The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - Gems from the Letters

The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php)

- The Books (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Gems from the Letters (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=606)

Gems from the Letters

I came across this [to me] rather astonishing bit.

from letter #348 [3/1973]

Quote:

Galadriel...means 'Maiden crowned with gleaming hair' It is a secondary name given to her in her youth in the far past because she had long hair which glistened like gold but was also shot with silver. She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats.

I thought a thread dveoted to unearthing gems from the Letters would be nice, especially for those who have not yet read them. Or those who have them but have sorely neglected their treasure.

Unlike some authors whom the more you know the less you like them JRRT is like water that gets purer the further down you dig.

Back to School is a thread of similar variety that specializes in JRRT's more scholarly musings and opines, and The most powerful Lines of Ea is self explaining. Together the three make up a pleasant foursome of homes for any inspiration from the Professor you may wish to share.

[ March 21, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

"The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole-evil aroused story is complete. But if you have now read Vol III and the story of Aragorn, you will have perceived that. (This story is in an appendix, because I have told the whole tale more or less through 'hobbits'; and that is because another main point in the story for me is the remark of Elrond in Vol. I: 'Such is oft the course of the deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the are elsewhere.' Though equally important is Merry's remark (Vol III): 'the soil of the Shire is deep. Still there are things deeper and higher; and not a gaffer could tend his garden in what he calls peace, but for them.')" (Letter 186).

Lindil --

I am glad that you have begun a thread like this. The Letters are one of my favorite volumes by Tolkien. No matter how many times I pick them up, I find new things. One of the nicest things is that you can read them in 5 or 10-minute chunks, and set them down again until the next few minutes you have free.

If anyone out there hasn't read them, try to pick up a paperback copy. They are definitely worth the money.

Here's one of my all-time favorite quotes which talks about how Tolkien viewed the inspiration behind his writing:

Quote:

A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten (though I believe he was well-known. He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. He brought one or two reproductions. I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before and was not well acquinted with pictorial Art, he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Suddenly he said: 'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'

Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquinted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusements. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what seems their unfitness for the purpose. Letters, #328, 1971

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

Excuse the ignorance but I haven't got a copy of JRRT's letters. What is the background of this work?, are they letters he sent to Lewis Caroll?

Not Lewis Carrol, lol, Clive S. Lewis at best.
The collection of nearly all the letters JRRT had written from his childhood to his death.

I'll come up with the gem later. Great thread, lindil, thanks [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Regretfully, I don't have the Letters either, although I've have looked in a few bookshops in the centre of Glasgow. Pathetic places. Lack of money doesn't help either.

Great idea starting this thread, even if I don't own a copy, I can still read bits. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Varda

Thank you, Lindil, this is a great thread !
I also think that Tolkiens letters are wonderful to read, and I agree completely with you: the more I learn about Tolkien and the more I read his own thoughts, the more I appreciate him and his works! (also very good to read is "On Fairy-Stories" )

Dear Child of the 7th age,
I really have to thank you that I became aware of the existance of JRRT`s letters as a book at all! I always enjoy reading your posts, so full of knowledge and wisdom (Though I don`t post here often, I read a lot!). On several occasions you posted such beautiful quotes from the letters (I`m thinking of the thread "Frodo`s sacrifice") that intrigued me, so this summer I ordered a paperback-copy of JRRT`s letters (no problem getting that, even here in Switzerland!) Of course I haven`t read all of them yet, but my book is already full of bookmarks because I find so many memorable parts...

Something that touched me is what Tolkien wrote before LotR was published:
"I am dreading the publication, for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at" (Nr.142)

Guinevere

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Guinevere ]

Guievere,

Thanks so much for those kind words. I don't post as much in Books as I used to, since I'm up to my nose in an RPG which deals with the "secret" history of the hobbits before the Third Age. If only the day had enough hours to do everything we'd like.

I do think the Letters are critical for understanding the ending of the LotR, the character of Frodo, Gandalf's transformation after his battle with the balrog, and many other topics as well.

BTW, I also enjoy the Arthurian tales, especially Malory and T.H. White, so kudos for your lovely name.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

Notes on Auden's review of RotK [ not mailed or even intended to be sent to anyone]#183

Quote:

... In the LotR the conflict is not basically about 'Freedon', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. sauron desired to be God-King, and was held to be this by his servants. last sntenece footnoted - Footnote continues]... by the end of the 2nd age he assumed the position of Morgoth's representative. By the end of the 3rd Age [although actually much weaker than before]he claimed to be Morgoth returned.

ex L257 To Christopher Bretherton
16 July 1964

Quote:

Well, there you are. I hope it does not bore you. .... [Of his use of the name 'Gamgee':] It started with a holiday about 30 years ago at Lamorna Cove4 (then wild and fairly inaccessible). There was a curious local character, an old man who used to go about swapping gossip and weather-wisdom and such like. To amuse my boys I named him Gaffer Gamgee, and the name became part of family lore to fix on old chaps of the kind. At that time I was beginning on The Hobbit. The choice of Gamgee was primarily directed by alliteration; but I did not invent it. It was caught out of childhood memory, as a comic word or name. It was in fact the name when I was small (in Birmingham) for 'cotton-wool". (Hence the association of the Gamgees with the Cottons.) I knew nothing of its origin.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

from letter 339 to 'the Daily Telegraph' entitled 'Forestry and Us'.

It would be unfair to compare the Foresrty Commission with sauron because as you observe itis capable of repentance; but nothing it has done that is stupid compares withthe destruction, torture,and murder of trees that is perpetrated by private individuals and minor official bodies. The savage sound of the electric saw is never silent wherever trees are still found growing.

a note from lindil: It would be nice,to see this thread continue on and on, but as I shall for the forseeable future need to keep my energies and efforts confined to the Silmarillion Project, I leave it to the hands of others.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

211 To Rhona Beare
14 October 1958

Quote:

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled 'Egyptians' – the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs. (But not of course in 'theology' : in which respect they were Hebraic and even more puritan – but this would take long to set out: to explain indeed why there is practically no oven 'religion', or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the 'good' or anti-Sauron peoples in The Lord of the Rings.) I think the crown of Gondor (the S. Kingdom) was very tall, like that of Egypt, but with wings attached, not set straight back but at an angle.

and, from the same letter:

Quote:

I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary time, but kept my feet on my own mother-earth for place. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in 'space'. However curious, they are alien, and not lovable with the love of blood-kin. Middle-earth is (by the way & if such a note is necessary) not my own invention. It is a modernization or alteration (N[ew] E[nglish] Dictionary] 'a perversion') of an old word for the inhabited world of Men, the oikoumenē: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the encircling Seas and (in the northern-imagination) between ice of the North and the fire of the South. O.English middan-geard, mediaeval E. midden-erd, middle-erd. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet!

I have read the Letters of JRRT and yet I have some questions about the validity of some of them.
For example, are the letters that he actually sent have the same weight as those that he didn't? As those as were drafts? I know that they were written by him, but does a sent letter should count the same as a draft or as a letter not sent.
Note for example Letter 153. At the end it says:

Quote:

[The draft ends here. At the top, Tolkien has written: 'Not sent', and has added: 'It seemed to be taking myself too importantly.']

And what about 212:

Quote:

212 Draft of a continuation of the above letter (not sent)

Is there a difference between a letter sent and one not sent. I know that he made various drafts of letters, but the fact that they were not sent mean anything? Can it be know if they were latter sent in other drafts?

If this post had a title it would be, "The Five Towers."

When I read "The Two Towers" I was rather flummoxed as to what towers the title refered to. Orthanc seemed to me to be obviously one of them, but the other...! Here are some passages dealing with that very question:

Number 140, 17 August 1953 to Rayner Unwin:

Quote:

The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous — it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B[arad-dûr]; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.

Number 143, 22 January 1954 to Rayner Unwin:

Quote:

I am not really happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and The Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading.

In the editorial notes it says:

Quote:

In his original design for the jacket of The Two Towers the towers are certainly Orthanc and Minas Morgul....Minas Morgul is a white tower, with a thin waning moon above it, in reference to it's original name, Minas Ithil, the Tower of the Rising Moon.

I happen to favor Minas Morgul as the second tower, since Minas Tirth, Barad-dûr and Cirth Ungol don't really come into play until RotK. (Though I see that the movie makers have decided on Barad-dûr for their purposes).

I've found the following so interesting, I was not able to persuade myself to cut it to pieces, so I'm giving it in full:

Quote:

156 To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft)
[An answer to further comments on The Lord of the Rings.]
4 November 1954 76 Sandfield Road, Headington, Oxford

My dear Rob,

It is remarkably kind of you to write at such length amid, I fear, weariness. I am answering at once, because I am grateful, and because only letters that I do treat so ever get answered, and most of all because your parcel has arrived when having done all my 'prep' – ordering all the minutes and resolutions of a long and argumentative College-meeting yesterday (there being no fellow of ill-will, and only 24 persons of the usual human absurdity. I felt rather like an observer at the meeting of Hobbit-notables to advise the Mayor on the precedence and choice of dishes at a Shire-banquet) – I have half an hour to spare before going down hill for a session with the College secretary. That is the kind of sentence I naturally write. ....

No, 'Smeagol' was not, of course, fully envisaged at first, but I believe his character was implicit, and merely needed attention. As for Gandalf: surely it is not to join P. H.1 to voice any criticism! I could be much more destructive myself. There are, I suppose, always defects in any large-scale work of art; and especially in those of literary form that are founded on an earlier matter which is put to new uses – like Homer, or Beowulf, or Virgil, or Greek or Shakespearean tragedy! In which class, as a class not as a competitor, The Lord of the Rings really falls though it is only founded on the author's own first draft! I think the way in which Gandalf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself, curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there – but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting. It is a little impeded even so, though I have severely cut G's account of himself. I might perhaps have made more clear the later remarks in Vol. II (and Vol. III) which refer to or are made by Gandalf, but I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's' ; or in Faramir's Númenórean grace at dinner.
Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am G. the White, who has returned from death'. Probably he should rather have said to Wormtongue: 'I have not passed through death (not 'fire and flood') to bandy crooked words with a serving-man'. And so on. I might say much more, but it would only be in (perhaps tedious) elucidation of the 'mythological' ideas in my mind; it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend. But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– strictly an (greek characters set here, unable to reproduce, must be pronounced 'angelos' - H-I):2 that is, with the other Istari, wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West, sent to Middle-earth, as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the horizon. By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: train, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as 'old' sage figures. But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'.

The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' – no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgûl to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed — and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: 'I was the enemy of Sauron'. He might have added: 'for that purpose I was sent to Middle-earth'. But by that he would at the end have meant more than at the beginning. He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'. Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant just literally, 'unclothed like a child' (not discarnate), and so ready to receive the white robes of the highest.

Galadriel's power is not divine, and his healing in Lórien is meant to be no more than physical healing and refreshment.
But if it is 'cheating' to treat 'death' as making no difference, embodiment must not be ignored. Gandalf may be enhanced in power (that is, under the forms of this fable, in sanctity), but if still embodied he must still suffer care and anxiety, and the needs of flesh. He has no more (if no less) certitudes, or freedoms, than say a living theologian. In any case none of my 'angelic' persons are represented as knowing the future completely, or indeed at all where other wills are concerned. Hence their constant temptation to do, or try to do, what is for them wrong (and disastrous): to force lesser wills by power: by awe if not by actual fear, or physical constraint. But the nature of the gods' knowledge of the history of the World, and their part in making it (before it was embodied or made 'real') – whence they drew their knowledge of the future, such as they had, is pan of the major mythology. It is at least there represented that the intrusion of Elves and Men into that story was not any pan of theirs at all, but reserved: hence Elves and Men were called the Children of God; and hence the gods either loved (or hated) them specially: as having a relation to the Creator equal to their own, if of different stature. This is the mythological-theological situation at this moment in History, which has been made explicit but has not yet been published.

Men have 'fallen' – any legends put in the form of supposed ancient history of this actual world of ours must accept that – but the peoples of the West, the good side are Re-formed. That is they are the descendants of Men that tried to repent and fled Westward from the domination of the Prime Dark Lord, and his false worship, and by contrast with the Elves renewed (and enlarged) their knowledge of the truth and the nature of the World. They thus escaped from 'religion' in a pagan sense, into a pure monotheist world, in which all things and beings and powers that might seem worshipful were not to be worshipped, not even the gods (the Valar), being only creatures of the One. And He was immensely remote.

The High Elves were exiles from the Blessed Realm of the Gods (after their own particular Elvish fall) and they had no 'religion' (or religious practices, rather) for those had been in the hands of the gods, praising and adoring Eru 'the One', Ilúvatar the Father of All on the Mt. of Aman.

The highest kind of Men, those of the Three Houses, who aided the Elves in the primal War against the Dark Lord, were rewarded by the gift of the Land of the Star, or Westernesse (= Númenor) which was most westerly of all mortal lands, and almost in sight of Elvenhome (Eldamar) on the shores of the Blessed Realm. There they became the Númenóreans, the Kings of Men. They were given a triple span of life – but not elvish 'immortality' (which is not eternal, but measured by the duration in time of Earth); for the point of view of this mythology is that 'mortality' or a short span, and 'immortality' or an indefinite span was part of what we might call the biological and spiritual nature of the Children of God, Men and Elves (the firstborn) respectively, and could not be altered by anyone (even a Power or god), and would not be altered by the One, except perhaps by one of those strange exceptions to all rules and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent.

The Númenóreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven' – literally, for they did not conceive of the sky as a divine residence – in the centre of Númenor; but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations. But they 'fell' again – because of a Ban or prohibition, inevitably. They were forbidden to sail west beyond their own land because they were not allowed to be or try to be 'immortal'; and in this myth the Blessed Realm is represented as still having an actual physical existence as a region of the real world, one which they could have reached by ship, being very great mariners. While obedient, people from the Blessed Realm often visited them, and so their knowledge and arts reached almost an Elvish height.

But the proximity of the Blessed Realm, the very length of their life-span given as a reward, and the increasing delight of life, made them begin to hanker after 'immortality'. They did not break the ban but they begrudged it. And forced east they turned from beneficence in their appearances on the coasts of Middle-earth, to pride, desire of power and wealth. So they came into conflict with Sauron, the lieutenant of the Prime Dark Lord, who had fallen back into evil and was claiming both kingship and godship over Men of Middle-earth. It was on the kingship question that Ar-pharazôn the 13th3 and mightiest King of Númenor challenged him primarily. His armada that took haven at Umbar was so great, and the Númenóreans at their height so terrible and resplendent, that Sauron's servants deserted him.

So Sauron had recourse to guile. He submitted, and was carried off to Númenor as a prisoner-hostage. But he was of course a 'divine' person (in the terms of this mythology; a lesser member of the race of Valar) and thus far too powerful to be controlled in this way. He steadily got Arpharazôn's mind under his own control, and in the event corrupted many of the Númenóreans, destroyed the conception of Eru, now represented as a mere figment of the Valar or Lords of the West (a fictitious sanction to which they appealed if anyone questioned their rulings), and substituted a Satanist religion with a large temple, the worship of the dispossessed eldest of the Valar (the rebellious Dark Lord of the First Age). He finally induces Arpharazôn, frightened by the approach of old age, to make the greatest of all armadas, and go up with war against the Blessed Realm itself, and wrest it and its 'immortality' into his own hands.

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion — for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God; and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred. At the moment that Arpharazôn set foot on the forbidden shore, a rift appeared: Númenor foundered and was utterly overwhelmed; the armada was swallowed up; and the Blessed Realm removed for ever from the circles of the physical world. Thereafter one could sail right round the world and never find it.

So ended Numenor-Atlantis and all its glory. But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Númenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships (Vol. I. 379, II. 202) under the leadership of Elendil (=Ælfwine. Elf-friend) and his sons Isildur and Anarion, and established a kind of diminished memory of Númenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Númenórean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Númenórean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history. He had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God ; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. ) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Lúthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Númenórean influence lasted.

But they were still living on the borders of myth – or rather this story exhibits 'myth' passing into History or the Dominion of Men; for of course the Shadow will arise again in a sense (as is clearly foretold by Gandalf), but never again (unless it be before the great End) will an evil daemon be incarnate as a physical enemy; he will direct Men and all the complications of half-evils, and defective-goods, and the twilights of doubt as to sides, such situations as he most loves (you can see them already arising in the War of the Ring, which is by no means so clear cut an issue as some critics have averred): those will be and are our more difficult fate. But if you imagine people in such a mythical state, in which Evil is largely incarnate, and in which physical resistance to it is a major act of loyalty to God, I think you would have the 'good people' in just such a state: concentrated on the negative: the resistance to the false, while 'truth' remained more historical and philosophical than religious.
But 'wizards' are not in any sense or degree 'shady'. Not mine. I am under the difficulty of finding English names for mythological creatures with other names, since people would not 'take' a string of Elvish names, and I would rather they took my legendary creatures even with the false associations of the 'translation' than not at all.

Even the dwarfs are not really Germanic 'dwarfs' (Zwerge, dweorgas, dvergar), and I call them 'dwarves' to mark that. They are not naturally evil, not necessarily hostile, and not a kind of maggot-folk bred in stone; but a variety of incarnate rational creature. The istari are translated 'wizards' because of the connexion of 'wizard' with wise and so with 'witting' and knowing. They are actually emissaries from the True West, and so mediately from God, sent precisely to strengthen the resistance of the 'good', when the Valar become aware that the shadow of Sauron is taking shape again.

This is quite brief...but it tickled me. When I got to the end of TTT I started RotK within one second, so I can only imagine how the readers way back when felt. This is somewhat of an indication:

Letter 170 to Allen & Unwin, 30 September 1955

Quote:

When is Vol. III likely to appear? I shall be murdered if something does not happen soon.

Quote:

309 From a letter to Amy Ronald 2
January 1969

Now, my dear, as to my name. It is John: a name much used and loved by Christians, and since I was born on the Octave of St John the Evangelist, I take him as my patron – though neither my father, nor my mother at that time, would have thought of anything so Romish as giving me a name because it was a saint's. I was called John because it was the custom for the eldest son of the eldest son to be called John in my family. My father was Arthur, eldest of my grandfather John Benjamin's second family; but his elder half-brother John had died leaving only 3 daughters. So John I had to be, and was dandled on the knee of old J.B., as the heir, before he died. (I was only four when he died at 92 in 1896.)1
My father favoured John Benjamin Reuel (which I should now have liked); but my mother was confident that I should be a daughter, and being fond of more 'romantic' (& less O[ld] T[estament] like) names decided on Rosalind. When I turned up, prematurely, and a boy though weak and ailing, Ronald was substituted. It was then a much rarer name in England as a Christian name – I never in fact knew any of my contemporaries at school or Oxford who had the name – though it seems now alas! to be prevalent among the criminal and other degraded classes. Anyway I have always treated it with respect, and from earliest days refused to allow it to be abbreviated or tagged with. But for myself I remained John. Ronald was for my near kin. My friends at school, Oxford and later have called me John (or occasionally John Ronald or J. Rsquared).....2
As for an 'Elvish' name: I could of course invent one. But I do not really belong inside my invented history; and do not wish to!
As for Master: I am not one. In high uses it would be presumptuous and profane to adopt such a title; in lower uses it is conceited. I am a 'professor' — or was, and occasionally in more inspired moments deserved the title – and it is now at any rate (though not in Oxford of the generation before mine) a customary social title.
So what? I think if for private reasons John or Ronald is not pleasing for you to use (I quite understand that the collocation John Ronald is so) then we must fall back on 'Professor'. (And I shall call you Lady!)
Of course there is always Reuel. This was (I believe) the surname of a friend of my grandfather. The family believed it to be French (which is formally possible); but if so it is an odd chance that it appears twice in the O[ld] T[estament] as an unexplained other name for Jethro Moses' father-in-law. All my children, and my children's children, and their children, have the name.
I think I shall call you Aimée, which I like better than its anglicization, and suits your love & knowledge of French. ....
[As a postscript to the letter:]
J. R. R. Tolkien
had a cat called Grimalkin:
once a familiar of Herr Grimm,
now he spoke the law to him.

Quote:

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'. No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitaris. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success – in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in

I just came across this FAQ list re: the Letters http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/...ettersfaq.html

It breaks the letters into 16 divisions
Categories.

This document is a compilation of Frequently Asked Questions, or likely-to-be-asked questions, about the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, all of which are answered (or at least addressed) by the Professor himself in his own words as published in Humphrey Carpenter's The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. There are no answers typed here—only the numbers (and in the case of very long letters, the page numbers) of the letters which address the question.

hope this is of some help to those looking for more of an introduction to the leters and for those who have it a crib index for the most commonly called upon entries.

The questions in this FAQ were derived, compiled, and indexed by Mike Brinza. copyrighted too!

Thank you, Lindil, this link might come in handy !

After having seen the TTT-movie, I browsed in the letters and came across this:

From letter 21O, written 1958 . (Tolkien`s comments on a film "treatment" of the LotR)

------------------------------------------
"If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described"

"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery."
---------------------------------------------

And I won`t add any comment here, it would belong to the movie section... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Yoa are [belatedly] of course welcome Guinevere.

As my copy of the Letters has passed on to other hands I have taken to cannibalizing other's quotes from the Letter's [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

Here is from Legolas' answer to a query re: the fate of various mortals in the Undying Lands.

Quote:

From Letter No. 154:

But the promise made to the Eldar (the High Elves – not to other varieties, they had long before made their irrevocable choice, preferring Middle-earth to paradise) for their sufferings in the struggle with the prime Dark Lord had still to be fulfilled: that they should always be able to leave Middle-earth, if they wished, and pass over Sea to the True West, by the Straight Road, and so come to Eressëa – but so pass out of time and history, never to return. The Half-elven, such as Elrond and Arwen, can choose to which kind and fate they shall belong: choose once and for all. Hence the grief at the parting of Elrond and Arwen.

Continued...

But in this story it is supposed that there may be certain rare exceptions or accommodations (legitimately supposed? there always seem to be exceptions); and so certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.
I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed for ever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to mortal earth, they can and will 'die' – of free will, and leave the world. (In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain imagining.)

From Letter No. 246:

'Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured', said Gandalf (III 268) – not in Middle-earth. Frodo was sent or allowed to pass over Sea to heal him – if that could be done, before he died. He would have eventually to 'pass away': no mortal could, or can, abide for ever on earth, or within Time. So he went both to a purgatory and to a reward, for a while: a period of reflection and peace and a gaining of a truer understanding of his position in littleness and in greatness, spent still in Time amid the natural beauty of 'Arda Unmarred', the Earth unspoiled by evil.

From Letter No. 325:

As for Frodo or other mortals, they could only dwell in Aman for a limited time - whether brief or long. The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them. Their sojourn was a 'purgatory', but one of peace and healing and they would eventually pass away (die at their own desire and of free will) to destinations of which the Elves knew nothing.

[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

I've always been a bit hesitant to find out about my few heroes beyond their works. I wouldn't want my appreciation of their art to be disturbed by a dislike of their personality or their views.

Reading Letters of Tolkien, I have found that with JRRT this is quite the opposite. I am amazed at what a down-to-earth yet intelligent and thoughtful person he was. His condemnations of the Nazis in particular I found very satisfying, but he is by no means blindly patriotic. He seems to be an intellectual who found his own ground, and I am glad to see that none of his letters so far (I'm up to Letter 131) have been coloured by political leanings or prejudice of any type. Even religion is not heaped out by the barrelful (as I'm sure it would be by the preachy C.S. Lewis), and Tolkien comes across as a pious, devoted and thoughtful Catholic rather than a zealot.

I enjoyed reading the correspondence written up to the end of the second world war, and would gladly read many more from the same time period. I think it must have been one the most single shocking time in human history, and I wonder how so many people made it through so courageously. It was refreshing to hear Tolkien's lengthy words on the futility of war. I'll be very quick now to direct anyone who sees the books or even the movies as warmongering, straight to Letters of Tolkien.

Letter 131 is such a wealth of information about The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings that I am shocked that it has not been repeated anywhere else, say in an introduction to The Silmarillion. It's very rewarding to see a synopsis of how all the tales tie in together written by their creator, and there are gems of information that I haven't seen anywhere else, such as that given on the Rings of Power.

All in all, I've found them a pleasure to read, and I consider myself indebted to Humphrey Carpenter, and especially to Christopher Tolkien for publishing so many letters of an intimate nature, knowing full well the enjoyment that we would get from them. Does anyone know an address that I could write a thank-you to him at?

I agree with all that you wrote, Doug!

In the second edition of the Silmarillion (1999),part of letter #131 is indeed included in the preface ! (up to the end of the second age)

This is somewhat frivolous, but I enjoyed it:

Quote:

It might be advisable, rather than lose the American interest, to let the Americans do what seems good to them - as long as it was possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).

From Letter #13, to C.A. Furth at Allan and Unwin, dated 13th May 1937. Tolkien's comments refer to a suggestion from Houghton Mifflin, relayed by Allan and Unwin, that American artists be engaged to produce additional illustrations for the first US edition of The Hobbit.

haha - a good one, Squatter!

On the purpose of Gandalf, from No. 181:

Quote:

There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology. Gandalf is a 'created' person; though possibly a spirit that existed before in the physical world. His function as a 'wizard' is an angelos or messenger from the Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided.
[...]
Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back, as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation of God is an infinitely greater thing than anything I would dare to write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees.

Squatter -- the only full-length Disney movie out by that time, I think, was Snow White. So Tolkien hated both Shakespeare and Snow White ? Just goes to show that creative genius is no guarantee of sanity, or a decent ability to appreciate the good things in life at any rate. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Tolkien's fierce hatred for Disney gains him another notch in my standings. Interesting thread and excerpts, all.

Rimbaud: the only good part of Snow White for you was the Wicked Queen, I'm guessing ?? I think Woody Allen once said the same thing.
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ]

Methinks, Turambar, that Tolkien's objection to both Shakespeare and Disney is the bowderization of the original fairy tales which both engaged in.

Nice to see you back, though.

Bethberry

I'm not sure I buy that, at least as to Shakespeare. By that definition, isn't Turin a bowdlerization of Kalevala?

EDIT: thanks! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ]

I think there's a slight difference in the cases of Disney's use of the Snow-White fairy tale and Tolkien's use of the Legend of Kullervo. Disney studios actually took Grimm's old story and based their film openly on it. But although Tolkien was greatly affected by Kullervo's fate that legend wasn't his only source; I see Turin's story as a complex of many sources but still an individual piece of work. Not arguing just stating my opinion. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But to get back to the topic... I've just started reading the Letters but it has already been a great experience! If only I had time to read them all day long. This is a really short quote but when I read it I had this instant feeling: I have heard this somewhere else!

Quote:

....I knew that a 'word or two' would suffice (though I could not feel that any words under my name would have any particular value unless they said something worth saying - which takes space)....

Can't you just hear Treebeard talking! Oh well, I'm not sure if Tolkien had even greated Treebeard yet (the quote is from letter 38 To Stanley Unwin, 30 March 1940) but most likely he had, at least unconsciously, thought of him/Ents, as he puts it in his letter to W.H. Auden (163, 7 June 1955, side note):

Quote:

Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called 'Treebeard', from Treebeard's first remark on p.66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading some one else's work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happened' came through....

Interesting picture of Tolkien's 'working methods' too! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

From letter 205 to CJRT.

Quote:

Nobody believes me when I say that my long book is an attempt to create a world in which a form of language agreeable to my personal aesthetic might seem real. But it is true. ...the LR... was an effort to create a situation in which a common greeting would be elen sila lumenn' omentielmo, and that the phase long antedated the book. I never heard anymore.

[fixed [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ]

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

lindil, I believe it's "..., and that phase long antedated the book."
Minor point, I really don't mean to be picky but it just caught my eye. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Here's a topical one:

Quote:

Urukhai is only a figure of speech. There are no genuine Uruks, that is folk made bad by the intention of their maker; and not many who are so corrupted as to be irredeemable ... I have met them, or thought so, in England's green and pleasant land.

I have just started reading the Letters in the last week, and I'm thoroughly enjoying Tolkien's down-to-earth nature. It amazes me that he never thought his work to be good enough.

This gem is from Letter 17,To Stanley Unwin, 1937:

Quote:

I have received one postcard, alluding I suppose to the Times' review: containing just the words:

sic hobbitur ad astra

All the same I am a little perturbed. I cannot think of anything more to say about hobbits. Mr Baggins seems to have exhibited so fully both the Took and the Baggins side of their nature. But I have only too much to say, and much already written, about the world into which the hobbit intruded. You can, of course, see any of it, and say what you like about it, if and when you wish. I should rather like an opinion, other than that of Mrs C. S. Lewis and my children, whether it has any value in itself, or as a marketable commodity, apart from hobbits. But if it is true that The Hobbit has come to stay and more will be wanted, I will start the process of thought, and try to get some idea of a theme drawn from this material for treatment in a similar style and for a similar audience - possibly including actual hobbits. My daughter would like something on the Took family. One reader wants fuller details about Gandalf and the Necromancer. But that is too dark - much too much for Richard Hughes' snag. I am afraid that snag appears in everything; though actually the presence (even if only on the borders) of the terrible is, I believe, what gives this imagined world its verisimilitude. A safe fairy-land is untrue to all worlds. At the moment I am suffering like Mr Baggins from a touch of 'staggerment', and I hope I am not taking myself too seriously.

I will, of course, post more as I come across them.

Here is another topical one (from letter 64, written 1944)

Quote:

The utter stupid waste of war, not only material but moral and spiritual, is so staggering to those who have to endure it. And always was (despite the poets), and always will be (despite the propagandists). But so short is human memory and so evanescent are its generations that in only about thirty years there will be few or no people with that direct experience which alone goes really to the heart. The burnt hand teaches most about fire.

And from letter 81 (1944):

Quote:

You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy; but unfortunately Gandalf's wisdom seems long ago to have passed with him into the True West

From letter #96 to Christopher Tolkien:

Quote:

The minor imp of Slubgob's brood who specially attends to preventing C.S.L. and myself from meeting provided a special attraction in the morning with the leaking of the scullery tap coinciding with the blocking of the sink! It took me until nearly 11 a.m. to get that cleared up. But I got to Magdalen, where after a brief shiver over two depressing elm-logs (elm won't burn) we decided to seek warmth and beer at the Mitre: we got both (pubs manage their business better than bursars: upon my word I don't think the latter gentry would even hold down a Kiwi job in the R.A.F.!)

Why Bombadil's whole purpose and identity cannot be understood, from the ever-useful Letter No. 153:

Quote:

Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some pan, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that pan of the Universe.

Here's Tolkien on Tom Bombadil and pacifism, from letter #144 to Naomi Mitchison:

Quote:

The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. but if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

I was talking to Estelyn about Tolkien's use of archaisms during our recent meeting, and used the following draft letter for illustration. It's one of my favourites:

Quote:

Dear Hugh,
....Don't be disturbed! I have not noticed any impertinence (or sycophancy) in your letters; and anyone so appreciative and so perceptive is entitled to criticism. Anyway I do not naturally breathe an air of undiluted incense! It was not what you said (last letter but one, not the one that I answered) or your right to say it, that might have called for a reply, if I had the time for it; but the pain that I always feel when anyone - in an age in which almost all auctorial manhandling of English is permitted (especially if disruptive) in the name of art or 'personal expression' - immediately dismisses out of court deliberate 'archaism'. The proper use of 'tushery' is to apply it to the kind of bogus 'medieval' stuff which attempts (without knowledge) to give a supposed temporal colour with expletives, such as tush, pish, zounds, marry, and the like. But a real archaic English is far more terse than modern; also many of things said could not be said in our slack and often frivolous idiom. Of course, not being specially well read in modern English, and far more familiar with works in the ancient and 'middle' idioms, my own ear is to some extent affected; so that though I could easily recollect how a modern would put this or that, what comes easiest to mind or pen is not quite that. But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.'

This is a fair example - moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said 'Nay, thou (n')wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' - and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' - if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all.
Or p.127, as an example of 'archaism' that cannot be defended as 'dramatic', since it is not in dialogue, but the author's description of the arming of the guests - which seemed specially to upset you. But such 'heroic' scenes do not occur in a modern setting to which a modern idiom belongs. Why deliberately ignore, refuse to use the wealth of English which leaves us a choice of styles - without any possibility of unintelligibility.
I can see no more reason for not using the much terser and more vivid ancient style than for changing the obsolete weapons, helms, shields and hauberks into modern uniforms.
'Helms too they chose' is archaic. Some (wrongly) class it as 'inversion', since normal order is 'They also chose helmets' or 'they chose helmets too'. (Real mod. E. 'They also picked out some helmets and round shields.) But this is not normal order, and if mod. E. has lost the trick of putting a word desired to emphasize (for pictorial, emotional or logical reasons) into prominent first place, without addition of a lot of little 'empty' words (as the Chinese say), so much the worse for it. And so much the better for it the sooner it learns the trick again. And some one must begin the teaching, by example.
I am sorry to find you so affected by the extraordinary 20th C. delusion that its usages per se and simply as 'contemporary' - irrespective of whether they are terser, more vivid (or even nobler!) - have some peculiar validity, above those of other times, so that not to use them (even when quite unsuitable in tone) is a solecism, a gaffe, a thing at which one's friends shudder or feel hot under the collar. Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time! Also (not to be too donnish) learn to discriminate between the bogus and genuine antique - as you would if you hoped not to be cheated by a dealer!

Letter #171 (September 1955)

Tolkien was obviously thinking out his argument as he went, and eventually he decided that he should discuss this with Hugh Brogan in person (Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at that conversation!) but it serves to demonstrate how carefully he thought about every cadence and nuance of the language he used, even in simple phrases. It also demonstrates how foolish many of the criticisms levelled against his style can be proven to be with a little research.

[ August 16, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]