LotR - Foreword

[Alatariel Telemnar]

That Letter provides interesting correlation, Alatariel Telemnar for Tolkien's claim in the Second Foreward that LOTR was "primarily linguistic in inspiration and begun in order to provide the necessary background of 'history' for Elvish tongues." Thanks for providing it here. Being a great fan of words and language myself, I am not sure that this necessarily downgrades the value of his desire to write a good story. It would think they would be complementary. He would want the best story to highlight or reflect his created languages to their best advantage. For Tolkien as a philologist, everything began with words and structures of language, which then moved out to create patterns and order in stories.

Bêthberry, I agree. For if he would bother with such a story for his languages, of course he would want the best for them. And if I put off anything that made anyone get the feeling that it downgraded anything, then I didn't mean to.

The prime motive was the desire of a taleteller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times, maybe excite them or deeply move them.

Per'aps he was just killing two birds with one stone, as some say (three, possibly?) Maybe he wanted to create a world for his languages, yet write a good story, and hold the attention of readers as well (or, in other words, entertain us.)

[mark12_30]

Mr. Underhill and davem-- about Lembas and the host, as well as Galadriel and Mary (and Aragorn and the harrowing of hell and.... -- Augh! Brakes! Brakes!... phew.)

Regarding Tolkien and the one-to-one correspondence of these things, I agree with you, Mister Underhill, that caution is advised. However I also see davem's point that these things (lembas, Galadriel) sprang from somewhere deep, and I think must bear some imprint of Tolkien's faith. How to reconcile?

A "type" is not the same as an "allegory". A type is an imperfect forshadowing rather than a tight one-to-one correspondence. Allegories are properly one-to-one correspondences. Types are less tightly bound. With this I think Tolkien would have been comfortable, because (from his perspective) types have prophetically arisen in historical personages since the beginning of the Pentateuch.

Alert: Those uninterested in Biblical discussions may happily skip to the next post now.

For those few who are still with me: Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and other historical personages are each considered a 'type' of Christ, meaning that they are an imperfect foreshadowing, and it is the 'job' of each of them to foreshadow only certain aspects of Christ, not the whole deal (which would be difficult.) This is the most sensible application here as well. Three of the main characters exhibit imperfect foreshadowings of certain aspects, and may therefore be considered 'types'. (They commonly are.) Taken together, the three make a fair beginning of a picture, whereas any of the three individually would not.

In addition, this leaves room for more 'types' to be discovered. I can think of a Tolkienish fourth right off.

This expands into other areas as well. Lembas, yes; what about Miruvor? Etc. I don't want to go into it here but I think it allows more of Tolkien's own beliefs to shine through (in various places) without his intending to dominate the reader. I interpreted that when he was asked, "Lembas?" his answer was essentially a pleased "Okay, yes, I see that too", not "Well, finally somebody got it."

[davem]

As to Lembas as the 'Host: we have in Letter 210:

'It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom'.

And Letter 213 specifically:

'Or more important , I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), & in fact a Roman catholic. The latter 'fact' perhaps cannot be deduced; though one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of elbereth, & the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli & Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion of Mary. Anoother saw in waybread (lembas) = viaticum & the reference to its feeding the will (vol. III, p213) & being more potent when fasting, a derivation from the Eucharist. (That is: far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy story.)'

We can also take the examples of the Fellowship setting out from Rivendell on Dec 25th, & the destruction of the Ring & the Downfall of Barad Dur taking place on Mar 25th - which as Shippey points out is the date of both the Annunciation & the old date of Good Friday. Neither of these dates has any significance within the calendars of Middle Earth. But their Christian significance is obvious. As perhaps is the 'apocalyptic' ending - a 'sacred' tree & a symbolic marriage.

What we have in LotR is a story that works on two levels. One is as a straightforward fairy story, which can be read as simple entertainment. The other level is highly symbolic (& 'consciously so' as Tolkien admitted).

Of course, one can read, & explore, the story on the level of fairytale, leaving out the symbolism, but that is to miss a great deal of what Tolkien put in there.

There is constant 'symbolic' overshadowing running through the story - some deliberate, some unconscious on Tolkien's part. Much of it, admittedly, he only came to realise later, after finishing the story, yet, he has told us that it is consciously Catholic, & I can't see the point in refusing to acknowledge that.

[mark12_30]

davem, I'm quite familiar with (and fond of) all that you quote. Nor do I doubt one word of it from the professor's standpoint (or indeed from any standpoint!)

However I find it *very* significant that he did *not* point these things out in his prologue. I think Mister Underhill is very much on target when he talks about Tolkien's modesty and lurking ambition.

Maybe "false modesty" isn't quite right. I think he has an agenda of sorts when he protests that LotR is only a story. I'm reminded of Letter 131: "[The Arthurian mythos] is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal." I wish he would have elaborated, but I think we can get the gist of those reasons. To call attention to any meaning of his story is to transform it instantly into a sermon or a lecture, and so he says in effect, hey -- it's just a story; take from it what you will.

But lurking under that is some ambition. Letter 153: "I would claim, if I did not think it presumptuous in one so ill-instructed, to have as one object the elucidation of truth, and the encouragement of good morals in this real world, by the ancient device of exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments, that may tend to 'bring them home'."

In other words (my paraphrase)...:

If I tell you what it represents to me in my own heart as I write it and reread it afterwards, then you won't have the joy of discovering that for yourself. Maybe by my not telling you, you'll miss it completely; who knows? But maybe you'll find it, and maybe you'll find deeper things that I didn't even know were there. Either way, if I let the story speak for itself, you'll find what you are meant to find. So just read the story. By the way, don't look for Atom bombs, or communism or fascism or politics, and don't look for the Incarnate Messiah; and don't psychoanalyze me. That's not what I put in there. But read the story. You might find something.

I firmly believe he is (desperately) hoping that we do, because On Faery Stories states the purpose of myth & Faery tale, and implies that he wants us to reach that. But if we start out looking for it, we just might miss the story.

[Mister Underhill]

I for one am not refuting the religious influence in LotR or the obvious (and perhaps not so obvious) symbolic connections. I think, however, that you might be overreaching in your close correlation between Tolkien's religion and his fiction, moving it beyond symbolism and into allegory: lembas equals the Host.

I see your Letter and raise you:

Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain 'religious' ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else), and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that mode, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted.

#211

When Tolkien denies allegorical intent, both here in the Foreword and in many other places, I don't see why we shouldn't take him at his word. He understood that implicit expressions of the truth as he saw it -- through the actions and decisions and attitudes of his characters -- would be far more persuasive (not to mention accessible and applicable) than overt sermonizing and allegory.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Firefoot, your post is the kind I wish we had more of on this thread! As interesting and enlightening as the discussions of the letters pertaining to the Foreword are, I think we need to remember the first impact that reading this book had on us. I've always read Forewords, but I don't specifically remember my impressions of this one - it's been many years since I first read the book. Thanks for sharing your experience with us!

[The Saucepan Man]

Thumbing through Tolkien's Letters, I rediscovered the following passage in a draft of a letter addressed to Peter Szabo Szentmihalyi (Letter #329):

One of my strongest opinions is that the investigation of an author's biography (or such other glimpses of his 'personality' as can be gleaned by the curious) is an entirely vain and false approach to his works - and especially to a work of narrative art, of which the object aimed at by the author was to be enjoyed as such: to be read with literary pleasure. So that any reader whom the author has (to his great satisfaction) succeeded in 'pleasing' (exciting, engrossing, moving etc.), should, if he wishes others to be similarly pleased, endeavour in his own words, with only the book itself as a source, to induce them to read it for literary pleasure.

It seems to me that this sums up in even more strident terms the 'guidance' that Tolkien is giving his readers in the (Second) Foreword: "Here is my tale. I wrote it simply with the intention that you should derive pleasure from it. Go ahead. Read it and enjoy."

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

But if the 'message that it conveys to his readers' includes the religious, specifically Catholic, dimension should we ignore that? It would seem to me as wrong to do that as to ignore the Pagan mythological or historical influences/dimension. Is there no 'connection' between three 'racial' groups of Hobbits led into Eriador by two brothers & the Angles, Saxons & Jutes led into England by the brothers Hengist & Horsa, for instance.

What I'm saying is that both consciously & unconsciously, Catholicism underlies LotR. Its present. I can't accept that Tolkien would choose the two most significant dates in the Christian calendar for two of the most significant events in his story without realising that significance until someone points it out to him later. If Tolkien didn't realise that March 25th was of the greatest importance from the Christian perspective, & choose to 'commemorate' the Middle Earth event with the Eagle's song (which as Shippey points out uses the style & metre of the Psalms of the King James Bible) with lines including:

'Sing & rejoice, ye people of the Tower of Guard,
For your watch hath not been in vain,
And the Black Gate is broken,
And your King has passed through & he is victorious.

Sing & be glad, all ye children of the West
for your King shall come again,
And he shall dwell among you
all the days of your life.'

Too much of this king of thing runs beneath the surface of the story. His description of Elbereth in 'The Road Goes Ever On' :

As a 'divine' or 'angelic' person Varda/Elbereth could be said to be 'looking afar from Heaven' (as in Sam's invocation); hence the present participle. She was often thought of, or depicted, as standing on a great height looking towards Middle Earth, with eyes that penetrated the shadows, & listening to the cries for aid of Elves (& men) in peril or grief. Frodo (vol 1, p208) & Sam both invoke her in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in The Lord of the Rings are frequently overlooked)

is a 'mythologised' account of the Virgin Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'.

Look, I'm happy to leave out of this discussion any Catholic, folkloric, historic or linguistic references/investigations, but I think that would leave out Tolkien himself, to a great extent. All those elements, including also his personal experiences - particularly his wartime experiences - have produced LotR, but they are all successfully mythologised, & Middle Earth is a perfectly realised, self contained world. But if we exclude the sources, & the personal dimension, what the events of the story signified for Tolkien, how can we include our own personal responses, & the meaning the story has for us. I'm not a Catholic (I wouldn't even call myself a Christian) but when I read of Galadriel's gift of Lembas to the Fellowship the Middle Earth dimension is 'overshadowed' (not cancelled out) for me by the Catholic dimension, & the meaning of the former event resonates with the latter. Just as when I walk through any wood my experience is overshadowed by thoughts of Lorien or Fangorn. This is why LotR is not, & cannot be, for me merely an entertaining story. And this is not a 'choice' I'm making - it is simply how I respond to the story. I think if we remove all such 'resonances' & overshadowings from our experience (if that were possible) we'd be left with the simple 'escapism' that our critics accuse us of.

I love LotR not because of what it is, but because of what it means to me, personally. If the book belongs in some sense to each reader, then each reader's response is valid. If I read it in the way I do, with all the 'resonances; & 'overshadowings' I find in it, then that's valid - or do we exclude 'applicability' from this discussion as well as 'allegory'?

Hopefully, no-one feels that they have to accept my interpretations. I'm simply pointing out what I feel are the 'overshadowings' I percieve in the work, & arguing that some of them are there because Tolkien deliberately placed them there.