LotR - Foreword

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

But if the 'message that it conveys to his readers' includes the religious, specifically Catholic, dimension should we ignore that?

Davem, I was talking about the Foreword. I of course agree that the matters to which you refer (including one's personal response to the text) are entirely valid and relevant in any discussion of the book itself and the individual chapters that we will be working through. My point was that, in any analysis of the Foreword as a foreword, the emphasis should be on how Tolkien chose to use this opportunity to speak to his readers before they set about reading the story, ie what message he chose to convey to them in the Foreword, and on how we, as readers, respond to that message.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

The specific points you are making in regard to Tolkien and the Catholic influence on his writing are certainly valid. Few would dispute that Tolkien's religious sensibilities are indirectly reflected in much of his writing. And all the examples that you've given -- the figure of Galadriel, lembas, the "hymns" to Elbereth, the similarities between some of the poetry and the Psalms--are wonderful instances of this kind of feeling percolating up from underneath.

A number of years ago, Littlemanpoet and I went at it hammer and tongs in a thread where we tried to find such examples and consider how these related to the varying drafts in HoMe, i.e, whether or not the "Christian" elements were indeed the product of later revisions as Tolkien maintained. And I am quite sure that as we go through the book, chapter-by-chapter, there will be many intriguing examples put forward of this type. I honestly don't think anyone is suggesting that this process isn't important.

Yet, in the end, I must concur with the assessment that SpM has given:

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.

In terms of the second foreward itself, Tolkien has clearly stated the following:

I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

The italics are my own. These words are critical because they underline the fact that Tolkien is not asking us to respond to the text in the identical way that he did. He is asking each of us to come at things from our own background and experience. I am not a Catholic, nor am I a Christian. While I may have an intellectual understanding of Catholicism and Christianity, I can not replicate the exact mental and spiritual approach that Tolkien took to his material. My personal motives in approaching the text will not be the same as Tolkien's. Nor is the author asking me to do this. He has stated in the foreward that I can deal with the story on my own terms, prompted by my own individual motivations.

Yes, it is always helpful to understand how the author approaches something, whether this is a question of Christian influences or the many other type of personal beliefs and values that are so clearly evident in LotR. For many of us, those glimpses of Tolkien's persona will indeed merge with what is in our own hearts so that the "overshadowing" placed there by the author (either consciously or subconsciously) will become part of our own emotional and intellectual response to the text. In some cases, where our personal background or preferences merge with those of Tolkien, this will be one means by which we can perhaps see over the "wall" and catch a glimpse of faerie, almost as if we were medieval men, small in stature but standing on the shoulders of the "great ones" that came before us.

Similarly, there are certain images and values that I see mirrored in LotR, which have special meaning for me: namely, Tolkien's mistrust of the machine and his intense desire to protect the environment. In one of the few interviews with CT regarding his father's work, his son flatly stated that his dad had identified these as among the most important themes within the book. I am very aware of "overshadowings" of this type in the text, probably because there are aspects of my own past experiences that resonate with that. For this reason, I will probably place greater stress on such ideas than another poster might.

The problem does not lie in my identifying such themes and examples as important. Rather, the problem would come if I insisted that this was the only way to see and interpret certain things. If I was to do that, I would thrust aside the very thing that Tolkien was praising: "the varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader."

I am not saying you are doing this. Indeed, you clearly stated that you don't feel others should feel compelled to accept your own interpretations. By the same context. however, I honestly don't think that SpM is saying that we should ignore the religious or Catholic aspects we see in the text, which is what your own first paragraph implied. (SpM -- If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me.)

Rather, the core message of the second foreward is precisely to praise that diversity of backgrounds and responses: for indeed it mirrors the incredible diversity of goodness we find in Middle-earth itself. We are not locked into one way of looking at things, but can each approach the story from our own vantage point and, in so doing, find enjoyment and entertainment. Tolkien openly states that he hopes this story will at times "deeply move" us. To me, those last words say it all. The most profound meaning, the most intense learning, take place when we are touched in our inner soul. Tolkien is not saying or defining exactly how that will happen--whether through love of trees, love of our fellows, or love of God. He leaves that to our own imagination and ways of approaching things. But he does hope that somehow, someway, that kind of valuable one-on-one interaction between reader and text will occur.

P.S. SpM -- It took me so long to hack this out, that you and I managed to cross-post!

[mark12_30]

Child wrote:

Tolkien openly states that he hopes this story will at times "deeply move" us. To me, those last words say it all. The most profound meaning, the most intense learning, take place when we are touched in our inner soul. Tolkien is not saying or defining exactly how that will happen--whether through love of trees, love of our fellows, or love of God.

Child, you have here said in a few brief sentences what I have so struggled to say... As a writer of stories, I heartily sympathize with Tolkien in his foreword. Been there; held my tongue just so; til I had a chance to vent in private, that is...

It's good to remember that his letters are private, and so some of these declarations of types and shadows (Catholic-style) were intended to be private. His lectures and essays are another matter of course, and I think from On Faery Stories we know that Tolkien did have ulterior motives.

But he did not declare them in his foreword. And I think if he had, he would have stolen his own thunder.