In a battle we must know our enemies.
Lewis tells us unapologetically that the core idea of The Silver Chair is “war against the powers of darkness,” and since this is war, it would be interesting to make sure we know who these powers of darkness are, exactly. There are people we think are allies but are not in this story, as well as those who we assume to be our adversaries but turn out to be fellow victims. If we are to be effective warriors against the powers of darkness, surely we need to be able to discern who is an ally and who an enemy.
Let’s start with the Lady of the Green Kirtle. Lewis gives us contextual clues, drawn from some of his favorite classical work, hinting at who or what the Green Lady is.
In his letters, Lewis compared her to Circe, the Greek sorceress who could bewitch people and turn men into pigs. Which is precisely what she does to Prince Rilian. Jill’s first thought about the prince, when they find him, is, “He’s the silliest, most conceited, selfish pig I’ve met for a long time.” After their enchantment, Jill apologizes to Eustace for “being a pig” and there are two Earthmen they run across that are referred to as “pigs” or pig-like by the narrator and Puddleglum. The Green Lady causes people to lose their humanity through her enchantments.
Secondly, the several references to her being “green as poison” may well be meant to lead us to Spenser’s The Faerie Queen, in which Redcrosse the knight fights a horrible monster who lives in a cave and is half woman and half serpent. Her name is “Errour” (yes, that’s “error” to us today), and the knight finds himself wrapped up in Error and unable to escape for some time. When he does finally destroy her, she spews vile poison everywhere.
Lastly—and this is clearly Spenser’s intention with Error as well—the Green Lady takes us back to the story of Adam and Eve’s temptation and fall in the Garden of Eden. In this story, a serpent convinces Eve to eat of the one fruit in the garden that God has forbidden: the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve then passes the fruit along to her husband, and all of humanity pays the price. The typical Christian reading is that the serpent is Satan (though Satan is never referred to by name in the Genesis text). “Satan” is the Hebrew word, by the way, for “adversary” or “accuser”—not a name as such. In fact, in all but one case in Hebrew scripture, the text says “the satan” not “Satan.” (I’m simplifying a little here and we can discuss in the comments if there are questions or clarifications to make.)
Buy the Book


Over the Woodward Wall
The Lady of the Green Kirtle, then, functions on three different levels as an enemy. She is Circe, the witch who uses magic to dehumanize her victims. She is Error, the creature who prevents understanding for those seeking knowledge. And she is the adversary, the spiritual force that opposes those things that are good, and encourages disobedience to the divine.
(Lewis and conceptions of Satan is a fascinating conversation and one I think we’ll wait for… possibly until we get to the Screwtape Letters, where he talks about it more directly. But notice that Lewis’ enemies tend to be “satanic” rather than representing Satan himself. The White Witch, the Green Witch, even Tash, all have aspects of the satanic but don’t correspond as easily to Satan as Aslan does to Jesus. It’s a fascinating decision in a world that leans so heavily toward spiritual metaphor.)
The second set of enemies for us to discuss are the great giants of the north. Unlike the witches of Lewis’ world, not all giants are evil. In fact, Glimfeather goes out of his way to tell us there are good giants, some of whom even set out on a quest to find the missing prince. So for the giants, it’s going to be less about who they are and more about what they do that makes them our enemies.
Eustace, Jill, and Puddleglum go north because Aslan tells Jill to do so. It’s part of their quest. The first giants they see are standing in a great gorge. Jill and company don’t notice them at first, because they look so much like stones. These giants are “stupid,” but maybe not evil or ill-intentioned. They “didn’t look angry—or kind—or interested at all.” They are playing a game of cock-shies (and I had to look this up but it’s exactly what it sounds like in the story…pick a target and try to hit it with a rock), and when the giants eventually quarrel they “jeered at one another in long, meaningless words of about twenty syllables each” and smashed each other with stone hammers, then fell to the ground and started crying, “blubbering and boo-hooing like great babies.”
Interestingly, the interaction with these giants has some parallel with Dante’s experience at the entrance to the Ninth Circle of Hell. Like Jill, Dante doesn’t recognize the giants at first, thinking them to be towers. When he gets closer he realizes they are standing in a great gorge (actually, they’re standing in the Ninth Circle, but they’re so tall their upper torsos are in the Eighth Circle of Hell). The “meaningless words” are of interest as well, for Dante meets the giant Nimrod, who is supposedly the one responsible for building the Tower of Babel…his punishment being that he will forever speak unintelligibly and be unintelligible to others. Two other intriguing notes: the other giants in The Inferno are from classical mythology, mixing myths and story worlds in the same sort of pastiche that Lewis liked to make. Second, in Dante, these giants are the gatekeepers, more or less, to the Ninth Circle of Hell, where Lucifer resides…another potential connection toward the Lady of the Green Kirtle as a figure of Satan.
I suspect that Lewis is purposely drawing attention to Dante here, as the giants of the Inferno have become—with one exception—little more than beasts. They rebelled against God because of their pride, and as a result they are almost completely creatures of passion with no true cognition and no ability to communicate. Likewise, Lewis paints his giants as simple, wordless, and child-like. They have fallen from (in Dante, at least) human sentience and toward animalistic passion. As the Lady says of these giants, they are “foolish, fierce, savage and given to all beastliness.”
Not so the “gentle giants” of Harfang. Here we find something more sinister: Sent by the Green Lady, our friends arrive at Harfang desperate for a warm place to stay, and the giants are thrilled to comply. The Green Lady has sent our party with the message that they are there for the Autumn Feast and, as we later learn, it’s not so they can enjoy the feast themselves.
The giants of Harfang love the children and especially Jill. They spoil them with food and clothes and lovely warm rooms.
There is a terrible discovery about the food, though. One day at lunch they overhear some old giants talking and realize that they aren’t eating venison, they are eating a talking stag that has been killed and roasted. They are all three horrified. “Jill, who was new to that world, was sorry for the poor stag and thought it rotten of the giants to have killed him. Scrubb, who had been in that world before and had at least one Talking beast as his dear friend, felt horrified; as you might feel about a murder. But Puddleglum, who was Narnian born, was sick and faint, and felt as you would feel if you found you had eaten a baby.”
Jill eventually moves from just feeling sorry to agreeing with Puddleglum, and it’s not much later that they take a look in a giant’s cookbook and discover that marsh-wiggle and human are both on the menu for the Autumn Feast. Suddenly it all makes sense…the giants sometimes laughed or cried (“poor little thing”) when the children talked about the upcoming feast.
The “gentle giants” of Harfang eat sentient creatures. Not even necessarily for sustenance so much as for entertainment at their feasts. Humans are a traditional meal for the Autumn Feast, “served between the fish and the joint.” The giants know full well what they are doing, too, even to the point of building relationships with Jill and Eustace and Puddleglum to keep them at the castle. These giants are creatures who are willing to harm or kill sentient beings (“talking” creatures in the world of Narnia) for their own gain.
There is one last group to touch on briefly, and that is the Earthmen. Every indication in the beginning is that they are the enemies. They live underground, serve the “Queen of Underland,” and are preparing to make war against the surface world, led by Prince Rilian. But after the Queen is killed we discover that they, too, were enchanted all along. They don’t want to fight the surface world, and have no quarrel with it. They don’t want to live near the surface. They don’t even like living in Underland—it’s too close to the “sunlit lands.” They were never enemies of Narnia, not really. They gladly return to their strange and wonderful deepness of Bism, leaving Narnia and the surface world behind them.
So, who is our enemy according to Lewis?
The sorceress who would use enchantment to make us something less than human. The serpent who would hold us in error. The adversary who opposes the will of Aslan. Those who would harm other sentient beings for their own benefit.
In all of this, it is the Lady of the Green Kirtle who remains our central villain. Even the giants of Harfang seem to rely on her, at least for their human victims. Lewis is working hard in this particular novel to make sure that we understand it is not the foreign army that is the true danger—they are victims, just like Prince Rilian—but the power behind it.
Lewis was familiar, of course, with the Bible verse that says, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12, NIV).
It’s easy today to look at “flesh and blood”—human beings—as our enemies. In the world of The Silver Chair this would be a mistake. It is not our fellow human beings who are our enemies; they have been enchanted by evil forces. War against the forces of darkness in the world is not war against human beings.
Lewis spent months in the trenches during World War I. At that time he wrote in his journal that he never wanted to be part of war again: “the frights, the cold, the smell of high explosive, the horribly smashed men still moving like half-crushed beetles.” I doubt he would think our present troubles greater than those he himself lived through…though I suspect he wouldn’t think them any less, either.
In The Silver Chair he reminds us: what are the spiritual forces creating conflict in this world? Who is seeking to create war and trouble where there is no need or want of it? Who devours human beings for their own sustenance? Which of our enemies are truly evil, and which are captive to evil enchantment that might be broken somehow?
It is not politics that will save us, or armies, or war. It is the Marsh-wiggle who is willing to tell truth that awakens us. It is the human children who follow Aslan even when they don’t get it all right along the way. And as Rilian and Jill and Eustace and Puddleglum discovered, even in the wintry north lands there are ways to celebrate, as the Narnians do when they finally break out of Underland. Those who have been our enemies—like Prince Rilian himself!—can be brought back over to the side of Aslan if we can find the way to bring them to their senses.
And there is Aslan above it all, sending his imperfect agents to change the world and fight the powers of darkness.
Matt Mikalatos is the author of the YA fantasy The Crescent Stone. You can follow him on Twitter or connect on Facebook.
There are good giants in Prince Caspian, too.
Another literary influence on Lewis in this book is Plato. At the end Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill end up in Plato’s cave with someone trying to convince them that the exterior world is the illusion and that only the things in the cave are real.
Another great article, Matt! The last couple have been pretty heavy indeed.
@1 Yes! And in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, too!
@2 Absolutely.
@3 Thank you! I think we’ll go a little lighter with the next one. :)
Matt – thanks, looking forward to “lighter”!! I’ve definitely enjoyed reading these last few articles of yours, but have also struggled with coming up with any kind of fitting response or comment. A bit drained (as we all are, probably) with much of what’s going on in the world these days.
Anyways, I definitely enjoyed reading your thoughts here, most especially your firm statement that “flesh and blood” – our fellow human beings – are not our enemies. Would that we would all remember that more these days. (I’m first in the queue for needing constant reminders!) I have decided this is the year that I want to listen to others more…and to extend grace to all. It is challenging, but your words here were a well-needed encouragement that indeed, we are not fighting against flesh and blood. Or indeed, we ought not to be.
“They don’t even like living in Underland—it’s too close to the “sunlit lands.””
Understandable. I wouldn’t want to live that close to that place myself.
—> if you’re confused, I’m making a joke about Matt’s own books.
If you haven’t read them, go read them!
@5 sonofthunder. Emotional reality is hard for a lot of us right now! Hang in there and do something fun!
@6 Jo Michelle. THANK YOU. I am so pleased that you enjoyed my books so much. :)
I am wondering if the “multisyllable nonsense words” are a slap at German.
Thanks for the Dante connection, I never knew that! And yes, Lewis is at pains throughout all his works to point out that other people are not the enemy… in the Last Battle, not only does Emmeth the Calormene get into Heaven, so too does at least one of the Dwarfs who betrayed Narnia and killed the Talking Horses. Lewis has a wonderful take on moral ambiguity considering these are children’s stories
I just ran across the reread today, and have been busily catching up. I wondered, are you familiar with Lewis scholar Michael Ward’s “Planet Narnia” thesis, on the ways in which Lewis used the figure of the medieval “seven heavens” in his work? Ward contends that medieval-inspired planetary imagery structures and interpretsthe Narnia series, the Space Trilogy, and his poem “The Planets”.
(In case it hasn’t swum into your ken, Ward’s website sums up the thesis here, and fellow Lewis scholar Brenton Dickieson reconsiders the thesis here, disputing some parts while appreciating others.
… and then I realized that you referenced the very book in your post on Father Christmas, several pages back. My apologies!
In that vein, I am interested in your take on the “lunar” imagery, especially the “layered boundaries between worlds” theme that seems stronger in this book than many of the others.
I have a little trouble placing the White Witch’s role, after the origin that the Magician’s Nephew gives her. She’s there at the very beginning of Narnia, and certainly plays the serpent in the garden there- right down to the business with the apple. And presumably her presence and role here ties into her role in the Deep Magic and her rights of death over traitors (although I don’t think we see how that came to be carved into the scepter of the Emperor-Over-The-Sea, or carved into the Fire-Stones on the Secret Hill, in letters as deep as a spear is long). That whole set-up always struck me as rather dualistic in ways that Christianity is, at least theoretically, not, although the existence of the books after The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe suggest that the defeat of Jadis is not, after all, the defeat of evil in Narnia.
But then, if Jadis was there at the creation of Narnia, she was around before it, too, as the last Queen of Charn, and things get a little confusing for me. Presumably Charn (and the other Worlds, and the Woods between them) must also have been a creation of the being who is known in Narnia as Aslan and on Earth as Christ- or at least, if Lewis has some sort of separate Demiurge running about, I don’t recall any indication of it.
Well, if you’ve got a Universal Creator, then everything must ultimately be it’s creation, good or bad, but “Refugee from a dead world (that she killed)” is a concept that I’m having trouble matching to any figure in the Christian canon (except in the exceptionally dubious transitive property where it sounds a little bit like an Evil Superman, and Superman’s story bears some passing semblance to Moses). Charn doesn’t really strike me as a Heaven, a war in which might produce Fallen Angels (I read it more as an allegory for nuclear annihilation) and while some sort of Post-Human magus challenging the divine in a new creation following a nuclear apocalypse is certainly a story I would read, I don’t imagine it’s what Lewis had in mind.
With apologies for the double post, but this one will skate rather closer to perilous political ice and if the moderators decide that it’s gone too far, I’d rather separate it from the more fiction focused comment above.
I don’t put an awful lot of stock in the existence of “spiritual forces of evil.” The evil that men do, I think, tends to arise from our all too human failings. But then, much of the worst of that evil comes often in the form of institutions and patterns of belief that are, if not spiritual in nature, certainly larger than any of the individual humans, whatever their failings hat make them up. And in that sense, I would tend to agree that dismantling those institutions (and I’m speaking as much of informal institutions of discrimination and oppression as I am of formally organized ones) and disrupting those patterns of behavior is a better goal than striking down, individually or en masse all those who disagree with you.
Of course, Christ might have been able to make the scales fall from Saul’s eyes in a moment, as Aslan might have been able to free Eustace from his dragon’s skin, but we mere humans can’t always be certain that we’ll be able to reach those who would do harm- and this, I think, Lewis recognizes as well. It’s no mistake that Father Christmas gave Peter a sword and not a typewriter.
Cuttlefish, I would argue that Lewis definitely isn’t going for a strict allegory here. While he most certainly wants to point to the deeper Truth (or should I say the True myth?), he also loves playing around with alternatives in the best genre fashion. We probably will discuss much more later on, but the Space Trilogy works out a lot of these ideas even more. Lewis is not shy about his love for exploring the possibilities of other dimensions/worlds and how the Christian myth may still make sense in all (of all!)
In other words (without trying to write an essay here), I don’t think Jadis is intended to be a one-to-one representation of any particular being in Christian myth. While she certainly serves the Lucifer function in Narnia world, she is also just a regular (although very Magical and very Powerful) being herself, last of a proud, fallen world. I would argue that this is Lewis just indulging his love of science fiction and positing a “what if?” in using Jadis to be the one that introduces evil to Narnia. Although, we could also possibly argue that Uncle Andrew is just as influential in that role, if slightly less spectacular.
I concur with @5, your essays are so spot-on, I haven’t much to add.
I do remember the surprise as a boy, when I first had the books read to me, when the gnomes turned out to be good and decent. Fear of the ugly and the unknown made me assume that they were nasty creatures.
As a boy, I remember being frustrated by Rilian’s temptation to see the world of Bism when it was rather obvious that time was running out. As an adult I can appreciate the struggle between doing what we want versus our duties and obligations.
@12: The Magician’s Nephew retconned so many things that I call it Retcon: The Novel. Jadis’s backstory presented therein is especially difficult — maybe impossible — to reconcile with her previously-stated origins and social purpose. Lewis tries a little, with “some say there is giantish blood in the royal family of Charn.” But that just got a raised eyebrow from me. Who is this “some,” and what’s with the present tense, given that everyone in Charn was long dead at that point and Charn itself would soon cease to exist?
@10/11 DSorge Yeah, I find Ward’s thesis overwhelmingly convincing to the point that in certain works (like this one) it hits you with a sort of, “Wow how did I not see that before” hammer. I haven’t really dug into it much in these articles because Ward’s books are so detailed that I’d more or less be paraphrasing those instead of bringing anything useful to the conversation. But yes, for sure, the movement between the heavenly/earthly/under-the-earth spheres is so clear in this work, and the colors… lots of green and gray and silver. Water. People getting loss. “lunacy”/madness. It’s chock full of lunar imagery almost to distraction.
12/CuttlefishBenjamin As AeronaGreenjoy mentions at #16, Lewis more or less completely revises Jadis’s story in Magician’s Nephew. I suspect it’s because (a) he thought LWW was going to be a standalone novel and (b) he just simply doesn’t care that much about continuity. Reepicheep changes height by a full *foot* between novels.
@15 Templar. Thank you so much!
Thanks for an interesting article. I was given the first two Narnia books for my 7th birthday and proceeded to devour the series in an entirely experiential, non-analytical fashion. Ten years later, I was astonished to discover the Christian parallels, and still prefer to recall my naive childhood perspective.
Like most people I have my favorite Narnia books, which by no means include The Silver Chair. I found it to be dreary and depressing. The sad tale of Caspian and Ramandu’s daughter was a sad coda to the magic and excitement of Dawn Treader, and the entire story was disappointingly lacking in heroes. I regarded Rilian as a dud both before and after the enchantment was broken, and Puddlegum was too much of an acquired taste for my childhood self to embrace him. (Today I hold a much different opinion, he is one of Lewis’ best creations.)
I truly enjoyed your article, which has given me much food for thought, and will perhaps allow me to return to The Silver Chair with new appreciation.
I just discovered the reread of all things CS Lewis, and am delighted. I discovered Narnia quite by accident in 6th grade, was drawn in and never, ever left. I devoured the series, The Hobbit and then the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy at the end of that school year and through the summer. Oddly, like a previous writer, I didn’t make the Jesus analogy at all, in spite of being a Catholic school child, perhaps because we had so little connection with actually reading the Bible. The spirituality of it all was not at all wasted on me and I found the idea of worshiping lions a perfectly reasonable one. On some level, I still do.
@18 Nortally. I have always disliked and still dislike how a literal star who becomes queen is really only known by her relationship to other characters (Ramandu’s daughter, Caspian’s wife, Rilian’s mother). It seems like a tremendous waste of a wonderful idea. I always wonder if there’s some allusion I’m missing here, but I sadly suspect it may just be some of Lewis’s lack of comfort with women/sexist attitude. I would certainly love to be wrong.
@19 Gillie Waddington. So we’re told that sometimes Lewis would (in private) pray to Aslan, which makes perfect sense since he saw no difference between Aslan and Jesus. :)
That’s very interesting about Dante, Matt. it’s obvious from your description that Lewis deliberately drew on that scene for inspiration (I did wonder as a kid why the giants were standing in a gorge). Your comment about Ramandu automatically made me think of Neil Gaiman’s Stardust – maybe Gaiman got the idea of from Lewis?
2. That’s a great point about Plato’s cave! Although I’m familiar with the idea, I never made the association until now. Sometimes the way Lewis’s religious beliefs inform his books can work against the text, sometimes they enhance it – this being a case in point.
I’ve said elsewhere that I reckon Lewis’s relationship with an older, manipulative woman was a defining influence in his depiction of Edmund and the White Witch. Rillian and the Lady of the Green Kirtle are another iteration of the same theme – ie, a younger man falling under the spell of a malevolent enchantress. It’s interesting how in the first instance, the role of temptress is established through what the White Witch does – ie, tempts Edmund with Turkish Delight – whereas in the second iteration, it is symbolic – The Lady of the Green Kirtle is also a giant green serpent, which has inevitable connotations with Eden, temptation etc.
The Silver Chair is a favourite of mine. Reading this article, I was struck by how most of the creatures which Jill and Eustace encounter on their travels are humanoid (as opposed to, say, LWW where you have creatures that are a mix of human and animal – centaurs, fauns etc – plus a lot of talking animals). Maybe there’s an over-arching allegorical theme at work here? The giants are large and live above ground. The earthmen are dwarfish and live below ground. Puddleglum is a marshwiggle; he lives above ground but his ties with earth – marshes etc – put him somewhere between the two. Plus there are faint echoes of an early allegorical work by Lewis – The Pilgrim’s Regress – which was also populated by giants and dwarves, both representing very specific value-systems. Just a thought.
@21/Aonghus Fallon. That’s a very interesting observation about the humanoid creatures in Silver Chair. I suspect you’re on to something there!
The gnomes of Bism varied widely in height. The book describes them as “of all sizes, from little gnomes barely a foot high to stately figures taller than men.” Possibly extrapolating from that, the Narnia Wiki says they range from one to seven feet tall. Golg was about three feet tall; I expect Puddleglum would have had more difficulty grabbing and menacing one of the tall ones.
I had this one bookmarked for awhile – as others have pointed out, it was a little heavy (although with a message it is always good to be reminded of), and I had nothing to add. But I wanted to say I appreciated it!
Matt, you’ve made the best possible case for Lewis and the book. Both are lucky to have so good and generous an advocate.
“ So, who is our enemy according to Lewis?“ A powerful, manipulative woman, sadly and stereotypically enough (and just like in LWW). As for Circe, I prefer the one on Madeline Miller’s new novel. I remain a big fan of Eustace, Jill and Puddleglum.
I hope I’m not jumping the gun, but my other problem with the book is Lewis’ very sneery attitude towards Eustace and Jill’s awful school. Reminiscent of Agatha Christie’s similarly dismissive attitude to new theories of education, and an interesting contrast to that of the mystery novelist Gladys Mitchell, whose day job was teaching in schools.
The first half of this book reminded me of why this was my least favorite Narnia book. I didn’t remember much about it after 20+ years, but the green lady was so obvious that I couldn’t understand why none of the main three characters assumed it was her right away. And when she said the giants would love to have them for the feast, I can’t imagine any kid dumb enough not to get right away what she really meant. It’s like when someone has a loaded gun and you want to get it away from them, the last thing you do is shout “give it to me!”
The whole part with the giants didn’t feel like something from a Narnia book, but more like typical generic children’s fantasy tales. But the book got better once they met Rilian in Gilderoy Lockheart mode.
I seemed to remember Puddleglum being the Jar Jar Binks of Narnia, and I guess he was in a way, though in a melancholic way instead of sanguine. I guess I picture him as Ray Bolger channeling Eeyore.
The bits with Aslan were good as always, and I did shed some tears at the last scene in Aslan’s Country. I didn’t much like Caspian and Eustace spanking the bullies with the flats of their swords, or Eustace and Jill keeping the clothes, at least the reason for using the flats of their swords was this theme of fighting not against flesh and blood, etc.
Excellent and insightful analysis. Bloody well done and thank you for this series!
@@@@@ 8. Aonghus Fallon:
Re Shift. The ape as a mischief-maker was a common medieval trope, and one with which Lewis would have been all too familiar – and which is used in the same context in Pullman’s books (ironically).
This has nothing to do with Narnia. Except the story is goofy enough to live there. The ape legend in question proclaims:
Women who die virgin will lead apes in hell.
Women on the shelf, too old to catch a husband, were said to be “Ape leaders.”
@28 – did you leave this on the correct post?
@@@@@ 28, Lisamarie
@@@@@28 – did you leave this on the correct post?
Did Aonghus Fallon mispost as well?
Are ape tropes not part of this discussion?
Is sexism not part of this discussion?
Nope. But that’s very interesting, nontheless. It reminds me of ‘Seven Gothic Tales’ by Isak Dinesen (aka Karen Blixen), specifically the cover –
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/402145197374?var=0&mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5337607145&toolid=10044&customid=123
One story – ‘The Monkey’ features a woman who has a monkey as a pet, and guess what? She’s a prioress. So Dinesen was clearly drawing on the source material you mention.
That said, isn’t Mrs Coulter Lyra’s mother? So probably not a virgin?
It seems to be an early modern phrase. Here is one example:
What will you not suffer me: Nay now I see
She is your treasure, she must haue a husband,
I must dance bare-foot on her wedding day,
And for your loue to her, leade Apes in hell.
Talke not to me, I will go sit and weepe,
Till I can finde occasion of reuenge.
[William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, 1591]
Maybe I’m confused (especially as 8 is a different poster on this thread). But isn’t the ape discussion on the Last Battle post? I don’t see the post on this.
This is the wrong place, Lise Marie. Apologies for only adding to your confusion – I just decided to answer Fern Hunter anyway.
FH – maybe I misunderstood? In which case, yes definitely: linking spinsterhood with apes could well be an anti-catholic thing, as nuns take a vow of chastity. This is all the more credible for only having come into currency post-reformation. Lewis simply extended the analogy – ie, marriage to the catholic church with marrying an ape = the pope/ape.
This is a Silver Chair thread. There were no apes in The Silver Chair. The only ape to appear in the Narnia books was Shift, in The Last Battle. The Last Battle thread is yonder.
I think moderators can move comments from one thread to another. Or at least, I’ve seen that stated on other sites. I am not sure if this site’s commenting system works the same way, but if it does, it might make sense to move the ape posts over.
Hi, coming very late to this re-read (I did my own re-read of The Chronicles of Narnia about a year ago). Though I’m a long-time atheist myself, I’m enjoying reading Matt’s Christian analyses of these books, which are thought-provoking without being preachy. The first time I read this series, as a child growing up in a secular household in the ’70s-’80s, I didn’t get the Christian theme until it became blatantly obvious at the end of the final book.
Just wanted to mention, for those interested: “To Serve Man”, in the cookbook sense as used in The Silver Chair, is also a 1950 science fiction short story and a 1962 Twilight Zone episode. (I learned this during my recent re-read.)
Your discussion about who is the villain reminds me of Bob Dylan’s song “masters of war”
You that never done nothin’
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly