# Esoteric reading of Tolkien



## Random_Scholar (Mar 30, 2020)

Later when I have read much more history, I have become to see strange allusions in Tolkien's work. My list here:

The Ringwraiths: In the days of Glorious Revolution, there were five parliamentary Ring Leaders who opposed the king of England. Any civilized Briton of Tolkien's generation would have known these.
The Stewards of Gondor: William of Orange was, strictly speaking, the Stadtholder of Holland, rather like a Steward of Minas Tirith. Tolkien is very precise about this king-steward distinction.
Turgon of Gondolin: One of Karl Marx's sources was the bourgeoisie economist Tourgot -> coincidence?
Galadriel and Celeborn: These two resemble the Catholic Monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand, more than anything else.
The elves: The elves are the firstborns of the World, the first children of Ilúvatar. Marx makes a big fuss about firstborns and their privileges in the traditional English system. Moreover, he uses firstborns as an euphemism for capitalists, who enjoy the capital income as a "firstborns's right".
Was Tolkien actually trying to make the point that the elves are the "evil" ones, out of touch with this reality? In this reading, the elves would be the capitalists and the heroes would be, I don't know what, the men and the hobbits, presumably. *Was Tolkien a catholic conservative at all, as is often purported?* Was he actually making a big joke on the readers? He said that he disdained allegory and the War of the Rings should not be read as an allegory of the Second World War, but what if it should be read as an allegory of _older_ history, or several allegories?


----------



## Olorgando (Mar 30, 2020)

I would be very surprised if JRRT used *anything* by Karl Marx as a source, let alone as a source for *allegory* (for which he saw very limited and strictly defined uses).

As to the Glorious Revolution which deposed James II (of England - and Ireland? - , VII of Scotland), replacing him with his daughter (from his first marriage) Mary II and her husband (also James's nephew) William III of Orange, de-facto ruler of the (Protestant) Republic of Holland, none of this would have appealed to JRRT as a Catholic, as it finally cemented Protestant rule over the British Isles, and led to anti-Catholic measures.


----------



## Random_Scholar (Apr 2, 2020)

Maybe you miss the point? Maybe Tolkien wasn't that catholic in the heart... more sort of catholic for the sake of family, for example? I'm not saying I'm serious with these theories, but it's fun to play around. One more theory that is not linked to this liberal/protestant/progressive theory: I propose that the name Baggins derives from Prince Bagration (kind of funny name in War and Peace).

Sure, I don't mean the insult anybody or hurt anybody's feelings. Probably the Tolkien family would have a definitive answer for these theories.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 2, 2020)

I can imagine. . .


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 2, 2020)

Random_Scholar said:


> Maybe you miss the point? Maybe Tolkien wasn't that catholic in the heart...


If you mean by "in the heart" emotionally, I would contradict you in the severest terms!
His mother's death at 34 years of age, when he himself was 8 (in 1904), probably was more traumatizing than his experience at the carnage of the battle of the Somme 1916 in which he was involved. There are far too many letters in Humphrey Carpenter's 1981 "Letters" that contradict your assumption.

Not that I agree with JRRT in most of his opinions (as far as they are known). He wrote a book that even appealed to "Easterlings", amazingly.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 3, 2020)

Random_Scholar said:


> Maybe Tolkien wasn't that catholic in the heart... more sort of catholic for the sake of family, for example?


How about some respect for the dead?


CL


----------



## Random_Scholar (Apr 5, 2020)

CirdanLinweilin said:


> How about some respect for the dead?
> 
> 
> CL



I think Olorgando's comment answers this very well. If JRRT said in his private letters that he was a catholic, then he probably was! I wasn't simply aware of that. There's probably no point in trying to make JRRT a progressive-liberal. All we can say is that he maybe had hard feelings towards the industrial era, and even that may be an over-interpretation. The books are perhaps best read as they are, not as real-world commentary. It's fun to speculate about conspiracy theories, though.


----------



## CirdanLinweilin (Apr 5, 2020)

Random_Scholar said:


> I think Olorgando's comment answers this very well. If JRRT said in his private letters that he was a catholic, then he probably was! I wasn't simply aware of that. There's probably no point in trying to make JRRT a progressive-liberal. All we can say is that he maybe had hard feelings towards the industrial era, and even that may be an over-interpretation. The books are perhaps best read as they are, not as real-world commentary. It's fun to speculate about conspiracy theories, though.


Just making sure is all.


CL


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 6, 2020)

Random_Scholar, you may have fallen into a trap that pretty much all of us have found ourselves in at one time or another.
JRRT's feelings pro nature, especially trees, and against the ravages of industrialization would make him, _in this respect_, a member of the Greens today.
In much else he was certainly what is commonly considered "conservative" - but beware, this is not a monolithic block either!
A simplified matrix would include the two Ls, Liberals and Libertarians, and the two Cs, Conservatives and Communitarians - of which latter the Communists would be the historically most noticed, but not the only ones under this more or less fitting heading. The other three groups would similarly sport several sub-groupings. And as I said, this matrix is simplified.

'Cause then there's this baffling, motley, contradictory, inconsistent rabble that calls itself humanity. There can be aspects in any person's personality and views that look incompatible to an outside viewer, never mind that words and actions sometimes contradict themselves. There can be people who hold themselves to certain strict rules, but are lenient with others. Then ther can be those who want strict rules for _everyone else_, but reject anything of the sort for themselves.

Out of a 2006 book by John Dean, in which he describes himself with some qualifications as a "(Barry) Goldwater Conservative", there is this list - incomplete - for what a conservative magazine, the Washington Times's magazine Insight, considered identifiable factions (of a "dysfunctional family"): Austriocons (or paleocons), Buchanocons, Neocons, Aquinacons, Radiocons, Sociocons, Theocons, Republicons, Catocons, Platocons (and apparently, left off the list, SouthParkCons). Thing is, one will probably hardly ever find any given person who is a "pure" representative of any of the above factions. Most would probably profess sympathies for several factions.

Similar lists may have been collected for other "members" of the matrix I mentioned above, I haven't come across them yet. But I can well imagine something like the following:
for one or the other of the ""cons" - let's just call them "sects" - there will be "sects" among the (theoretical) "libs" which are basically mirror images of one of the "cons" above. "Cons" who feel strongly on one (set of) issues, but are laid-back on others. These latter are the issues that some "libs" might feel strongly about, while they're laid back about issues that their "cons" counterparts feel strongly about.

Now granted, such a perfect "mirroring" of a "cons sect" with a "libs sect" is not very likely. But how often have I encountered the fact that people are able to agree on some topics, but disagree, sometimes extremely, on others. What to do? Depends on agendas. The "dividers", or not to put too fine a point on it, troublemakers, will emphasize the differences. These are the guys with shovels digging like mad to deepen moats of separation. Fewer, as far as I can tell, are the "harmonizers", who emphasize the commonalities. Where this can go bad is if in misguided efforts to harmonize, anything that _disturbs_ a harmony might be declared to be irrelevant. Not good if that stuff considered incompatible with what is viewed to be harmony is something about which (on both sides) people have strong views on. Nobody likes anything that they have emphatic views on dismissed as irrelevant, that's a recipe for trouble.

Agree to disagree. Not the easiest thing to do, nobody needs to tell me that. But perhaps two suggestions:

1) Don't *get* personal. Especially on a basically text-only venues like TTF, you simply do not have even a fraction of the knowledge necessary for personal judgements.
2) Don't *take it* personally. If someone disagrees with what you've written, an opinion, perhaps a wrongly remembered "fact" (by whomever), they're not attacking you. "Are you calling me …" as a response when nothing of the sort has happened is perhaps the worst response I know. I admit that my re-responses to such are often less than benign … 😒


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 6, 2020)

Ahem. May I, broken record that I am, add a

3) Keep the politics outta here?


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 6, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Ahem. May I, broken record that I am, add a
> 
> 3) Keep the politics outta here?


"Politics" being - perceived - criticism of exactly one member, and not the others, of the imperfect matrix I mentioned above, is my growing impression …


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 6, 2020)

I've nothing against discussing Tolkien's political views; it's when it broadens into a general political discussion (read: "argument") that it starts going south. That's been my experience, anyway.

BTW, Random Scholar, sorry for being somewhat dismissive above -- my excuse is that I was in the middle of a bingewatch. You do raise some interesting ideas; I happen to think they're a bit out there, but I've seen others just as odd -- or more so!


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 7, 2020)

I've always liked the British naval tradition of there being no discussion of women, religion, or politics allowed in the mess; definitely would have helped to keep a lid on things on those cramped sailing ships, so I think it's an idea worth updating!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 7, 2020)

Your last two are specifically barred here, as stated on the "Bars and Inns" header. I'm not sure about the first, as we have a number of female members!


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 7, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I've always liked the British naval tradition of there being no discussion of women, religion, or politics allowed in the mess; definitely would have helped to keep a lid on things on those cramped sailing ships, so I think it's an idea worth updating!





Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Your last two are specifically barred here, as stated on the "Bars and Inns" header. I'm not sure about the first, as we have a number of female members!


For the first one the warning applies "proceed at your own risk". Of course, if you enjoy being at the center of a s**tstorm …


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Apr 9, 2020)

Random_Scholar said:


> Later when I have read much more history, I have become to see strange allusions in Tolkien's work. My list here:
> 
> The Ringwraiths: In the days of Glorious Revolution, there were five parliamentary Ring Leaders who opposed the king of England. Any civilized Briton of Tolkien's generation would have known these.
> The Stewards of Gondor: William of Orange was, strictly speaking, the Stadtholder of Holland, rather like a Steward of Minas Tirith. Tolkien is very precise about this king-steward distinction.
> ...



Well... This certainly is “esoteric.”

But every “observation” here would be “False” in *any* comparison to Middle-earth.

Do people just *not read The History of Middle-earth *or *The Letters of JRR Tolkien, *or any of the other Secondary Sources that basically lay out the origins of pretty much all of these things?

MB


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 9, 2020)

The short answer is -- yes.


----------



## Matthew Bailey (Apr 9, 2020)

Random_Scholar said:


> Maybe you miss the point? Maybe Tolkien wasn't that catholic in the heart... more sort of catholic for the sake of family, for example? I'm not saying I'm serious with these theories, but it's fun to play around. One more theory that is not linked to this liberal/protestant/progressive theory: I propose that the name Baggins derives from Prince Bagration (kind of funny name in War and Peace).
> 
> Sure, I don't mean the insult anybody or hurt anybody's feelings. Probably the Tolkien family would have a definitive answer for these theories.



No... Just... No.

Tolkien was about as Catholic as you can get without actually taking up the Cloth (entering the Clergy).

Having spoken to Christopher Tolkien directly, on a couple of occasions (for more than just a “few minutes”) his speech is littered with Catholic phraseology, and theology.

I haven’t ever figured out what this “... maybe in a Parallel Universe...” speculation is supposed to accomplish. But then I’ve always tended towards wanted to understand the reality of the authors who create such works, rather than trying to force it into my specific preconceptions.

Tolkien was a very Conservative Catholic, and from speaking to Christopher, I could tell that ideologically there is a vast gulf between the Tolkiens and myself, where the world that Tolkien and most of his children really wished to occupy was one that doesn’t actually exist (which was the primary reason for JRRT’s ”creation” of Middle-earth in the first place).

Middle-earth is an *Explicitly Catholic World*, where the “Church” is non-existent, because the occupants of it live in accordance with the traditional sacraments as a result of their creation.

This is tremendously difficult to convey to most people (even Catholics and Christians, who tend to, like CS Lewis, “Allegorize” everything”). It was tremendously difficult for me to even get my head around, not being Christian, or being any kind of Religious. I had a bit of a head-start in the subject, having studied Comparative Religion with Joseph Campbell in my Youth, so I knew basically in which “Academic and Theological Direction” I needed to go to discover what the hell Tolkien meant by so many things.

But there is *NOTHING *in Tolkien’s works that has been influenced by anything “Modern,” and _*ESPECIALLY NOT “Postmodern!”*_

One needs to look back to at least the 13th Century to find anything especially relevant, Philosophically, Politically, or Theologically that applies to Middle-earth, and *really *one must look back to St. Augustine, St. Boethius, Plato, and other “Early Christian/Catholic Theologians” in order to discover the Foundations of Middle-earth, and the things within it.

_*The History of Middle-earth, vol. X: Morgoth‘s Ring*_, on p.x in the “Introduction” or “Prologue” basically points this out, and the whole book details the “Coherent Philosophical and Theological System that is the foundation of Middle-earth.”

MB


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 9, 2020)

Matthew Bailey said:


> ...
> Do people just *not read The History of Middle-earth *or *The Letters of JRR Tolkien, *or any of the other Secondary Sources that basically lay out the origins of pretty much all of these things?
> MB


These are not books with remotely the same numbers of printings even in English as even The Sil. For example, the only books, even today, of the 12-volume HoMe that have ever been translated into German are the first two, the two "Books of Lost Tales". The "Letters" have been translated, but does anyone know hoe many copies of this (or other useful books) have ever been printed? Vague memory alert: for the HoMe series, I believe to dimly remember that they reached at most five figures, so tens of thousands. "The Peoples of Middle-earth", volume 12 of HoMe, was published in 1996, 24 years ago. Just getting hold of these books might be a problem by now.

So those of us - and I can count myself among the lucky ones, mostly by the lucky chance of a vacation in Ireland (!) in the early 1990s, who have these books should feel priviledged, and for Pete's sake not look down on those others who weren't so lucky.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Apr 9, 2020)

I believe all are in paperback now, though.

But it's really just down to the market, and how many LOTR readers are satisfied with the "unexplored vistas"? The majority -- or HoME would be in countinuous print. 

I'm just as surprised as Christopher apparently was that they made it through so many.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 9, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I believe all are in paperback now, though.


Perhaps ironically, the only HoMe volume I own in hardback (and a Houghton Mifflin US one at that, instead of my usual UK paperbacks) is volume 12 "Peoples".
For what was poblished as of the "aughts", they are almost entirely hardcover. But even those paperback editions didn't have a huge printing.


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 10, 2020)

My personal view is that HoME, regardless of how interesting people can find the books, can't be considered in the same light as 'The Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings', for the simple reason that Tolkien published these works and not the others. I regard even 'The Silmarillion' as not in the same category of the two published works by Tokien, even though I find it a tremendously good read. 
I find that I've got more than enough to go on with the two published works as regards to any discussions and questions I might have, and really quite like this idea of there being 'unexplored vistas'.
Obviously just my personal view here, and can perfectly see how other people would devour the HoME series.


----------



## Elthir (Apr 10, 2020)

We can include _The Road Goes Ever On_ and _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_ in Tolkien-published works. I also include the map by Pauline Baynes, since Tolkien helped with it. Both books are fun (for me) to read, and _RGEO_ is crucial to my Galadrielian studies. _ATB_ is also helpful as part of my opinion/argument concerning Tolkien canon, as well as my thoughts on the Numenorean-Bilbo transmission.

And drat the rusted pipes that ruined my poster sized PB map!


----------



## TrackerOrc (Apr 10, 2020)

Elthir said:


> We can include _The Road Goes Ever On_ and _The Adventures of Tom Bombadil_ in Tolkien-published works. I also include the map by Pauline Baynes, since Tolkien helped with it. Both books are fun (for me) to read, and _RGEO_ is crucial to my Galadrielian studies. _ATB_ is also helpful as part of my opinion/argument concerning Tolkien canon, as well as my thoughts on the Numenorean-Bilbo transmission.
> 
> And drat the rusted pipes that ruined my poster sized PB map!


Absolutely, Elthir. I think, for me at any rate, the important point is that the works are, as you say, Tolkien-published.
Though iIhave to admit that Tom Bombadil is a character I've never been able to enjoy in any way; just can't seem to take him seriously at all.


----------



## Olorgando (Apr 10, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> … Though iIhave to admit that Tom Bombadil is a character I've never been able to enjoy in any way; just can't seem to take him seriously at all.


I can sympathize with that view. Not for nothing is the question "who or what is TB" the most discussed one, together with "did Balrogs have wings", probably over all JRRT sites.
But the chapter "In the House of Tom Bombadil" is no VII in Book One, or the seventh of what ultimately became 62 chapters in the entire LoTR book (I have a 2002 three-volume hardcover, illustrated by Alan Lee, that I bought after my mid-1980s paperback started "decomposing" - about 100 pages at the beginning of TTT have become "loose-leaf"; though in three volumes, the pagination is continuous, to TTT starts on page 415, RoTK on page 755).

So this is definitely the phase where JRRT was still writing a "New Hobbit". While he certainly did some back-writing into earlier parts in the light of where the story eventually ended up, he still left much of the "New Hobbit" character of the earlier parts pretty much intact. Not to the book's disadvantage or detriment, is my view. That slow building up from "TH to The Sil" is what makes LoTR unique, I would say. And it may be a reason that so many people have difficulty in getting through The SIl - no Sam or Pippin to provide relief. Many other fantasy series (I'm speculating here, I have hardly read anything else) may also stay at one level from beginning to end, and thus _perhaps_ seem a bit monotonous by comparison.

One thing about TB is that he does not seem to take himself seriously. Oh, Old Man Willow has to do his bidding, no chance not to, but Tom could long ago have chopped him up for firewood - but didn't. And Tom also has a sense of humor - not one that appeals to everybody, but that holds true for every sense of humor ever. And what a contrast to the megalomaniac and totally humorless Sauron!


----------



## Elthir (Apr 10, 2020)

> And Tom also has a sense of humor - not one that appeals to everybody, but that holds true for every sense of humor ever.




Regarding the subjective sense of humor, I still lament the cancellation of the sitcom _The Grinder_. Why? Why? 

I like Tom. No, I love Tom B. 

I was reading Howard's _Conan_ and Marvel Comics. . . tried a friend's recommendation of _The Lord of the Rings_ . . . and soon . . . Tom!


----------

