyes and know, you will never been the same again . . . Ah, this is the legacy of Narnia indeed.

I'm not kidding, please, I would love to hear your thoughts, and to see people taking the discussion upon themselves. *I am not here for an argument, and getting after me for my personal flawed insight will get you nowhere. *If you want to post a comment praising an insight, or wanting an expansion on it, please do so! Remember, sometimes people want to say more, but don't want to double-post.

Silence :read:
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Peter the High King

Postby Silence » February 5th, 2008, 11:04 am

Of the four children, Susan is the 'grown up', Edmund is the redeemed, and Lucy is faithful. So what is Peter?
Peter is the eldest, the older brother, who looks after his siblings. If Susan is the mother figure, Peter is the authority figure. But how does this fit into his high king status? Was he made high king simply because the others were younger, or is it connected to the fact that he innately already possesses the qualities necessary for high kingship?

First, we must return to a simple, but overlooked and even despised fact; kingship is service and stewardship.
*Service, in that a king or queen gives up the privilege of being a private person, and many of the rights and luxuries we take for granted, so that this royal individual can then take care of needs which we cannot attend to ourselves; Christ was king of kings, and he paid the price for sin that we couldn't. Honestly, when was the last time Aslan or Christ did something selfish?
*Stewardship, because while a king or queen may have authority over the people and land they govern, neither people nor land belongs to them; they are taking care of it for the rightful owner, and cannot merely 'bury the coin', nor use it for their own ends.

Lands and people are not coins; they are either progressing or regressing, and it takes an active effort just to maintain a good situation, let alone better it. Stewards must at all times be ready to prove that their stewardship has been for good. Stewardship therefore is keeping and maintaining a thing; Service is the bettering of it. A King is less than the those he serves, and more by virtue of serving.

So how does this apply to Peter the High King? Well, 'where much is given, much is required'. Peter by virtue of being the older brother was already giving up some selfish time just to take care of his brother and sisters, who were younger than him and needed that protection. He had already accepted stewardship over them.
Remember when they told Aslan that Edmund had joined the White Witch? Peter felt compelled to admit his fault in leading his brother wrong. Why? Because he felt responsible. By acknowledging his failure in stewardship to Aslan (since he had neither bettered, nor maintained his brother,) Peter was submitting to his overlord, and accepting the consequences for this mistake/lapse/oversight/weakness.
But like any good overlord, Aslan paid the price that the repentant Peter could not, and restored Edmund to his brother's 'keeping'.

Now do you understand why I was so irritated by the suggestion that there might be friction between Caspian and Peter? "Alliances and antagonisms" between kings and queens dwell in the realm of selfishness and divided interests. In this light, it is totally and utterly ridiculous that Peter would have the selfish attitude of 'king trumps a prince,' or Caspian being jealous of . . . what, Peter's coming back to put him on the throne? A life of submission executed honorably? Might as well say Peter was jealous of Aslan's position over him.

To this day, I have never heard a Christian say they wish they had been crucified instead of Christ, (on second thought, no one is stupid enough to suggest they could endure, let alone submit to what Christ did; even those who pretend it never happened). But I have heard and seen leaders wish or pretend they had the authority and power death surrendered to Christ.
This is the contrast between kingships; one focuses on the byproduct, and the other on paying the price required. The setting up of self in pride, or putting self down in humility.

If no one replies, I will be in danger of a triple-post (and the administrator's wrath). Help?
Silence :read:
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Re: Kingship in Narnia

Postby john » February 5th, 2008, 3:53 pm

john
Chief Wardrobian
User avatar
john
Chief Wardrobian
 
Posts: 6495
Joined: Jul 1996
Location: near seattle

Postby Silence » February 5th, 2008, 6:55 pm

Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Servants progressing to Kingship

Postby Silence » February 7th, 2008, 5:00 pm

Agree or disagree: I don't think Eustace and Jill Pole were king and queen until they passed the threshold of the stable- died, as it were.

Why? Well, after considering their time in Narnia, (and putting aside the lack of crowning,) I have to conclude that neither Jill nor Eustace had, or demonstrated stewardship; they are called to Narnia purely in the capacity of servants (excepting Eustace's first visit, which I believe was to put him on that path).

*In SC, they never display leadership or command. Aslan gives Jill sole keeping of the Signs for her recklessness, and Jill and Eustace concede the role of guidance, and ofttimes seniority to Puddleglum (a fellow servant). In the short time Prince Rilian is with them, the roles are clearly established; for while they are all equals under Aslan, their separate positions under Him are recognized.
*In LB, Jill and Eustace never question Tirian's position of leader and planner. They are there, as it were, on special assignment to him. And they execute their service with obedience to the bitter end. From this, I believe they proved themselves worthy of a higher form of service- a crown.

A King is a Steward, which is simply another (albeit higher) form of service. Recognizing this would mean that in one sense, he is equal with all others who serve. No one is beneath a true King or Queen; but they are readily conscious of anyone above them, since this is the mentality of a servant. (In other words, they never 'look down' on others.)

How Polly and Digory fit into this is a harder question, since we know little of them, and they only journeyed to Narnia once, though that once was admittedly enough to recognize their role at the time as servants. But it is evident that whatever lives they lead afterward, it proved that they were worthy of a crown.

In my next post, I'm considering examining practical application of Kingship; for there are certain traits that are universally recognized as royal. Everything good comes from Christ, and thus everything good we come across should be rejoiced in as a manifestation of Him. The Character of Righteousness is the literal character of Christ; thus, if we look for what mankind instinctively recognizes as royal, beautiful, and good, we will in fact be learning of Him.

I apologize to the non-Christian segment reading this, and suggest they take what they like, and leave the rest.

Silence :read:
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby Danman » February 8th, 2008, 2:21 am

"And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me, Beloved, me who am but as a dog---" Emeth.
And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; But the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them.
User avatar
Danman
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Silence » February 8th, 2008, 6:41 am

Thank you so much, Danman; I was beginning to wonder if anyone found this subject interesting, but didn't want to let the topic die. And on the subject of ideal historical kingship, I always find this essay a lovely read: Kingship in the Work of the Inklings by Charles A. Coulombe http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/o ... lings.html

Anyway, I love your comparison of Peter and Tirian; it was excellently expressed. I believe they are both are kings by nature because they display understanding of a very basic rule; no man is above the law. This 'Law' is what unconsciously governs human decency, (which strays into the subject of practical application of kingship). Peter as a decent human being could not turn away from such need, or the call of his Lord. He submitted, and trusted that everything was as it should be, because Aslan was in control. Tirian recognized that he had dishonored himself by breaking a basic rule which, as a knight, he had sworn to uphold and honor; and while some people would say his position arguably protects him, he knew it is upon laws such as these that true kingship is founded . . . or broken.

I know what you mean about being initially frustrated with Tirian, who is perhaps my favorite Narnian king, the ideal of a knight and lord. But I don't know if I could love him as much had he done otherwise; even his rash overzealousness in endearing. However, it is actually interesting to consider that had he waited for backup, he most likely have died early on, without the need to stand fast and see his world fall apart. In a way, it was like a chance for repentance and proving himself again.

Now here's a question: did Susan lose her 'queenship' by turning away from her stewardship of remembering, and honoring memory through her actions? She also transgressed by failing as a servant, as she was not waiting for a Call, and because of this did not hear/feel the Call that led the others to see Tirian's 'ghost' ('many are called but few are chosen?' :grin:), which ends in the Friends of Narnia returning in glory. Even if she did not completely lose her status, I believe failing in such a position carries grave consequences- such as losing your family and dear friends.

Silence :read:
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby A#minor » February 9th, 2008, 4:01 pm

"My brain and this world don't fit each other, and there's an end of it!" - G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
A#minor
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 7323
Joined: May 2005
Location: Georgia, USA

Postby Larry W. » February 9th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Larry W.
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1721
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Western Michigan

Between Government and Govern-ment

Postby Silence » February 10th, 2008, 2:00 am

Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Superheroes in Narnia

Postby Silence » February 11th, 2008, 9:37 pm

Despite my failure to reply immediately, A#minor, it is good to read you again. Thanks for the compliments and support.

Now for the promised post on the Application of Kingship.
Strangely enough, I find this easiest to examine in the context of king as superhero. Explanation: Superhero fiction has the same relationship with heroism as Fantasy has with kingship. Superheroes and Fantasy both come from myth, and Tolkien believed myth was the imaginative outlet of the subconscious in regards to the nature and 'texture' of the sacred, (he called Christ's story 'true myth'). Therefore, their separate yet similar psychologies can easily be used to contrast and compliment each other.

Just like a king, a superhero gives up his old life, conceals his 'real' face and gives up his old name, taking upon himself a new face and name (think CSL's 'putting on Christ'):
-As Servant: A superhero gives his day to day life, and his 'private life' becomes the public one as he meets the needs of the many. His thoughts are on those he serves.
-As Savior: A superhero saves people, even to the point of sacrificing his own life, literally or figuratively.
-As Steward: A superhero maintains a certain standard or norm, and acts when it is threatened. He protects and takes responsibility for the land and its people.
-As Standard: A superhero raises the people by example from pettiness and self-absorption as they look to and seek to emulate his example. He has become more than an individual; he is a living flag.

Side note: A king is an ideal Christian, and a superhero is a ideal hero; only more so. Both a Christian and a hero is supposedly just an ideal man; only more so. Now, Christ called himself the Son of God and the Son of Man- Adam means Man, and Adam was created in God's image. By this logic Christ was the ideal Man; Son of the Creator and the created. And Christ is ultimately what our ideal of a king or superhero is trying to emulate. (Only More So.)
[If God's course is one eternal round, it shouldn't be surprising if us mere mortals get dizzy. :wink:]

Thoughts of the day: What is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary? Just a little extra.
A bad writer uses what is extraordinary, making it mundane; A Master takes what is mundane, and reveals it to be extraordinary.

Silence :read:
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby Danman » February 11th, 2008, 9:52 pm

Regarding the 10 generations of hostile rule... I'm not sure that it was necessarily either. I think 'bad' things happen to us because of one of, or a combination of, three reasons: 1) Our own sinfulness and the consequences thereof, 2) the sinfulness of someone else and the consequences thereof ("I will curse them to the third and fourth generation"), or 3) the simple fact that we live in a fallen, sinful world. My dad was a very godly man, a pastor for his entire adult life, loved by everyone that knew him. Yet, at 67 he acquired brain cancer and died 18 months later (15 months later than was expected, by the way). Why would God allow this? I don't wrestle with it. We live in a broken world, cancer runs in his family... it didn't surprise me and my view of God wasn't shattered. It happens.

SO.... Narnia. I'm not sure what happened. There are many stories of Narnia we aren't told.. Swanwhite the queen, Moonwood the hare... It's interresting to note that in HHB, the Narnians have become so comfortable and complacent, few of them even react with alarm when they are told that Rabadash is on his way and threatens to destroy them. They grew careless in their peace and ease. Perhaps Narnia fell to the Telmarines for much the same reason... after many more years of peace and prosperity, they were so complacent, they were no where prepared to defend against an enemy and were overtaken quite easily. Just a thought.

Certainly, it must have become quite a test for them. Some seem to pass it quite well. Trufflehunter insists that Aslan will triumph and set things back to rights. While Nickabrick has long since given up and is ready to look to 'other help'. Trumpkin is perhaps in the most dangerous position of all... he sits the fence and makes no real decision one way or the other until he is absolutely convinced. I think it's his dwarfish nature that allows him to go ahead and join a war that he's not convinced is really worth it. (He says to Caspian -regarding the blowing of the horn- that he doesn't figure it'll do any good one way or the other, but if someone has to go, it might as well be him -paraphrased).

Your quote about the becoming like a child and being the greatest is quite apropot regarding Caspian. Aslan asks him point blank if he thinks he's ready to be King. Caspian says he doesn't think so because he's only a kid. Aslan says, "Good. If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been proof that you were not."

I think true leadership requires tremendous, genuine humilty. NOT self-debasing talk, but genuine understanding of who you truly are and the great responsibility laid upon your shoulders.

Two other important factors regarding kingship can be seen (wow, I feel like I'm writing a research paper here) in the conversation between Aslan and Reepicheep after Reep is healed of his wounds and he discovers his tail is missing. You recall, the other mice had drawn their swords, ready to cut off their own tails if Aslan would not renew Reep's. Aslan asks why they've drawn their swords and Peepiceek answers him. Aslan gives a great "AHA!" kind of roar and tells Reep that his tail will be restored NOT for the sake of Reep's dignity, but because of the love that exists between he and his people (point #1), "and still more for the kindness your people showed me long ago when you ate away the cords that bound me on the stone tabe (and it was then, though you have long forgotten it, that you began to be Talking Mice)," (point #2). What am I saying?

I think the first point is that there must be a love between monarch and people, that requires the king to know his people and be attuned to their needs and have some kind of relationship with them. His choices and actions must be based on a love that he bears for his people. They must love him and know that he is doing everything for what he believes is their good (not only his own).

The second point is selflessness. Being willing to do something for someone without the expectation of receiving anything in return. I'll assume for a moment and guess that the mice had no idea that they'd receive the gift of speech by chewing the ropes off the dead Aslan. But there was something that drew them to do that for their creator. They didn't expect anything, they simply did it because they could. A king must be willing to do things for his subjects without expecting them to be able to repay him in kind. He does it because it's what a king does. He does it (sometimes) out of duty. He does it because he can.

Well, this is a lengthy post. But perhaps I've added some compost to the garden and we'll continue to grow some wonderfully fruitful conversation.
"And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me, Beloved, me who am but as a dog---" Emeth.
And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; But the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them.
User avatar
Danman
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Danman » February 11th, 2008, 9:58 pm

Silence...

I'm a Superman fan. I've liked Big Blue since I was a kid. It wasn't until a year or two ago that I finally figured out why. I read a book called "The Gospel According to Superman". It went all the way through the Superman story, imagery, etc. and pointed out how it really is a story pointing to Christ - kind of ironic since Segel and Schuster were both Jewish. It's a good read, you may like it.
"And this is the marvel of marvels, that he called me, Beloved, me who am but as a dog---" Emeth.
And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; But the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them.
User avatar
Danman
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 2007

Postby Silence » February 12th, 2008, 12:10 am

"Welcome to Kingship in Narnia, the only topic where double-posting is allowed" . . . providing you have something interesting to say. :tongue:

Wonderful! Now the conversation is getting really interesting. You just reminded me of an area of Kingship I have thus far neglected: the emotional element. In other words, love, humility, respect, and selflessness in relationships . . . happily, Narnia is the perfect place to find such examples. I'll have to explore that soon.

As to why bad things happen to people, you missed a very important reason: to test and make them stronger, and worthy to receive greater blessings.
On the matter of the Narnians getting lazy, once the obvious huge trouble is over, people tend to let their guard down, only to be defeated by a gnat (like practically every win-then-lose story of the Israelites.)

And yes, Danman: I know about the origins of Superman. I actually like some versions of him, but have some pet peeves on the entire superhero subject, Supes in particular, but we would need an entirely different topic to get behind that subject and psychology. But if my library ever gets a copy of that book (extremely doubtful -I'm an intellectual oddity,) be sure I will be one of the first to read it. :smile:

(Deep breath:) Eeeeecccccchhhhhhhoooooooooooooooo! (Listens.) Yep, the inner child is wanting out.
Silence :read:
PS, Danman: the Superman creators were actually trying to portray messiah, which is a Jewish concept. They got it somewhat flipped, or maybe backwards is a better word, but I digress . . .
Silence
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Feb 2008

Postby Pete » February 12th, 2008, 2:54 am

Member of The 2456317 Club

User avatar
Pete
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 4469
Joined: Aug 1996
Location: Cranbourne West, Victoria, Australia

Next

Return to The Chronicles of Narnia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 26 guests

cron