[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Whatever other (unexpressed) motives he may or may not have had in writing the book seem to me to be irrelevant in any analysis of the Foreword. What really matters is the message that it conveys to his readers. And that is simply that he wrote the story with the intention that they should enjoy it.

But if the 'message that it conveys to his readers' includes the religious, specifically Catholic, dimension should we ignore that? It would seem to me as wrong to do that as to ignore the Pagan mythological or historical influences/dimension. Is there no 'connection' between three 'racial' groups of Hobbits led into Eriador by two brothers & the Angles, Saxons & Jutes led into England by the brothers Hengist & Horsa, for instance.

What I'm saying is that both consciously & unconsciously, Catholicism underlies LotR. Its present. I can't accept that Tolkien would choose the two most significant dates in the Christian calendar for two of the most significant events in his story without realising that significance until someone points it out to him later. If Tolkien didn't realise that March 25th was of the greatest importance from the Christian perspective, & choose to 'commemorate' the Middle Earth event with the Eagle's song (which as Shippey points out uses the style & metre of the Psalms of the King James Bible) with lines including:

'Sing & rejoice, ye people of the Tower of Guard,
For your watch hath not been in vain,
And the Black Gate is broken,
And your King has passed through & he is victorious.

Sing & be glad, all ye children of the West
for your King shall come again,
And he shall dwell among you
all the days of your life.'

Too much of this king of thing runs beneath the surface of the story. His description of Elbereth in 'The Road Goes Ever On' :

As a 'divine' or 'angelic' person Varda/Elbereth could be said to be 'looking afar from Heaven' (as in Sam's invocation); hence the present participle. She was often thought of, or depicted, as standing on a great height looking towards Middle Earth, with eyes that penetrated the shadows, & listening to the cries for aid of Elves (& men) in peril or grief. Frodo (vol 1, p208) & Sam both invoke her in moments of extreme peril. The Elves sing hymns to her. (These & other references to religion in The Lord of the Rings are frequently overlooked)

is a 'mythologised' account of the Virgin Mary as 'Queen of Heaven'.

Look, I'm happy to leave out of this discussion any Catholic, folkloric, historic or linguistic references/investigations, but I think that would leave out Tolkien himself, to a great extent. All those elements, including also his personal experiences - particularly his wartime experiences - have produced LotR, but they are all successfully mythologised, & Middle Earth is a perfectly realised, self contained world. But if we exclude the sources, & the personal dimension, what the events of the story signified for Tolkien, how can we include our own personal responses, & the meaning the story has for us. I'm not a Catholic (I wouldn't even call myself a Christian) but when I read of Galadriel's gift of Lembas to the Fellowship the Middle Earth dimension is 'overshadowed' (not cancelled out) for me by the Catholic dimension, & the meaning of the former event resonates with the latter. Just as when I walk through any wood my experience is overshadowed by thoughts of Lorien or Fangorn. This is why LotR is not, & cannot be, for me merely an entertaining story. And this is not a 'choice' I'm making - it is simply how I respond to the story. I think if we remove all such 'resonances' & overshadowings from our experience (if that were possible) we'd be left with the simple 'escapism' that our critics accuse us of.

I love LotR not because of what it is, but because of what it means to me, personally. If the book belongs in some sense to each reader, then each reader's response is valid. If I read it in the way I do, with all the 'resonances; & 'overshadowings' I find in it, then that's valid - or do we exclude 'applicability' from this discussion as well as 'allegory'?

Hopefully, no-one feels that they have to accept my interpretations. I'm simply pointing out what I feel are the 'overshadowings' I percieve in the work, & arguing that some of them are there because Tolkien deliberately placed them there.