# Tolkiens Battle: Myths and Faith



## Ancalagon (Aug 7, 2003)

The elements within Tolkiens work are such that they appeal to a wide audience, not the least of that audience are those very much in tune with their own spirituality. However, the distinct difference for me regarding the spiritual aspects of his books and those of say, The Bible, is that a singular ’Holy Spirit’ is not a dominating factor in Tolkiens realm, but a multiplicity of spiritual activity, as diverse and potent as the next. 

This to me is important as it is a defining example of how Tolkien wanted to differentiate his work from what could have easily become another predominantly Christian parable. Tolkiens attempts to address spirituality throughout his entire work is fascinating to follow, especially in relation to Elves; reincarnation and rebirth. However, this is not so evident in the Lord of the Rings itself as this was a simple tale, far removed from his deeper, more significant writings. In truth, Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth reveals more about Tolkiens own Christianity that any other singular work he created. 

Tolkien himself was a wonderfully intense and spiritual man whom I feel struggled with his own Christianity in the process of creating his mythology. This was not in any way unique, as every person of faith struggles with their own beliefs throughout their lifetime, however I think for Tolkien, the difficulty lay mainly in disregarding his own beliefs for those pagan myths that specifically influenced his own creation and led to the near completed works he left behind. An astounding feat in my own humble opinion.

Discuss.


----------



## Eriol (Aug 8, 2003)

I find it interesting that you used the word "struggle" to describe Tolkien's relationship with his faith, Ancalagon... I never saw it like that. My own views on this matter are more or less like this: Tolkien's first tales were heavily pagan, influenced by his readings of North-European mythologies and also by Greek mythology (I think his "pantheon" is very similar to the Greek; I don't know much about other pantheons to know whether this is a general characteristic of panethons or something that Tolkien's share with the Greeks alone).

I call this phase his "carefree phase". The Tales in BOLT 1 and 2 all belong to that. "Carefree" does not mean that he did not take his works seriously; rather it means that he had no thought about making it consistent with his faith. He was "devising an English mythology". From this carefree phase the seed of all his work sprouted.

I think Tolkien went into a "doubting phase" when writing, or perhaps slightly after publication, of LotR; again, "doubting" is related to the faith/myth relationship. He began to realize that his works would be read by many; and LotR is an intensely ethical story in itself. Of course, we all know that he disliked allegory; he never tried to make any allegory, and quite probably was consciously trying to avoid it. However, he began to get "fidgety" about the faith/myth relationship; he began to try to make his world believable by "a mind who believes in the Blessed Trinity", as he stated on a Letter.

At this stage the Valar lost their status of Gods and became Angelic Powers; Eru became more of an active God (the "unseen author of the story in LotR"); Melkor, of course, was always a strong Christian symbol, and something not seen in the Greek pantheon, for instance (as I said I don't know much about others...). We begin to see prayers to Elbereth, mirroring (perhaps unconsciously) his Marian devotion. He was slowly trying to make his myth fit in with his faith; but I never perceive it as a "struggle"...

I think the last stage is what I would call the "philosophical" phase; the Athrabeth is the high mark of that, as well as Myths Transformed. At this point, it is my belief that Tolkien was quite consciously trying to make his myth more consistent with Christian mythology; a major difference between the two (as he acknowledged in a letter, if I'm not mistaken, a few years after LotR was published) is that Men are originally immortal in Christian mythology. I don't think it is any surprise to see Andreth defending this very Christian idea in the Athrabeth, as well as the Hope of the Incarnation of Eru. 

This is how I always viewed Tolkien's creative process; and this is why I marvel at your description (and Nóm's assent) that his creation is somehow "at odds" with his faith, and that a struggle is involved (if I'm understanding you correctly). I don't think his works show a "disregard for his beliefs", quite the contrary; I think that his life of work was mostly an effort to take the pagan, "carefree" seed and make it closer to Christian mythology.


----------



## Ancalagon (Aug 11, 2003)

I would question your interpretation Eriol to some degree, the consideration that The Athrabeth somehow reflects Tolkiens attempts at creating a Christian Mythology is somewhat baffling and basically unfounded. One question I have for you: what exactly is 'Christian Mythology'? I would suggest you have a read at Walter's post in the Wiki describing The Athrabeth as it touches upon the essence of my thoughts on the authors conflict. It can be viewed here, though I suspect from Walters point of view may not yet be completed to his own satisfaction as I know he has ponderd this issue many times, as we all have. 

I hope we can continue this debate in the near future, possibly with the thoughts and ramblings of others who wonder about the author, not simply his work.


----------



## Eriol (Aug 11, 2003)

Perhaps it is unfounded, I don't know. But Christian mythology, especially according to Catholicism (mostly expressed by St. Augustine), is _almost exactly_ like the Tale of Adanel. Men created free and immortal; seduced by Satan/Melkor; abandoning God; gaining death as a result of that; repenting and striving to achieve reunion with God. 

I've talked with Walter about this. I don't like his stance, especially the dichotomy between "Catholic" and "educated"; I think Tolkien would find this insulting. I know I do. 



And I think _that_ is completely unfounded. If the Athrabeth brings Tolkien's mythology _closer_ to Christian myth, as I believe, then there is no dichotomy, only an approach. He could have brought it even further away from Christian myth than it already was, and yet he chose to make it closer. 

I can't see any grounds for a struggle between Tolkien's "educated" intellect and his Catholicism, from the Letters at least. He seems an extremely devout Catholic.


----------



## Elu Thingol (Sep 6, 2003)

> _Posted by Ancalagon_
> However, the distinct difference for me regarding the spiritual aspects of his books and those of say, The Bible, is that a singular ’Holy Spirit’ is not a dominating factor in Tolkiens realm, but a multiplicity of spiritual activity, as diverse and potent as the next.



I don't quite get your meaning Anc. The 'Holy Spirit' is part of the trinity and can be taken as God himself. So I take it that you are saying that Eru is not a dominating factor in Tolkien's realm and merely takes the 'step back and watch' approach to ME. This is clearly not the case, as demonstrated by Gandalf's ressurection. The fact alone that the reason Manwe is Lord of the Valar, is because he is closest to the mind of Eru, shows us that the 'Will of Eru' is what takes precedence on ME. So in a sense the 'Will of Eru' takes the place of the 'Holy Spirit'. 

Evidence of this 'Holy Spirit' in ME is extremely prevalent. Everything from the succesful destruction of the ring- an event which by all means should never have happened- to Pippin's victory over the Black Captain is evidence of such a 'Holy Spirit'. I honestly don't see how you could have overlooked such an integral part of Middle Eart Anc.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 6, 2003)

Elu, I think with the logic displayed thus far, I never will comprehend such a blinkered view of Tolkiens creation...which of course is only pioneered by the Christians among us. Enlighten me, provide me with evidence that Tolkien wrote the Holy Spirit into the fabric of his mythology and not some piffle about how the Holy Spirit has guided his hand, for Tolkiens work is not the bible, even though you seem eager to consider it somehow as the revised version! And while you are at it, Eriol too for that matter, explain to me where in Tolkiens works we have a saviour, who lays down his life in order to open the gates of Heaven for man. Gandalf is not the Son of Man, nor is he the way, the truth or the Light, he is a Maia, sent to contest the rule of Sauron. Through him, Men do not gain entry to Eru. In truth, there is none that come to Eru through any other in Arda, but for Men themselves.


> The first Voice we never heard again, save once. In the stillness of the night It spoke, saying: 'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'*The Athrabeth*


It amuses me immensely when people try to compare Gandalf's death and ressurection to the crucifixion and ressurection of the Son of God. Would Tolkien have made the comparison? Would Tolkien, a devout Catholic that he was rewrite the most significant and sacred event in Christian history into his mythology? Surely to do this would be sacrilegious in the eyes of the Catholic faith?


----------



## Elu Thingol (Sep 6, 2003)

I actually find your post lightly amusing Anc. Nowhere was I saying that LOTR is indeed the scripture rewritten. I was merely disproving your statment that there is no "Holy Spirit" like figure in LOTR. Neither was I using Gandalf's resurrection as a comparsion to Jesus Christ's. I was simply showing that Eru, does in fact, interact directly with Middle Earth after the destruction of Numenor. I am merely stating that there is a 'Holy Spirit' like figure in ME and that is the 'Will of Eru'. I was actually waiting for an argument against this, instead of your superficial attack.


----------



## Ancalagon (Sep 6, 2003)

My apologies Elu, I misinterpreted your reference to Gandalf!

However, I am still at odds with the influence of Eru's 'holy spirit' or similar entity, for to Manwe does not represent Eru in this manner, nor do any of the Valar. I am sure you could present a case which I would be more than willing to consider


----------



## Confusticated (Sep 6, 2003)

> ...a multiplicity of spiritual activity, as diverse and potent as the next.



I agree with Ancalagon on this. Because these tales of the creation and of the elder days are from the elvish perspective and elves were in close contact with the Valar, we see the roles of many mighty spirits in these early days of Arda. And while the elves knew of Iluvatar, it was the actions of the Valar which they saw most directly, and we hear about it. However, I have not read the Bible so I do not know to what extent there is only a singular spirit dominating throughout. I can only imagine that in it there is God and men, whereas in Arda there is God, Ainur, elves and men... a hierarchy allowing for filtration of the will of Iluvatar and holiness, and Iluvatar seems more obscure than his creatures... he is not put up front and often only alluded to. Even in LotR, Gandalf's vague tale of his reincarnation is an example of this.

Surely one can see this without being blind to the existance of the will of Iluvatar.



> This to me is important as it is a defining example of how Tolkien wanted to differentiate his work from what could have easily become another predominantly Christian parable.



I do not know if Tolkien included the Valar and elves for this purpose in mind, but it seem possable. But regardless of that, seems it is a role they do serve. The Valar and elves not only make this different, but for me the elves in specific are what makes Arda so appealing. They are in my mind, pretty much the ideal people. Though I say that as a lover of nature and artistic skill... things in which the elves excelled. I also like the idea of the Valar... the idea of Manwe the spirit of the air and Ulmo of the water. It is all very spiritual and _Earthly_, and earthly appeals to me. But the elves and Valar, they serve a link that interests me in Tolkien's mythology far more that Christianity. As a reader, the elves are to me much as they were to the Edain, and that has a lot of implications beyond my ability or desire to explain.



> Tolkiens attempts to address spirituality throughout his entire work is fascinating to follow, especially in relation to Elves; reincarnation and rebirth. However, this is not so evident in the Lord of the Rings itself as this was a simple tale, far removed from his deeper, more significant writings



I agree, I suppose this is because LotR is not an elvish tale. 



> This was not in any way unique, as every person of faith struggles with their own beliefs throughout their lifetime, however I think for Tolkien, the difficulty lay mainly in disregarding his own beliefs for those pagan myths that specifically influenced his own creation and led to the near completed works he left behind. An astounding feat in my own humble opinion.


I think about this too, and especially when I read the Athrabeth. But not because I believe as some do that Tolkien was fixing the mythology in with Christianity, but because the writing just makes me wonder what Tolkien was thinking, though I'd rather not guess here in public what that might have been. But how someone could have wrote all of this stuff and keep their own different faith... it is a wonder.


----------



## Eriol (Sep 7, 2003)

I never said that Tolkien's work is a rehashing of the Bible. I said that there was no struggle between his work and his faith, and that the work of "adaptation" of the legends to Christianity -- a process which I (for one) can see clearly in the evolution of the stories, from the Books of Lost Tales to the later writings, is an indication that Tolkien did NOT see his work as contrary, opposed, or inimical to Christianity. There was no "struggle".

Perhaps this is baffling and basically unfounded . But I would be careful to state that about your own views before getting a good grip of what you meant. Tolkien never "disregarded" his Christian beliefs, not even in what I called his carefree phase. His mythology was supposed to be believable (as mythology) to a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity. 

The naive parallelisms between Gandalf/Aragorn/Frodo and Christ I abhor, too. But I never stated anything of the sort. I just said that Christian mythology and Tolkien mythology are very similar, and I am very reluctant to think that this was a result of unconscious forces, or coincidence. Tolkien knew very well what he was doing. 

If we wrote a list of 'similarities/differences' between the two mythologies, I bet (though I never did it ) that the similarities would win handily -- and they would win in the most important points as well. If I discuss Tolkien with a Christian theologian or informed layman (and I _have_ done that), a person who never read anything about it, the guy is usually amazed at the similarities. And I don't even have to talk about the explicit symbolism of dates (December 25th, March 25th, etc.). The presence of a "Satanic" figure, of a creator "outside" nature, of "angels", of a "Fall" of Men, etc. etc. are very noticeable for a Christian-based mind; and quite unlike other mythologies, or what I know of them (which is admittedly not much  ). Tolkien knew that. And he was apparently pleased with it. Why call it a "struggle" then?


----------



## jallan (Sep 27, 2003)

I quite agree for the most part with your exegesis, Eriol.

As to the matter of “struggle”, Tolkien‚s inability to complete _The Silmarillion_ is partly his defeat in a struggle to constrain the wilder and freer visions of his younger self into the vision of the more restrained and very careful author he had become with the additional pressure of having to be theologically correct.

Do Orcs have souls? Does Huan have a soul? How can moon and sun created from fruit and flower be accomodated to any scientific view of earth and sun and moon?

While the young Tolkien could invent freely in an unformed world the older Tolkien was imprisoned by the imaginings of his younger self in a continuity so tightly woven than any change in one area had repercussions throughout.

The struggle was only in small part religious.

But it ended with Tolkien deciding that his Silmarillion material could only be accepted as a garbled and distorted set of legends preserved by Men within the a more true history of his legendarium, a true history that he could not make fit either.

Tolkien once stated that you have to make the map first and have the story follow it rather than working the other way because it then becomes impossible to make the map fit.

This somewhat applies to the metaphysics (and physics) of Tolkien‚s universe. Things began to leap out at him and bother him and people wrote letters to him and began to question the philosphical underpinnings of his tale.

Tolkien was not always able to come up with answers that were entirely satisfactory.

As Ancalagon stated:


> ... Tolkien wanted to differentiate his work from what could have easily become another predominantly Christian parable.


I agree, though I don‚t think this was altogether a conscious choice. George MacDonald whose works were loved by the younger Tolkien and hated by old Tolkien showed the way in part with tales that had a Christian ambience about them but also a feeling of something _other_ to them and which were usually not at all specifically Christian on the surface.

Tolkien wanted to write like MacDonald and Morris (and Morris was not Christian at all though Morris was deeply moral).

Christian fantasy dates from The Shephard of Hermas which almost dates to apostolic times through the Arthurian Grail stories, "Dante‚s poems of Hell, Purgatory and Paradise, ’Pearl‚, John Milton's _Paradise Lost_ and John Bunyan‚s _Pilgrim‚s Progess_ to some of the writings of Tolkien‚s contemporary C.S. Lewis.

Tolkien avoided such hardcore Christian background. From Christopher Tolkien‚s notes to “Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth”:


> ’The first fall of Man, _for reasons explained_, nowhere appears.‚ What were those reasons? My father must have been referring to the beginning of his letter, where he wrote of the Arthurian legend that ’it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion‚, and went on:
> 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, nor in the known form of the primary ’real‚ world.


Only in ’Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andredth‚ does J.R.R.T. tread into this territory which he had earlier thought to be fatal in some way the kind of success in a story he was looking for.

We do not know whether Tolkien thought ’Athrabeth‚ to be a success or failure, only that he did have some mixed feelings about it:


> Query: Is it not right to make Andreth refuse to discuss any traditions or legends of the ’Fall‚? Already it is (if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity. Any legend of the Fall would make it completely so?


Tolkien‚s work naturally exemplifies his own philosphy and feelings. As he was a Christian, so his fictional work must be in part Christian in philosphy though not necessarily explicity so. But it also contains as much paganism as a believer in the Holy Trinity could fit into it. That proved a difficulty: powerful supernatural beings that could not really be worshipped or act as pagan gods do and yet are not pure servants of God as Jewish and Zoroastrian and Christian angels are.

Tolkien puts in Elves and as Nom points out these have no counterparts in Christian theology or thought, or Jewish theology or thought, or Zoroastrian theology or thought.

And as Nom points out much of the attractiveness of what Tolkien wrote comes from elements which are indeed non-Christian (without being anti-Christian). One might call them extra-Christian elements meaning elements which have no relation one way or the other to Christianity.

One bone that Tolkien readers have with some Christian commentators who comment on _The Lord of the Rings_ ithat they don’t appear to be able to see anything but Christian reflections and parallels.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Oct 1, 2003)

> _Ancalagon wrote..._
> 
> The elements within Tolkiens work are such that they appeal to a wide audience, not the least of that audience are those very much in tune with their own spirituality. However, the distinct difference for me regarding the spiritual aspects of his books and those of say, The Bible, is that a singular ’Holy Spirit’ is not a dominating factor in Tolkiens realm, but a multiplicity of spiritual activity, as diverse and potent as the next.



I believe that Tolkien's work is unique.

He took a hodge podge of words that had been abused in the English language (dwarf, elf, etc.)... he went back and studied those words as a Philologist... and he asked himself, "what were the REAL THINGs that these words got attached to?... and what were they REALLY like?"

Then he took some of the best concepts and premises from pagan myth... and he asked himself... "What if there were more than just a grain of truth in these stories... What were the REAL THINGS that these stories might be degenerated reflections of...?"

And yet... he was a Christian... A 'old-school' conservative Catholic that would frighten our modern PC society. All of his ideas were molded to fit within the framework of his Christian beliefs. He believed in Christ's birth, etc. as being undeniable facts of reality... and I don't think he could create an imaginary history in which Christ never existed. His mind was too made up about these things. He slipped up in some places in his little 'hobby'-- and agonised over his these 'errors' for years.

Nevertheless, his stories are set in 'The Real World'. He created an _imaginary history_ to reconcile a great many fun ideas with 'The Truth'. A great many difficult Theological issues arose during the revision process. And he failed to work _everything_ out to his satisfaction....

But I think he got 90% of the fundamentals good and square with the Truth. This gives him a huge edge over other writers in my mind-- and it's the reason why Tolkien's work is so loved. There is something within the human spirit that hungers for the Truth... and Tolkien's work points towards it successfully-- without getting preachy or moralistic!!!


----------



## jallan (Oct 4, 2003)

Goroshima posted:


> I believe that Tolkien's work is unique.


Of course it is, in the sense that everyone’s work is unique.

But he is not the first Christian to write fantasy that has not been preachy and which have been appreciated and liked by non-Christians.


> He took a hodge podge of words that had been abused in the English language (dwarf, elf, etc.)... he went back and studied those words as a Philologist... and he asked himself, "what were the REAL THINGs that these words got attached to?... and what were they REALLY like?"


Tolkien himself denied that his creative ideas came from research about historical truths, pointing out that his Elves are not particularly like the creatures of folklore, that his Orcs are not the demons called Orcs in Old English and so on.

Not a single thing in Tolkien’s legendarium springs from any kind of scientific philological research. Not a single thing.

From Letter 144:


> ‘Elves’ is a translation, not perhaps now very suitable, but originally good enough, of Quendi. They are represented as a race similar in appearance (and more so the further back) to Men, and in former days of the same stature. I will not here go into their differences from Men! But I suppose that the Quendi are in fact in these histories very little akin to the Elves and Fairies of Europe; and if I were pressed to rationalize, I should say that they represent really Men with greatly enhanced aesthetic and creative faculties, greater beauty and longer life, and nobility – the Elder Children, doomed to fade before the Followers (Men), and to live ultimately only by the thin line of their blood that was mingled with that of Men, among whom it was the only real claim to ‘nobility’.


You will find nowhere any statement by Tolkien (other than when playing the game of being a recorder of ancient records) that he thought either that his Elves and Orcs and Dwarves actually existed or that they were intended to be scholarly reconstructions of what these beings were actually like in lost traditions. 

Shippey exagerates and followers of Shippey exagerate what Shippey states.


> Then he took some of the best concepts and premises from pagan myth... and he asked himself... "What if there were more than just a grain of truth in these stories... What were the REAL THINGS that these stories might be degenerated reflections of...?"


Do you mean us to understand that Tolkien believed the earth was once flat, the sun was made from a fruit, the moon from a flower, that Atlantis was real and so forth?

Or do you mean us to understand that Tolkien had a theory that there was once a people somewhere who thought that the sun was made from a fruit and the moon from a flower and that Atlantis fell becaue its king tried to conquer a land of divine beings in the west?

What parts of Tolkien’s legendarium describe REAL THINGS of which pagan lore is a degenerated reflection?


> On the side of mere narrative device, this is, of course, meant to provide beings of the same order of beauty, power, and majesty as the ‘gods’ of higher mythology, which can yet be accepted – well, shall we say baldly, by a mind that believes in the Blessed Trinity.


There is no suggestion of REAL THINGS or philological research.

From Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy-Stories”:


> We may put a deadly green upon a man’s face and produce a horror; we may make the rare and terrible blue moon to shine; or we may cause woods to spring with silver leaves and rams to wear fleeces of gold, and put hot fire into the belly of the cold worm. But in such “fantasy,” as it is called, new form is made. Faërie begins; Man becomes a subcreator.


Also:


> I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And it was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark _Of Faërie_ written plain upon him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Otherworld. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faërie.


Tolkien speaks of subcreation of what never existed, not of REAL THINGS that once existed which he is trying to reveal. Tolkien was a fantasy writer, not a male Madame Blavatsky.


> A 'old-school' conservative Catholic that would frighten our modern PC society.


Tolkien’s ideas and thoughts as revealed in his letters are hardly done justice by this categorization. How many would be _frightened_ by the majority of his ideas?

Most people looking through his letters find individual points of agreement and disagreement. There are many thoughts and ideas he expresses that were out of tune with his own time but are quite PC today.

But I find PC to be an abused term. What is politically correct today in a particular startum of society or portion of society may change tomorrow and change again the next day.

Yet in his letters we find Tolkien’s strong anti-imperialism, his hatred of consumer Americanist society, hatred of racism, his sympathy and support for minority cultures and languages, his strong ecological feelings and his general anti-war sentiments. He was mostly cynically apolitical, but he might even fit today as a member of the Green Party.


> All of his ideas were molded to fit within the framework of his Christian beliefs.


Do you think he had no ideas that were neither Christian or non-Christian or ideas upon which Christians (often vehemently) disagree? Elves and Dwarves as Tolkien envisions them are hardly Christian or non-Christian. They are imaginary peoples. Tolkien’s invented names and languages are neither Christian or non-Christian.


> and I don't think he could create an imaginary history in which Christ never existed.


Well he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to create an imaginary history of a world in which Christ could not exist. On the other hand he did _not_ bring Christ and Christianity into the two works for which he is best known.

What is there in _The Hobbit_ to indicate a Christian background? There is Christian imagery in _The Lord of the Rings_, even imagery that might be specifically Roman Catholic imagery. But it is far from impressively obvious. Much of the moral tone that attracts is not _especially_ Christian. Tolkien’s world is almost a world without prayer for one thing. That is most unreligious.

_The Silmarillion_, published after Tolkien’s death is monotheistic. But how would a comentator know from that work whether the author was Christian or Jewish or Moslem or Zoroastrian or simply a Deist? Tolkien’s history doesn’t fit with with any kind of literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis which some Christians would claim must be literarlly believed by true Christians.


> But I think he got 90% of the fundamentals good and square with the Truth.


Perhaps you should use the word _feel_ instead of _think_. Can you present this _Truth _ to us and define what these _fundamentals_ are and then show how the calculatated result of _90%_ was arrived at?

Examinination question: what things make up the 10% of Tolkien’s “fundamentals” that are wrong and how are these fundamentals wrong? Be sure to mention Tom Bombadil on one side or the other or both.


> There is something within the human spirit that hungers for the Truth... and Tolkien's work points towards it successfully-- without getting preachy or moralistic!!!


Or there is something in the human spirit that hungers for fantasy, as Tolkien himself indicates in his essay _On Fairy Stories_, and Tolkien’s work provides that.

Yes Tolkien succeeds because his tales ring true despite the fantasy or are at least vivid and evocative enough to allow the reader to suspend disbelief in such things as Frodo’s curse on Gollum so happily coming to conclusion at the last moment. Fantasy can contain truths. But it is wrong to ingore the fantasy elements as unimportant.

Is the efficy of curses (at least when backed by machine of spiritual power) part of Tolkien’s Truth? Certainly both Christians and pagans (and others) have believed in such things and many still do. Many Chistians and pagans (and others) do not believe in such things in reality but enjoy such things in tales.

Factually I don‚t think readers of Tolkien are drawn to either the Christian religion or Roman Catholicism within the Christian religion. How many readers of his books have changed their religion because of those books?

Why should they? There’s no relation between Tolkien’s epic romances and accepting Christ as a redeemer, accepting the Virgin Mary as an intermediary, believing in the Trinity, believing in transubstantiation, believing in Papal Infalibility, keeping the Sabbath, praying regularly, confessing one’s sins regularly, generally obeying the church and everything else that make up Roman Catholicism.

There is nothing in _The Hobbit_ or _The Lord of the Rings_ of the rules and ordinances and beliefs that separate Christian from Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Shintoist, Buddhist, pagan and Deist. 

We see a world in which Providence opperates behind the scenes but this Providence does not at all seek worship. Providence rather helps (on occasion) those who selflessly help themselves and doesn’t seem to care very much about religious rules or ordinances or customs.


----------



## Walter (Oct 22, 2003)

jallan posted: 


> Tolkien himself denied that his creative ideas came from research about historical truths, pointing out that his Elves are not particularly like the creatures of folklore, that his Orcs are not the demons called Orcs in Old English and so on.
> 
> Not a single thing in Tolkien’s legendarium springs from any kind of scientific philological research. Not a single thing.



And yet such a claim – not verbatim, though - is made independently from each other by Verlyn Flieger and Tom Shippey, both can - like yourself - be considered philologists and well respected Tolkien scholars, IMO. 

Tolkien himself mentions the _leaf-mould of his memories_; when explaining the invention of the name “Gondor” in Letters #324:



> Nonetheless one's mind is, of course, stored with a 'leaf-mould' of memories (submerged) of names, and these rise up to the surface at times, and may provide with modification the bases of 'invented' names.



and in Letters #165 he writes



> If I might elucidate what H. Breit has left of my letter: the remark about 'philology' was intended to allude to what is I think a primary 'fact' about my work, that it is all of a piece, and fundamentally linguistic in inspiration. The authorities of the university might well consider it an aberration of an elderly professor of philology to write and publish fairy stories and romances, and call it a 'hobby', pardonable because it has been (surprisingly to me as much as to anyone) successful. But it is not a 'hobby', in the sense of something quite different from one's work, taken up as a relief-outlet. The invention of languages is the foundation. The 'stones' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows. I should have preferred to write in 'Elvish'. But, of course, such a work as The Lord of the Rings has been edited and only as much 'language' has been left in as I thought would be stomached by readers. (I now find that many would have liked more.) But there is a great deal of linguistic matter (other than actually 'elvish' names and words) included or mythologically expressed in the book.



In this part he also seems to be referring to the "tower-allegory" in _Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics_, which in itself can be considered a strong hint that Tolkien indeed used historical facts as well as other mythological tales as "stones" for his "tower" (or "inspirations" for his legendarium). 

Or his statement in _A Secret Vice_ that _…language construction will breed a mythology_, I would consider to be in the same vein.



> You will find nowhere any statement by Tolkien (other than when playing the game of being a recorder of ancient records) that he thought either that his Elves and Orcs and Dwarves actually existed or that they were intended to be scholarly reconstructions of what these beings were actually like in lost traditions.


Probably not, but since we know that Tolkien did not particularly like the Celtic fairies and only very little material about the Germanic Elves is provided e.g. in both Eddas it would seem likely to me that this “lack of information” was rather inspiring for Tolkien's fantasy and his sub-creation.



> Shippey exagerates and followers of Shippey exagerate what Shippey states.


Now, I'm neither a linguist nor a philologist, so I can't judge, but would it be too bold to ask for some examples what Shippey exaggerates, since this statement appears a little too "general" to be correct, IMO?

Now, I do not think either, that Tolkien 

_…took a hodge podge of words that had been abused in the English language (dwarf, elf, etc.)... he went back and studied those words as a Philologist... and he asked himself, "what were the REAL THINGs that these words got attached to?... and what were they REALLY like?_,

but we know that he - of course - did some professional philological research, and also that it appears this provided him with some "food" for thought" and inspired his fantasy. Like the Old English poem "The Whale" (a Modern English translation by R.K. Gordon can be found on the same site [2]), which inspired Tolkien to his poem "Fastitocalon" (in _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_; c.f Letters #255). Or the Battle of Maldon which gave Tolkien the inspiration to write _The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth_. 


On the other hand the philological research within his professional work (e.g. Sigelwara-land) was - due to its nature of dealing with a remote past - often highly speculative and I would think that the criticism of such publications from his fellow philologists was often not really encouraging, whereas elaborating on these issues within his sub-creation was probably more satisfying for Tolkien.

But I do think there's also some truth in the latter part of Goroshimura's statement above _ and he asked himself, "what were the REAL THINGs that these words got attached to?…_I think that Tolkien - like the German philosopher Cassirer and the Inkling Barfield thought there was indeed some truth in those myths (unlike Lewis who thought myths as "lies breathed through silver", or Müller - and his Solar Mythology - who seems to have thought myths to be a disease of language: misinterpretations and misconceptions). Not "historical truths", though, but some ancient semantic unity of words and corresponding myths (which came into being at the same time as the very first language itself)…


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 22, 2003)

> He was mostly cynically apolitical, but he might even fit today as a member of the Green Party


Due to that, by one of his own statements, I dont' know in where, it was sent to me by a forum member some time ago, he said he was leaning towards being an anarchist ("meaning less government not bearded men with bombs. . ." or something like that), I doubt this. . .But I just like to quote that because it's about how I feel about politics, and it is a whole other discussion. . .



> Perhaps you should use the word feel instead of think.



I think he thinks it or he wouldn't have posted it. . .that doesn't mean he can prove it. I don't often have proof for what I think. . .though I think he at least thinks he can prove it though I doubt he can prove it to you, though he might possibly be able to prove it to someone else. . .



> Or there is something in the human spirit that hungers for fantasy, as Tolkien himself indicates in his essay On Fairy Stories, and Tolkien’s work provides that.



Yes, I agree with that. However, I think you will find essential truths in Tolkien's work. You can't write what you don't believe in, in some ways. I mean, I never believed that cats talked, but I've written about talking cats. However, I do very much believe that children are a gift from god, and it is hard to find a section of my writing where I did not convey this. (unless I managed to avoid children all together somehow).



> How many readers of his books have changed their religion because of those books?



More than a dozen. Less than a hundred. .. just a vague estimate because I like the word vague tonight. . .Though I do notice that more Christians seem to read Tolkien than a lot of other fantasy.



> There is nothing in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings of the rules and ordinances and beliefs that separate Christian from Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Shintoist, Buddhist, pagan and Deist.



I think I could disprove this at least for half of those listed. . .but I'd have to take them one at a time and do a REALLY in depth thing one at a time. . .which I don't feel up to. It'd take long posts and lots of research.



> We see a world in which Providence opperates behind the scenes but this Providence does not at all seek worship.



I think there are some signs in seeking worship. . .but not worship so much as emulation. Eru desires that his followers create as he does. In our earth God desires that we love as he does. 

Both involve copying the maker. 



> doesn’t seem to care very much about religious rules or ordinances or customs.



I think if we knew the truth, beyond a shadow of a doubt, about God and could not deny it, neither would we. . .As for rules, I dont think you mean morality, for there is a general sense of morality within the works of Tolkien. I could point out a few examples. 

Incest is generally looked down upon. (there are three cases of this, actually. . .and incest may not be the right word because two cases involve cousins. One where Maeglim knew he could not marry his and another where a king did despite that it was "not done")
Lying is generally looked down upon. 
Murder.
etc.

I think Tolkien wrote from the heart and we got what we got.


----------



## jallan (Oct 23, 2003)

I fully agree with what you say, Walter about the way Tolkien worked and how words inspired him.

Your remark:


> ... it would seem likely to me that this “lack of information” was rather inspiring for Tolkien’s fantasy and his sub-creation


Yes. Lack of information can be very inspiring. One wants to fill in the gaps. Also at least one motif entered Tolkien’s _Lord of the Rings_ because of Tolkien’s disatisfaction with its handling in Shakespeare’s _Macbeth_. One can also be inspired by what one doesn’t like.

As to what Shippey exagerates, it is the degree to which Tolkien was trying to recreate a mythology that had once existed.

No such claim appears in Tolkien’s own writings. From the Waldman letter:


> I am _not_ ‘learned’* in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as far as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge.
> 
> * Though I have thought _about_ them a good deal.


Tolkien goes on to talk about the impoverished English mythology that has survived and his wish to create a cycle that would fit and be redolent of the clime and soil of Britain and surrounding lands. But Tolkien _never_ claimed to be attempting in his fantasy works through philology or other methods to reconstruct or restore an actual mythology that had been lost or any single feature of such a mythology or legendary cycle.

Tolkien was not Viktor Rydberg.

Tolkien used parts of what he liked (and even disliked) in mythology and legend creatively to in part build the kind of mythology he himself would have liked to have existed. That is a very different thing. 

Tolkien’s article on _Beowulf_ in part points out that critics had blamed the poet wrongly in that the poet was interested in telling a particular story while many critics were frustrated because they wanted to use that same material in other ways.

Similarly, Tolkien did not write tales that at all attempt to show what prehistoric Europe or the beliefs of the early Germanic peoples might have been like or what the lost legends of England might have been like. He writes of Tuor instead of forging stories that might have been told about Wade. And other than in ‘Athrabeth’ he mostly avoids contentious religious matters.

Tolkien used what he got from mythology and legend for his own purposes with very greater freedom, far more freely than the _Beowulf_ poet did (but we live in an era where originality is expected).

There are of course “truths” of a kind in _Beowulf_ and in Tolkien, but they are not at all the kinds that scientific philology gives you and Tolkien never claimed anything of the sort.

In letter 237 Tolkien points out how little his works mostly derive from philological or scholarly investigation:


> But alas! faced with actual stories people are always more ready to believe in learning and arcane knowledge than in invention, especially if they are bemused by the title ‘professor’. There are no songs or stories preserved about Elves or Dwarfs in ancient English, and little enough in any other Germanic language. Words, a few names, that is about all. I do not recall any Dwarf or Elf that plays an actual pan in any story save Andvari in the Norse versions of the Nibelung matter. There is no story attached to the name Eikinskjaldi, save the one that I invented for Thorin Oakenshield. As far as old English goes ‘dwarf’ (_dweorg_) is a mere gloss for _nanus_, or the name of convulsions and recurrent fevers; and ‘elf’ we should suppose to be associated only with rheumatism, toothache and nightmares, if it were not for the occurrence of _ælfsciene_ ‘elven-fair’ applied to Sarah and Judith!, and a few glosses such as _dryades_, _wuduelfen_. In all Old English poetry ‘elves’ (ylfe) occurs once only, in _Beowulf_, associated with trolls, giants, and the Undead, as the accursed offspring of Cain. The gap between that and, say, Elrond or Galadriel is not bridged by learning.


In short, Elrond and Galadriel and Tolkien’s Elves mostly do not derive from scholarly pondering and certainly not from philology.

In fact I can think of more Elvish beings in some of this material than Tolkien admits here, I am sure just because I’ve had more leisure to so than Toklien had when writing a hurried note. But that proves Tolkien’s point. Tolkienian Elvishness did not come from Tolkien’s obsession with existing lore about such beings. Rather it came from _speculation_ on such lore; but it was creative speculation rather than scholarly speculation. Perhaps it would be better to call it subcreative speculation.

Indeed Tolkien owes as much to Victorian fairy tales like _The Marvellous Land of Snergs_ and _Puss-Cat Mew_ from which Tolkien also took what he liked and enhanced with greater depth.

Tolkien had a great deal of learning of course and that comes through in his works in _The Whale_ and elsewhere. What came out in his work was what his mind and spirit and digested and transformed, just as it is with any writer. That includes his philological interests, which Tolkien felt was the original imputus behind his great subcreated legendarium.

But the fantasy works of his elder contemporary fantasy writer James Branch Cabell show a far more erudite knowledge of medieval and ancient legends and myths than do Tolkien’s works. (This is partly because Cabell is often writing purposeful and humorous pastich of old tales.)

Tolkien was in some ways closer to William Blake.

You end by stating:


> Not "historical truths", though, but some ancient semantic unity of words and corresponding myths (which came into being at the same time as the very first language itself)…


What semantic unity? Certainly Tolkien felt that certain words seemed more suited in their form to their meanings than did others. Most feel that. Tolkien wrote that much quoted sentence:


> There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.


On the other hand nowhere in his linguistic discussions of Elvish or any tongue does Tolkien speak of anything like an original semantic unity between word and thought or word and myth.

Tolkien presents the Elvish languages as developing and changing and doesn’t indicate anywhere that this was a bad thing. Tolkien writes about the speech of the Valar in _The War of the Jewels_ (HoME 11), “Quendi and Eldar” indicating that it was very different from the Elvish speech but not that it was superior. He is very matter-of-fact about it.

Indeed the Valar adopted Quenya.


> The Quendi, first and chief of the Incarnate, had (or so they held) the greatest talent for the making of _lambe_. The Valar and Maiar admired and took delight in the Eldarin _lambe_, as they did in many other of the skilled and delicate works of the Eldar.
> The Valar, therefore, learned Quenya by their own choice, for pleasure as well as for communication; ...


Tolkien writes that changes in the Elvish tongues came in part because of a desire of their speakers to improve their language. He himself preferred Quenya or Sindarin according to his linguistic mood at the moment. His world was the richer for having both.

I see _nothing_ in Tolkien that suggests he was stuck on the idea of a lost original unity of language and perception though he may have entertained such ideas at times. Most people do.

But Tolkien mostly looked to a variety of possible linguistic expressions and styles: Quenya from Finnish and Latin, Sindarin from Welsh, Adûnaic and true Khuzdul resembling Semitic languages along with the Old English names and Hobbit personal and place names chosen for resonances they have in modern English. And he threw in the Old English Rohirric names.

This is aesthetic creativity and an appreciation of aesethetic creativity in the changing of languages in part through the will of the speakers to choose particular words or pronunciations or ways of saying things and through historical accidents that provide particular perceptions to particular peoples.


----------



## Neneithel (Oct 23, 2003)

I don't see a conflict in Tolkien's works between Christian and pagan thought. Christianity stands on pagan foundations. Pre-Christian ideas fit better with Christianity than many people think. Tolkien, as a myth weaver, knew that just as I, a Christian druid know it. What I see in Tolkien's writing is not tension and conflict, but a soul soaring without false restrictions. His work is utterly Christian, but also has pre-Christian threads running through it, much like the Bible itself. 

Neneithel


----------



## Goro Shimura (Oct 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *
> 
> Not a single thing in Tolkien’s legendarium springs from any kind of scientific philological research. Not a single thing.
> ...



You are correct that I am exaggerating Shippey... but I think you are misconstruing/misinterpreting my point. (My writing must not be very clear.) 

1) Middle Earth is not a "fairy land". LotR is set in the far past of our own world.

2) The author of the book pretends to be compiling the tale from historical records-- The Red Book of Westmarch, information from Rohan and Gondor preserved by the Brandybucks and the Tooks, etc.

I don't think Tolkien believed necessarily that the Atlantis myth is true. I don't think that tolkien thought that his story was true in an objective historical sense. (Of course not!) 

I do think that his work is uniqe in that he reconciles myth with a moderately plausable history-- while upholding a solid core of Christian values and principles AND not getting to far into something that is blatantly heretical. That's difficult... unusual... wonderful... unique!

[It's unique as opposed to derivative. (The greater bulk of fantasy and science fiction can be derivative of Tolkien's mythos-- but with the Christian principles eliminated or deformed.)]


LotR is probably the greatest and most well crafted _eucatastrophe_ in english literature. That particular word cannot be defined without reference to the Gospel of the New Testament.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 24, 2003)

> Christianity stands on pagan foundations.



Only if you count Judaism as Paganism, which most people don't. The religion guild, while it lasted, had at least one arguement about something similar to this, Christianity being founded on Mystery Cults, and to me the side that said it wasn't seemed to have the upper hand. 

I think the Paganism that you'd be referring to would be the sort of the Druids, as that is what you are, and other Anglo-type-things (boy, that sounds intelligent, Anglo-type-things. . .) Christianity didn't really come to England early enough that they were too intermixed, other than a few holidays. Pagan influence in Christianity would have to be Middle Eastern-Asian or at least Meditranian. . .which would have no impact on Tolkien writing a myth for England.



> I don't think Tolkien believed necessarily that the Atlantis myth is true.



Personally, I've always wanted to believe that it was. . .at least parts of it. . .I'd settle for it being a retelling of the Minoian civilization going BOOM, but I think the timing is wrong. . .and I think I misspelt Minoan. . .Urg. . .Crete. . .blah.


----------



## Neneithel (Oct 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *Only if you count Judaism as Paganism, which most people don't. The religion guild, while it lasted, had at least one arguement about something similar to this, Christianity being founded on Mystery Cults, and to me the side that said it wasn't seemed to have the upper hand. *


*

I make no such claim, but before Judaism there were other religions, pagan ones. The worship of Asherah, a goddess, survived for quite a while after Judaism began. If you believe in an eternal God, which I do, you have to accept that pagans worshipped Him first.




I think the Paganism that you'd be referring to would be the sort of the Druids, as that is what you are, and other Anglo-type-things (boy, that sounds intelligent, Anglo-type-things. . .) Christianity didn't really come to England early enough that they were too intermixed, other than a few holidays. Pagan influence in Christianity would have to be Middle Eastern-Asian or at least Meditranian. . .which would have no impact on Tolkien writing a myth for England.

Click to expand...


No, paganism has been the basis of all religions, if you assume that animism is pagan in nature (and most people seem to). I was not referring to druidic paganism, that is entirely different to the later Anglo-Saxon sort (I love both, since both cultures had a great gift for story-telling, but they are very different). Tolkien was inspired a lot by Anglo-Saxon myth, rather than druidic matters (he found Celtic myth strange and disjointed). Christianity took route here in Roman times, although it was not the main religion for some time. Christianity here borrowed a great deal from pagan thought and now a lot of pagans, consciously or otherwise borrow from Christianity. 

Neneithel*


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 24, 2003)

From a draft letter from JRR Tolkien to Carole Batten-Phelps, Autumn 1971,


> Of course the book was written to please myself (at different levels), and as an experiment in the arts of long narrative, and of inducing 'Secondary Belief'. It was written slowly and with great care for detail, & finally emerged as a Frameless Picture: a searchlight, as it were, on a brief episode in History, and on a small part of our Middle-earth, surrounded by the glimmer of limitless extensions in time and space. Very well: that may explain to some extent why it 'feels' like history; why it was accepted for publication; and why it has proved readable for a large number of very different kinds of people. But it does not fully explain what has actually happened. Looking back on the wholly unexpected things that have followed its publication - beginning at once with the apprarance of Vol. I - I fell as if an ever darkening sky over our present world has been suddenly pierce,d the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again. As if indeed the horns of Hope had been heard again, as Pippin heard them suddenly at the absolute _nadir_ of the fortunes of the West. _but How?_ and _Why?_
> I think I can now guess what Gandalf woudl reply. A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten (though I believe he was well-known). He had beenmuch struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate _The Lord of the Rings_ long before its time. He brought one or two reproductions. I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before and was not well acquainted with pictorial Art, he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Suddenly he said: 'Of course yo don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?
> Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.


Is this Tolkien admitting the influence of The Holy Spirit in his work?


----------



## Walter (Oct 24, 2003)

posted by jallan:


> Yes. Lack of information can be very inspiring. One wants to fill in the gaps. Also at least one motif entered Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings because of Tolkien’s disatisfaction with its handling in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. One can also be inspired by what one doesn’t like.


I suppose you are referring to the "Birnam Wood Stratagem" and, given what a lasting impression the loss of a single tree at the Sarehole mill had caused, it is not hard to imagine what kind of emotions the idea of some thousands of soldiers fulfilling Malcolm's order and hewing down boughs from the trees caused in Tolkien, the environmentalist at heart. This _shabby use_ sure was one of the reasons for Tolkien's intense dislike of Shakespeare. But on the other hand it is also one of the hints that philology indeed played some role - however important or not - in Tolkien's inventions:


> But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are composed of philology, literature and life. They owe their name to the eald enta geweorc 2 of Anglo-Saxon, and their connexion with stone. Their part in the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of 'Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill': I longed to devise a setting in which the trees might really march to war. And into this has crept a mere piece of experience, the difference of the 'male' and 'female' attitude to wild things, the difference between unpossessive love and gardening.


Probably some philological research on the _eald enta geweorc_, the "old work of giants" a phrase found in _Beowulf_ (2774) or _The Wanderer_ (87), was what had inspired his phantasy during his study of these Anglo-Saxon poems. Maybe also the wish to make a better use of trees than Shakespeare had made...

Maybe I haven't read or understood Shippey well enough, but I didn't notice him claiming that _Tolkien was trying to recreate a mythology that had once existed_. Tolkien himself claims that he had wanted to create a mythology he could _dedicate to … his own beloved country … to England_, and with this he was referring probably to the Anglo-Saxon England rather than Britain. And especially in the "Lost Tales" and the "Lost Road" we can see many references to actual history and actual (=traditional) mythology. But most of these references were abandoned sooner or later, by Tolkien himself and replaced by pure fantasy.
However, I can't seem to recall anything from Shippey that goes beyond the claim Tolkien himself made. What Shippey - IMO - mainly does is to point out those parts in older mythologies which seem to have influenced Tolkien to a certain degree (some more, some less).



> Tolkien used parts of what he liked (and even disliked) in mythology and legend creatively to in part build the kind of mythology he himself would have liked to have existed. That is a very different thing.


Of course, I fully agree with this. 



> In fact I can think of more Elvish beings in some of this material than Tolkien admits here, I am sure just because I’ve had more leisure to so than Toklien had when writing a hurried note. But that proves Tolkien’s point. Tolkienian Elvishness did not come from Tolkien’s obsession with existing lore about such beings. Rather it came from speculation on such lore; but it was creative speculation rather than scholarly speculation. Perhaps it would be better to call it subcreative speculation.


Indeed! I'm not as familiar with Old English material as I would like to be, so I can't say much about this part, but especially in the "Germanic" (since Tolkien disliked the term "Nordic") material we have very little material about the _âlfar_. In the Eddas they are often - rather stereotypically - mentioned in one breath with the Aesir, but beyond that not much seems to be found, not even Jacob Grimm, who was a rather diligent collector of material, presents us with much more. On the other hand this left Tolkien with quite some room for -creative - speculation. 



> What semantic unity? Certainly Tolkien felt that certain words seemed more suited in their form to their meanings than did others. Most feel that. Tolkien wrote that much quoted sentence:
> 
> 
> > There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
> ...


Probably this quote could be taken as a hint towards such a semantic unity. I think it is safe to assume, that Tolkien had indeed read Barfield's _Poetic Diction_ (it is mentioned by Carpenter in _The Inklings_ I think) and he seemed very impressed by it. Both Barfield - in _Poetic Diction_ - and Cassirer - in _Philosphie der symbolischen Formen_, a small part of which is translated as _Language and Myth_ - are trying to trace back the origin of words as far as possible. Barfield approaches the issue a little more from the poetical side, whereas Cassirer takes a philosophical (supported by results of ethnological and ethnographical studies) approach. Both end up with the conclusion that in their earliest origins, words where inseparable from accompanying myths, a separation of those two only occurred later when language developed towards something more abstract and rational. Of course this theory is not widely accepted neither nowadays nor among Tolkiens contemporary philologists, e.g. Ogden, in his _The Meaning of Meaning_ takes a rather different path…


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 24, 2003)

> If you believe in an eternal God, which I do, you have to accept that pagans worshipped Him first.



This could be a huge off topic discussion. . .but I'll just keep it short and say, not necessarily. I do believe in an eternal god and I believe he had followers who followed him since the begining of time and that they never were what could be classified as pagan. Pagan would suggest, normally, a polytheistic (usually though not always) religion that follows a god other than that of one of the three main religions (in other words a group for which, I believe, Islam uses the more weighted term of infidels). If one was worshipping the true God and the true God is the God of Christianity/Judaism, then one could hardly be a pagan, even if there are involved pagan traditions.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tolkien had pagan influences in his work. He read pagan myths. It would be silly to say there was no influence. However, I believe you're wrong on the part of this that is off topic.


----------



## jallan (Oct 25, 2003)

Goroshimura posted:


> I do think that his work is unique in that he reconciles myth with a moderately plausable history-- while upholding a solid core of Christian values and principles AND not getting to far into something that is blatantly heretical. That's difficult... unusual... wonderful... unique!


I don’t see that Tolkien at all *reconciles* myth with any kind of plausible history.

The earliest tales of his legendarium *are* imitation mythology and the later tales are imitation legend, all more-or-less as plausible or implausible as the folk mythology and literary mythology and folk legends and literary legends that Tolkien imitates.

There is no reconciliation. Tulkas is not much more believable than Thor and pagan notions found by Tolkien to be incompatible with monotheism or reasonably normal morality are mostly dropped, not reconciled.

(Ossë’s violence is one exception.)

As to upholding Christian values, if you mean the moral values of purported Christian society, most of these are hardly peculiar to Christians.

See The Negative Confession for one early example of pagan morality.

William Morris also upheld moral values in his tales though he himself had rejected Christianity. 

If you mean Christian _religious_ values, it is significant that Tolkien set his tales in a pre-Christian world which avoids the problem stated by Tolkien in the Waldman letter referring to the Arthurian legend:


> For another and more important thing: it is involved and, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
> 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. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. ....)


Tolkien himself attempted an Athurian cycle in verse and perhaps found in this the difficulty he mentions. Bringing the supposed true religion into fantasy fiction tends to create imitation saint legend, a genre with a certain charm and interest but obviously polemical and propagandistic. 

If Frodo in his distress had prayed to God and was obviously answered, we would have had a more Christian work and that would have appealed to a much smaller audience.

But in heroic romances we seldom find much religion beyond the conventional pieties. Instead we find fays and powerful magicians and giants and enchanted beasts who are mostly outside the religious structure, even though the religious structure is occasionally used to explain things. Divine intervention doesn’t occur much outside of the Grail stories. Protagonists are more heroic than pious.

Tolkien once called his work _fundamentally Christian_ as it is in the sense that it fits with what Tolkien himself saw as essential Christianity in an imaginary pre-Christain world and presents visions and ideas that were very much part of Tolkien’s Chrstianity (but mostly not _only_ part of Tolkien’s Christianity). 

Yet it is possible for reasonable Christians to disagree with some of what Tolkien seems to be saying. See The Mythology of J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien himself mentions that too much looking at the theological implications of his work was probably taking it too seriously.


> (The greater bulk of fantasy and science fiction can be derivative of Tolkien's mythos-- but with the Christian principles eliminated or deformed.)


Hardly true, certainly not true for science fiction which is mostly not derivative of Tolkien at all. Nor is it true for all fantasy. And bluntly, someone reading _The Hobbit_ or _The Lord of the Rings_ who knew nothing of Christianity would find in it few or any principles that would make that reader understand anything much about Christianity. Even monotheism of a kind is only indicated in a single Appendix.


> LotR is probably the greatest and most well crafted eucatastrophe in english literature. That particular word cannot be defined without reference to the Gospel of the New Testament.


Nonsense. It was so defined.

The word _eucatastrophe_ was created by Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy-Stories” as a new technical literary term:


> But the “consolation” of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite – I will call it _Eucatastrophe_. Tolkien then goes on to describe what he means more fully.


Only much later does Tolkien use the word as already defined by him in reference to Christianity:


> The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man’s history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation.


This is _not_ definition but use.

Also, you are using the word incorrectly. _The Lord of the Rings_ contains an eucatastrophe. It is not itself a eucatastrophe. (Considering all the bad fantasy that it has spawned there are some who think it in fact a catastrophe.)

Walter posted on Tolkien’s mention of philology along with literature and life in creation of the Ents. But _eald enta geweorc_ applied to large stone structures is a commonplace of legend, as Tolkien would certainly have known. Large surviving stone monuments are often attributed to giants in folklore and legend.

Tolkien’s use is almost a perversion. 

Again we see Tolkien manipulating subcreatively and imaginatively rather than attempting to determine through philology what _Ent_ might have once meant. From Tolkien’s “A Guide to the Names in _The Lord of the Rings_” under _Ent_:


> It is actually an Old English word for ‘giant’, which is thus right according to the system attributed to Rohan, but the Ents of this tale are not in form or character derived from Germanic mythology.


Tolkien knows the difference. True philology is seen in this discussion by Jacob Grimm in Grimm’s Teutonic Mythology, Chapter 18: Giants:


> One AS. term for giant is ent, pl. entas: Ælfred in his Orosius p. 48 renders Hercules gigas by ‘Ercol se ent’. The poets like to use the word, where ancient buildings and works are spoken of: ‘enta geweorc, enta ærgeweorc (early work of giants), eald enta geweorc,’ Beow. 3356. 5431. 5554. Cod. exon. 291, 24. 476, 2. So the adj.: ‘entisc helm,’ Beow. 5955; Lipsius&#8217s glosses also give eintisc avitus, what dates from the giants’ days of yore. Our OHG. entisc antiquus does not agree with this in consonant-gradation [it should be z]; it may have been suggested by the Latin word, perhaps also by the notion of enti (end); another form is antrisc antiquus (Graff 1, 387), and I would rather associate it with the Eddic ‘inn aldni iötunn’ (grandævus gigas), Sæm. 23ª 46b 84b 189b. The Bavarian patois has an intensive prefix enz, enzio (Schmeller, 188), but this may have grown out of the gen. of end, ent (Schm. 1, 77); or may we take this ent – itself in the sense of monstrous, gigantic, and as an exception to the law of consonant-change? They say both enterisch (Schm. 1, 77) and enzerisch for monstrous, extraordinary. And was the Enzenberc, MS. 2, 10b a giant’s hill? (18) and is the same root contained in the proper names Anzo, Enzo, Enzinchint (Pez, thes. iii. 3, 689c), Enzawîp (Meichelb. 1233. 1305), Enzeman (Ben. 325)? If Hûnî alluded to Wends and Slavs, we may be allowed to identify entas with the ancient Antes; as for the Indians, whom Mone (Anz. 1836, 1. 2) would bring in, they may stay outside, for in OHG. itself antisc, entisc (antiquus) is distinct from indisc (Indicus), Graff 1, 385-6; and see Suppl.





> However, I can't seem to recall anything from Shippey that goes beyond the claim Tolkien himself made.


It seems to me that on reading Shippey’s mostly excellent book I found statements that suggested Tolkien was indeed attempting to recreate a mythology that once existed. Certainly some readers of Shippey wrongly think they get this from Shippey.

I will recheck.


> I think it is safe to assume, that Tolkien had indeed read Barfield's Poetic Diction (it is mentioned by Carpenter in The Inklings I think) and he seemed very impressed by it.


That is the story.

It may be quite true.

But Tolkien’s _Silmarillion_ mythology was already very fixed in form before he ever met Barfield and before _Poetic Diction_ was published.

Now if someone could show that Tolkien’s _later_ revisions were made in accordance with Barfield’s theories ...

Tolkien’s “The Etymologies” was created later as part of a major reworking of his languages. But it does not especially avoid abstract meanings in the Elvish stems or create words from metaphors.

The quotation from _The Hobbit_ is the only case where I see what is likely to be particular influence from Barfield. Other supposed parallels that I’ve seen noted were (as far as I can recall) trivialities which were not especially Barfieldian.

But I have not read Flieger’s _Splintered Light_ which I understand makes a case that Tolkien was very influenced by Barfield.


----------



## Walter (Oct 29, 2003)

I'm not quite sure what your point is, jallan, if it is that Tolkien's profession as a linguist and philologist does not show in his legendarium, we will simply have to agree to disagree...

Indeed, Flieger in _Splintered Light_ makes this case and the way she presents it, sounds plausible to me, even if the degree of Cassirer's or Barfield's influence on Tolkien may be hard to estimate...


----------



## jallan (Oct 31, 2003)

Walter posted:


> I'm not quite sure what your point is, jallan, if it is that Tolkien's profession as a linguist and philologist does not show in his legendarium, we will simply have to agree to disagree...


This is _no_ point of mine. I don’t see how anything I said could be taken to mean something that silly.

It is obvious enough in reading _The Lord of the Rings_ that its author has a great interest and sensitivity to words and names and knows a lot about Germanic philology and language.

My quarrel was with Goroshimura’s statment:


> He took a hodge podge of words that had been abused in the English language (dwarf, elf, etc.)... he went back and studied those words as a Philologist... and he asked himself, "what were the REAL THINGs that these words got attached to?... and what were they REALLY like?"


Tolkien didn't.

Tolkien never claimed he did this.

Christopher Tolkien never claimed his father did this.

All the philological studying in the world won’t get you Tolkien’s Elves. It will only get you relationships between words derived from Proto-Germanic *_albhiz-_ and the possibility (which some affirm and some deny) that this root derives from Proto-Indo-European *_albho-_ meaning 'white, shining'. See albho-

This _might_ have suggested the appearance of Glorfindel in _The Lord of the Rings_. If so, he only uses the motif once in his entire legendarium. _All_ the rest is a mixture from literature and folklore and Tolkien’s imagination which is the most important element.

Tolkien did not ask what Ents were REALLY like. A philological study of the word _Ent_, such as the one I cited by Jacob Grimm, doen’t lead anywhere close to what Tolkien made _Ent_ mean in his writing. Tolkien accordingly advised translators:


> ... the Ents of this tale are not in form or character derived from Germanic mythology.


E.g. turning to meanings of this word in existing texts won’t shed _any_ light on Tolkien’s creation. He used the word _Ent_ creatively rather as the results of any scientific philological research might indicate.


> Indeed, Flieger in Splintered Light makes this case ....


What is _this_ case? That Tolkien thought his Elves and Ents were REAL THINGS? Or that there was a European people in the past that thought these were REAL THINGS?

Or that Tolkien looked at the word _Elves_ and from _philological_ speculation invented his _Eldar_? 

Even the word is different.

Tolkien’s philology shows in creativity and the versimilitude of his names and the words he provides from other tongues he invented. His skill in this is one of the things that makes his lengendarium so convincing compared to the comparitively weak and arbitrary nomenclature in most fantasy writing.

This is the results of Tolkien’s philology.

It is not in the reconstruction of what Tolkien thought were formerly REAL THINGS. He wasn’t a nut who went about calling on Elbereth.

He didn’t necessarily believe that Atlantis had ever existed or that, if it did exist, that his story of its fall was at all historically accurate. What he did write about Númenor did not come from philology though he used his knowledge of words and language to create a more credible Númenorean language than a non-philologist would have done and (as usual) his names seem right.

Tolkien had a wonderful ear for words and names.

I don’t see how I can make my point more plain about the role that philology actually played in Tolkien’s legendarium.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Nov 4, 2003)

*Legend, Myth, Reality, Faith...*

Here are some well known passages that I believe have a great deal to do with the matters we are discussing. I especially like what Treebeard has to say about all of this!! It seems to me that the themes that we are discussing now were discussed by nearly every major character....




> The second disappearance of Mr. Bilbo Baggins was discussed in Hobbiton, and indeed all over the Shire, for a year and a day and was remembered much longer than that. It became a fireside-story for young hobbits; and eventually Mad Baggins, who used to vanish with a flash and reappear with bags of jewels and gold, became a favourite character of legend and lived on long after all the true events were forgotten. (FotR p70)





> Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished, and Lothlorien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it away. We must depart into the West or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten. (Galadriel, FotR p472)





> ...We put the thought of all that we love into all that we make. (An Elven Leader, FotR p479)





> But do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know. (Celeborn, FotR p484)





> 'Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?'
> 
> 'A man may do both,' said Aragorn. 'For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day!' (TTT p45)





> Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house. (Aragorn, TTT p50)





> You will get almost a chapter in old Bilbo's book, if ever I get a chance to report to him. (Merry, TTT p 77)





> Real names tell you the story of the things they belong to in my language.... It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time to say anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to. (Treebeard, TTT p85)


----------



## Walter (Nov 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> But I have not read Flieger’s _Splintered Light_ which I understand makes a case that Tolkien was very influenced by Barfield.





> _Originally posted by Walter _
> Indeed, Flieger in _Splintered Light_ makes this case and the way she presents it, sounds plausible to me, even if the degree of Cassirer's or Barfield's influence on Tolkien may be hard to estimate...





> _Originally posted by jallan _
> What is _this_ case? That Tolkien thought his Elves and Ents were REAL THINGS? Or that there was a European people in the past that thought these were REAL THINGS?


No, but that Tolkien was influenced by Barfield (and maybe Cassirer as well)...

Sorry if I didn't separate the paragraphs in my previous post more clearly...


----------



## Freawine (Nov 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> Indeed! I'm not as familiar with Old English material as I would like to be, so I can't say much about this part, but especially in the "Germanic" (since Tolkien disliked the term "Nordic") material we have very little material about the _âlfar_. In the Eddas they are often - rather stereotypically - mentioned in one breath with the Aesir, but beyond that not much seems to be found, not even Jacob Grimm, who was a rather diligent collector of material, presents us with much more. On the other hand this left Tolkien with quite some room for -creative - speculation.



Elves as tall, beautiful and even shining beings is something you can actually get a couple of hints on in the eddic texts and other sources. My problem with it as related to the topic here being discussed is exactly how far did it influence Tolkien or if he was ever aware of much of it.


----------



## jallan (Nov 14, 2003)

Freawine posted:


> Elves as tall, beautiful and even shining beings is something you can actually get a couple of hints on in the eddic texts and other sources. My problem with it as related to the topic here being discussed is exactly how far did it influence Tolkien or if he was ever aware of much of it.


I suspect Tolkien was aware of such information as exists about the world _elf_ partly because there is so little information of it. As Tolkien mentions, we have almost no surviving traditional literature that tells us much about _elves_.

Almost all of it is mentioned by Grimm beginning at _Teutonic Mythology_, Chapter 17: Wights and Elves Alberich in the _Nibeglungenlied_ whose name means _Elf-king_ is a dwarf. _Auberon_ (whence Shakespeare’s _Oberon_) king of Féerie in the French _Huon de Bourdeaux_ is the size of a child and _aub-_ at the beginning of his name is usually thought to be Germanic _alb-_ ‘elf’.

Grimm tries to relate the proto-Germanic word *_albiz_ to PIE albho- ‘white’. This is possible but is debated. I’ve seen it flamed as folk-etmology.

Loki and Volundr (Weland Smith) are both called _alfr_ once each which seems to indicate that small size was not essential to Elves. On the other side we have the two dwarf names _Gandalfr_ ‘Wand-elf’ and _Vindalfr_ ‘Wind-elf’.

But Tolkien claimed not to be learned in the matter of folklore in general or about various supernatural folk who might be classed as fairies (or elves). From his essay “On Fairy-Stories”


> As for _diminutive size:_ I do not deny that the notion is a leading one in modern use. I have often though that it would be interesting to try to find out how that has come to be so; but my knowledge is not sufficient for certain answer. Of old there were indeed some inhabitants of Faërie that were small (though hardly diminutive), but smallness was not characteristic of that people as a whole. The diminutive being, elf or fairy, is (I guess) in England largely a sophisticated product of literary fancy.¹
> 
> ¹ I am speaking of developments before the growth of interest in the folk-lore of other countries. The English words, such as _elf_, have long been influenced by French (from which _fay_ and _faërie_, _fairy_ are derived); but in later times, though their use in translation, both _fairy_ and _elf_ have acquired much of the atmosphere of German, Scandinavian, and Celtic tales, and many charateristics of the _huldu-fólk_, the _daoine-sithe_, and the _tylwyth teg_.


Of course the Irish _daoine-sithe_ are mostly conceived of as large in size, though little men are also common enough in Irish folk tales. Similarly the Welsh _tylwth teg_ ‘Fair Folk’ are mostly pictured as normal sized but there are Welsh folktales that also speak of little people.

Note that Tolkien neither here or anywhere claims that all ‘Elves’ of folklore or legend were originally large, though this is often wrongly claimed for him. Tolkien never discusses such a thing. Tolkien only points out that in his own day the words _elf_ and _fairy_ call up primarily associations of diminutive beings and that smallness is not characteristic of the inhabitants of the supernatural world in general in old tales, though certainly small beings do appear.

Indeed they appear quite often.

Tolkien, though not a specialist in folklore, was learned enough to know what he didn’t know. He also consistently and rightly later pointed out that his Elves are not much like similar beings in folklore.

I also cannot recall any Elf or Fay of legend who appears as a shining being in original texts, though I would not be surprised if one or two were found somewhere which I do not now recall. (But describing beings glowing with light seems to be quite normal in _modern_ retellings of old Irish legend.)

But except in one case, that of Glorfindel, Tolkien’s Elves do not appear as shining beings.


----------



## Walter (Nov 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> Grimm tries to relate the proto-Germanic word *_albiz_ to PIE albho- ‘white’. This is possible but is debated. I’ve seen it flamed as folk-etmology.


Indeed, but in his elaborations on the origins of the name (p365-7, esp. p367, in the original version of 1875) Jacob Grimm, with his "folk-etymology", is not all that far off the conclusions in the current _American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots_:


> *albho-* White. *1. * Possibly Germanic *_albiz, *albaz_, elf, if meaning "white ghostly apparition." *a.* ELF, from Old English _ælf_, elf, also in such personal names as: _(i)_ ALFRED, from Old English _Ælfræd_, "elf counsel" (ræd, counsel; see *rē-*); _(ii)_ OLIVER, from Old English _Ælfhere_, "elf army" (_here_, army; see *koro-*); *b. * OAF, from Old Norse _alfr_, elf; c. _(i)_ AUBREY (personal name), from Old High German _Alberich_ (French _Auberi_), "ruler of elves" (_-rih, -rich_, ruler; see *reg-1*); _(ii)_ OBERON, from Old French _Auberon_, from a source akin to Old High German _Alberich_. Both _(i)_ and _(ii)_ from Old High German *_alb_, elf. *2. * ELFIN, from Old English -_elfen_, elf, possibly from Germanic *_albinjo_. *3. * ABELE, ALB, ALBEDO, ALBESCENT, ALBINO, ALBITE, ALBUM, ALBUMEN, AUBADE, AUBURN; DAUB, from Latin _albus_, white. [Pokorny _albho-_ 30.]


Tolkien seems to have had this in mind too, when he wrote "The History of Eriol or Aelfwine", where he once mentions Albion (Alban, Albion were the first names of England) for Luthany and - unlike many other "historians" - Tolkien rather seems to draw the connections to Elves than to the giant Albion (like Holinshed, Monmouth, Warner, etc.), the princess Albina or the Albans (Trojans).

Also, in "The History of Eriol or Aelfwine" Tolkien seems to make a clear distinction between Celtic and Germanic mythology as can be gathered from Christopher's comment:


> It is then said, somewhat inconsequentially (though the matter is in itself of much interest, and recurs nowhere else), that Eriol told the fairies of _Wóden, Þunor, Tíw_, etc. (these being the Old English names of the Germanic gods who in Old Scandinavian form are _Óðinn, Þáorr, Týr_), and they identified them with Manweg, Tulkas, and a third whose name is illegible but is not like that of any of the great Valar.
> Eriol adopted the name of _Angol_.
> Thus it is that through Eriol and his sons the _Engle_ (i.e. the English) have the true tradition of the fairies, of whom the _Íras_ and the _Wéalas_ (the Irish and Welsh) tell garbled things.





> _Originally posted by jallan _
> Loki and Volundr (Weland Smith) are both called _alfr_ once each which seems to indicate that small size was not essential to Elves. On the other side we have the two dwarf names _Gandalfr_ ‘Wand-elf’ and _Vindalfr_ ‘Wind-elf’.


Loki is a rather ambiguous character of the Germanic mythology, most of the time he is in close connection with the gods, but always the source of trouble and mischief and eventually the cause of their doom. Though he is generally considered one of the Aesir, in the Gylfaginning he is said to be the son of the giant Farbauti and to have been "adopted" by the Aesir, but occasionally he also seems to be considered a "god of the fire" (Bellows) or an "elf of the fire" (Heusler, Genzmer).


----------



## jallan (Nov 15, 2003)

Walter posted:


> Indeed, but in his elaborations on the origins of the name (p365-7, esp. p367, in the original version of 1875) Jacob Grimm, with his "folk-etymology", is not all that far off the conclusions in the current American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots: ...


Indeed.

I don’t know the exact issues for and against connecting Germanic elf words to PIE *_albho-_. I do recall having seen strong statements against the connection indicating a strong controversy on the matter.


> Tolkien seems to have had this in mind too, when he wrote "The History of Eriol or Aelfwine", where he once mentions Albion (Alban, Albion were the first names of England) for Luthany and - unlike many other "historians" - Tolkien rather seems to draw the connections to Elves than to the giant Albion (like Holinshed, Monmouth, Warner, etc.), the princess Albina or the Albans (Trojans).


The reference in full is:


> How the Faring Forth came to nought, and the fairies took refuge in Albion or Luthany (the Isle of Friendship).
> Seven invasions.
> Of the coming of Men to Luthany, how each race quarrelled, and the fairies faded, until [?most] set sail, after the coming of the Rúmhoth, for the West. Why the Men of the seventh invasions, the Ingwaiwar, are more friendly.
> Ingwë and Eärendel who dwelt in Luthian before it was an isle and was [_sic_] driven east by Ossë to found the Ingwaiwar.


This is hard to put together.

But the Ingwaiwar are of course the Angles and Saxons and Jutes, here presented as the descendants of a certain Ingwë who was contemporary with Eärendel but was driven east by Ossë. This corresponds to the mention of Ing in the Old English rune poem going east in his car.

Is it possible that Ing would have been identified by Tolkien with King Sheave?

If so, then we would imagine him being driven up alone onto a shore in the east as in Tolkien’s later poem. But how would this bring a Germanic stem *_alb-_ into connection with land of Luthany unless Tolkien at that stage of his imagination also thought that Eärendil and Ingwë spoke proto-Germanic or even Proto-Indo-European? In the later poem Sheave speaks in “tongue unknown” but there is no hint that Sheave taught this tongue to the people that he came to rule. Tolkien says:


> ... For a secret hidden
> his true name was, in tongue unknown
> for far countries where the falling seas
> wash western shores beyond the ways of men
> since the world worsened.


So Sheave’s original forgotten name was Elvish, which _Ingwë_ certainly is.

Tolkien may have intended _Albion_ to be the name of Luthany in a Mannish tongue and to mean something like Elfland. But he may also have used the old name of Albion without making that connection only because it is the oldest known name for the island of Britain. If this connection between the name _Albion_ and _Elves_ was intended here, it is odd that Tolkien never mentions it again ... except of course that Tolkien never came close to finishing anything that bears on this matter.

In his later Númenorean imaginings on the Adûnaic language of Númenor, _Nimrî_ ‘Shining Ones’ is a word encompassing Valar, Maiar and Elves. And that language is certainly not Germanic or Proto-Indo-European.


----------



## Freawine (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Loki and Volundr (Weland Smith) are both called alfr once each which seems to indicate that small size was not essential to Elves.*



There's also stanza 17 of _Skirnismál_ in which Gerd asks Skirnir if he's of the Elves, Æsir or Vanir which, I believe, unless gods were of small stature as well, to the audience of the the eddic lay it would seem illogical if Elves were to be small: there would have been some physical resemblance betwen the three races she mentioned.



> On the other side we have the two dwarf names _Gandalfr_ ‘Wand-elf’ and _Vindalfr_ ‘Wind-elf’.



Often it is hard to distinguish the two races, though there are texts in which they are clearly differentiated. I suppose there never was an organized and unanimously uniform tradition about it, even if Snorri tried to simplify it in his _Edda_. Naturally things will tend to be diverse to the point of contradiction.



> I also cannot recall any Elf or Fay of legend who appears as a shining being in original texts, though I would not be surprised if one or two were found somewhere which I do not now recall. (But describing beings glowing with light seems to be quite normal in _modern_ retellings of old Irish legend.)



This is one of the most speculative characteristics, I guess, but the name Skirnir, _shinning one_, might give us a clue. He says he's not an elf, but he also says in the same lay that he and the god Freyr grew up together, and we know from _Grimnismal_ 5 that Njord's son got Alfheim as teething-gift. Also, in another eddic lay - _Vafthrudnismal_ 47 - the sun is named _alfrodul_, which again might indicate an association between light and elves. Can't recall if there's anything on it in Anglo-Saxon names, but I can check that in a couple of days.


----------



## Freawine (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Walter _
> *Loki is a rather ambiguous character of the Germanic mythology, most of the time he is in close connection with the gods, but always the source of trouble and mischief and eventually the cause of their doom. Though he is generally considered one of the Aesir, in the Gylfaginning he is said to be the son of the giant Farbauti and to have been "adopted" by the Aesir, but occasionally he also seems to be considered a "god of the fire" (Bellows) or an "elf of the fire" (Heusler, Genzmer). *



He's even sexually ambiguous . He would not be the only Jotun to be included in the godly group: Skaði's also part of the Æsir, even though her father was not; Snorri also lists Gerð as one of the Asynjur, but she was also originally a Jotun, and I think Frigg's father was also a Jotun. Even Odin's mother, Bestla, was a daugther of a giant named Bolthron, according to Snorri's _Edda_. The word _Æsir_ has a general and a specific meaning: all the gods in general and a specific clan of them of which Odin, Thor and Tyr are part of. In the general sense, it enfolds Æsir, Vanir and Jotunar, the different origins of the several gods. Some of them might even be Elves, or at least half: Ullr's a possibility.


----------



## jallan (Nov 16, 2003)

Freawine posted:


> In the general sense, it enfolds Æsir, Vanir and Jotunar, the different origins of the several gods.


In the same sense that that in real life the patrilineal clain would contain wives taken from other clans and some outsiders accepted into the clan and various serf workers who belonged to the clain but were not really of the clan.

Elves might in part fit as divine serfs. 

Actually they fit better as the spirit people among whom the gods are the aristocratic family. But one normally asks a boon of the lord of the household not of his retainers though the retainers may be the ones who fulfil the boon and one might have to deal with them separately on occasion.

The Icelanders did peform _alfblot_ ‘elven-sacrifice’ to keep on the good side of such spirits.

Elves then would be a name for all sorts of spirits of land and air and sea and might appear in varous different forms, large and small, beautiful and hideous. Though hideous spirits would be mostly called _trolls_.

They are comparable to the divine beings of Greek mythology who are not descended from Kronos and Rheia but also not among the Earth-born Gigantes, mostly the descendants of Okeanos and Tethys or of Sea (Pontos) and Earth (Gaia). To some of these, such as the satyrs and Dryads there is not tale of their origin.

Unfortunately we don’t know enough to be able to guess whether the Norse would have called a little man who cleaned up your house an Elf or a Dwarf. In modern Danish it would be a trold (from _troll_).

Grimm suggests a connection between _Dark-elf_ and _Brownie_. 

Are the swan maidens caught by Völundr and his brothers supposed to be of Elf-kind? Probably, if you _had_ to classify them. Or are they Valkyries? But what then are Valkyries in origin?

The Alfar would seem to be closer to Tolkien’s Maiar, but then Tolkien imagined that by our age Elves who remained in Middle-earth would have faded and dwindled and become almost pure spirit, normally invisible, and so to humans practrically indistinguishable from Maiar. And there would also be spirits of Elves about who had not heeded the summons to Mandos.


----------



## Freawine (Nov 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> *Elves then would be a name for all sorts of spirits of land and air and sea and might appear in varous different forms, large and small, beautiful and hideous.*



Yes, that crossed my mind. Considering the diversity of traditions and beliefs related to the _alfar_ at one point one does get the idea that the word worked more as a sort of an umbrella term, refering to a wide variety of supernatural beings, deceased relatives included if one's to take a reference in Snorri's _Heimskringla_. Or at least it was a wide enfolding word at the same time it could also work in a more specific sense - as the above mentioned stanza in _Skirnismal_ could imply - just like _Æsir_.



> Are the swan maidens caught by Völundr and his brothers supposed to be of Elf-kind? Probably, if you _had_ to classify them.



Well, he is presented as related to the elves in one or two moments of the eddic _Volundarkvida_, but then again there are so many characters in Norse mythology that are half-something.



> Or are they Valkyries? But what then are Valkyries in origin?



Another good question, especially since the word can also be applied with a certain degree of "freedom", sometimes to more demonic creatures, sometimes more human. Fragmented pieces of an evolving lore that never was organized, centralized and uniform has this sort of things


----------



## Walter (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jallan _
> 
> 
> > How the Faring Forth came to nought, and the fairies took refuge in Albion or Luthany (the Isle of Friendship).
> ...


Very much so...



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> But the Ingwaiwar are of course the Angles and Saxons and Jutes, here presented as the descendants of a certain Ingwë who was contemporary with Eärendel but was driven east by Ossë. This corresponds to the mention of Ing in the Old English rune poem going east in his car.


Yes, but wouldn't _...wæn æfter ran_ seem to indicate that he probably trotted in front of his car 



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> Is it possible that Ing would have been identified by Tolkien with King Sheave?


It doesn't deem me impossible. Together with this part of (24)


> Only Ingwë rescued on a raft. He becomes king of the Angali, Euti, Saksani, and Firisandi,† who adopt the title of Ingwaiwar. He teaches them much magic and first sets men's hearts to seafaring westward...


 and Christopher's note:


> -	The people of Ing(wë) are the Ingwaiwar, and they 'come back to their own' when they invade Luthany from across the North Sea.


this can be seen as Tolkien making a claim that the Anglo-Saxons, respectively their ancestor(s), Ing or Sheave, were the "original rulers" of England long before the Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded the British Isles in the 5th century...



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> But how would this bring a Germanic stem *_alb-_ into connection with land of Luthany unless Tolkien at that stage of his imagination also thought that Eärendil and Ingwë spoke proto-Germanic or even Proto-Indo-European?


Actually I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to linguistics or philology, so I could only speculate (though I do think I remember there was some discussion about that issue in VT quite a while ago). 

What I noticed is that the phrase _eardgeard elfa_, in Alboins Anglo-Saxon dream in _The Lost Road_, "mutates" to _aelbuuina eard_ in "The Notion Club Papers". And there Tolkien had - deliberately as it seems - changed _elþeodigra eard_ as it is found in _The Seafarer_ to _aelbuuina eard_. So, in both cases Tolkien here is referring to what he sees as an early state of England as the "Land of the Elves" resp. the "Land of the Elf-friends" and in the version of "The Notion Club Papers" it resembles - at least phonetically - "Albion", IMO...



> _Originally posted by jallan _
> In the later poem Sheave speaks in “tongue unknown” but there is no hint that Sheave taught this tongue to the people that he came to rule.


What about this statement in the prose part:


> Yet he taught men many new words, and their speech was enriched. Song and verse-craft he taught them, and rune-craft, and tillage and husbandry, and the making of many things;


Wouldn't that count as such a hint?


----------



## Walter (Nov 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Freawine _
> Often it is hard to distinguish the two races, though there are texts in which they are clearly differentiated. I suppose there never was an organized and unanimously uniform tradition about it, even if Snorri tried to simplify it in his _Edda_. Naturally things will tend to be diverse to the point of contradiction.


Yes, though Jacob Grimm in his "Deutsche Mythologie" (transl. By J.S. Stallybrass: Teutonic Mythology) notes


> (The Alvîsmâl enumerates the dissimilar names given to heavenly bodies, elements and plants by various languages (supra, p. 332); in doing so, it mentions œsir, âlfar, vanir, and in addition also goð, menn, ginregin, iötnar, dvergar and denizens of hel (hades). Here the most remarkable point for us is, that âlfar and dvergar (dwarfs) are two different things. The same distinction is made between âlfar and dvergar, Sæm. 8b; between dvergar and döckâlfar, Sæm. 92b; between three kinds of norns, the âs-kungar, âlf-kungar and dœtr Dvalins, Sæm. 188ª, namely, those descended from âses, from elves and from dwarfs; and our MHG. poets, as we see by Wikram's Albrecht, 6, 9, continued to separate elbe from getwerc. (12) Some kinship however seems to exist between them, if only because among proper names of dwarfs we find an Alfr and a Vindâlfr, Sæm. 2. 3. Loki, elsewhere called an âs, and reckoned among âses, but really of iötun origin, is nevertheless addressed as âlfr, Sæm. 110b; nay, Völundr, a godlike hero, is called 'âlfa lioði,' alforum socius, and 'vîsi âlfa,' alforum princeps, Sæm. 135ª,b.


But especially in later myths or folklore _dökâlfar_ and _dvergar_ seem to "melt" into one race...


> _Originally posted by Freawine _
> He's even sexually ambiguous


I don't even want to think about his sexuality, given what his offspring looks like or what is told about how he tried to make Skathi laugh in his tug-of-war with the goat...


----------



## jallan (Nov 18, 2003)

Walter posted:


> What I noticed is that the phrase eardgeard elfa, in Alboins Anglo-Saxon dream in The Lost Road, "mutates" to aelbuuina eard in "The Notion Club Papers". And there Tolkien had - deliberately as it seems - changed elþeodigra eard as it is found in The Seafarer to aelbuuina eard. So, in both cases Tolkien here is referring to what he sees as an early state of England as the "Land of the Elves" resp. the "Land of the Elf-friends" and in the version of "The Notion Club Papers" it resembles - at least phonetically - "Albion", IMO...


I don’t quite see this, because Ælfwine is always conceived as one of the Pre-Norman English living in England. The references seem to me to be to Elvenhome visited on a journey across the sea, not to the England in which Ælfwine lives.

But _aelbuuina eard_ is indeed odd. I didn’t recall that.


> ... this can be seen as Tolkien making a claim that the Anglo-Saxons, respectively their ancestor(s), Ing or Sheave, were the "original rulers" of England long before the Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded the British Isles in the 5th century...


That at least is clear.


> What about this statement in the prose part:
> 
> 
> > Yet he taught men many new words, and their speech was enriched. Song and verse-craft he taught them, and rune-craft, and tillage and husbandry, and the making of many things;
> ...


I thnk that “many new words” indicates clearly that Sheave did not teach the entire Elvish language but only enriched the tongue of the people among whom he appeared with some Elvish words. (One would like to know which ones.)

The difficulty with _albh-_ or something similar as a borrowing from Elvish is that Tolkien has no similar word for Elf in his own Elvish. Tolkien could have certainly created such a form. But nothing appears. Tolkien seems to have been happy to accept the Germanic words for _Elf_ as being of Mannish origin.

Yet it is easy enough to see that in Tolkien’s imagination at that time Britain corresponds to the remnants of Beleriand and that the Ingwaiar are by inheritance from Ing(wë) more entitled to that land than other Men.

But it is hard to see how Luthany could have also been called _Albion_ at the time of Ing’s departure and also have the meaning _Elf-_ for the beginning of the name. 

_Ingaevonic_ is the standard name given to the reconstructed proto-language of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, based on Tacitus’ mention of the “Ingaevones, dwelling next to the ocean;” supposedly named after a son of _Mannus_ ‘Human being, Man’. The genealogy is expanded by Nennius where _Mannus_ is corrupted to _Alanus_ and the presumed father of the Ingaevones to _Neugio_. 

I am happy that Tolkien dropped the nonsense of giving the invading English some sort of mythological charter to rule over the island of Britain but do wish he had been more clear about this mortal man Ingwë before getting rid of him forever.

Now of Christopher Tolkien would only publish his father’s incomplete Arthurian writing ...

Presumably it is not connected at all to J.R.R. Tolkien’s main legendarium but it would be interesting to see how Tolkien there treated the Angles and Saxons.


----------

