England's Mythology?

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, I'll bite. :P

Welcome to the Downs, yeomanrycavalry. I hope to see more of you around, and I hope you enjoy being Dead.

Did Tolkien really intend to do all you have claimed he failed at? One can only fail at a thing if one was reaching for the goal. As Tolkien said, "my crest has long since fallen". So by the time he wrote LotR, he was trying to write a good ripping yarn and succeeded in doing a whole lot more than that. You can't fault a man for the culture to which he belonged.

[davem]

Of course, as has been pointed out previously, Tolkien did not say he wished to create a mythology for England. What he actually said was that he wished to create a mythology which he could dedicate to England - a very different thing.

[Selmo]

Tolkien's last word on this topic: "Absurd".

.

[Saurreg]

According to Bulfinch's Mythology there were at least three origins to the start of mythical England. Two of them were associated with the the classical era and one has its source from Judaism.

Of the two classical myths, the first proposed that the island derived its name from Albion, the son of Neptune (Poisedon) who ruled over the island and was slain by Hercules (Herackles). The second myth had a Trojan refugee by the name of Brutus who sailed all the way from Anatolia to the island and became the founding father of the British (if that is even possible). That leaves us with the third variant which, stated that Japhet, son of Noah had an offspring called Histion (history) who beget four children and one of them was named Britto (Britain) who was the great progenitor of a people that would bear his name. How original!

So it would seem that England is deprived of a root for myths that are exclusive to it and it alone. Can't fault Tolkien for wanting to find something somewhat more "original".

[Lalwendë]

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen...

Anyway, back to this thread. I've been looking at one of the books we got at Oxonmoot - Tolkien's Mythology for England by Edmund Wainwright, and read an interesting passage about Robin Hood. He points out a striking similarity between Robin Hood and Faramir.

They are both expert bowmen - Robin stories occurring of course at the height of English archery skills as demonstrated to devastating effect at Agincourt. In On Fairy Stories Tolkien speaks of his particular desire to become a bowman (and he has lots of other experts in his work, including the woodsy Legolas)And both also use 'guerilla tactics' in the course of their days in the woods - Faramir to defend Gondor and Robin to rob from the rich. Wainwright also points out that Ithilien is a beautiful land which has suffered "under the depredations of a merciless foreign invader, just as England was under Norman rule." Thinking about the old tales i note that just as England's fortunes are once again revived by the return of King Richard the Lionheart, Gondor's are by Aragorn. Faramir is also something of an 'outsider' in terms of not being his father's favourite, and he looks back to the past of Numenor as Robin looks back to his Saxon roots. Allegedly, if he was indeed Robin of Leocsley (Loxley). Eowyn could indeed be his Lady Marian.

As Wainwright points out, the story of Robin Hood is incredibly strong to the English, and its one of the few stories that has passed down the ages and is still being made into dramas, comedies and films to this day. Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire are still fighting over 'ownership' of Robin. If Tolkien was hoping to capture some of the Northern spirit and create something he could dedicate to England how could he miss out Robin Hood?

But this isn't a simple analogy. There are also elements of Robin to be found in Tom Bombadil, and Marian in Goldberry - this side I think is the more 'mystical' aspect of Robin Hood where he is seen as the Lord of the Greenwood in English folklore, taking on aspects of the Green Man. We also have Bard the Bowman, and as previously mentioned, Legolas the Woodland Prince.

Tolkien holds both trees and woodsmen in great regard; and in England we have such odd things as Tree Preservation Orders and documentaries about trees (one of which I saw earlier - which included a look inside the great bole of the Major Oak, one of our legendary trees - we have many of 'em). We regard eco-activists such as Swampy with affection, and have a great love of hiking, camping and being outdoorsy. The love of the lost wildwood is still strong and its fitting that possibly our greatest English myth, Robin Hood (Arthur is slightly too British, as Tolkien himself thought), is about a woodsy man, a lover of the trees, and also of course a mythical bowman such as those legendary figures of Agincourt.

Tolkien said of Faramir that he just appeared to him as if out of nowhere; he said:

"I am sure i did not invent him, i did not even want him, though i like him, but there he came just walking through the woods of ithilien"he just walked out of the woods".

So where earlier in the thread I was wondering where exactly and how did Tolkien hope to create something 'English' to dedicate to England, this is an example of how he used something clearly recognisable to the English as part of their own past and present. Yet seemingly without seeking out a 'source', simply by being in tune with the stories we all grew up with. Robin looms large in the English psyche, so I'm not surprised there is possibly a lot of Robin to be found in Tolkien, woven into the fabric of the story.

Does this add to the 'Englishness' of this mythology?

What does the following mean in the context of the interweaving of English legends/folklore into the legendarium?

the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen...

They are both expert bowmen - Robin stories occurring of course at the height of English archery skills as demonstrated to devastating effect at Agincourt. In On Fairy Stories Tolkien speaks of his particular desire to become a bowman (and he has lots of other experts in his work, including the woodsy Legolas)...There are also elements of Robin to be found in Tom Bombadil, and Marian in Goldberry - this side I think is the more 'mystical' aspect of Robin Hood where he is seen as the Lord of the Greenwood in English folklore, taking on aspects of the Green Man. We also have Bard the Bowman, and as previously mentioned, Legolas the Woodland Prince.

....Thus intensifieth my craving to rent and watch the Errol Flynn classic...

Who would win an archery contest, Legolas or Robin Hood...?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Who would win an archery contest, Legolas or Robin Hood...?

Legolas, of course. Superior vision and hand-eye coordination belonging to Elves. No-brainer.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Does this add to the 'Englishness' of this mythology?

What does the following mean in the context of the interweaving of English legends/folklore into the legendarium?

How would you define 'Englishness' in this context? Norman English with a touch of Frankish culture or Anglo-Saxon English? Robin Hood was after all an English tale set in the High Medieval Era where Christianity has already established strong roots in those lands and the culture of the island was increasingly, if not continental European in nature.

I am of the opinion that mythical folklore arose from pre-civilizational (i.e. bloc cultural identification we use today) times and existed before, during and after the great attributes that group people into said civilizations come into effect. As such these folklores have a very localized and distinct favor pertaining to the place they originate from. That is what makes these myths so enjoyable - its exoticness that is quite unlike anything they exists today or from near history.

Robin Hood was an English product, but was it really distinctive enough in nature to be considered an England only myth? If we were to substitute Robin with say an Otto, Philippe or Leon, skill with the bow to unparalled swordsmanship and a corrupted king and his sheriff into emperor and his senechal, the tale of Robin Hood would fit well into any other parts of Europe and indeed the rest of the world.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

Robin Hood was an English product, but was it really distinctive enough in nature to be considered an England only myth? If we were to substitute Robin with say an Otto, Philippe or Leon, skill with the bow to unparalled swordsmanship and a corrupted king and his sheriff into emperor and his senechal, the tale of Robin Hood would fit well into any other parts of Europe and indeed the rest of the world.

If we strip the flesh off any human being we would find the same skeletal structure. Archetypes in themselves are uninteresting. Stories are unteresting. And stories are set in a certain time & certain place, because they come from the minds & hearts of certain people. If you replace Robin with Otto, or William Tell, you've got a different story.

A point I was making to someone yesterday is that while Robin probably did provide inspiration for some aspects of Faramir (& Tom), Odin for Gandalf, & Mount Sinai for the Meneltarma (though mountains & hills, real & artificial, were always seen as sacred places), once taken up into a secondary world they become wholly & simply themselves - if they are taken up successfully that is.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen...
What does the following mean in the context of the interweaving of English legends/folklore into the legendarium?

Lal, I actually put up a post (now deleted!!!) asking you for the reference-- which you crystal-clearly stated in, erm, your opening post. Now I'm SO embarassed.

Anyway-- despite my embarassment, I think this is a very good statement to ponder and I'm glad you brought it up. Reading it first out of context, what came to my mind was that many 'lesser' things-- fairy stories, myths, and &c which are "lesser" in the sense of "shorter" than Tolkien's life work-- were the 'compost' in the 'soil' that produced the legendarium in all of its magnificence. Out of context! But also true, for what its worth.

Nor for the context:

I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of fairy story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the large backcloths

"Lesser drawing splendour from the large backcloths" to me says "Hobbit" and "LOTR", which draw splendour from Gondolin (Hobbit) & Elrond's wisdom, &c, more thinly; and LOTR, which by the time we get past Elrond's house rests squarely on the legendarium whether the reader is particularly aware of that or not.

But then, we've also discussed (in various threads) such things as, "Smith of Wootton Major"-- does it draw from the Legendarium? Or does it draw from the same Faerie sources that the Legendarium drew from? It is "lesser" in size, but what exactly does it rest on?

What does "Leaf by Niggle" rest on?

What does "Farmer Giles" rest on?

Are we asking in terms of content-- which is how I initiallly answered a paragraph or three above-- or are we asking in terms of the compost, in which case everything drew on what came before? I often get these two ideas crossed in my own mind.

Even within LOTR, thinking back to the "It Feels Different Near the Shire" thread-- does the Old Forest, and Tom Bombadil, rest on the same thing as, say, Gondolin and Numenor?

lmp...?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

Should [Tolkien] have preserved these folk tales if he truly wished to dedicate his work to England?

Basically it seems that you're asking if Tolkien should have behaved more like a librarian than the artist he was. So I say 'no'.

Just for the record, I agree with Lal and davem and not with Saurreg.

Originally Posted by Lal

What does the following mean in the context of the interweaving of English legends/folklore into the legendarium?

It seems to me that what Tolkien is saying is: larger = cosmogonic while lesser = fairy story. I think 'fairy tale' includes Robin Hood. I can imagine that Faramir has analogies to Robin Hood that might have been instinctively present in the mind of Tolkien. It's also interesting to me that Gondor would be Norman and Rohan Saxon, whereas Faramir is the Gondorian Robin Hood to the Haradrim/Sauronish "Sherriff of Nottingham", by analogy. So it's not clean, but doesn't have to be.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

"Lesser drawing splendour from the large backcloths" to me says "Hobbit" and "LOTR", which draw splendour from Gondolin (Hobbit) & Elrond's wisdom, &c, more thinly; and LOTR, which by the time we get past Elrond's house rests squarely on the legendarium whether the reader is particularly aware of that or not.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by mark

But then, we've also discussed (in various threads) such things as, "Smith of Wootton Major"-- does it draw from the Legendarium? Or does it draw from the same Faerie sources that the Legendarium drew from? It is "lesser" in size, but what exactly does it rest on? What does "Leaf by Niggle" rest on? What does "Farmer Giles" rest on?

I think this is a different discussion altogether because those stories had a different purpose than the Legendarium. That said, the three short stories feel just as English and written by Tolkien as The Hobbit and LotR.

Originally Posted by mark

Are we asking in terms of content-- which is how I initiallly answered a paragraph or three above-- or are we asking in terms of the compost, in which case everything drew on what came before? I often get these two ideas crossed in my own mind.

Both, I think.

Originally Posted by mark

Even within LOTR, thinking back to the "It Feels Different Near the Shire" thread-- does the Old Forest, and Tom Bombadil, rest on the same thing as, say, Gondolin and Numenor? lmp...?

Perhaps that I'm not English myself renders my opinion inexpert. Still, I've read enough of the literature, background, and even had a visit, which does NOT make me an expert but gives knowledge. Gondolin and Numenor come from Tolkien dreams, but seem to have their sources as much in myth and legend. The Old Forest comes from folklore and Tom Bombadil has a mix of sources to say the least.

But all that seems rather unclear to me. I think it's important to distinguish between what in the legendarium (& LotR) is cosmogonic and what is fairy tale..... if that's even possible.