Wow, big question, and excellent thoughts on both sides.

I think I see what you're getting at, Lily. It's easy to say in hindsight that what Aravis did was wrong, but did she really know that at the time, and did she have no other choice? Sure, she could have taken a risk and told the slave girl. But as long as there was the slightest chance the girl might rat her out to her step-mother, it was too much of a risk to take. Aravis didn't know Aslan yet or that he would work all things to her good if she did what was right and honest. For all she knew, she was on her own in a world where she had to fend for herself since the gods cared little for her well-being.

I think what this question really brings up, is the nature of God (or in this case Aslan) and one of the characteristics we struggle with the most to understand (especially in today's age). God is both holy and righteous, as well as being fair and gracious. He balances both these sides of his character and nature perfectly, but with our human minds, we so often fail to grasp how this is possible.

We see cases like this in the bible, where God seems to be (dare I say?) over-reacting to something. We recognise why he institutes such harsh punishment, because his righteous nature demands it, and yet something about it seems extreme. I think of God threatening to kill Moses' sons because he had not had them circumcised according to the law at birth. We see Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt or Ananias and Sapphira being killed for lying about the money they donated to the church. Yet other, seemingly worse sins, seem to go unpunished.

In life, we often see people suffer as a result of their past behaviour. Sometimes, with reason (it is the consequence of past choices), but we still if God has punished them too much. But I think SYorickson and Swan hit on it when they pointed out that all discipline from God is good. He sees the bigger picture and knows exactly what each person needs to be drawn to him (or drawn nearer to him). In some cases a harsh lesson is required (as was apparently necessary for Aravis), but in other cases, simply a reprimand is enough (like in Edmund's case). I guess it's the same way a good parent knows that sometimes harsh punishment is what a child needs for correction, where as other times a seemingly free pardon, forgiveness without punishment, is a more effective form of correction. It differs depending on individual and circumstance.

We often see pain and punishment that physically hurts as unfair, but God allows them in certain cases because the pain and suffering is only temporary and in the long run, it will prove better for us. He really does do all things in love, and I know I believe this because I trust that he is both just and righteous and gracious in equal measure and for our good and his glory. It doesn't always make sense, but I know what he does is for the best.

As God said to Abraham when he was pleading for Lot's life "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

(hope that makes sense)

I think I agree with Swan and Talking Raven, if my memory serves me right (though you have raised some points, Lil). We all know that Aravis didn't like that slave nor did she like her stepmother. Sure, part of the drugging could have been a measure of preemptive self-defense, but she also told Shasta, "I'm very glad they should beat her." (To which he replied that that seemed harsh. And while I'm sure he understood something about her running away from Ahoshta, he also understood what it was to be beaten for something one had no control over (such as Arsheesh's random criticisms in his case and drugged oversleeping in the slave's case).) Like others have said, I think Aslan punished her for her motive. Not the running away motive, but the I-know-they'll-probably-beat-her-and-I'm-very-pleased-by-that-thought motive. True, Aravis might have drugged any other slave that might have accompanied her, especially if said slave was a known light sleeper or of the guard variety, but this particular slave was an especially chosen victim. The drug would make the slave girl at least appear to have been negligent (hence the beating). Aravis could have just bound and gagged her, putting all responsibility on herself rather than on the slave.

OK, I will accept the point that Aravis may have been looking at the slave through an eye of entitlement and wanting to see her punished, and that she could have chosen a different potential companion to take the fall for her. But I don't think that binding and gagging the slave would be much of an option, because that would have made it obvious to the whole household that Aravis was up to something, and defeated the purpose of using "I'm performing my sacrifices" as an excuse for a head-start. Can you think of any efficient way that Aravis, if she was trying both to do justice by the slave girl and to make an effective escape, could have distracted the slave from accompanying her in a timely manner without the slave inevitably getting blamed? Sent her on an errand for some forgotten supply, perhaps?

She could have used an errand, yes, but I think that she wouldn't have as much assurance of where the slave would be when (eg: she could come back sooner than expected, she might make contact with another spying slave, etc). Plus, I'm not quite sure the errand-running would avoid suspicion since it was just the two of them on this excursion, meaning Aravis would be alone and "vulnerable" in the middle of nowhere. Granted, these are two girls out in the middle of nowhere, so it may not make much of a difference as far as vulnerability goes.

If she had taken responsibility on herself by gagging the slave girl:

* a) she would probably have needed to hurt her first (or the slave might have been older and stronger than 12 year old Aravis)
* b) she would have had people after her sooner, possibly, and have ruined the story "Ahoshta" wrote.

As Christians, we should always be willing to, if not justify at least think justifiable the God of the Bible.

As Narnia readers we need not always be willing to back up the moral theology of the books, since CSL might have been mistaken about "what would Jesus do?"

Have you read Don Camillo? Recall the scene when Christ on the Crucifix tells the priest he did basically right to kick Peppone (the Communist mayor) on the behind, because Peppone was expecting that from Don Camillo anyway? Everyone here sure Don Camillo got that inspiration from Christ?

Well, CSL could at times be as wrong, I suppose, as Giovannino Guareschi.

On the other hand, CSL might have been working his intellect around the problem of Purgatory, which he somewhat later perhaps (by the time of Letters to Malcolm) came to believe in.

I'm not quite sure I follow, hansgeorg. Could you explain that further?

Someone who was not writing the Bible but writing some other book, might simply be wrong about what he considers Jesus would have done or said to an imaginary character.

I might be wrong in my story about Schliemann's dream. Heinrich and the orthodox priest may not have been forgiven spreading the rumour and encouraging it by the priest blessing an icon "here is where Christ appeared to King Priam". They may both have been damned for that.

My story is one in which, whether they are saved or not, they are at least forgiven, because the priest prays that Christ may make the lie a truth and may have appeared to King Priam.

And I may therefore have been wrong about King Priam converting in the last moments before Pyrrhus Neoptolemus killed him. And about King Priam and Hector being saved.

So, CSL might have been wrong in this case. Especially if the servant girl was into forcing Aravis into the marriage.

Ah yes. Trying to write Christ (or God the Father or God the Spirit) as a character is ticklish business for sure. Narnia certainly isn't gospel.

But also, and I only thought of this now, perhaps the physical corrections Aslan gives to Aravis and Eustace are also "pictures" of what God does with us, just as Aslan is a "picture" of Christ. I had a rather dragonish experience a couple years ago myself and really, the best way to describe God's working on me was to liken it to Aslan tearing off Eustace's dragon skin. The Lord has never torn my back or turned me from a physical monster back into a human, but He's certainly taught me lessons in ways that, deep down, felt very much like these.
Basically, what I mean is, perhaps while something happens tangibly in Narnia, besides being a plot point in a story, may, to us, be a depiction of what can happen spiritually.

One point, yes.

And though "Eustace's dragon story" is set in VDT which is not an allegory, the "Eustace dragon story" pretty much is an allegory, except for details that are put in it to fit the general action.

One could also say that:

* anything that happens to us, God either wanted or allowed it to happen (usually for our best, or at least so if we love God);
* and the Lion applying the claws Himself is a picture of that aspect.

Also, one could suspect that CSL considered that Aravis more than certain other girls "needed to know what it felt like" since she was going to be a queen.

Personally I agree with those who said that Aravis had a wrong attitude. I think we should be careful about accusing C.S. Lewis as misrepresenting Christ as at that stage he had been a Christian for some time and had thought about Christ quite a bit. I believe what we do will have consequences in this life (and maybe the next). I agree with Anjos that God is holy and as Abraham said to God, Shall not the Judge of all the earth judge righteously? (My paraphrase). Also in my opinion Aravis is a very proud or at least a slight air of superiority (even over the fact that it was normal for her to walk in the desert because she had shoes at that moment CS Lewis even makes the comment "Aravis said nothing and looked very prim. Let's hope she didn't mean to, but she did.") Where does she truly beging to change? Partly from the fact that Shastha turns back and partly from the scratches on her back (which occure at the same time). At least that is my way of reading the HHB. Of course no autor of fiction can catch perfectly the character of Christ but I think Lewis came quite close to doing the subject justice.

I'm not saying that Aravis didn't have a wrong attitude on some points - she obviously considered herself superior to Shasta on the basis of riches/class differences at least initially, for example - it's just that I have to wonder how much to blame somebody whose wrong attitudes are tied up in both how she was raised - with her being too young to have much life experience outside of her family's social circle - and being, at the time of her worst actions, in rather desperate circumstances. Aslan - even the fictitious lion - has a better chance of knowing the specifics of her circumstances, and whether pain was the best way to make a point to her, than I do, ultimately. But I guess that it just feels a little severe to me, at this point in my life, that "knocked somebody out to get away from an arranged child-marriage where there were really good chances you would be misused"="God thinks you deserve to have your back torn open." Does that... make sense, at all?

Sure you make sense Lily. I guess it depends what angle you look at it. Plus it is even possible that Aslan didn't explain all the reasons. But from a strictly author point of view I think C.S. Lewis wanted to make Aravis totally change in character (like Eustace becoming a dragon) yet also wanted to show that certain actions have consequences (Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira). I have heard over and over again that ignorance of the law isn't innocence. Romans 2:14 and 15 even seems to hint that even those who are ignorant of God's law still have some knowledge of that same law in their hearts. This might seem like a bunch of quotes but I know of no better way to defend C.S. Lewis portrayal of Aslan. Although as I said earlier C.S.Lewis could have made a mistake. But I don't see the need to go down that route.

So, a time-efficient way of writing visible consequences and a potential catalyst for moral change. In the Doylist, I think I can buy that.

@knightofnarnia: I hadn't thought of Aravis in that context; thanks for bringing that up! It certainly is a good argument.

It might be more of Aravis' excuse that the girl was just a servant like Knight of Narnia pointed out. Is it "fair"?
Well, it's not as if the children in the other books never were hurt or reprimanded either.

*Digory is made to put the safety of Narnia over his concerns for his mother.

*Edmund gets stabbed by the White Witch which might never have happened if Edmund had just gone with the others to reach Cair Paravel and be crowned kings and queens which we are told would have ended the Witch's life.

*Lucy is reprimanded for waiting for Edmund to get well when she could be helping to heal other Narnians.

*Shasta is also scratched by Aslan, but it is in his cat form, so that's kind of minor, but it was also for mistreating others (cats) in the past.

*Peter almost leads his siblings and Trumpkin into a trap, which he does get in trouble for.

*Eustace has the dragon skin removed.

*Jill is made to learn the signs, but almost gets Puddleglum, Eustace, and herself eaten by giants by forgetting them.

*Caspian and Eustace hit bullies with the flats of their swords while Jill hits them with a whip.

*The children (okay, they were not really children anymore) would also have avoided the train accident in LB if they hadn't been trying to use the rings, which Aslan had told them not to use in MN.