Quote:
But a real archaic English is far more terse than modern; also many of things said could not be said in our slack and often frivolous idiom. Of course, not being specially well read in modern English, and far more familiar with works in the ancient and 'middle' idioms, my own ear is to some extent affected; so that though I could easily recollect how a modern would put this or that, what comes easiest to mind or pen is not quite that. But take an example from the chapter that you specially singled out (and called terrible): Book iii, 'The King of the Golden Hall'. 'Nay, Gandalf!' said the King. 'You do not know your own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall in the front of battle, if it must be. Thus shall I sleep better.'
This is a fair example - moderated or watered archaism. Using only words that still are used or known to the educated, the King would really have said 'Nay, thou (n')wost not thine own skill in healing. It shall not be so. I myself will go to war, to fall...' etc. I know well enough what a modern would say. 'Not at all, my dear G. You don't know your own skill as a doctor. Things aren't going to be like that. I shall go to the war in person, even if I have to be one of the first casualties' - and then what? Theoden would certainly think, and probably say 'thus shall I sleep better'! But people who think like that just do not talk a modern idiom. You can have 'I shall lie easier in my grave', or 'I should sleep sounder in my grave like that rather than if I stayed at home' - if you like. But there would be an insincerity of thought, a disunion of word and meaning. For a King who spoke in a modern style would not really think in such terms at all, and any reference to sleeping quietly in the grave would be a deliberate archaism of expression on his part (however worded) far more bogus than the actual 'archaic' English that I have used. Like some non-Christian making a reference to some Christian belief which did not in fact move him at all.
|
Letter #171
The archaisms are deliberate and have a purpose. Tolkien wasn't trying to sound important: he genuinely believed that modern English is too slack and frivolous properly to convey the thoughts and feelings that he wanted his characters to express. In an essay on
Beowulf, Tolkien once wrote "Personally you may not like an archaic vocabulary, and word order artificially maintained as an elevated and literary language. You may prefer the brand new, the lively and the snappy. But whatever may be the case with other poets of past ages (with Homer, for instance) the author of
Beowulf did not share this preference."
I might say the same for Tolkien. He was choosing a voice that he thought best suited what he was trying to say, and although we may not agree with him, we must at least acknowledge what it was that he was trying to achieve. This was not a case of trying to sound like Homer (note that Tolkien, who had read Homer in Greek, regards his style as quite snappy and crisp), or even of aping the Bible. He was using every trick he could think of to give his work a voice that suited the feelings and situations that he was attempting to portray. In concluding the above letter, he wrote:
Quote:
|
I am sorry to find you so affected by the extraordinary 20th C. delusion that its usages per se and simply as 'contemporary' - irrespective of whether they are terser, more vivid (or even nobler!) - have some peculiar validity, above those of other times, so that not to use them (even when quite unsuitable in tone) is a solecism, a gaffe, a thing at which one's friends shudder or feel hot under the collar. Shake yourself out of this parochialism of time!
|
I find it difficult to disagree with his reasoning.