The Jadis Plural

[Trufflehunters Twin]

In The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, twice I believe, Jadis refers to herself as we. I do not believe in either of these instances she is refering to any other being except herself. I have heard discussion on this topic giving a few ideas. The most prevelant leading in the direction she could possibly be the Green Lady incarnate in The Silver Chair. Since C.S Lewis had told a young man in a corresponding letter dealing with chronology, that he had no intentions at the finish of LWtW of writting another book in this series I have my doubts about the Green Lady theory. Here's mine. She is the pure essence of evil , but it would be hard to tag her with being analogous to satan. What about "legion" found in Mark Chapter 5? It refers to itself in the plural, and is a fairly well known "evil" character in scripture C.S was likely to had read about.

Gotta run... Youth group tonight. I'll check this out later tonight.
Thanks to any other theories on the subject!!!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Um, TT, I think you're reading a bit much into this. It was common among royalty to refer to themselves as "we" (as in Queen Victoria's "We are not amused..."). This was called the "Royal We", and since Jadis was styling herself queen of Narnia, such would be expected of her.

[EveningStar]

Perhaps I can shed light on this.

Victoria was, according to her title, Queen by the Grace of God. She was the living government, and her use of the royal plural was her claiming to speak for the entire nation.

Jadis conquered Narnia. She spoke for herself and sole owner of a conquered nation. There were no rights of the people that she protected. She did not undertake any sort of obligation, she enforced obligations on others.

Hope that helps.

[Trufflehunters Twin]

:D I'll admit, often times I enjoy delving into idea or theory that will border on delusion. It comes from a childhood passion for the fantasy fiction genre of literature. I am a fan of Robert Jordon (though that may change if he dies before finishing the Wheel of Time series) Terry Brooks, and R.A Salvatore. So thanks POTW and Chakal for explaining the true meaning of Jadis' pluralism. I have come back to reality...for now.


For the sake of those who have not read my earlier posts, to be very clear, there is no room for "theory" in my knowledge and understanding of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. In this I am unmoveable!!!

[Señor Puntos]

For the sake of those who have not read my earlier posts, to be very clear, there is no room for "theory" in my knowledge and understanding of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. In this I am unmoveable!!!

Why did you bring Jesus into this? This thread is nothing to do with him.

[Of Mice and Narnia]

I must say that it helps to have European historians on this thread otherwise we colonists would constantly be interpretating C.S. from our across the pond mentality. When we observe the symbols or the language used in the Chronicles, some of us must remember the heritage of C.S. Lewis. The response to Trufflehunters Twin's suggestion to the "plurality" in Jadis seems to be right on. It would be a normal as normal for royalty to speak in the plural.

[EveningStar]

Why did you bring Jesus into this? This thread is nothing to do with himHonestly, this fellow gets about and I think he's confusing something in another thread with this one. I do that too sometimes when I get too busy. There was no mention of Jesus earlier or anyone having theories versus facts.

With that said, I am not a dualist and neither was C. S. Lewis. So there is no Good God (Jehovah) versus Evil God (Satan) but rather one of many possible stuck up fools that turned their back on God (Satan never was any kind of god) and there could be lots of others.

Let me clarify. Only Leonardo daVinci could paint the Mona Lisa but any idiot could burn it. So it doesn't take an "anti-God" to work evil in the world, just any sort of idiot who gets his hands on a gun can shoot at the Pope or car bomb an embassy.

I'm not calling Satan, the White Witch, or any other manifestation of supreme evil in the sense of worldly knowledge. But even a five year old child that helps mother with the housework has more sense in one finger than someone who builds a car bomb to kill an ambassador has in their whole body.

[EveningStar]

And yet, as someone intimately familiar with British customs of royalty, I re-iterate. Jadis did not even put forth the pretense of being the servant of Narnia or of speaking on behalf of its citizens or government en-bank. The British royal plural is an honorable reflection of the guts and backbone of the British people who forced King John to obey his own laws and demanded trial by jury. Jadis did not count herself accountable to ANYONE. I doubt she would use a British term of respect for the shared destiny of all subjects.

And since C.S. Lewis grew up in that system, I doubt it is a mistake on his part. I think he meant it deliberately. My thoughts...of course I can't dig him up and ask him. :o

[inkspot]

Why did you bring Jesus into this? This thread is nothing to do with him.
LOL -- maybe he just did it to annoy you!
(I guess it worked...)

[EveningStar]

I can't believe it's not Buddha! :D

(If you know the ad slogan, you get it. Otherwise not worth asking...)

[Trufflehunters Twin]

Why did you bring Jesus into this? This thread is nothing to do with him.
With respect, this is the "Christianity and Narnia" forum, and since Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity I must ask you, Why not? Plus if you didn't notice I did bring up a Chapter in the Bible . To clarify, John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was With God, and the Word was God." So Jesus was infused in this thread even though you didn't see Him. Hey, but I did get you to think about Him! :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

TT, I think Jimmy was wondering about the source of this statement:

For the sake of those who have not read my earlier posts, to be very clear, there is no room for "theory" in my knowledge and understanding of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. In this I am unmoveable!!!Based on earlier posts in this thread, neither he nor I could figure what "theory" you were referring to.

[Trufflehunters Twin]

TT, I think Jimmy was wondering about the source of this statement:

Based on earlier posts in this thread, neither he nor I could figure what "theory" you were referring to.
Sorry Prince. Now I understand. It was just a little personal quip for the benefit of those that had not (and some that had) read earlier posts of mine. I did say that I enjoyed "theory" bordering on "delusional". This was not a particular theory but encompases many. Therfore, I thought I needed to clarify that when It comes to Jesus there is no room for "delusional theory". It was simply a reaffirmation of my love for Him. I have yet to be able to truley explain this love to any other human. He means everything to me. Again, I apologize for the confussion. ;)