why did cs lewis add the extra-biblical lilith to his book as Adam’s first wife a Jinn
C.S. Lewis included Lilith as Adam’s first wife and connected her to the Jinn in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobeto build a dark, non-human lineage for the White Witch (Jadis). [1, 2]
Why Lilith was used
- The “Son of Adam / Daughter of Eve” Rule: Lewis needed Jadis to have some ancient link to humanity so she could exploit or subvert Narnia’s laws regarding who has the right to rule. Claiming descent from Adam’s mythical first wife, Lilith, provided that pseudo-genealogical loop. [1, 2]
- Literary Inspiration: Lewis was heavily influenced by mythopoeic fantasy and George MacDonald’s Victorian novel Lilith, which prominently featured Adam’s rebellious first wife as a dark, vampiric queen. [1, 2, 3]
- Rebellious Archetype: In extra-biblical medieval Jewish folklore (such as the Alphabet of Ben-Sira), Lilith refused to submit to Adam and fled Paradise, making her an ideal template for an ice-cold, defiant tyrant. [1, 2, 3]
Why the Jinn connection was added
- Inhuman Heritage: Lewis combined Lilith with the “Jinn” (spirits/demons from Middle Eastern/Islamic mythology) and giants to explain why Jadis has no human blood.
- Mythological Blending: Lewis was famous for “smashing together” diverse folklore, ancient demons, and fairy-tale archetypes to craft a hybrid, monstrous ancestry for his villain—an approach that famously annoyed his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, who preferred a strictly unified internal mythology. [1]
If you’d like, we can explore:
- How Jadis’s lineage changes or gets ignored in later books like The Magician’s Nephew
- How C.S. Lewis’s view of myth differed from J.R.R. Tolkien’s
NarniaWeb ForumJadis: part Lilith, part Jinn – The Man Behind the WardrobeHe chose Lilith because she was connected to Adam in the myths, and he needed some connection to Adam for her to enable her to pre…
M. LandersC.S. Lewis And Lilith: What Does Blending Myths Do For You? | M. LandersC.S. Lewis Mythological Blending: Narnia’s White Witch derives from Adam’s first wife Lilith (a Jinn and giant descendant in Hebre…
Crisis MagazineBy Their Works Ye Shall Know Them – Crisis MagazineAnd while Lewis’ portals to Narnia typically allow only child visitors, I can hold out hope that somewhere in this old house I cou…
Show all
How C.S. Lewis’s view of myth differed from J.R.R. Tolkien’s
C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien fundamentally differed on the purpose and structure of myth, despite both being devout Christians who believed that mythology ultimately pointed to divine truth. Their disagreement over how myths should be constructed and used was one of the most significant intellectual friction points in their friendship.
Here is how their views compared:
| Dimension | J.R.R. Tolkien’s View (“Mythopoeia”) | C.S. Lewis’s View (“True Myth”) |
|---|---|---|
| The Nature of Myth | Sub-creation: Writing myth is a way for humans to honor God by using their creative faculties to build entirely new, internally consistent worlds. | An Inklings of Truth: Myths are a “good infection”—imperfect human glimpses of a larger, transcendent reality that God eventually made concrete in history. |
| Structural Integrity | Strict Purity: Believed a mythology must be homogeneous, unified, and deeply rooted in a singular cultural or linguistic tradition (e.g., Norse/Old English). | Eclectic Syncretism: Joyfully mixed entirely different mythologies together (e.g., putting Father Christmas, Greek Fauns, and Norse Dwarfs in Narnia). |
| Allegory vs. Applicability | Hatred of Allegory: Strongly disliked formal allegory. He preferred “applicability,” where a story stands on its own but allows readers to draw their own insights. | Acceptance of Allegory / Supposal: Frequently used “supposal” (e.g., suppose Christ came to a world of talking beasts) and didn’t mind clear, didactic moral frameworks. |
| The Purpose of Fantasy | Recovery and Escape: A vehicle to escape the drabness of the modern industrial world and recover a clear, pristine view of reality. | Evangelism and Insight: A “stealth” vehicle to bypass a reader’s intellectual defenses (“stained-glass inhibitors”) and make them feel spiritual truths deeply. |
1. Purity vs. The “Mashing Together” of Myths
Tolkien was a purist philologist. To him, building a world required a deep, organic unity where language, geography, and history matched perfectly.
When Lewis read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Tolkien was famously horrified. Lewis threw Greek mythology (Centaurs, Bacchus), Norse mythology (the White Witch), British folklore (Mr. Beaver), and Christian holidays (Father Christmas) into a single book. To Tolkien, this eclectic mixing was sloppy, jarring, and broke the “secondary belief” required to sustain a fantasy world. Lewis, however, viewed all myths as part of a grand soup of human imagination that could be sampled freely to paint a vivid picture.
2. “Sub-Creation” vs. “The True Myth”
Before his conversion, Lewis told Tolkien that myths were nothing but “beautiful lies breathed through silver.” Tolkien corrected him, arguing that because humans are made in the image of a Creator God, our urge to create stories is a divine trait. Tolkien called this Sub-creation. He believed that creating an imaginary world was a sovereign act of art that honored God inherently through its beauty and depth.
Lewis adopted this idea but pivoted it toward a more utilitarian purpose. He began to view pagan myths as “pre-prophecies”—God’s way of preparing the human imagination for the Gospel. For Lewis, Christianity was the “True Myth”: a story that operates on the human heart exactly like a magnificent fairy tale, except for one crucial difference—it actually happened in history.
3. Allegory vs. Supposal
Tolkien famously stated in the foreword to The Lord of the Rings that he had a “cordial dislike” for allegory, preferring history—true or feigned—with its varied applicability. He did not want Aslan-like figures explicitly standing in for Christ.
Lewis, on the other hand, was a medieval scholar who loved allegory. While he insisted Narnia was a “supposal” rather than a strict 1-to-1 allegory, he deliberately designed his stories to “smuggle” Christian theological concepts past what he called the “watchful dragons” of a reader’s cynical, modern mind.
If you want to dive deeper, we can explore:
- The specific late-night conversation on Addison’s Walk in 1931 that convinced Lewis that myth was true.
- How George MacDonald influenced both of their views on fantasy.
Leave a Reply