Was Calormen really such a bad country?

[waggawerewolf27]

Any talk of the three Narnia volumes, The Last Battle, The Horse and His Boy, or even Voyage of the Dawn Treader, sooner or later leads to mention of Calormen, from whence come slave owners, slave merchants and invading armies. When Calormen is mentioned, ensuing discussions tend to overwhelm threads meant for other purposes, because so many people have strong opinions about how this imaginary country is depicted.

Well known authors, like Phillip Pullman, have complained about the racist way Calormen is depicted. Others have supported this perception by pointing out the chauvinism of having an ideal Narnian society run by very Anglo Saxon children, compared to the 'Arabian nights' feel of Calormen as depicted in Pauline Baynes' accompanying illustrations. There has even been an unwarranted equation of Calormen with Islam, even though Calormenes worship a pantheon of Gods, headed by a frightful looking Tash, whose idol takes pride of place in Tashbaan's main temple.

Islamic beliefs do not favour the ostentatious dress paraded by leading Calormenes like Lazaraleen, Anradin or the Tisroc, or the class divisions which plague Calormen. Furthermore, although the style of clothes, weapons and diets of Calormene people do suggest the Orient, it should be remembered that the entire Middle East from India to Turkey is home to a vast medley of nationalities, ethnicities and religions, including native born Christian minorities, such as the Coptic, Ethiopian and Maronite churches or the Chaldean and Assyrian Orthodox churches in Iraq.

So what exactly is there about C.S.Lewis' sometimes complex depiction of Calormen culture, law, poetry and education which justify the criticisms levelled at Calormen and Narnia?

Perhaps Calormen has as much to do with real-life Indo-Arabic culture as the Gilbert and Sullivan musical Mikado has to do with modern Japanese culture. Or Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels have to do with 1600's Australia. The Mikado lampooned the bureaucracy and mannerisms of the United Kingdom, but placing these in a nice safe exotic Japanese culture on the opposite side of the world.

Was C.S.Lewis doing something similar with Calormen - dressing up an exaggerated view of human nature in a nice 'safe' exotic style to point out the shortcomings of our own society?

Do you agree or disagree that it is too easy to assume the Calormenes were all bad just because some leaders were villains? Aren't we forgetting that there were also villains in Narnia and Archenland? Were characters like Emeth or Aravis, who had definite ideas of honourable conduct more representative of Calormen than readers usually admit? Have we a right to assume bad behaviour from a Calormene just because he is on the wrong side?

What is it about Calormen which would lead Eustace to think in VDT that 'Calormen is the least phony country' in that world? And why did C.S.Lewis need to invent such a country, anyway?

I see Calormen as being rather ordinary in some ways. Unlike Jadis' Charn for example, destroyed due to Jadis' own wickedness. In your opinion, was Calormen really such a bad country?

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

I think it's foolish to portray all Calormenes as bad. We see around ten characters throughout the entire series (some for only a scene or two), and we use that to base our judgment upon the nation as a whole.

Territorially speaking, Calormen is the largest nation in the Narnian World. I think it is a safe assumption to make that it is probably the most heavily populated country as well. And yet we always seem to let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

[Graymouser]

Do you agree or disagree that it is too easy to assume the Calormenes were all bad just because some leaders were villains? Aren't we forgetting that there were also villains in Narnia and Archenland? Were characters like Emeth or Aravis, who had definite ideas of honourable conduct more representative of Calormen than readers usually admit? Have we a right to assume bad behaviour from a Calormene just because he is on the wrong side?

What is it about Calormen which would lead Eustace to think in VDT that 'Calormen is the least phony country' in that world? And why did C.S.Lewis need to invent such a country, anyway?


I see Calormen as being rather ordinary in some ways. Unlike Jadis' Charn for example, destroyed due to Jadis' own wickedness. In your opinion, was Calormen really such a bad country?

'


I'm going to answer these points in reverse order, starting off with quoting myself

I assume that things are bad in Calormen because C.S. Lewis keeps telling us that they are bad- and he created the place. His very first introduction of Calormen in VDT tells us that the inhabitants are a "wise, wealthy, courteous, cruel and ancient people"- and I think it's safe to say that the emphasis is on "cruel". They are slave traders in a scene focused on the evils of slavery.

When we first meet them historically in HHB they are trying to conquer their innocent smaller neighbors through treachery and defeat; in TLB, 1500 years later they finally manage it through the same method (so, maybe they weren't all that competent ). We are told they are usually in a state of aggression against the other smaller countries.

They have had slavery for at least that same 1500 years, and probably longer- it seems well established in HHB. In their history before that, parricide is a well established method of gaining the throne.

There are constant refernces in HHB to people- not only slaves- being threatened with being flogged, hanged, or boiled or burned alive, sometimes for trivial offences. As well, they have apparently practised human sacrifce to Tash for a long time

Note Lewis says that they are a cruel people, not that they have cruel rulers, which seems to say that there's something bad in the culture as a whole.

The worship of Tash seems well established, and it is committed to human sacrifice, so presumably the mass of people are satisfied with that.

The country was founded by outlaws flying from the son (or grandson) of Frank V of Narnia, and their colony in Telmar was so atrocious that in only two years Aslan was forced to destroy it by turning them into dumb beasts.

DiGoRyKiRkE said

I think it's foolish to portray all Calormenes as bad. We see around ten characters throughout the entire series (some for only a scene or two), and we use that to base our judgment upon the nation as a whole.

But the question then becomes, why are we shown only these people? These are not a group chosen at random, neither are the actions they are shown partaking in- over a period of 1500 years.

Even our Calormen paragons: Aravis was fleeing to Narnia for personal reasons; when we meet her she is snobbish and cruel- she despises Shasta as low-born and she says she was glad that her slave was whipped. It's only by exposure to Northerners that she develops a sense of decency.


All we know of her brother is at that time she loved him and missed him- but he died fighting 'rebels' on the Western frontier- probably one of those "little barbarian countries that call themselves free" as the Tisroc would put it.

Even Emeth- he had no qualms about, and even eagerly desired to, invade a small neighboring country which had done him no harm.

[Anhun]

[color=#400000]Do you agree or disagree that it is too easy to assume the Calormenes were all bad just because some leaders were villains?

But people don't make that assumption "just" because some leaders were villains. Arsheesh, who calls Shasta son, but treats him like a slave, is noone's definition of a leader, but he's still villainous. Likewise, the slave traders at Narrowhaven aren't necessarily leaders. In fact, they are probably middle-class. The fact of the matter is that every Calormene that we meet, from every walk of life, is some sort of a villain or at least a negative character, except for Emeth, and he may very well be the rare exception. Even Aravis converts to ideals of honour through her exposure to Shasta and the horses.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

And the mere fact that Emeth stands as a stark contrast to the stereotypical Calormen should be taken into account. Admit it, literarilly speaking, HAHB would have been a lot less interesting if Aravis had been a "goody-goody." Books need bad guys to do well, and I think Emeth is C.S. Lewis' way of saying, "You guys have got it all wrong."

[waggawerewolf27]

I assume that things are bad in Calormen because C.S. Lewis keeps telling us that they are bad- and he created the place. His very first introduction of Calormen in VDT tells us that the inhabitants are a "wise, wealthy, courteous, cruel and ancient people"- and I think it's safe to say that the emphasis is on "cruel". They are slave traders in a scene focused on the evils of slavery.

Where does C.S.Lewis actually go out of his way to say that things are bad in Calormen? They might have been at the point in time of any of the Chronicles which refer to Calormen, but in Last Battle we are told there were decades and centuries where people lived at peace and flourished in Narnia, so that might have also applied to Calormen.

Times when even the lowlier people were relatively well-off, when even the Western rebels weren't restive. (Why were they restive in that particular Tisroc's reign, anyway?) That might explain why the Calormenes are described as wealthy. That also applies to traders everywhere; they trade objects for sure, but they also trade labour, and the fruits of that labour; that is why Shasta, Lucy, Edmund and Reepicheep are worth buying as slaves and not Eustace. Because Eustace, unlike them, hasn't had to do much physical work to the point at which he reaches the Lone Islands.

There is a line between the legitimate paid employment of people to work in an enterprise, on the one hand, and slavery, on the other. It is distinguishing clearly between the two that is important, ensuring that those who work for others are not being exploited as in slavery, still very much a current issue when we find it practised in criminal organisations. That is to say, it is important for those who have control over other people's activities to resist the temptation to maximise profits by keeping labour costs to an absolute minimum, by denying people their human rights, and to resist the temptations of self-aggrandisement, which allows the boss to treat his underlings poorly.

The Calormenes love ostentation, power and position. They have only one traffic law, that everyone less important gets out of the way of those more important. What really makes them cruel is that they are a bit heedless if someone gets 'sacrificed to Tash' along the way. But that doesn't make them any crueller than all real-world societies before the great UK social reforms of William Wilberforce or Earl Shaftesbury in the 1800's. It doesn't even make them any worse than Narnia's later Telmarine society under Caspian's predecessors.

The Calormenes might have dealt in slaves, as we see in VDT, LB and HHB, but it was pirates, the likes of Pug, and, indirectly the likes of Gumpas who were responsible for Calormenes buying slaves in VDT, since the Lone Islands had a market there to supply the slaves the Calormenes wanted to buy. Those pirates, Pug and Gumpas weren't Calormenes. C.S.Lewis has slavery in others of his Narnia Chronicles: MN and LWW spring to mind, even SC. Jadis, late of Charn, regards everyone else as slaves and minions. Is the Calormene empire any worse than the White Witch's realm, The Lady of the Green Kirtle's Underland or Charn?

I think not. Caspian denounces the slavery that has grown up in the Lone Islands, but he doesn't denounce trade as such, or the Calormene merchants at the slave market in Narrowhaven. Nor does he see any problem with people working hard, even if they are Calormene merchants. And he is reasonable enough to return the Calormene merchants the money that is paid to them. It is bludgers like Pug and Governor Gumpas he has issue with.

We are also told that the Calormenes are courteous and wise, and they certainly have plenty of wise sayings that suggest both. We hear some of them at Arsheesh's hut, and in the Tisroc's palace, when the Tisroc and Rabadash confer about the Anvard raid. These wise sayings, the Calormene traditions they evoke, together with the sort of education Calormene children do get, do show that the Calormenes are capable of understanding and appreciating good behaviour.

And the mere fact that Emeth stands as a stark contrast to the stereotypical Calormen should be taken into account.

Trouble is, what is a stereotypical Calormen? One of VDT's slave merchants? Anradin? Ahoshta, or Rabadash? Or Rishda Tarkaan? Aravis and Emeth were aware of the difference between what was good treatment and what was bad treatment, even if their sense of rightness was blunted by a warrior tradition in Emeth's case, and class divisions in Aravis's case. They wouldn't have had that sort of knowledge if their culture and education were all bad, and if they had no good examples to follow. After all, Shasta, who had not received any formal education, might not have known the difference between slavery and living with Arsheesh. But he still knew he should love his father, that it was wrong to steal and a few other choice moralities. And he knew that treatment of slaves in Calormen varied considerably, depending on the owner's sense of fair play.

The country was founded by outlaws flying from the son (or grandson) of Frank V of Narnia, and their colony in Telmar was so atrocious that in only two years Aslan was forced to destroy it by turning them into dumb beasts.

Wow! I wonder what the colonists did, that was so much worse than exploitation and aggressiveness? Interesting, too, that C.S.Lewis has no less than three such countries, including Telmar - twice, formed from outlaw or pirate societies. Even in Prince Caspian's Narnia, Aslan turned some boys into little pigs because they were obnoxious to their unfortunate maths teacher. If Aslan had that power to intervene in Telmar and Narnia, why didn't he round on Calormen, itself, for having aggressive leaders, greedy to invade smaller countries to enslave them?

Arsheesh, who calls Shasta son, but treats him like a slave, is noone's definition of a leader, but he's still villainous.

No, sorry, I don't see Arsheesh as particularly wicked. If he was, would Aslan have entrusted Shasta to him? Oh Arsheesh wouldn't necessarily starve himself to save the life of a baby. But he at least rescued the baby from certain death in the hopes of making some use of him later, even if he and Shasta felt no familial affection for each other. I see Arsheesh as ignorant and unimaginative, greedy, grasping and close-fisted. But I don't see him as particularly wicked.

Especially as Arsheesh didn't really know what Shasta's real background was. Arsheesh did work hard at an honest living. He did feed Shasta, even if he got labour out of Shasta 10 times the worth of Shasta's daily bread. He did instil in Shasta a sense of morality and the ability to work hard, even if he never sent Shasta to school. He did try to be some sort of 'father' to Shasta. And even if it isn't the done thing to sell one's own child into slavery in Calormen, I'm sure that Arsheesh would have been too intimidated by the appearance of the Tarkaan to object too strongly to his offer to purchase Shasta.

[Graymouser]

Well known authors, like Phillip Pullman, have complained about the racist way Calormen is depicted. Others have supported this perception by pointing out the chauvinism of having an ideal Narnian society run by very Anglo Saxon children, compared to the 'Arabian nights' feel of Calormen as depicted in Pauline Baynes' accompanying illustrations. There has even been an unwarranted equation of Calormen with Islam, even though Calormenes worship a pantheon of Gods, headed by a frightful looking Tash, whose idol takes pride of place in Tashbaan's main temple.

It had long been a belief in Christendom that Mohammed was a false prophet or demon himself:

Mahound or Mahoun is a variant form of the name Muhammad, often found in Medieval and later European literature. This version of the name, or variants of it, came to be strongly associated with anti-Muslim attitudes in Western Christendom.[1] It was especially connected to the Christian belief that Muhammad was a god worshipped by Pagans, or that he was a demon who inspired a false religion.[2][3]

Certainly Lewis didn't believe that- he had a respect for Muslims as fellow monotheists, "People of the Book".

But consider this from a writer Lewis greatly admired, Chesterton's "Lepanto", written as late as 1915 (great poem, just from a literary standpoint):

Mahound is in his paradise above the evening star,
(Don John of Austria is going to the war.)
He moves a mighty turban on the timeless houri's knees,
His turban that is woven of the sunsets and the seas.
He shakes the peacock gardens as he rises from his ease,
And he strides among the tree-tops and is taller than the trees;
And his voice through all the garden is a thunder sent to bring
Black Azrael and Ariel and Ammon on the wing.
Giants and the Genii,
Multiplex of wing and eye,
Whose strong obedience broke the sky
When Solomon was king.

They rush in red and purple from the red clouds of the morn,
From the temples where the yellow gods shut up their eyes in scorn;
They rise in green robes roaring from the green hells of the sea
Where fallen skies and evil hues and eyeless creatures be,
On them the sea-valves cluster and the grey sea-forests curl,
Splashed with a splendid sickness, the sickness of the pearl;
They swell in sapphire smoke out of the blue cracks of the ground,--
They gather and they wonder and give worship to Mahound.

[Hien]

Oh, these are such big questions, and I’m feeling very hampered by not having the books handy. But.. never let it be said that I let lack of actual evidence hold me back from engaging in an interesting discussion! )

And this is very interesting – thanks Waggawerewolf, for starting this up! Please bear with me, everybody, for coming in a bit late. There are lots of points raised in the opening post alone, that I’d like to engage with, let alone in the several posts which have followed in quick succession (suddenly we're at Lepanto, which definitely wasn't there when I looked in this morning! ), but just to start…

I do think this is a good lead:

Was C.S.Lewis doing something similar with Calormen - dressing up an exaggerated view of human nature in a nice 'safe' exotic style to point out the shortcomings of our own society?

Yes, I think so. I think that in the same way that the dwarfs (not all of them!) in The Last Battle are a picture of the limitations of rigid materialism, although certainly not only that, I think that Calormen is a depiction of the danger of the kind of ruthless social efficiency which sweeps aside 'little people' in the name of creating a greater social good – expediency, I guess, is more the word. I think it is this marker which Eustace responds to, when he calls Calormen 'the least phony' country in the Narnian world.

This is not to call Calormen an allegory, of course! It is many things as well as being such a picture, and what I believe needs to be stressed is that it is a genuine subcreation, and as such a multifaceted, nuanced place, not simply evil.

In fact, far from being simply evil – there is much that is admirable about Calormen. And logic alone would lead us to that conclusion, even if there was no evidence in the books – how could any society be as effective as Calormen if it was thoroughly bad? Conclusion: Calormen is not thoroughly bad; it has its admirable characteristics. I think these are too often swept aside in the haste to define all things Caloreme as bad. For example, it was said earlier 'Even Aravis converts to ideals of honour through her exposure to Shasta and the horses.'

But that’s not so! Aravis had a very clear code of honour which owed nothing to Shasta or the horses! We know that she preferred death to the dishonour of a forced marriage (which would have been a rape, of course), that she would never desert a comrade, that she despised secret malice disguised by subservience. (This is only to speak of her code of honour – she has other virtues of course, which may come up later in this discussion.)

Well, I expect lots of things will come up later in the discussion! Looking forward to it!

(p.s. As mentioned, I don't have the books handy. I don’t know the reference to human sacrifice; can someone tell me who says what, where? )

[waggawerewolf27]

(p.s. As mentioned, I don't have the books handy. I don’t know the reference to human sacrifice; can someone tell me who says what, where? )

Most public libraries have copies of all seven of the Narnia books in their children's section. They are also available at Dymocks, Angus and Robertsons, (or what is left of Bookworld) or any reputable general bookshop in your district, including Collins, ABC bookshop, or Borders. Amazon and Barnes and Noble are suitable online bookbuying sites, though I dislike their shipping fees. The most recent published edition of the Chronicles of Narnia is the 2010 VDT movie edition which has all seven books included in a single volume, including Pauline Baynes' illustrations, but you can also buy the books separately. I believe you can also order copies through the merchandise section of this website.

I've looked in vain for any reference to human sacrifice in HHB, which only mentions the necessary sacrifices Aravis had to make to Zardeenah, Lady of the night, which maidens must make in preparation of marriage. The only relevant reference to human sacrifice that I can find is the one in The last battle (pp. 121-122) where Rishda Tarkaan drops his Tashlan pretences, sending the eleven Dwarves to make a burnt offering to Tash, and on the following page says he is sending Jill, Eustace and Tirian, himself, to be burnt offerings to Tash.

I doubt this was regular Calormene practice. Rishda Tarkaan, after all, was a fairly dodgy and cynical character, who, not really believing in anyone, had some theological issues to sort out about Tash and Aslan, and a need to impress his men. Clearly he did not impress Emeth. That it was not regular practice is borne out when Rishda's men are wondering what to do about Rishda, himself, when Tirian drags Rishda with him into the stable. On page 132 (LB) where "the men were discussing whether to go in and look for Rishda Tarkaan...or to set fire to the stable", the implication is that they were in battle mode, not worrying too much about human sacrifice and theological issues.

But consider this from a writer Lewis greatly admired, Chesterton's "Lepanto", written as late as 1915 (great poem, just from a literary standpoint):

Yes, I've heard of G.K Chesterton, who lived from 1874 to 1936. And yes, the year 1915 was a particularly momentous one, when people in UK, Canada, and in particular, in Australia and New Zealand, with relatives fighting at Anzac Cove in Gallipoli, might well need to be reminded of the historic battles of Lepanto (7th October 1571) and at the gates of Vienna, which were defeats for the Turkish forces of the time. I'd also agree that G.K Chesterton was a strongly influential figure of his time, not only to C.S.Lewis, who, unlike Chesterton, converted to Anglicanism. I'd even agree that there was no love lost between the Islamic Turks of the Ottoman Empire and much of Europe in the centuries after the 1453 fall of Constantinople, and before 1918, when WW1 finished.

But that doesn't mean that C.S.Lewis did not hold respect for Islam as you have said yourself. Nor does it mean that Calormen should be mistaken for a quasi Islamic sort of country, or that C.S.Lewis would have deliberately set Calormen up to criticize Islam. In fact, on pages 91-92 of HHB (1980 Collins ed), the Tisroc seems to describe Narnia, and Aslan, in particular, in exactly the same terms as you mention in the quote below:

It had long been a belief in Christendom that Mohammed was a false prophet or demon himself:

CF HHB page 92: "It is commonly reported that the High King of Narnia (whom may the gods utterly reject) is supported by a demon of hideous aspect and irresistible maleficience who appears in the shape of a Lion."

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

The only relevant reference to human sacrifice that I can find is the one in The last battle (pp. 121-122) where Rishda Tarkaan drops his Tashlan pretences, sending the eleven Dwarves to make a burnt offering to Tash, and on the following page says he is sending Jill, Eustace and Tirian, himself, to be burnt offerings to Tash

The lamb who speaks up to shift early on in the book mentions that men are killed on the altar of Tash, and that she doesn't believe that Tash even exists.

the implication is that they were in battle mode, not worrying too much about human sacrifice and theological issues.

That ideology may have started out that way, but let a deity who you have mocked turn up when you didn't even believe in him, and watch how priorities and ideologies change.

EDIT: THIS IS MY 16,000th POST!!!!!

[Hien]

You raise a very interesting point, Digory! The Lamb is certainly intended to be a voice of perceptive innocence in the dark times of the last battle, but is clearly not a completely informed voice, since she says that she thinks Tash does not exist, and we know he does. So she is not to be taken as totally reliable as a witness.

Evidence against: I do not believe that Susan would have contemplated marriage with a man who condoned human sacrifice. To me this is open and shut. And Edmund... not a word about such a thing, from the Just? Not believeable!

So... has Calormen spiralled down over the centuries? Or was the Lamb simply wrong about the human sacrifice, as about the existence of Tash?

Myself, I tend (at the moment) to the spiralling down supposition; after all, the idea of social degradation (ie not just personal or individual degradation, as in Ginger or the Lapsed Bear of Stromness) is a recurring one in the books: "Progress...development.. I have seen them both in an egg in Narnia...". Charn, too, began as a society with real value, and only gradually made its terrible descent into total heartlessness - and Charn is explicitly indicated as a warning. Maybe Calormen was on the same path? But after all, the Lamb might have been mistaken on two counts, not just one. There is certainly no evidence for such a practice in earlier times.

Oh, and warm congratulations on your more than sixteen thousand posts!

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

The Lamb is certainly intended to be a voice of perceptive innocence in the dark times of the last battle, but is clearly not a completely informed voice, since she says that she thinks Tash does not exist, and we know he does. So she is not to be taken as totally reliable as a witness.

The Lamb shouldn't be trusted? The lamb correctly identifies that there is no such thing as Tashlan. The lamb correctly states that Aslan would have nothing to do with Tash. The lamb states her devotion to Aslan, and states that all Narnia really belongs to him.

And you're willing to toss her credibility out the door because she doesn't believe in a pagan God who (up until the very end of the book) doesn't even make an appearance in the world of Narnia (as far as we know).

That's taking great liberties with the text if you ask me.

Rabadash is healed at the great Altar in the Temple of Tash, so something was being sacrificed to Tash even back in the Golden Age. Rabadash doesn't seem the pious/religious type, so I would doubt that religious practices/preferences even came up in their courtship.

Susan even admits that they made a mistake coming to Tashbaan.

I still say human sacrifices occured on a regular basis in Calormen.

[Hien]

I still say human sacrifices occured on a regular basis in Calormen.

Well, if you do, you do! We'll have to agree to differ on that one!

Being healed at the altar doesn't imply sacrifice - or rather, the sacrifice was of poor Rabadash's pride! It was probably the most humiliating moment of his life. And that of course, was not a sacrifice mandated by Tash.

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

Being healed at the altar doesn't imply sacrifice - or rather, the sacrifice was of poor Rabadash's pride! It was probably the most humiliating moment of his life. And that of course, was not a sacrifice mandated by Tash.

That's not what I was implying. I meant that altars are (by definition) a place where sacrifices are made. Why have an altar in a temple unless one was going to perform sacrifices upon it?

You can argue that the sacrifices were of animals. . . but if you do, you'll find even less evidence in the books to go off of than if you were to assume that they were human sacrifices.

[waggawerewolf27]

Being healed at the altar doesn't imply sacrifice - or rather, the sacrifice was of poor Rabadash's pride! It was probably the most humiliating moment of his life. And that of course, was not a sacrifice mandated by Tash.

That's not what I was implying. I meant that altars are (by definition) a place where sacrifices are made. Why have an altar in a temple unless one was going to perform sacrifices upon it?

Good question. But what was Aravis supposed to be sacrificing when she told her father that she was going into the woods "to do the secret sacrifices to Zardeenah, Lady of the night?" (HHB, p. 38). I bet it wasn't anything so dire as sacrificing a human. More like her freedom, her old occupations and interests, her toys, trinkets and much else.

So really, Hien does have a good point that sacrifices need not necessarily be human sacrifices. On the other hand, Digory, there is no reason why you would not be right. Human sacrifice has been practised among any amount of ancient civilizations. I could mention the Canaanites, the Greeks and more recently, in the 16th century, the Aztecs of Montezuma. I could even mention the Ancient Hebrews because of Jephthah's daughter in Judges, and also the Baal-worshipping Jezebel, the Phoenician queen of Ahab.

Since it is C.S.Lewis, the Canaanites are particularly suspect, since these ancient polytheistic inhabitants of the land later called Israel, were relatives of the more northerly Phoenicians, in whose language Kena'ani means traders (Odijk, 1989. p.9). But when the Giants in SC have man pie as part of their Autumn Feast, there is no reason to assume that the Calormenes indulged in like practices.

Even if you are right and the lamb in Last Battle was referring to ongoing human sacrifices in the temple of Tash, there is no reason why the practice should have been a general one for all time, rather than one which has only just crept in during the last few centuries before the lamb was born.

Susan even admits that they made a mistake coming to Tashbaan.

Of course she did! And here I agree with you, not necessarily Hien. Susan was never the adventurous kind. Adults thought she was 'grown up', and at Professor Kirke's place she suggested listening to the radio or reading books for amusement. I once went through my copy of LWW and flagged every time Susan had anything to say. In most cases it was 'Is it safe?' Or 'I wish we hadn't come', or 'Shouldn't we just go home?' Only at Aslan's death does she have anything useful to say.

When we see Susan in HHB, she is a grown lady, or is she playing at being one? Susan comes across as a fairly normal 1950's teenager who thinks with hormones, emotions and senses, who might be able to enjoy books and the radio, but thinks she is going to get married, anyway. When she first meets Rabadash he is the exotic-looking romantic hero. But when she spends time in Tashbaan, being hosted by Rabadash, she starts coming to grips with ethical and religious doubts.

But is it Rabadash, himself, or the culture of Calormen which should have sounded the alarm bells in Susan's ears?

[DiGoRyKiRkE]

But what was Aravis supposed to be sacrificing when she told her father that she was going into the woods "to do the secret sacrifices to Zardeenah, Lady of the night?

Oh I don't think that Aravis was sacrificing humans to Zardeeneah. . . but it sure would explain why the servant was supposed to come with her (Just kidding).

Zardeenah seems to be a lower deity of Calormen, with Tash being the supreme deity. Zardeenah could have recieved anything for sacrifices. . . pidgeons, goats, even plants or time.