What did Tolkien really mean ....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child

Lal and Littlemanpoet -- Would you both feel more comfortable with that mental image of a continuum rather than "either/or"?

I don't need either.

Seriously. Of course we can find elements of Tolkien's faith is his work, that is probably inevitable, but there questions about how much was there intentionally (from everything Tolkien has said about it, any specifically Catholic images or ideals can be counted on our fingers), questions about whether they were there to 'teach' us anything (Tolkien keeps telling us "No" to this one), and there are questions about whether such images and ideals take primacy to everything else.

Nothing can be said with certainty or clarity about the 'meaning' of Lord of the Rings, because as Tolkien told us time and time again, there isn't one. Tolkien wrote "Lord of the Rings is not 'about' anything apart from itself". If we want an objective opinion, then Tolkien gives us one. Of course, we might think objective opinion is something other than what the author intended, but then that other cannot be objective opinion, it can only be relative and personal.

There's nothing wrong of course with a bit of applicability, but there are limits to it. We must be sensible. The lesson of what has happened to Lewis is interesting. He was indeed making a Christian message but it was being made in a more subtle way than the hype would now have us believe; the applicability has overtaken the Author and now Lewis is being unfairly viewed as an outright evangelist by modern readers, many of whom would say that this is sinister. I've got Pullman in mind now, who does like 'messages'; he identifies Lewis as deeply troubling, but failed to find the same in Tolkien. Long may that last, if the message that gets into the heads of the general public is one that makes them avoid Tolkien!

I have to ask, why when we can indeed have a worthy discussion about the Catholicism that can be found in Tolkien's work, does it have to be to prove some bigger point? Tolkien also loved Norse myth but the presence of it can be explored without trying to prove it was Tolkien's overarching aim. Of course, an Odinist may come onto a website and claim just that. But that is the difficulty when people with strong personal convictions get onto discussing matters such as this. There always seems to be an overarching agenda to be proven. So instead of yet another highly subjective discussion, another push-me-pull-you which will inevitably result in someone causing someone else 'offence', and we know nobody will agree on, can't we instead objectively examine what is specifically Catholic in Tolkien's work as promised? What it might be?

[Aaron]

Hi, I'm an old member with a brand new name and I'd like to cash in my two cents on this issue. Being a Protestant one may beleive that I would see a Christian message within LOTR but this is not the case.
Christian teaching borders on pacifism and one of the messages of LOTR appears to be the righteous undoing of injustice, this is not to suggest that people of my faith are weak or servile but it merely appears that with heroes such as Aragorn and Boromir The Lord of The Rings appears to be based more on Arthurian concepts of chivalry then Catholic dogma.

[mark12_30]

Long ago, in the midst of a contentious thread -- maybe it was canonicity-- a very wise mod once told me, "Take the eucatastrophe and run."

We can indeed discuss exhaustively what Tolkien MEANT or did not MEAN, or examine what might be specifically Catholic in his works, but I doubt we will ever come to an agreement on it.

IMO, he *meant* an eucatastrophe. At least one. Preferably one per thread of the tapestry. However, a eucatastrophe is beyond his own doing; by its very definition, it is a glimpse "beyond"-- one which the author has almost no control over. He can provide the painting of the tree, but he cannot provide the Beyond that will be seen thru the painting; his very goal is for the painting to be seen through. And for that to happen, the reader can't be tangled up in some allegorical "meaning". If he is so distracted from the secondary reality by the primary reality, he'll never get to the Beyond.

Now, where did I put that eucatastrophe? Ah, there it is; I'm off.

[Raynor]

In letter #156, Tolkien specifically tells us that the Third Age is not Christian - the world at that time only has a "monotheistic natural theology". So I think that the 'clues' to christianity ought to be looked for somewhere else than in direct representation of christian events or ideas; there are two main ideas that seem to stand out: Death:

Originally Posted by Letter #186

I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. 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.

Originally Posted by Letter #203

But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!

Originally Posted by Letter #211

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. But I might say that if the tale is 'about' anything (other than itself), it is not as seems widely supposed about 'power'. Power-seeking is only the motive-power that sets events going, and is relatively unimportant, I think. It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory.

and hobbitry (or humbleness I might say):

Originally Posted by Letter #181

I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

Originally Posted by Letter #131

But [the story is told] through Hobbits, not Men so-called, because the last Tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world polities' of the unforeseen and unforeseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole (after the primary symbolism of the Ring, as the will to mere power, seeking to make itself objective by physical force and mechanism, and so also inevitably by lies) is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless.

Concerning allegory, I think we should diferentiate between his dislike of allegory, and certain necessities of writing fairy-tales for adults:

Originally Posted by Letter #131

I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.) Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine.

Originally Posted by Letter #163

In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any 'story' that is not allegorical in proportion as it 'comes to life'; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life.

Originally Posted by Letter #215

I hope 'comment on the world' does not sound too solemn. I have no didactic purpose, and no allegorical intent. (I do not like allegory (properly so called: most readers appear to confuse it with significance or applicability) but that is a matter too long to deal with here.) But long narratives cannot be made out of nothing; and one cannot rearrange the primary matter in secondary patterns without indicating feelings and opinions about one's material.

Originally Posted by Letter #181

But, of course, if one sets out to address 'adults' (mentally adult people anyway), they will not be pleased, excited, or moved unless the whole, or the incidents, seem to be about something worth considering, more e.g. than mere danger and escape: there must be some relevance to the 'human situation' (of all periods). So something of the teller's own reflections and 'values' will inevitably get worked in. This is not the same as allegory. We all, in groups or as individuals, exemplify general principles; but we do not represent them.

I think that this last qouote reflects the real problem with allegory: that it presents "truths" explicitly

Originally Posted by Letter #131

For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world.

My conclusion would be that it is all a matter of "technique": you must present certain perennial truths, which come from the real world (or revelations) but you can't do that explicitly. Tolkien did state that LotR is about "God and his sole right to divine honour", an honour which Sauron attempted to have; we do have a hallow place, dedicated to the special worship of God by the king:

Originally Posted by Letter #156

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 Luthien 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 Numenorean influence lasted.

Lack of temples, "silent prayers" of the numenoreans - I guess that Tolkien sets out to prove that the best kind of religion is one that is "formless", devoid of possible hypocrisy - true only in the heart. I will end my post with a quote from what is to me the most relevant christian text:

Originally Posted by Gospel of Thomas

Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.
If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

[Aaron]

Gospel of Thomas? Can people actually get a hold of that? i thought the Vatican locked it away or something.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

In letter #156, Tolkien specifically tells us that the Third Age is not Christian - the world at that time only has a "monotheistic natural theology". So I think that the 'clues' to christianity ought to be looked for somewhere else than in direct representation of christian events or ideas; there are two main ideas that seem to stand out: Death:

Why do we need to look for 'clues'? Tolkien stated that the Lord of the Rings did not have a message, that he did not wish to preach. There may be elements of Catholicism to be found, amongst the many other things which Tolkien loved and believed in, but they are not there to teach us anything. Tolkien did not want us to search for 'clues'. "We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it is boiled." If we are looking for clues, what are we looking for? Is it to satisfy ourselves of his meaning? Is it to satisfy ourselves of our own meaning? It is the latter.

Now a quick specific. As I've said before, Christianity, Catholicism or any other religion does not have the monopoly on Death. Mortality is the major theme of the Northern myth which Tolkien also loved, this literature dealt in Death. Tolkien's dwelling upon it cannot be taken as a signpost to his religion as it is a deeper and wider concern.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My conclusion would be that it is all a matter of "technique": you must present certain perennial truths, which come from the real world (or revelations) but you can't do that explicitly. Tolkien did state that LotR is about "God and his sole right to divine honour", an honour which Sauron attempted to have;

The full quote does not say that LotR is about God! It goes thus:

In the Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about "freedom"; 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 a God-King and was held to be this by his servants...

So the conflict is, as Scull & Hammond say, about fighting the 'ultimate evil', worship of Sauron and Morgoth. Well, we all know that. Perhaps Tolkien was being naughty by putting God instead of Eru, but in that world Eru IS God, we must all cast aside our earthly religions (or not) and accept that in Tolkien's created world, there is Eru and he's the boss.

[Raynor]

Tolkien stated that the Lord of the Rings did not have a message, that he did not wish to preach.

I don't think we should disregard the previous quotes I gave about the intended motives. As he said, one can't write a story for adults concerning only danger and escape.

As I've said before, Christianity, Catholicism or any other religion does not have the monopoly on Death. Mortality is the major theme of the Northern myth which Tolkien also loved, this literature dealt in Death. Tolkien's dwelling upon it cannot be taken as a signpost to his religion as it is a deeper and wider concern.

I think that at least the two of us have gone through this before; neither I, nor anyone else on this site, as far as I am aware, ever claimed that a single idea or event is uniquely Christian; I actually considered including this statement in my previous post, but I deleted the paragraph, I didn't think it was necessary .

So the conflict is, as Scull & Hammond say, about fighting the 'ultimate evil', worship of Sauron and Morgoth.

I am sorry for the blunder, it was not intended. Thanks for the correction.