# Arthurian legend and Christianity



## _postman (Jun 15, 2010)

Hello

Tolkien is critical of Arthurian legend, partly because it is British (as opposed to English - I think it might be Welsh), and also because, he says, it is too explicitly Christian: “For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal” (_Letters_ 2006: 144). 

Given the Christian message in his book, does that not seem a strange thing to say?

_postman


----------



## Elthir (Jun 15, 2010)

Perhaps the emphasis might be: '_explicitly_ contains the Christian religion'. Tolkien does not elaborate perhaps, but he does continue in the same letter: _'... 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.'_ 

From JRRT's point of view anyway. Also, after noting that _The Lord of the Rings_ is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, Tolkien added (letter 142):

_'That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put...'_


----------



## _postman (Jun 15, 2010)

Hello Galin

Thanks for your well-thought out reply.

So a Christian 'message' is to be advocated, but ought to be done so in a subtle way, that is, through symbolism rather than 'loudly' as in the Arthurian stories.

Thanks for that!

_postman


----------



## Bucky (Jun 15, 2010)

Yes, what Galin said......


----------



## jallan (Apr 24, 2011)

_postman said:


> Hello
> 
> Tolkien is critical of Arthurian legend, partly because it is British (as opposed to English - I think it might be Welsh), and also because, he says, it is too explicitly Christian: “For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal” (_Letters_ 2006: 144).
> 
> Given the Christian message in his book, does that not seem a strange thing to say?



Not at all. Tolkien was undoubtedly thinking of the grail stories which assume that Christianity is true, and also assume that various dubious Christian legends are true. The grail stories rather confusingly mix Christian teaching of their day with folktale material about the maimed king and the wasteland. Tolkien himself *never* pushes Christianity in any of the Middle-earth material published in his lifetime. 

The _Lord of the Rings_ is imagined to take place long before the birth of Christ so how could it have a “Christian” message? The most it might have, and does have, is an underlying morality that is congruent with Christianity. No-one accepts Christ as his or her savior.

I don't believe there is any one message of this or most books, but any messages that one might get out of _The Lord of the Rings_ do not include anything about accepting Christ.


----------



## Mithrandir-Olor (May 1, 2011)

Funny Because Arthurian Legend is just a mixture of Celtic and Norse Mythology element given Christina wrapping, but since Tolkien's beloved Vatican is just Pagan Rome with Christian wrapping, it's understandable he couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## jallan (May 5, 2011)

Mithrandir-Olor said:


> Funny Because Arthurian Legend is just a mixture of Celtic and Norse Mythology element given Christina wrapping, but since Tolkien's beloved Vatican is just Pagan Rome with Christian wrapping, it's understandable he couldn't tell the difference.


 
I am unaware of elements of Norse mythology in medieval Arthurian tales, save for a very small number of shared folk motifs. It would be surprising if there were none. Even in the Middle Ages, Arthurian romances was generally known to be fiction and was far more fantastical than the Arthurian material mostly admitted into the chronicle histories.

Tolkien obviously meant something when he expressed his feeling that medieval Arthurian tales were not what he wanted as a basis for his legendarium. If you read _Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur_ ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/ ), you might appreciate what Tolkien was talking about.

Pagan traditions in the Vatican have nothing to do with it.

Tolkien liked pagan Norse mythology because he liked it, as do many Christians and many non-Christians. He also liked Arthurian tales, but liked Norse mythology better. Like many fantasy authors, he took elements of mythologies that he liked and elements of other authors that he liked and mixed it with his own imagination. Probably this was mostly not conscious, but he could certainly look back at it and see what he had done and could later discuss and analyze why he preferred Norse mythology and works like _Beowulf_ to Arthurian tales and medieval Irish tales.


----------



## Dís (Jan 6, 2013)

We may learn more about that when "The Fall of Arthur" by Christopher Tolkien based on writings by J.R.R:Tolkien appears in summer. 
But the arthurian legends really are a tough bite for mythologists. As far as I am informed there is a celtic king or leader mentioned for "not being Arthur/Artus" in the welsh poem Gododdin, dating back to 600. Everything else, Camelot, Guinevere, Lancelot, Morgan le fay and so on are medieval. Medieval christianity is different from ancient one, it comes over kind of hysterical in parts, mixed with legends but equally with social and historical influences of the time. 
Tolkien didn't want to incorporate christianity in his mythology, he insisted on it being a totally "secondary creation", complete and rounded in itself. To bind it to "primary reality" through faith would mean to destroy the "secondary belief" in his world. People would have had to decide whether they "really" believed it or not, which was neither necessary nor its purpose. He himself once said that it was possible to discern from his works that he was a catholic, but that doesn't mean the work in itself was catholic (just the author) and that should be sufficient reason why Arthur had to stay out of it.
I'm curious to find out, why he obviously did write about Arthur, all the same. Was it that he just couldn't stay away from the one british hero or was he specially interested in his fall? can't wait for summer. :*)


----------



## Grond (Mar 21, 2013)

Three books I would highly recommend (until Tolkien's poem is released on 05/23/2013) are Mary Stewart's trilogy on Arthur. They include The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills and The Last Enchantment. She tackles the legend through the eyes of Merlin and through the eyes of a changing religious landscape. The period is the late Roman/early Dark Ages as Christianity is replacing the old gods of Rome and specifically the Mithraic Mysteries. The mysteries were based on the Persian god Mithra and the Greek god Mithras.

They are great reads in their own right with a good mixture of historical accuracy especially in so far as the religious environs are concerned. Of course, all of the historical references to any characters are fiction. Not a Lord of the Rings but a good read none the less.

Cheers,

Grond


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 22, 2013)

Grond said:


> Three books I would highly recommend (until Tolkien's poem is released on 05/23/2013) are Mary Stewart's trilogy on Arthur. They include The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills and The Last Enchantment. She tackles the legend through the eyes of Merlin and through the eyes of a changing religious landscape. The period is the late Roman/early Dark Ages as Christianity is replacing the old gods of Rome and specifically the Mithraic Mysteries. The mysteries were based on the Persian god Mithra and the Greek god Mithras.
> 
> They are great reads in their own right with a good mixture of historical accuracy especially in so far as the religious environs are concerned. Of course, all of the historical references to any characters are fiction. Not a Lord of the Rings but a good read none the less.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the recommendation. I've just downloaded the Kindle edition (cheaper - 4 books in one).


----------



## Prince of Cats (Mar 23, 2013)

Thanks for the reminder about those books, Grond! A friend recommended them highly to me about a year ago but I had forgotten the names


----------



## jallan (Sep 17, 2013)

Dís said:


> I'm curious to find out, why he obviously did write about Arthur, all the same. Was it that he just couldn't stay away from the one british hero or was he specially interested in his fall? can't wait for summer. :*)



Tolkien’ s version of the Arthurian story does not mention anything about the holy grail, which in the late prose romances had become the main Arthurian adventure. The trouble with putting one’ s own religious beliefs in a fictional story is that it comes across as preaching. Tolkien wished to avoid this. His friend C. S. Lewis saw things rather differently.

In _The Fall of Arthur_ Tolkien was drawing from traditions which were good stories regardless of whether they were of British or English origin. In fact, the versions from which he was drawing were mainly English adaptations of stories written in French. That Tolkien saw Arthurian literature as not quite the right thing for Englishmen to be writing about, in theory, does not change the fact that Tolkien otherwise notes his love of traditional Arthurian literature, and even produced a translation of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” in his _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: Pearl: Sir Orfeo_.

Tolkien was never a hater of all medieval Arthurian writing.


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 24, 2013)

As I understand the primary reason that Tolkien was writing his stories in particular, The Silmarillion, was to provide a history for England. When the Normand's conquered Britain they destroyed the majority of the religious culture of the natives, and imposed there own. Which is why there are so many connections between Arthurian legend and the Carolingian tales. Tolkien was harkening back to an earlier time that would have had a mythos more akin to the original inhabitants. The Brits, Picts, Celts, Anglos, and Saxons. These were primarily more Germanic in heritage. The Cristian tales would have been more imposed on the people, and not of their original heritage. Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been more influenced by the Norse, Nibelung, Danish, and Finnish mythologies. However, Tolkien was fascinated with the realm of Faerie as well. Therefore, there are several episodes pulled directly out of more modern tales, too. All this was mixed together to create that history for England. Below are a few quotes that I have read. I think they are from Tolkien's Letters orignially, but unfortunately I cannot say which ones. If someone could help me on that I would greatly appreciate it. 



> _‘I am interested in mythological invention, and the mystery of literary creation,’ Tolkien once wrote in a letter to a reader. ‘*I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own,* not of the quality that I sought, and found, in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish; but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff.’_





> “I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths - which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. ... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.”


----------



## jallan (Dec 1, 2013)

The traditional history of England begins with the settling to certain Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in what was later called England. This tradition begins with the settling of Hengest the Jute and his brother Horsa and their men who took service as mercenaries under a British king named Vortigern.

It is not known if any of this tradition is historical. Scholars debate the matter.

Tolkien in his early “Book of Lost Tales” identified his protagonist with the father of Hengest and Horsa (called Eriol by the Elves) and gave him a third son by an Elvish wife, named Heorrenda, not known in traditional tales. The Lonely Isle was moved from the Bay of Elvenhome back to the edge of Europe where it remains and is now known as Britain.

Tolkien imagined the story ending with a great battle in which the Elves are defeated and Britain is mostly conquered by Hengest, Horsa, and Heorrenda.

This tale, as planned, in which Britain was brought to its current position in the fifth century is hardly to be called a history. It is quite unhistorical. And even if one includes legends, there is none known before Tolkien in which Britain was originally an Elvish land invaded by Men when it was placed in it current position, and then invaded by the Anglo-Saxons who alone, through the tales brought to Men by Hengest’s father and by his son Heorrenda had Elvish traditions. Tolkien does refer to earlier invasions of Britain by the Guiðlin (Goidels, Scots), the Brithonim (Britons), and the Rúmhoth (Romans) before that of the Anglo-Saxons, but no coherent chronology is provided. Possibly Hengest, Horsa, and Heorrenda and their father are in Tolkien’s imagination immortal.

Tolkien thought better of this and in later writings replaced Eriol by a 10th century Englishman named Ælfwine and in his Arthurian poems portrayed the Anglo-Saxons as originally evil invaders. The Silmarillion in origin derives from a sketch of his mythology written for R. W. Reynolds in 1926 to 1938 in which Eriol, Hengest, Horsa, and Heorrenda do not appear at all and in which the Lonely Isle remains in the Bay of Elvenhome and is unrelated to Britain. See _The Shaping of Middle-earth_ (HoME 4).

For information on Hengest or Hengist see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hengist_and_Horsa , http://kingarthur.wikia.com/wiki/Hengist , and http://kingarthur.wikia.com/wiki/Life_of_Hengist_(charts) .

Sulimo’s first quotation is from letter 131 of _Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien _ to Milton Waldman. Tolkien, in this letter, makes it quite clear that he is talking about legendary material and fairy-stories, not about “a history for England”, as Sulimo would have it. Sulimo does not seem to know the difference between “myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history”, as Tolkien writes in this letter, and “history”. So Sulimo very much misunderstands what Tolkien is writing.

The second quotation is from later in the same letter and discusses some of Tolkien’s ideas for his work.

This letter also appears reprinted in the “Preface to the Second Edition of the Silmarillion”.

Sulimo claims that in an earlier time the people of Britain “would have had a mythos more akin to the original inhabitants. The Brits, Picts, Celts, Anglos, and Saxons. These were primarily more Germanic in heritage.” But Brits, Picts, and Celts were of a different culture than the Germanic Anglos and Saxons with whom Sulimo confuses them. Sulimo claims that “they would have been more influenced by the Norse, Nibelung, Danish, and Finnish mythologies”. More than what? There is no indication the either Celts or Germanics were at all influenced by Finnish mythology and the Nibelungs appear to have been the royal kindred of the people of the Burgundians, not known as the providers of a distinctive mythology. Norse and Danish mythology appear to have been essentially the same. What is Sulimo talking about?

Tolkien makes it clear he is talking about his invented mythology, not about a reconstruction of genuine Old English pagan myths.

Sulimo may think that Tolkien very much regrets that his Old English ancestors were Christian. I very much doubt that. Tolkien quite likely regrets that their originally pagan stories are not preserved, either has originally told or in Christianized form as in German medieval tales.


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 2, 2013)

I guess I spoke to generally in my last post. I was attempting to succinctly explain a large number of concepts, and I apologize if it was confusing or misleading. Allow me to explain myself in more detail, and clear up some miscommunication. Jallan,I will address you directly, I am on here to learn more about Tolkien's world, and I clearly stated at the beginning "*as I understand*". I appreciate your thorough response because it gives all of us an opportunity to learn more about what inspired this exceptional writer. However, I did not appreciate your caustic tone, you sound as if I had poisoned the well or something. I want to make clear that I am not 'learned' in the matters of myth and fairy-story. Primarily because this is a hobby for me, I do this for fun, and I wish to have fun stimulating discourse. However, I digress. 

First and foremost I want to make clear that I was not implying Tolkien was writing a literal history for Britain. I was more saying that Tolkien was upset because the 
traditions and legends of his people have not been preserved. To actually think I meant a literal history is preposterous. However, by having the older stories they do provide a tremendous amount of insight into the culture of the original inhabitants and a much deeper understanding of their values, customs, and morals. To be bereft of that trove of information would be like being culturally robbed. I honestly believe that it was a desire to bring a deeper cultural significance to his people that inspired Tolkien.

When it comes to the ancestral inhabitants of Angle-land I understand that Anglos and Saxons are the ones of Germanic origin. This is where I fell into overgeneralizing to make a bigger point, and I understand why that statement I made could easily appear confusing. The point I was trying to make in more detail is that the pre Normand inhabitants of Britain, some of which came from Germanic Tribes, had a significant cultural influence on Tolkien's work. I used the term more Germanic heritage mostly because the Anglo-Saxons were the first to really establish a kingdom in Britain, but it is true that the Germanic Tribes did not enter Britain until after the fall of Rome. 

I apologize if I did not describe my other point on the degree of influence more clearly. I was not saying that Finnish mythology had a significant impact on Celtic mythology. What I was more saying was that these traditions and legends were being spread throughout a large region. Elements of these varying cultures were picked up and too varying degrees integrated into different mythologies. While Finninsh mythology is very unique there are aspects that are similar to elements of Norse mythology. I believe that these tribes discussed their values, customs, and religious practices. Therefore they would have had an effect on each others religions and cultures. Such as Lemmingkainen from the Kalevala and Balder from the Edda. Both are slain by blind gods, and in both stories one of the parents descends to the underworld to attempt to revive their child. One can also see influences of Norse mythology on the Celts, or Celtic on Norse, with the high number of ring tales present in both mythologies. For instance tales of Draupnir or Andvaranaut and any number of Celtic ring tales throughout the Mabinogion. These cultural influences would have to varying degrees been deeply in place before Christianity came around. My point was more that Tolkien borrowed from all of these traditions heavily. 

While I do not argue that the Nibelung and Dannish (in particular Beowulf) do not necessarily have a complete unique mythology, and are almost entirely influenced by regional cultures be they for the Nibelung: the Huns, Goths, or Scandinavians. I must disagree to the statement that the Norse did not have their own distinctive mythology. That is ludicrous, perhaps you mistyped something there. Also, the only reason why I mentioned Danish tradition was I was thinking of Beowulf, and how that was heavily influential in at least modern scholarship (because of Tolkien) in improving our understanding of the original inhabitants of Britain. 

I am not saying that Tolkien was trying to create a genuine mythology for England. I have no doubt that he wanted to create his own personal mythology that would have reflected many of his favorite elements of surrounding cultures. However, I do also believe that because so much is so heavily based in other myths and legends that I believe he did it intentionally. That raises the question why did he do. Did he do it to bring these stories to the attention of a modern audience, or was it with some hope of leaving a kind of legacy to his homeland? I personally think the answer is all of the above. 

Furthermore, I do not know how on Earth you came up with the below quote. All I meant was that Christianity would not have had an influence on pre Christian Britain. It is true that it would have been brought to them by missionaries before the Normand conquest such as Colombo going to the Picts. However, I meant that certain religious traditions were imposed on the inhabitants after the Normand conquest. That had absolutely nothing to do with his personal feelings on his lineage.



> Sulimo may think that Tolkien very much regrets that his Old English ancestors were Christian...Tolkien quite likely regrets that their originally pagan stories are not preserved, either has originally told or in Christianized form as in German medieval tales.



However, I completely agree with the second part of that. Once more that is why I believe so many characters and scenes are pulled directly from these various mythologies. I hope this somewhat clears up what I stated earlier. I am someone who is very interested in learning much more about Tolkien. I appreciate you referencing the exact letter, and also you posting the link to Hengest and Hengist. I have not checked that out, but I will. I actually stopped using this site for quite sometime because people were not discussing anything particularly interesting to me concerning Tolkien. I could care less whether or not Balrogs had wings. This is the stuff that fascinates me. I hope to continue to read your input, and discuss matters in more detail. If I still need to clarify anything I can. I primarily took each issue you had, and addressed it in a separate paragraph which may come across as somewhat disjointed. Please direct any questions or criticisms my way, and I will be happy to elaborate, but be less caustic. I am not crazy or confused I just to my wife's chagrin overgeneralize too much.


----------

