Your objections are of course quite appropriate,
davem. I have you at an unfortunate disadvantage, having the book and you only able to garner information at second hand. I'll quote the paragraph in full:
Quote:
|
I have already suggested that a philologist would find it appropriate, given the universal nature of the laws of language, to use the language of one age and people to represent that of another age and people (assuming some similarity of nature), and that he might find it particularly appropriate if it is a people of the same part of middle-earth. One of the themes of Tolkien's work is the Englishness of England: that is at the root of Farmer Giles of Ham, with its story of Aegidius de Hammo and Chrysophylax Dives, anglice Farmer Giles and the Dragon. This theme of Englishness is combined with an un-English kind of art. It has been argued that the Englishness of English art resides in the view that the purpose of art is to preach, and the best preaching comes in accurately observing the detailed minutiae of daily life. In this sense, Chaucer is English, Malory is English (I recall that C.S. Lewis gave us some examples of this), C.S. Lewis is English, but Tolkien, like Rudyard Kipling, is not. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that he, like Kipling, was enamored of "Englishry." Or perhaps it was because he studied the English language, partly from the outside, thus seeing it clearly, and with the same clear vision saw the beauty of Englishry.
|
I hope that helps more than it hinders.