Losing sight of the basics......

[Child of the 7th Age]

Are we losing something which Tolkien considered central to his works?

This is going to be long, so bear with me!

Long ago, when I first explored Tolkien (and also T.H. White), I had an overwhelming sense of coming home to an idealised England, a country with a mythic past richer than my own. As a foot-loose American wanderer and student in the UK, I visited the West Midlands and other haunts that shaped Tolkien's vision. I could list a hundred different examples: spying on hobbit domestic arrangements in the Victoria & Albert Museum, visiting the villages of Oxfordshire and Berkshire which were said to embody Bombadil's spirit, staying with Englsh farm families whose hearts lay deep in the soil, hearing the ancient placenames, and learning of the Anglo-Saxons whose values and language stood close to those of The Mark.

Nowhere in the books did the term "England" appear, yet everywhere I sensed how Tolkien's roots lay deep within the English countryside, and within the language itself. Years later, I read the Silm, HoMe, JRRT's Letters, and Shippey's Road to Middle-earth, and was pleased to learn that my inchoate sense of English identity was not mistaken. Most striking perhaps was Tolkien's early insistence (later dropped) that Elvenhome itself survived as England.

I could cite example after example, but this noted quote from Tolkien best summarizes it:

Also--and here I hope I shall not sound absurd--I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romnce, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff.

.... Do not laugh! But once upon upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to mke 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 should dedicate simply to England; to my country.

In my mind, this was the single most important motive in JRRT's mind when he began his Legendarium: to restore the lost history of England, traditions first torn away by 1066, surviving only as folk remnent and then sadly obliterated by England's early industrialization. And in Tolkien's mind, this was to be an ancient past freed from the overlay of French, Celtic, and Roman influences.

We talk about a thousand different subjects on the Downs--religious undertones, the movie, European sources, characterization, etc., but rarely has there been much attention paid to the English underpinnings of the Legendarium. There may be several reasons for this. Shippey points out that the English themselves were so divorced from their distant past that the London publishers couldn't even see the parlance and structure of the Silm. owed heavy debts to Anglo-Saxon. Plus, as Tolkien's fan base grows and grows, we bring in so many different cultures and countries. The sense of intimacy with England fades. Finally, we now have people trekking off to New Zealand in order to see and explore the Shire and the rest of Middle-earth!

Am I the only one who's bothered by this?

Do you ever feel the presence of England in the Legendarium? Can you identify specific examples of this in the tales?

Why was England, of all the countries of northern Europe, the one to lose most from its ancient past?

Does Tolkien's supposed motive for composing the Legendarium merit some specal attention and study, or should we simply think of it as so many empty words?

And is anyone out there in the UK peeved to see fans trekking off to gorgeous New Zeeland to visit "Middle-earth"?

P.S. Anyone from New Zeeland, please don't take this personally. The country looks beautiful, and I'd love to visit there, but is this what Tolkien was writing about? Or doesn't it matter?

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Cazoz]

Excellent rant [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I'm English and read the books before the films were out, and thus had an inherent feeling of Englishness throughout the books, particularly the parts in the Shire.

And I think you're spot on that the films have made many think of NZ as ME, and not England. However in terms of the film's settings, I'm not bitter. I appreciate that all of the more dedicated fans will see the story as an English creation, as opposed to a Kiwi one. If people who aren't so hardcore see NZ as ME, it doesn't bother me.

The locations were fantastic and such a variety of locations could not be found in the UK, particularly the more rugged ones and such a large, undeveloped river. At least PJ didn't film it all in a Hollywood studio!

In conclusion, I hope that people acknowledge the story's English history but NZ was after all, an English colony and said to be the closest physical and topological place to the UK on earth. It'd be a shame, for instance, if idiots start thinking Tolkien was a Kiwi but until then I embrace how well our mental images from the book were conveyed onto the big screen.

And as I'm moving to Aus in November for at least a year, I intend to go NZ and visit the settings for PJ's Middle Earth. However I remember and respect the distinction and know that if I want to see Tolkien's vision, I'll get a train to Oxford or Birmingham instead! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Rimbaud]

Indeed, within BoLT, it is noted that, in its origins, Tol Eressëa was intended to be a deliberate depiction of England.

Also: it is important to note that much of the perceived Englishness of the books is only slightly removed from parody - and does reinforce a certain unfortunate stereotype. Modern England is a remarkably divergent reality from that which a Tolkien-influenced incomer might wish to find.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Rimbaud --

That's very true. I lived in England at various points in my life for a total of several years. This was mostly in urban settings where I battled traffic, pollution, a one-room studio that was too small, a small space heater that used to hiss and boil at night, and all the other "normal" things. I also luxuriated in the presence of museums and libraries which held a richness my own country could not hope to equal.

Still, it tells you something about a people to see how they perceive of themselves in their dreams. England's idealized view of herself, for example, is different than that of the United States.

And again, we're talking about one man's vision and dream. It would certainly be possible to gain a very different perspective by studying other authors.

However, I admit Rimbaud, that, parody or not, the pull of that dream can be appealing at times, at least to me.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[merlilot]

I would call my self 'hard-core'. i read the books before really considering England vs NZ.

BUT!!

I would have to agree with Ian McKellen. He said that there is nothing in UK untouched. And that untouched, new, unexplored feeling to the landscape is essential to creating the time period. NZ is essentially new, especially compared to UK. [I think that] JRRT would've wanted 'us' to value the purity of the landscape (he was just a bit of an environmentalist), rather than throw a fit about the actual location.

It woulda been great if we coulda made it in UK, actually, but it wouldhave been decidedly British (not that there's anything wrong with that!) rather than Kiwi. And since NZ is so foreign to most of us, the very knowledge that they were [for the most part] so far away from familiar civilation, creates the feeling that they are ACTUALLY in Middle Earth.


**and that is MY 2 wafers of lembas**

[Mattius]

The fact of the matter is that simply England does not have the capability to house a film the size of LotR. Peter Jackson obviuosly knows this and his own home, New Zealand, is spot on. The director himself knows that Middle Earth is deeply rooted with England and this is why I believe British actors were mainly chosen- Sir Ian Mckellen, Sean Bean, John Rhys Davids, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monagahn, Orlando Bloom and Ian Holm. Also actors from Australia and New Zealand had promminent parts such as Viggo Mortensen. By casting the film in this way I believe a much more "English" type of film has been made (sorry I described that really bad but it is the best I can do with my limited vocubulary).

Well, thats my view anyways!

[Cazoz]

Mattius, just a minor thing which kind of irks me, Ian Holm has been knighted too. People always seem to overlook it in the cast lists, and I feel sorry for the guy sometimes.

And I think Viggo's a Yank, of Danish origin. Or somewhere Scandinavian?

I was going to mention that in my first post, that PJ included a lot of antipodean cast members, not to mention practically the entirety of the crew. He's made a significant impact on the economy, not only through tourism but also by enticing more film crews Down Under where the landscape is obviously amazing, and the costs far lesser than the US or UK.

And furthermore, Tolkien's England exists very scarcely these days. The census comes out today, showing we're in fact the most densely populated country in Europe, even moreso than the small ones of Benelux. The stereotype most English people have of their nation is pretty non-existent, that of the green rolling hills and so on. I suppose this can be compared to the illusion of the American dream. We talk about it, we refer to it but really it's more of a fantasy.

And the extremely unspoilt South Island is probably a lot closer to Tolkien's England than Spaghetti Junction, probably what the West Midlands are sadly now most famous for. So in fact we might even speculate that PJ was respecting Tolkien's vision by going there, and not having to search high and low in our land of housing estates and hypermarkets for sparse Middle Earthy locations.

[Bill Ferny]

“I also luxuriated in the presence of museums and libraries which held a richness my own country could not hope to equal.”

You didn’t look hard enough! Well, I don’t know about Texas, but I do know that from Boston, Philly, Baltimore, to D.C. you will not only find as many museums and galleries than in all of England, but most of them, if not equal in antiquity, are at least equal or better in quality. England has some great institutes of higher learning, and, of course, Oxford is probably one of the best in the world, but there are at least a half dozen or so equal or better universities and colleges in the US, each with libraries the size of some mid-western towns. An interesting little tidbit is that the best graduate program for European Medieval Studies is in Canada, not Europe. I will never understand the mentality that characterizes America as barbaric, a continent filled with the culturally and educationally inept, in comparison with Western European nations. That mentality is simply not supported by the facts. If anything American culture, for good or bad, is a continuation of European cultural.

Anyway, 7th, I think you answered your own question. We’ve established that Tolkien was moved to fill in England’s mythological history, and that the Norman conquest, and subsequent historical developments, nearly obliterated the Anglo/Saxon mythological history. As you stated Tolkien used all those mythological sources that you listed in order to fill that gap. Because he was so steeped in mythological lore, and places so much of that in his work, there’s no doubt that topics such as “Ancient Civilisations… Babaloynia?” and “Idril like Thetis” are going to show up in Tolkien discussions. I think that at the back of everyone’s mind is the distinctive English quality of Tolkien’s fictional mythology, and discussing the Finnish influence on his work doesn’t negate that distinctive English quality.

As far as PJ is concerned I have to agree with Cazoz et al. I think that PJ did a great service to Tolkien's vision by filming in New Zealand, rather than having to stage the majority of movie by attempting to film it in England.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bill Ferny -----

“I also luxuriated in the presence of museums and libraries which held a richness my own country could not hope to equal.”

You didn’t look hard enough

Sorry, I disagree. I should have explained my statement in greater depth. It clearly depends what area of study you're concerned with. There are many academic and scientific disciplines where the libraries in the United States are second to none. This is particularly true in the sciences and technology. (My own background is as a librarian and college history teacher.)

But if you're in a field like medieval history or Anglo-Saxon literature, then the libraries and archives of Britain have a richness that no other institution in North America can boast (including Toronto). This is especially true for original sources--manorial records, pipe rolls, personal correspondence, etc.

An interesting little tidbit is that the best graduate program for European Medieval Studies is in Canada, not Europe

You're probably referring to the Pontifical Institute and the University of Toronto. I almost went to the former, but headed to New England because I had friends there.

I will never understand the mentality that characterizes America as barbaric, a continent filled with the culturally and educationally inept, in comparison with Western European nations. That mentality is simply not supported by the facts. If anything American culture, for good or bad, is a continuation of European cultural.

My post didn't say this. It wasn't clear to me if you feel I'm guilty of this sin, or you just have a general frustration with people who are guilty of it. I taught U.S. history for many years, and I agree with you--an intelligent person would be wrong to make such an erroneous assumption.

I think that at the back of everyone’s mind is the distinctive English quality of Tolkien’s fictional mythology, and discussing the Finnish influence on his work doesn’t negate that distinctive English quality.

Again, this is not what I said. As you can easily note, I have participted in a good many discussions on the board ranging from unerlying religious tones to European sources to understanding characters and plot. It was a joy to participate in those discussions; they certainly do not negate the English quality of Tolkien's work.

But I don't think that the best course is to keep Tolkien's Englishness at the back of your mind and never outwardly discuss it. In my opinion, it does no harm to turn to the Legendarium and search for instances where that English influence is apparent, any more than it would be "harmful" to single out and search for examples of Tolkien's religious beliefs. This is what I was looking for. And I don't think my post exhausted these possibilities.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[merlilot]

Viggo lives in NYC, yall.


>>And Billy is great!!! Sorry, just had to add that.

[Ransom]

Do you ever feel the presence of England in the Legendarium? Can you identify specific examples of this in the tales?

I must confess that the only subjects in which the LOTR resembled England for me was the people and the military technology. I think his attraction to unspoiled landscape, referances to England aside, can apply to anywhere in the world. I see much more of Middle Earth in the trails of the Eastern United States than in England, simply becaus I have personally hiked through the United States.

Why was England, of all the countries of northern Europe, the one to lose most from its ancient past?

I think one can argue that many other countries have lost more. Consider Communist China. It has lost the basic philosophy of the Emperors. Under Chairman Mao, traditionally strong family bonds were replaced by weak bonds to the government.

[Evenstar1]

Well, I don’t know about Texas...

(You knew you'd ruffle someone's feathers with this one, didn't you? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) Well, Mr. Bill, what can I say: Texas is Mordor. In fact, Texas is the heart of Orodruin! With foliage and critters to match! But the orcs that used to live there have been supplanted by Great and Friendly Numenoreans, and our King has temporarily left the White City to go set a spell in the White
House. (I currently live in Colorado, but I left my heart in Texas!)

*Back to the topic:* Child -- I'm not much of a literary scholar, but didn't the Arthurian legends predate 1066? Also, the stories of St. George slaying the dragons? If so, wouldn't these have been considered "English mythology?" (I'm not sure whether I'm asking this to you or to JRRT...?) Also, because of the widespread English rule/domination over many world cultures over many, many centuries, isn't it possible that the Celtic/Nordic/Romanic/etc. mythologies we've been fed have actually been shaped, themselves, by English lore?

(As I said, I don't know a lot about literary history, but these thoughts just crossed my mind, and if it will take too much time to set me straight on all of this, please just hand me another pint of 1420 and I'll be quiet for now!)

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Evenstar1 ]

[Bill Ferny]

7th,

Its just a pet peeve of mine, and not meant as a personal attack. After traveling abroad for many years, I've found that nobody criticizes America like Americans, and the vast majority of it is utter crap. I’m a bit hypersensitive to the whole issue, and sometimes I get alittle gun happy. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] So don’t take it personally! Today seems to be my day for ruffling feathers, and I apologize. I’ve never had a problem accessing primary sources from American colleges, except for a few exceptions when dealing with the Vatican archives. The digital age, as I’m sure you can attest, has done wonders for research at a distance. In fact, I had just as much access to primary sources at my college in Ohio than I had to the same sources when I was at the Gregorian in Rome.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t outwardly discuss Tolkien’s Englishness (is that a word?). However, I think it strange that discussing his Englishness is “getting back to basics.” Of course, I haven’t spent as much time in England as I would like, but to be honest, I don’t think of England when I read Tolkien, or at least its not something that immediately springs to mind. For example, when I think of Rohan, I picture, for some reason, eastern Montana or southwestern South Dakota. The hobbits of the Shire are disturbingly similar to the people from my hometown in Ohio. Bree reminds me of a town in Ireland that I once spent a couple of days, and Washington D.C. monuments remind me of Minas Tirith. Northern Indiana reminds me of Mordor, but I won’t get into that! While Tolkien was British, and wrote the Legendarium to recreate a missing link in the mythological heritage of England, in the end I don’t think the LotR is basically English.

That is, I believe, the treasure of Tolkien, and is why the LotR is loved by so many people.

Evenstar1, I really don’t know anything about Texas, so I was stating a fact. The only part of Texas I’ve ever seen was Fort Hood. I mentioned it only because that’s were 7th is matriculating, so smooth your feathers. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] The Authorian Legends are based largely on the French courtly romances of the later Medieval period. After the Norman conquest, Anglo/Saxon culture was subsumed (for lack of a better word) by continental influences. King Richard I (probably?) didn’t even know how to speak the native language of England! While the culture that emerged in England after the Norman conquest was unique from the rest of the continent, the England of the colonial period was very different from the England of Edward the Confessor. It was for this pre-conquest culture and tradition that Tolkien was nostalgic. Hope that helps a little.

[Evenstar1]

Thanks, Bill! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

**passes around pints of 1420**

[Diamond18]

The hobbits of the Shire are disturbingly similar to the people from my hometown in Ohio.

That's a good point. I think wherever you go in the world you'll meet Elves, Hobbits, Dwarves and Orcs. Even if J.R.R Tolkien had Englishmen in mind when writing, that isn't what makes his stories wonderful. I don't read them and think, "Ah...England". I think, that is so "someone I know" or "I've seen that place". (And I've never been to England, just around the west and midwest US).

I think the basics of LotR and the Hobbit and even the Silmarillion, is the way they apply to all of our fantasies and dreams, no matter who we are or where we're from. Or at least it is what makes them great. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Birdland]

Also--and here I hope I shall not sound absurd--I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romnce, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff.

First off, Child, I have never denied the essential "Englishness" of Tolkien's work. I mean, the man's English. His place names, character traits and descriptive text are full of English references, that even me, a very untraveled American, can easily recognize.

Shoot, the man's almost as English as Dickens, and definitely more English than Shakespeare. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

But I'm not really sure just what Tolkien was looking for. I mean, who were the "first Brits" anyway? I had thought that it would be the Picts, but apparently they were "johnny-come-latelys", anthropologically speaking. The only reference I can find is some vague mention of "hunter-gatherers who settled the island, and left no written records".

And after that you had the Picts, the Gauls, the Celts, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, and whoever else chose to wander down the pike. So England was all of these people. A glorious mixture of folk who brought their own beliefs and tales with them, and eventually combined them to make their own story.

I never realized it before, but you Brits are every bit a bunch of "mutts" as we Yanks are. (Hey, I use that term with the greatest affection. I often refer to myself as an "American Mutt.")

I can't think that Tolkien would ever have found the culture of a "true Brit", unless he wanted to go clear back to the culture of the Cro-Magnon or the Neandertal, and they weren't writing anything down for posterity.

Oh, wait, the Cro-Magnon and Neandertals came from someplace else, too. Sorry.

[Birdland]

Speaking in reference to P.J.'s choice of New Zealand for the filming: England is a small, and for the most part, industrialized country, whereas New Zealand is not. Plus New Zealand's topography is so varied that you can find almost any type of microclimate that you want there.

You have to remember that it is only the Shire that is quintessentially "English". Middle Earth was a vast, wide world, much larger than could be depicted in England. (I'm sorry, but the island of Great Britain ain't really known for it's mountains and glaciers. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) I think New Zealand was the perfect place to film Tolkien's masterpiece...as well as being cheaper than Europe or the U.S.

Oh, and by the way, did you know I have a first cousin who is a New Zealander? (A product of one of the World War II "war-bride" stories.) So by default, I'm a "Kiwi", too. So go to New Zealand. Enjoy yourselves! Spend money! My cousin will thank you.

[Bill Ferny]

Wow, I just read that other thread. I’ve been busy and haven’t been keeping up on my favorite threads, but now I understand much better where 7th is coming from. Anyway, I came across this and thought it was both profound and relevant enough to be re-said here:

"Of course, everything about this excercise is dangerous and highly subjective. Anyone engaging the question can't help but fall into projection-- there's so little to go on, it's not unlike using a spark of light in a crystal or prayer beads or breathing as a focus for contemplation-- whatever we do, we're in the end going to find out most about our innmost hopes, fears and intuitions about the world."

--Nar

I could copy the whole thing, it was such a good post, but that would be redundant. In fact, I printed it out, Nar! I thought this particular bit was really good. Tolkien set out to find a particular soul for his beloved England, but what we found in reading him was something much more profound.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I haven't been to England myself, neither to US or any other english speaking country. But I certainly have my own mental picture of England, however fantastic (in a sense not grounded on factual knowledge) it may be. It was formed before JRRT by Donald Basset, Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes and Scott's warriors. And, though neither one was read by me in english, it was fascinating indeed. And when reading The Hobbit for the first time, I recognised the same spirit and, as I already loved my mental picture of England with it's Charing Cross and people talking to each other politely "Sir", black arrow knights of Stivensson, stories of Robin Hood and whatnot, The Hobbit fitted in perfectly. Though I was not terming the thing as "englishness" at that time, the feeling was there.

And if I don't discuss such "englishness" here on the Downs, 2 reasons may be given:

1 I can't ground discussion on my mental picture" (even though I've read Shippey's books)

2 It's obviously present to me there, or,as Child of the 7th Age termed it, it's basic. Whoever argues breathing is essential? Everybody knows one would die if was ti stop doing it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Bêthberry]

Well, I'm going to wade in here and see if I drown. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Child, I am interested in taking this point about historical references to a question of "metaperspective", if I can use that term, because I see a particular bias or approach to reading here. Please, everyone, note, I am (over)generalizing philosophical positions here, not characterizing nations or people or readers.

Once upon a time, there was a particular approach to literature taught (out of several)which argued that reading literature meant recognizing historical difference. Part of its goal was to help readers know what texts and contexts the author knew, in order for the reader to recreate as closely as possible the historical conditions of the author and so to aim to understand the author's intention. It recognized reading literature from past ages as a kind of time travel or multi-cultural experience. (There were problems with this approach, but now is not the time to go into them here.)

Enter the French philosophes with structuralism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, deconstructionism (well, I guess that's largely American), euro-feminism, and this approach was swamped. Authors are dead and so are their intentions. Texts are AWOL also. (I exaggerate to make a point.)

Current practice is to ground our reading in 'our body', our personal experience. In my experience, quite often, one unfortunate consequence, particularly in the hands of less experienced readers, is to wipe out cultural and historical difference by homogenizing it into contemporary references. It is well and good to focus upon similarities, but a mistake, I would argue, to forego differences. Thus, whatever speaks of "regional" or "local" difference or whatever cannot be assimilated into an amorphous global (or, conversely, personal) perspective, falls by the wayside.

This, it seems to me, is one reason why the particular "English" references are skipped over. It is kind of a chicken or egg problem. What comes first, the text or the reader? Except in this case we cannot agree on what the chicken is. Or the egg. All we have is the gourmand. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

(I have other concerns about Tolien's desire to create an English mythology for his Legendarium--for the "Englishness" of the LOTR I do not see in The Silm--but this is not the place to present them.)

And speaking of mad Frenchmen, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Rimbaud, I am interested in your point:

...much of the perceived Englishness of the books is only slightly removed from parody--and does reinforce a certain unfortunate stereotype.

Do you mean to imply that Tolkien intended an 'almost parody'? Why would he come close but stop? Is this a failure of his writing that it comes so close to parody (part of his weakness as a writer) or is there meaning in it? ie, Did he want us to see 'almost parody' and why?

Child, I also want to discuss letter 19, but I have gone on long enough here. Perhaps I should reply on the other thread.

Life jacket anyone?

Bethberry

[littlemanpoet]

Before I catch up on all the replies, I want to respond directly to Child's initial post.

As can be guessed from the kinds of topics I have started and spent a lot of time on, I heartily agree that the evocation of primordial England is one of the primary beauties of LotR in particular, and the Legendarium in general.

Perhaps I have been bothered by something like what you're suggesting, and have therefore spent my time on the threads I have.

As I have said elsewhere, I think primordial England is most clearly evoked in The Hobbit, Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of Wooton Major, and those parts of LotR closest to the Shire. I do not find it much in The Sil, nor in Unfinished Tales; I haven't done enough reading in the HoME to comment intelligently.

Not being of the UK, my speculation hardly counts, but some might say that the reason one might go to New Zealand is because primordial England is too faint in Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Yes? No?

Why was England, of all the countries of northern Europe, the one to lose most from its ancient past?

Sorry if any of this has already been sufficiently covered, but I must comment on this quote. It presupposes more than it can claim to know. The subject is the ancient past, that is, primordial England. Who can say that England has lost any more than, say, France, or Spain, or Germany? Spain in particular has been far more of a highway and stopping point for conquering cultures than England.

Nevertheless, the above is merely a quibble.

Your point, Child, is, in general, well taken. Maybe the single element of primordial England is the one thing I keep missing in all other fantasy and so keep coming back to Tolkien.

[Rimbaud]

I refer to the popular discourse of the moment in England of this very topic; what it is to be English. The issue has come to the forefront of minds (see Paxman's unexpectedly readable The English) since the devolution of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. The Celtic regions of the British Isles of always been in possession of a deeper sense of cultural identity and if this were to be explored, I would agree that this is largely due to repeated invasions of the mainland of Great Britain. Roman rule faltered as it reached Scotland and Wales (as did English rule for much of the time) and even the Normans struggled to retain peaceful ties. However, I have neither the time, nor the expertise to explore this issue fully, and it is not my intention to attempt to do so.

Recent devolution in the Disunited Kingdom has led to a flowering of the Celtic cultures (Welsh-language radio and television is very popular, particularly in the less Anglified north of Wales) and cultural pride is self-evident in those areas. It is more difficult to pin down a concept of what it means to be English. Certainly, it is harder than for our immediate neighbours, in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. England has an unfortunately checquered history (particularly with regard to...Wales, Scotland and Ireland...) and a very confused notion of itself.

It has been noted on this thread that the ideal of England, rolling green fields, cricket watched with strawberries and cream, horses plodding through sun-dappled sleepy villages is inaccurate today; it is arguable that such an idyll has never existed but has been perpetuated by the literature and story-telling of the land.

The true story of England, even from its earliest recorded history, is of class and race. This is true today. Devolved from class and race is the more visible dichotomy of rich and poor. Of course, this is not an English anomaly; these symptoms of civilisation exist throughout all nations; yet those nations, usually have also, a firmer grasp of cultural self than exists in England. For me, the real English elements of Tolkien are not those picked out on this thread, but rather the inter-relationships, especially, of course, Frodo and Sam. This microcosmic relationship is an idealised picture of a world that had passed when Tolkien was writing - and, again, had not really ever existed, except as some sort of mass-hallucination on the part of the rich/educated/self-made-erudites, especially of the Victorian era, needing justification for the servitude of the less economically privileged.

My mention of parody was deliberate; I see the Gaffer and others of the hobbitry as over-lurid depictions of blind/willing cogs in a failed machine. I could go on with further examples, but this is not really on-topic and I have not the time...yet suffice it to say that the visual trappings of ME are not the important Anglic elements discernable, despite the attempt to make them so, rather those elements are the inherent hierachies within the societies/relationships created.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[Bêthberry]

Not having access to Paxman, I can reply only within the context of discussions of national identity in my own multi-cultural country, a former colony of yours.

It is more difficult to pin down a concept of what it means to be English. Certainly, it is harder than for our immediate neighbours, in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. England has an unfortunately checquered history .... and a very confused notion of itself....

I would be tempted to consider that its identify inheres in the very nature of this confused notion of itself, of a country which (mis)appropriates others. The model might be the Norman invasion of England, which imposed Norman French rule but not Norman French culture. This form of multicultural amalgamation, of assimilation and rejection, prepared England to be a more flexible colonizer than other European nations (note I am not saying kinder, gentler).

To return to Anglic elements in Tolkien, it would be less the rural idyll or even the class model which you identify and more the way in which Tolkien has all the races--hobbit, dwarf, man, ent, elf--play significant roles in overcoming Sauron.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Another long post, but there is no way to "prove" this except by details since most of us aren't familiar with the original Old English sources.....

I can see we are swimming in deeper waters which is both good and perilous. Let me try a stab at some ideas and see what you think.

First, let me be perfectly honest. I believe Tolkien's most perceptive critic was T.A. Shippey, who was himself a philologist. Because Shippey was familiar with the same sources and languages which Tolkien used, he had a unique advantage. He could see things in JRRT's writings that others couldn't. He could read the Silm and the LotR and HoMe and The Hobbit and understand that many words and concepts and even people were based on the tiny scraps extant from the Old English tradition. The rest of us read it and have little sense of this because we do not have these language skills or knowledge of ancient sources. And it's not going to get any better in the future because philologists, themselves, are a dying breed.

I am merely a follower in Shippey's path when I say that Tolkien was indebted to his English roots. I do not have Shippey's linguistic skills. Aside from some rusty Anglo-Saxon, my knowledge of the ancient northern languages is non-existent. But I am enough of an historian to 'feel' in my bones that Shippey has it right. This view is most exquisitely argued in The Road to Middle Earth published in 1982.

When Tolkien was first composing his Legendarium, his motive was not to weave a religious tale or to compose a modern fantasy. His primary motive at that time was to take extant scraps of Old English, embellish them, and create something which had been lost--the lost tales of his native England. Nowhere do we see this better than in the earliest books of HoMe, particularly BoLT 1 & 2. That's why Christopher himself chose the moniker "Book of Lost Tales" for these early renderings.

Littlemanpoet raises this question:

Who can say that England has lost any more than, say, France, or Spain, or Germany? Spain in particular has been far more of a highway and stopping point for conquering cultures than England.

I was probably too broad in my statements. I can only speak for northern Europe, since this is something I have a background in. Medievalists are in firm agreement that out of all the "northern" countries--Germany, Iceland, the Scandinavian nations, and even France (although the expression here is more Celtic than northern)--it is England that has lost her native poetry and lore. All we have are a few chap-book scraps or later references in Chaucer and such to original works that have been lost.

In later rewritings, Tolkien was to discard some of the specifics drawn from "England" and go far beyond in reaching for more universal meaning. But these original 'scraps' were the true origin of both the Legendarium and Silm as well as chunks of LotR.

Bill Ferny quoted Nar who said the following:

Tolkien set out to find a particular soul for his beloved England, but what we found in reading him was something much more profound.

Nar is absolutely right! But Tolkien is like an onion. We strip away layer after layer and find new treasures and meaning in each one. But aren't you curious what's in that very bottom layer? I sure am. That's why I talk about looking for the "basics." And I am convinced that, in the very beginning, it was Tolkien's desire to take the ancient scraps and spin a great "yarn" out of them.

On this board, Mithadan has said a hundred different ways that, at the very heart of Tolkien lies a good yarn. And I accept this with one little addition: at the very heart of Tolkien lies a good "English" yarn.

Let's take a few examples and start with the easy ones. Most readers are aware that the Shire itself is a "calque" on England. Much of it is Victorian and Edwardian. But how about those parts that hearken back to old English history? Just as the English came from "someplace else" before they lived in England, so too did the hobbits. In Middle-earth, the largest part of the hobbit migration came from between the Hoarwell and Loudwater Rivers; the actual European migration came from between the Flenburg Fjord and the Schlei. Both groups, interestingly, had forgotten this fact! Both emigrated in three tribes: Angles, Saxons and Jutes vrs. Stoors, Harfoots, and Fallohides. Both groups subsequently became largely intermingled. The English were led by two leaders: Hengest (means stallion) and Horsa (means horse); the hobbits by Marcho (from Old English marh or horse) and Blanco (the term blancain Beowulf refers to a white horse). Both the "real" English and the English hobbits founded realms which experienced an unusual measure of peace. The mayors, musters, moots, and Shiriffs of the Shire have their equivalents in ancient England.

OK? Bird suggests the English influence is confined to the Shire, but I don't agree. Take a look at The Mark, i.e. Rohan. The very term "Mark" is a modern spin-off from Mearc which is a Saxon term for Mercia. Mercia was the kingdom which just happened to include Tolkien's home towns of Oxford and Birmingham. All the riders of Rohan have Old English names. Interestingly, these names are not "standard" West Saxon dialect which is the most common. Instead, they're drawn from Old Mercian, which again was Tolkien's home.

What about looking at the Silmarillion?
Bethberry questions the English roots here, but again, if we go back to the earliest writings, we can see how Tolkien was struggling with his source material to incorporate quasi-historical data as well as pure myth. Characters like Helm Hammerhand, Turin, and Dain show clear affinities with quasi-pagan heroes. But again, it works best if we examine specifics.

Let's take one figure from the Legendarium: that of Eriol, also termed Ottar Waefre (Waefre means the wanderer in Old English.) Eriol has one foot in the "real" history of England and another in the land of fantasy. According to Tolkien, by his first wife, Eriol was the father of Hengest and Horsa. In an early legend, but one thought to be historically accurate, these two men were the invaders of Britain and the founders of England. By his second wife, however, Eriol was the father of Heorrenda, a harper of English poetic tradition. It's almost as if his ancestors represent two strains: true history and invented myth, but both from English sources

What about Tol Eressea which Rimbaud mentions? When Tol Erresea is first described by Tolkien, he uses the terms "seo unwemmede ieg" which is Old English. Interestingly, Tol Eressea is first seen as a floating isle, sometimes closer to Valinor and sometimes closer to the mainland. Just as Eriol has one foot in history (i.e. the real life of middle-earth) and one in myth (the poetic tradition) so too does Tol Eressea itself. At first, Tolkien even extended this English identification to the placenames of Tol Eressea. In BoLT, Kortirion, the home of the exiles, is Kor in Warwick. Tavrobel is identified with the Staffordshire village of Great Haywood.

Yet, we know that ultimately Tolkien wisely rejected Tol Eressea's identification with England. But, if you look closely in the Fellowship, you will see just a glimpse of it. For "seo unwemmede ieg" means in Old English the "unstained land", and these are precisely the words Tolkien used to describe the haven of Lothlorien. Strange how these things get changed, yet still filter down!

Another example: the Man of the Sea who rescues Aelfwine is based on the mythological sea-giant of Old English tradition whom Chaucer mentions. Tolkien later develped this character into Ulmo.

Let me summarize the question of the Silm with a quote from Shipey when Tolkien originally submitted his 'mythology for England' for possible publication in 1937:

We know now that Tolkien sent in to Allen and Unwin's a bundle of material including his Lay of Leithian and the Quenta Silmarillion, a close descendent of The Book of Lost Tales. But when the Allen and Unwin reader read them...., he was totally perplexed, unsure whether what he was reading or not was 'authentic' or not (so far Tolkien would have felt he succeeded) but regrettably quite clear that whatever its authenticity it certainly could not be English!

The reviewer of the Silm goes on to comment that the Silm has "something of that mad, bright eyed beauty that perplexes all Anglo-Saxons in the face of Cetic art." Shippey notes the total irony of this statement:

Tolkien had done his best to root his Silmarillion story in what little genuine Anglo-Saxon tradition he could find. But the first time it found a reader, that reader was sure (a) that he was Anglo-Saxon. but (b) the Silmarillion wasn't.

According to Shippey, Tolkien saw this as one more sad testimony to the complete deafness of modern English people, especially educated ones, to their own linguisic roots.

Rimbaud says the following:

[QUOTE]The true story of England, even from its earliest recorded history, is of class and race. This is true today [QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree, at least for the earlier periods. Certainly, this is true for modern British history, perhaps going back as far as the early modern era (?). But the same is definitely not true for the medieval era. There were certainly wide disparities in income, but the concepts of "class and race" are essentially modern ones, and have only indirect relevence for the middle ages, certainly for the very early period which Tolkien draws on.

Yes, things like this do peep through in the Shire with the Victorian/Edwardian calque, but this was a late addition to the Legendarium. The earliest images Tolkien had were drawn from Anglo-Saxon history and language.

In summary, I'm not saying that this is the only or preferred way to look at Tolkien. Only that we should be careful to remember as we go about our wide-ranging debates and discussions that the history and language of England, particularly in terms of the Anglo-Saxon experience, stands at the center of Tolkien's onion, though carefully hidden from view.

sharon, the 7th age and long-winded hobbit!

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bêthberry]

Part of the confusion here, for me at least, Child, is that you first raised your point on the thread about the Shire, where the question of an English geographical idyll was being developed, particularly when you raised letter no. 19 about Bombadil representing the disappearing Oxfordshire countryside.

Your first post here on this thread, although it does mention the word 'language', also is devoted mainly to your experience of the English landscape (with a few other points I grant, such as their wonderful heating systems [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]).

I was immediately put in mind of a particular literary tradition, best known probably through Shakespeare's green and blessed isle and of Blake's holy Jerusalem being replanted in England's green realm (sorry I can't get my hands on the exact quotations right now and must shortly ferry daughter off to skating) but I decided not to mention those associations because they are non-Tolkien. This I cannot see in The Silm.

(I have other concerns about Tolkien's desire to create an English mythology for his Legendarium--for the "Englishness" of the LOTR I do not see in The Silm--but this is not the place to present them.)

Consequently, when I made the above quotation, I was referring to this geographical idyll. What those concerns were that I had but did not think belonged are related to the linguistic issues which you are just now bringing to the fore of the discussion.

It seems to me that behind that great yarn or great story which Mithadan proclaims (and I don't mean to discount his claims here) was Tolkien's languages. Having created his languages, he invented characters to speak them. That Letter No. 19 which I quoted on the other thread identifies mythology and languages almost simultaneously in the same sentence.

Oh, and BTW, while I am not an Old English scholar, I studied Old English at the graduate level under scholars who were taught by Tolkien. Had you chosen Toronto, Child, you would have, too. And we would likely have met. I think it is fair to say of them that the appropriate epitaph for 1066 is Sic transit gloria mundi.

Bethberry

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[elfling]

I definitely got the England feel but I think it has just a great history or idea of ancient customs ect. that most places ie America dosen't have. Where they filmed it
doesn't matter except for tourism now.

[littlemanpoet]

Child, please help. I confess to being one of those people who sees no Anglo-Saxon, but plenty of Celtic, in The Silmarillion. The Elves strike me as much more akin to the Tuatha de danaan than to anything remotely having to do with Englishness, primordial or otherwise. Goldberry and Tom Bombadil, NOT found in the Sil, feel far more English to me.

Please be so kind as to provide specific examples of how the Sil is Anglo-Saxon. Thank you.

[HerenIstarion]

Child, you hit the mark with:

But Tolkien is like an onion

I suggest you can use it as a sig [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Rimbaud]

Certainly, this is true for modern British history, perhaps going back as far as the early modern era (?). But the same is definitely not true for the medieval era.

Child, greatly though I admire your erudition and knowledge on the subject, I disagree with you on this point. In a most amicable way, of course. The medieval period in England (and, as I argued previously, all prior recorded periods) are dominated by race and class. There were gradations of Jutes and Angles and Saxons and there were distinct hierachies between and within them.

These aggressive settlers felt themselves greatly superior to the indigenous hunter-gatherers, and certainly considered themselves superior to the neighbouring Celts, on whom was waged ceaseless war, and subsequently oppression. Positions were reversed in later Viking and Norman invasions and greater levels of class/race awareness were created. I concur that assimilation occurred, yet this was not a swift and/or painless osmosis.

There were definite class and race boundaries between these early settlers - these do not go ignored by Tolkien and I would argue that his mismatch of races is a model of that early uncomfortable relationship. Note, of course, that the culminatively eminent race, Men in ME and the race known as the English IRL, are seen in a less than flattering light, throughout the writings.

Child, I meant not to deny the Legendarium's Anglic heritage, rather to distance landscape and caricature from the true marks of that heritage.

Edit - further, on the question on language. Subsequent use of French, then Latin, then a reversion to French, by the ruling classes in early England made for even greater class/race distinctions, a point also noted and acted upon by Tolkien.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[Bêthberry]

*waves a greeting to All while swimming still deeper*

There is no denying the 'presence' of Old English words in Tolkien's works and it is quite true that recognizing them brings added delight to the reading, echoes of an ancient tongue and time. One of Tolkien's earliest poems has Earendel the mariner sailing to strange lands, and that name is from an OE poem on Christ. The tension between pagan and Christian is shot through Old English literature. This presence, however, I would argue is not limited solely to Old English, but pertains to all the Northern epics. Turin Turambar looks to Kullervo in the Finnish Kalevala, not to an English 'source'. And that epic begins with the Virgin of the Air, Ilmatar, descending on the water to begin creation.

However, I question this idea of some primal, original, first impulse. I am deeply suspicious of all impulses to identify an original motive or source for texts, as if something were always 'behind' a text, a psychoanalytic motive, or a prior literary text, or an historical event, or an author's intention. This impulse is usually always highly reductive, formed after the fact of the writing of the text, and tends to be blind to the multitude of forces which inspire the creative act. I recognize that you do not mean to disregard the many other aspects of Tolkien's text, Child, but for me, the selection process in determining original motives needs to be considered with healthy scepticism.

As for the metaphor of the onion, I have seen it used, by Northrop Frye, to describe the slow unfolding of character in novels. There is much to say in its behalf.

Yet I am not so sure it adequately reflects Tolkien's writing process, though. The onion is an isolated object. Its layers are discrete, separate, not interconnected. It suggests an activity of digging down much like the dwarves' delving of Kazhad-dûm, except that at this centre, nothing holds. Peeling an onion makes one cry. (I am not trying to be flippant here but valiantly suggesting that dry as dust scholarship need not be painfully boring. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

It seems to me to ignore the evidence of very fertile interconnectedness of the three main works, TH, The Silm, and LOTR. Interwoven, I should say, over a lifetime of writing.

So, I would prefer Richard Jeffery's metaphor of root and tree. It is fecund, organic, implies a soil to which elements return and return, yet offers fruits repeatedly of its own for rebirth. Somewhere among those roots are Old English, Norse myths, Faith, life, just as they can be recharted among the branches.

And the end of all our posting might be to return to the first place and know it again for the first time. *apologies to T.S. Eliot*

Bethberry

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

I may have a severe attack of the "fuzzies', since I am leaving several posters whom I respect scratching their heads! Please forgive any confusion. Let me try and explain.

Bethberry-- Regarding the origins of this thread: My original question did arise from reading "It Seems Different Near the Shire". In that excellent discussion, several explanations were put forward as to why the Shire and the surrounding area seemed to evince a distinct sense of faery. Yet no one mentioned the simple but obvious point that the region was the one which most clearly showed the influence of Tolkien's English roots. I felt those roots had some bearing on that special aura.

From there, I created a new thread that concerned the extent of "English influence" on the Legendarium and the degree to which this influence was recognized by today's readers. I bemoaned the fact that we seemed to be losing this sense of connection for a variety of reasons. My introductory discussion was very broad, too broad, as it touched on many different aspects of these themes. Because I was uncertain whether the topic held general interest, I purposely phrased my post and questions in the widest sense. I hoped to generate some broad discussion and then narrow the focus. (Bad idea!) The personal details I included were intended to show that, even before the Letters or Shippey's book, I sensed an underlying English influence, often subtle, that went beyond the Victorian image of the Shire and perhaps rested on older roots.

Sorry this wasn't clear, but I still hold stubbornly to my central proposition: the Legendarium (from Silm to Hobbit to LotR) is rich with English placenames, words, and associations of all types, not just in terms of the Victorian Shire but an older and, to me, more intriguing connection with Old English language and lore. And where JRRT was unable to draw on specifically Anglo-Saxon sources, he turned instead to Norse, Finnish, and Germanic ones and proceeded to "Anglicize" them. This was familiar to me since historians are forced to resort to these very same borrowing and guessing games for this period.

This was all part of Tolkien's openly stated effort to create a series of tales for England to make up for those that had been sadly lost. This was his first and primary motive in creating the Legendarium, i.e. the very first layer of the complex onion which was later to emerge.

We may also be getting "bogged down" in terminology. When I speak of the Silm, I am not merely referring to the truncated version edited by CT but the evolving Legendarium as it developed from its earliest days down through the material which appears, for example, in Morgoth's Ring.

Littlemanpoet raised the issue of Celtic versus Old English origins:

I confess to being one of those people who sees no Anglo-Saxon, but plenty of Celtic, in The Silmarillion.

But take a look at what the author himself says. Tolkien clearly felt the Celtic tales were not a genuine expression of the English soul:

I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek and Celtic and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me) but nothing English....Letters, p 144

Or this:

...that rare allusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things).

In 1937 Tolkien makes an even stronger statement to this effect. Allen & Unwin had just rejected his first edition of the Silm, the reviewer stating that the "Silm has some of that bright-eyed beauty that perplexes all Anglo-Saxons in the face of Celtic art." Tolkien's frustration is evident in his response:

Needless to say, they (i.e. the names in the writings) are not Celtic. Neither are the tales. I do know Celtic things (many in their original languages Irish and Welsh) and feel for them a certain distaste. largely for their fundamental unreason. They have bright colour, but are like a broken stained glass window reassembled without design. They are in fact 'mad' as your reader says -- but I don't believe I am.

No one could deny that there are concepts (e.g. Tuatha de danaan Elves) and words in the Legendarium drawn from the Welsh and Irish (and the Cornish!) tradition, but Tolkien evidently felt they were not central to his heart or to the story itself.

Littlemanpoet Within the confines of this thread, it would be hard for me to show point-by-point that, at the base of the Silm, lies a whole variety of Old English lore (plus the related Germanic, Finnish and Norse stories that have been Anglicized). It would have been easier to show this influence if Tolkien had used a major work like Beowulf or the Icelandic sagas as his chief inspiration, but no works such as these even exist for Old English. So instead he used bits and pieces of hundreds of different things.

Once again, I refer you back to Shippey. As a philologist, he went in word-by-word and point-by-point (just like Tolkien did) drawing upon a hundred different scraps of evidence to reconstruct these ancient "sources". His work was appropriately titled: The Road to Middle-earth: How J.R.R. Tolkien Created a New Mythology. Given that Shippey's original publication date was 1982, before much of HoMe came out, his attention was naturally focused more closely on the Hobbit and the Rings. But he does devote a chapter to Silm and another to the early HoMe (BoLt 1 & 2, and The Lost Road) where he shows many of these same influences. Shippey was one of the very few critics of whom JRRT approved. When he saw the first draft of his book, he said:

I am in agreement with nearly all that you say , and I only regret that I have not the time to talk more about your paper.

Given JRRT's opinion of critics, this was high praise indeed!

Without getting into details, here are a brief list of topics/persons which Shippey mentions go back to Anglo-Saxon or other related sources as I've explained above:

1.Fall of the Noldor (actually quotes a line verbatim from an Old English poem Maxims I--saw the origin of evil in the forging of a sword and what happened to it just as Tolkien saw it in the creation of the Silmarils and the subsequent struggle)

2. The whole question whether Elves have souls"--draws on the Early South English Legends

3.Figures of Turin and his sister, Aelf-wine, Alb-oin, Ing, Earendil, Eriol, Audoin (Edwin), Aldorion and Erendis,

4. Origin and place names of Tol Eressea

5. Certain concepts of time and fate which can be traced back to Deor, an O.E. poem

6. An association between those mariners who tried to find the Lost Road and the ancient custom of ship burials which physically repesented this same desire to sail away and avoid death.

7. The concept of Elf-friend, at least as a name.

My favorite is Earendil. He's in the Exeter Book which is based on earlier Anglo and Germanic sources: Oh, Earendil, brightest of angels, sent to men above Middle-earth..." How appropriate!

Hope this helps a little.

Rimbaud: I always like your posts. They make me think and this time is no exception. But I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. The critical point for me is not the disparity in wealth, which certainly existed. I feel that class implies a certain consciousness on the part of the members of that group. And I do not believe medieval man ever reached such a consciousness. He simply did not picture himself in this way. The earliest hints of this are in the 14th and 15th century when certain small uprisings occur among the peasants. But many medievalists would dispute even this.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry --

We managed to cross post. Mine was quite lengthy, plus I am typing with one hand and also racing around the house preparing to take in some folk who've been called in off the rigs. (We are under a tropical storm warning.)

I can see that we both like the poem with the reference to Earendil! Strangely enough, I have managed to refer to several things you mentioned in your earlier post, but generally within a context totally different than your own. Let me think about onions, and trees and roots. That merits further attention.

My own experience has been perhaps different than your own. When I first begin a project, I often have one central concept or motive in mind, one true reason I'm willing to put in the time and effort. There may be other things in my head as well, but these are usually secondary.

I think this holds true for many feats in life, including the writing of tales. Once the actual writing begins, however, things quickly become more complex. You evolve. The story evolves. And everything takes off with a life of its own.

Tolkien had devoted most of his waking hours to the study of the ancient northern languages as a young man. For this reason, I find it believable that he should feel great frustration that his country, out of all the others, had managed to "lose" its old tales, and that he would set himself to rectify that.

There is the famous quote in the Letters in 1951.

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend.....--which I could dedicate simply to: England; to my country"

People have interpreted this in many different ways, but, interestingly, if it is taken at face value, it supports the argument Shippey is making regarding the original motive for the Legendarium (and myself by implication on his coattails).

sharon

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[littlemanpoet]

Thank you, Child, for the evidence. I do agree that the Celtic madness is not to be found in Tolkien.

I do prefer the root and tree analogy as closer at heart to Tolkien's creative process.

Having not progressed so far in my studies of history, Rimbaud and Child probably know more than I. Still, I think a distinction is in order between class consciousness on one hand and [i]clan/tribe loyalties[i] on the other. One need not necessarily talk about this in terms of feudalism, either. Class consciousness grew out of the rise of the Middle Class through mercantilism, I believe. Until there was a middle class of any kind in northern Europe, clan/tribe loyalties (such as Frodo and Sam) did not have any concern for class. So I'd agree with Child.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry --

Your root and branch analogy is probably a better literary model. It is more subtle and takes into account gradations of change and meaning.

However, personally, in terms of my own "onion", I didn't think of each new layer as being totally distinct. Rather each layer re-embodies a bit of what's underneath plus whatever "new" ingredient comes to the fore.

But there is one way that I do prefer my onion. For me, peeling an onion is hard, really hard. It's not dry or dead, quite the opposite. It has plenty of sting and zip. (I am allergic and I cry all over.) And for me, ferreting out the different layers of meaning in Tolkien is also hard, fun but difficult. Branches and roots are too peaceful, too gradual, while peeling an onion is definitely an interactive activity, and that appeals to me. (You should see me peel onions. I have to keep the tap running. It requires a definite commitment of will.)

Whenever you deal with models like this, I believe it is actually more a question of what fits into your own personal consciousness and life experiences as well as the peculiarities of the particular author. I do like, however, the organic quality of the root/branch metaphor and can understand why that would have particular significance for "Bethberry".

sharon

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Rimbaud]

Littlemanpoet - Frodo and Sam's relationship is based almost exclusively (at first) on notions of class, I cannot see any way in which this is not apparent.

I am not willing to enter into heated debate on the origins of class - the nomenclature itself has now been questioned, which gives rise to a host of definition-based arguments - but it is important to contextualise; Tolkien was writing in the mid and post War periods of class dissolution and the issue would have been at the forefront of educated thinking.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Rimbaud --

I do agree with your assessment of Frodo and Sam. Class is a definite factor. Indeed, at the beginning of the story, it is the single most important element in their relationship. In my mind, this is because the Shire is a definite "calque" on Victorian/Edwardian society which was running over with class consciousness.

My reservations about "class" do not apply to the Shire, but only those elements of Middle-earth which look back to an older model.

Just wanted to make the distinction clear.

sharon

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, Frodo and Sam were a bad example. Elessar and Faramir, and Elessar and Beregond are more appropo. I'll mind my own business now.

[Rimbaud]

My tart retort (excuse the Germanic pun) seems to have caused some offence, for which I apologise. I am a happy little soul, really.

[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Anna Licumo]

[My gooodness, I'm not really smart enough to debate firmly in this! Still, I have my own two cents...]

Characters like Helm Hammerhand, Turin, and Dain show clear affinities with quasi-pagan heroes.

And if I'm not mistaken, early Christians (especially Catholics) took old pagan myths and heros and slightly converted them into saints and miracles- to make it easier on the converts to accept things, I suppose. So is Turin an almost pagan character? Hmmmm.

That could perhaps lead to certian implications. [though I am probably looking too deep into it] The Valar as the 'demi-gods' and their later seperation to Men and Elves... I believe it even mentions that the Children knew Eru (though perhaps not by that name) was their true god, a polytheist approach, but that Melkor/Sauron built churches to 'dark worship', to help get the Numeanors to support him to his attack on Valinor.

And how does this relate to Tolkien and his Catholic beliefs? Would the change of a polytheist to pagan and the Men's downfall reflect that? How would the Fall- 'Atlantis'-likewise reflect on English mythology?

[Sorry if my post is slighly derailing or a wrong- I am struggling to finish the Sil., what with Collage-prep classes and the such. Just ignore me and I'll go away. ]

[Bêthberry]

Child,

Well, the root and tree metaphor might suit 'Bethberry' LOL but I do think Richard Jeffrey chose it because of its central importance to Tolkien and not to me/her. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

This discussion is interesting to me because it demonstrates how you and I go about things differently. I understand your desire to dig for roots and 'ground' your observations in your personal experience. My interests are developed in quite an opposite manner. They derive from alternative ways of reading literature, ways dependent to some extent on the rapid changes in our understanding of texts over the last twenty or thirty years. (Not that I've been around personally to observe them for that long!) These new ways often challenge the old ideas about reading texts.

One of these changes in our understanding has made claims about origins (causation) very suspect, for many reasons, some valid, some spurious. What is no longer contested is the idea that there are simple, direct, straight forward answers to questions about sources, origins, and intention.(Shippey is twenty years old by now.) Human creativity, particularly that of a writer such as Tolkien, is far more complex, various, multiple. And as my paraphrase of Eliot was meant to suggest, often we construct our origins by looking back rather than by looking ahead.

Thus, I would say that Shippey is too reductive. The letter you quote is just one letter. What about Tolkien's lecture "A Secret Vice," on his childhood delight in creating languages? I can find several letters which state Tolkien's languages were formative on the development of the Legendarium--that the languages came before the stories and the characters and the desire to recreate lost legends. That's why the Eärendil poem is so perfect for my argument--it speaks to two avenues of thought or meaning at once and we cannot at this time identify which had priority--if, indeed, one ever did. We can only hold them in simultaneous plenitude.

So, this is my own ground, that the motivation of a writer like Tolkien cannot be reduced to just one level. I think it was your use of the word "basics" in the thread title which really drew me on to point out this differing basis for our claims.

We should probably just share the life jacket. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Bethberry

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]