‘The Workhouse’ – Tolkien’s Purgatory

[Child of the 7th Age]

This complicated interplay within the concept of the “gift” is also at work in the idea of grace. Grace is simultaneously something that one receives and possesses. The Tree is thus a manifestation of grace, and the result of Niggle’s own grace-full art.

Fordim - When you put it in those terms, I think we are virtually on the same page. If you are more comfortable using "grace" rather than "salvation", I can heartily concur. I was definitely not trying to suggest that Leaf by Niggle was an allegory of salvation (or of anything else for that matter.)

Rather it is a question of how Tolkien thought: how he viewed subcreation. Everything we know about the author suggests that, in his mind, the concept of subcreation was intimately woven with that of "Truth". Mythmaking was an attempt to uncover what is "real" in the clearest way possible with the end product being what Tolkien termed "true myth". There was no artificial division between subcreation and grace/truth in his own mind, and I feel this same reality is reflected in the workhouse and Leaf by Niggle.

Tolkien, for example, utterly rejected Owen Barfield's claims that myth, although moving and beautiful, are mere lies:

No said Tolkien. They are not lies.

Man is not ultimately a liar. He may pervert his thought into lies, but he comes from God and it is from God that he ultimately draws his ultimate ideals....Not merely the abstract thoughts of Man but also his imaginative inventions must originate with God, and in consequence reflect something of eternal truth. In making a myth, in practicing mythopoeia and peopling the world with elves and dragons and goblins, a storyteller.....is actually fulfilling God's purpose, and reflecting a splintered fragment of the true light.

The last line of this quote is the key and is part of the grand gift that we see at the end of Niggle. My concern, therefore, is that we not "split apart" that which was so clearly linked in Tolkien's own mind. When Tolkien refers to subcreation, whether in Niggle or in any of his writings, it is not in an isolated sense, but rather in the context of "true myth", the storyteller fulfilling God's purpose. I say this not as a Catholic, Protestant, or anything else in-between (since I am not a Christian), but merely see these ideas reflected in Tolkien's own reality. (You can blame Davem for all these references to "reality". For the past day, that term keeps pounding through my head.)

[davem]

I think certainly the intent & motivation of the subcreator have a 'divine' origin for Tolkien, but what is produced comes from the subcreator, not from God - ie, the subcreator is not simply parroting what he has been given. My reading of the Niggle story is that God couldn't have created Niggle's Parish - man is a 'co-creator' with God. Man's creation's are unique, & could only have arisen in his mind, as a result of his experience, & that this is God's intention. God may, from His position outside time, know what will be, but He doesn't cause it to be. Only Niggle could have brought his subcreation into being (if only because if God had been responsible it would have been creation, not sub-creation).

So LbN is the account of Niggle's perfection - he goes through the Workhouse in order to become what he was meant to be. He is made the most perfect subcreator he is capable of becoming. There's nothing in the story for me which implies that Niggle's eternal soul is in danger. There's no mention of hell, or damnation - the worst that could happen is that Niggle will remain in the workhouse until he is ready to leave. This seems, as I think about it, less & less like the Catholic Puragatory, & not even very much like the Halls of Mandos. Niggle is in the Workhouse for a purpose, & the purpose is revealed at the end to be the creation of Niggle's Parish, 'the best introduction to the Mountains'.

Niggle has a task to achieve, divinely ordained, & that is to achieve what in the end he does achieve - along with Parish. The question of 'Salvation' doesn't come into it at any point, nor does 'damnation'. Niggle's 'journey', like Sam's, of which (as Fordim points out) it is an 'echo', culminates in the bringing into being of a Tree, which becomes the wonder of the neighbourhood, an echo of what was & an indicator of what may be. Sam's Mallorn 'is' Niggle's Tree - both are responsible for its being there, but it belongs to neither of them, & once that 'gift' is given both are free to move on. Sam goes through a 'workhouse' experience of his own, through Mordor, & what he achieves at the end of his journey is not 'salvation' either, because LotR is not about the workings of 'salvation' either, & neither does it end in 'eternal rest', just more, (but better) work.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Again, I think we are coming full circle: we are saying similar things but using different language. I intially picked up on the word "salvation" because that was how you expressed the dichotomy in your own post: subcreation versus salvation. I should have been more precise and substituted a term of my own. (Fordim's use of "grace" is much better. )

My concern was to emphasize that subcreation for Tolkien is inevitably rooted in divine truth: there can be no absolute dichotomy. It is certainly his own creation, the efforts of his own hard work, and not something handed to him on a plate by anyone or anything, divine or otherwise. God is not responsible for subcreation yet he still plays a role, since the core of the myth must encapsulate and reflect some of that greater truth. Without that truth at the center, Tolkien would have seen subcreation as an empty act.

As to what the Workhouse actually is, I think that is open to differing interpretations, as so many things in Tolkien are. You make some interesting and strong arguments to divorce it from the Catholic concept of purgatory. Yet, leaving loaded words like salvation and damnation aside, did not the First and Second Voice play some role in deciding who stays in the Workhouse and for how long? Doesn't this imply some type of judgment (with a small "j") as to the fate of those inside, i.e, at what point they would be better off outside the Workhouse? If there is judgment involved, how would you regard this? In other words, what is going on with the First and Second Voice?

It's been too long since I've reread Niggle and I will try to find time to look at it again. Unfortunately, I've been juggling dozens of balls since the start of the new academic year.

[mark12_30]

There's nothing in the story for me which implies that Niggle's eternal soul is in danger. There's no mention of hell, or damnation - the worst that could happen is that Niggle will remain in the workhouse until he is ready to leave. This seems, as I think about it, less & less like the Catholic Puragatory

I'm unaware that the idea of 'catholic purgatory' entails any risk of hell; if you were destined for hell, you'd go straight there. Purgatory is for believers who did not die in a 'state of grace'-- with sins completely cancelled. (How a believer could be in any state other than grace is another whole topic for me, and for other notable theologians-- catholic and protestant. However for the purposes of this discussion, unless I am quite mistaken, Tolkien would have been comfortable with that definition.)

Since folk seem to be tossing the word 'salvation' around, I should note here that one interpretation of 'salvation' is, to be made complete, or to be made whole; to be healed. This can apply to the spirit, the soul and/ or the body. (Think of Frodo, for instance.)

(In Tolkienish, one might call this harmonizing with The Music.)

There are those who talk of the 'salvation of the spirit' (conversion, transfer of ownership to God, seal of the Holy Spirit) versus 'the salvation of the soul' (character/virtue refinement and development of the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit.) While some feel that this is dividing hairs, I do not. Perhaps these terms might prove helpful in this discussion.

[Kuruharan]

davem

Yes, in that it involves effort, struggle, application, but that's not necesarily 'bad'.

I guess I would have chosen a different word, but that is probably just me.J

Sam goes through a 'workhouse' experience of his own, through Mordor, & what he achieves at the end of his journey is not 'salvation' either, because LotR is not about the workings of 'salvation' either, & neither does it end in 'eternal rest', just more, (but better) work.

Well, actually, in the end Sam does go to Valinor. I think that Sam might be more easily equated with Parish, who remained in Niggle’s Parish after Niggle departed. Am I suggesting that Frodo might be more easily equated with Niggle, well, maybe. (Don’t hold me to that though.)

Fordim

I could not agree with you more, dm when you argue that “Leaf by Niggle” is about subcreation rather than salvation. The latter is too allegorical, and we all know how Tolkien felt about that, while the former is more applicable.

I am unconvinced that changing the subject matter to sub-creation makes the story any less allegorical. To my mind it is perhaps less high-flown, but no less allegorical. Could you elaborate?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Well, actually, in the end Sam does go to Valinor. I think that Sam might be more easily equated with Parish, who remained in Niggle’s Parish after Niggle departed. Am I suggesting that Frodo might be more easily equated with Niggle, well, maybe. (Don’t hold me to that though.)

This struck me just after I posted last night - problem with it is that Sam is nothing like Parish to start with - he's a dreamer right from the beginning. Perhaps the Gaffer is closer to Parish - 'Elves & Dragons! Cabbages & potatoes are better for you & me.'

Of course, its dangerous to push these kinds of 'connections', as that implies that one story is simply an allegory of the other. Actually, I don't see Niggle as an allegory as such - more of an artistic manifesto, perhaps.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fordim

Quote:
I could not agree with you more, dm when you argue that “Leaf by Niggle” is about subcreation rather than salvation. The latter is too allegorical, and we all know how Tolkien felt about that, while the former is more applicable.


I am unconvinced that changing the subject matter to sub-creation makes the story any less allegorical. To my mind it is perhaps less high-flown, but no less allegorical. Could you elaborate?

Umm. . .I'm not sure. . .

I suppose what I meant was that I think the story is about subcreation (that is, artistic creation in general) rather than Christian notions of salvation (that is, a particular religion). So I am guilty, it seems, of a category shift as I praise how the story explores the idea of creativity (in general, not just Tolkien's specific forumlation of subcreation), and deny how it explores the idea of salvation (in particular as Catholic, not in general as a concept of grace).

*whew* That was a very difficult logical slip you caught me out on there Kuruharan.

That having been said, I don't think that it's entirely unjustified (what, me wrong?? ). Insofar as the story explores notions of salvation and grace I think that it would be hard not to see it doing so in terms that are clearly and specifically Christian (and thus, there's an allegorical trend here -- Workhouse=Purgatory, Niggle=Everyman, Tree=Grace, etc). If we look instead at the story as exploring the idea of art and creativity, I don't think there's this same emphasis on the particularity of any one belief system (and thus, there's a trend here more toward applicability as the reader is freer to connect things like the Workhouse and the Tree to ideas about art and imagination in the primary world).

I won't blame you at all if you don't find this a satisfactory response, for I'm not entirely sure that I do. But you asked for clarification and so I felt compelled to try and give some.