The Nazis & a Mytholgy for England

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks, Davem. This is a fascinating argument. I have never heard anyone set forward this idea in quite this way, although many early critics contended that LotR was an "allegory" of WWII, a contention that the author denied.

Yet my own perception is different than your own. It's certainly true that the earlier drafts in HoMe were more light hearted, especially in their use of language and depiction of the hobbits, and that this tone grew progressively darker. Most would attribute this to the fact that Tolkien was gradually shifting away from the mode of writing and thought that had shaped the Hobbit. Even so, there could have been a more profound underlying element at work to produce such a shift. And, as Rimbaud has said, it's clear Tolkien resented how the Nazis had abused Northern myth.

But I read this whole thing differently than you do. If we compare what had been written of the Legendarium prior to LotR with the tone of the Rings itself, I think you come away with a different picture. My impression is that those portions of the Legendarium constructed from the early 1900s down to the start of World War II were often pessimistic in the extreme. With only one or two notable exceptions, it seems to be an unmitigated tale of sorrow and disaster: Men, Elves, and even the Valar making horrible mistakes. The depth of tragedy that permeates these tales is profound and, I always saw it as indicative of the kind of "doom without hope" that permeates most of the early Northern legends. When I read the current Silm up to the Third Age, which admittedly contains material pre and post World War II, I sometimes come away with the feeling of that the history of Middle-earth is an unmitagated tragedy. The tone is extremely grim.

Lord of the Rings itself seems almost like a miracle of hope when compared with these earlier tales. After all those great heroes of the past have gotten it "wrong", you are given the unlikely and almost unbelievable scenario of hobbits, supported by loyal friends from all the Free Peoples, who somehow--with help from providence-- manage to get things right. In view of the failings of most of the earlier heroes, their success, although temporary, is a welcome respite. Many have described the tone of the final chapters as "bittersweet", and I would agree. Great sadness surely, but also profound joy. Some of the later writings -- the debate between Finrod and Andreth, for example -- are even more explicitly hopeful.

As to what caused this change in writing and tone, I don't think we will ever know for sure. Each of us will probably have a different view. I see two things at work, probably related. As Tolkien grew older, he probably began to muse long and hard on what mortality means. Speaking as an Elder (age-wise, I mean) on this board, I know that such questions often begin to intrude more seriously. And in those musings, Tolkien seems to have placed greater emphasis on his religious beliefs and had less faith in the physical world about him. WWII would certainly have been another part of this process of disillusionment. It must have seemed like a replay of the kind of horror he'd known in the Great War. And yes, the misuse of the "Nordic spirit" must have made him very uncomfortable. There are indications in the minor writings that he indeed began to question the accessibility of faerie.

Perhaps this betrayal by the Nazis, placed alongside the fact that mortality seemed to be looming closer, led him to re-emphasize his own beliefs. This is why I believe that Christian themes and symbols unwittingly crept into the Rings, a reflection of what was going on inside of him. And this is why the tone and ending of LotR is different than many of the early tales. The culmination of this would be the Athrabeth.

Yes, I think the Nazi's betrayal, the War and the fact that he had two sons serving underlined Tolkien's sense of urgency and frustration as he rewrote those earlier chapters and the book took on more serious tones. Perhaps he even began to question his own access to the Faeire realm. Yet, the ending of LotR is far more hopeful than most of the tales that made up the Legendarium. It is this that sticks in my mind.

Edit: I have cross posted with Aiwendil as it took me forever to write this thing. I think that he and I are saying some similar things but coming at it from a different vantage point. Like Aiwendil, I would totally agree that the changes we see in Tolkien's writings were overall not bad: they were just different. I have long disliked Christopher's tone and handling when he deals with some of these differences with references in HoMe.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Child of the 7th Age]Thanks, Davem.

Perhaps this betrayal by the Nazis, placed alongside the fact that mortality seemed to be looming closer, led him to re-emphasize his own beliefs. This is why I believe that Christian themes and symbols unwittingly crept into the Rings,

I feel like a hobbit at the council of the wise but I am sure I read a quote from Tolkien that the rings was Christian and specifically Catholic by intention?

Also I wonder how much more really there is of use rather than curiousity to emerge from letters and diaries ..... love him or loathe him CRT IS a scholar and I doubt that he would suppress much that was relevant to the opus, however loyal and loving a son he also is ..... but then although they are fascinating, I can't help think there is something deeply unpleasant about reading letters intended for one recipient and even more a diary intended for no-one (not everyone does write them with an eye to posterity ) ... I felt like a voyeur reading even my mother's after she died...

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien said that Lord of the Rings was "a fundamentally Catholic work". I think that Tolkien didn't intend his writing to reflect the moral strictures/theology of the catholic church, more the spiritual element of his Catholic faith - as seen in the good/evil struggle (yet with shades of grey), or the redemption of characters such as Boromir. And what is interesting is that Catholicism is quite different to many other Christian churches in that it has an elaborate 'mythology' system (saints), and the tenets of Celtic Catholicism were often built upon older non-Christian beliefs.

This opens up another can of worms...but no offence intended!

I myself get the feeling that as Tolkien got older more sadness did creep into his work, and more emphasis on his own beliefs was evident - perhaps this is as a result of him getting older - I do find that as age creeps up on you either grow more reliant upon your faith or you lose it altogether (my own parents are at these two polar ends of the scale). The other day I read, for the first time, Tolkien's draft of a story set in the fourth age (it can be found in Peoples of Middle Earth), and what struck me was how he was struggling with the implications of a world now at peace. It was as though he believed there never could be peace, and I was affected by how he was obviously struggling with this concept, and was unable to produce a story he felt was worthwhile. In the notes it mentions how Tolkien thought that in the fourth age there might be those who would forget the wars their forefathers had fought and would look to stir up conflict for the sake of it. I did get the feeling that this was Tolkien's own regretful view of human existence, as he got older and saw constant conflict around the world, despite the message of the two world wars he had seen.

I hadn't before given thought to how Tolkien might view the Nazi mis-appropriation of Nordic myths, but I do think, from tying what I have read on here with my recent reading of the abandoned 4th age tale, that Tolkien was deeply upset by this misuse of stories he held so dear. There are many areas of culture which the Nazis 'soiled', and which racists still soil to this day. The appropriation of the English flag by jingoists and racists is just one example. So yes, I think it is probable that Tolkien did lose faith in his original intention somewhat.

This is an interesting topic, but it's hard to express yourself when discussing religion and politics via this medium!

[davem]

I suppose we can only speculate on whether Tolkien would have ended up in the place he did - the philosophy of 'subcreation', as the creation of a secondary world existing solely in the mind, which, if it has any relevance to the primary world, is due to the way an individual reader 'applies' what they read - even if Nazism had not raised its ugly head. All we can say, after reading the words of the TCBS in Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War', is that he began wanting to produce a mythology which would lead to a moral regeneration of his nation, & he ended his life, ostensibly, wanting nothing of the sort. In the 40 years or so between beginning BoLT & the writing of the 2nd foreword to LotR his outlook & philosophy changed totally. Perhaps no event in the primary world affected his outlook, & the change was purely a result of his own psychological & spiritual growth & the growth of his understanding of myth.

Yet, even this would have to be explained, because clearly in his early life - into his '20's - his concern was focussed on the 'practical' value of myth to effect change on individuals, & he also seems to have believed that that change could be in some way 'directed' - giving England a mythology of its own would re-establish its moral values, its sense of identity, & its sense of purpose. So we'd still have to explain when & why he rejected, or at least moved away from, that belief.

(EDIT: some quotes from members of the TCBS given in Garth's book: (this is lifted from my post on the Canonicity thread)

(On to the TCBS from Tolkien & the Great War)

(p14)Tolkien once compared the TCBS to the pre-Raphaelites, probably in response to the Brotherhood's preoccupation with restoring Medieval values in Art.

(p56) Tolkien maintained that the society was 'a great idea which has never become quite articulate'. Its two poles, the moral & the aesthetic, could be complemantary if kept in balance...While the Great Twin Brethren (Tolkien & Wiseman) had discussed the fundamentals of existence, neither of them had done so with Gilson or Smith. As a result, Tolkien declared, the potential these four 'amazing' individuals contained in combination remained unbroached.'

(p105) Gilson proposed that feminism would help by banishing the view that 'woman was just an apparatus for man's pleasure'

Smith declared that, through Art, the four would have to leave the world better than they had found it. Their role would be ' to drive from life, letters, the satge & society that dabbling in & hankering after the unpleasant sides & incidents in life & nature which have captured the larger & worser tastes in Oxford, London & the world ... To re-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty in everyone's breast.

Gilson told Tolkien that, sitting in Routh Road... 'I suddenly saw the TCBS in a blaze of Light as a great Moral reformer ...Engalnd purified of its loathsome moral disease by the TCBS spirit. It is an enormous task & we shall not see it accomplished in our lifetime.

(p 122) Rob Gilson: I like to say & to hear it said & to feel boldly that the glory of beauty & order & joyful contentment in the universe is the presence of God....GB Smith was closely attentive to Tolkien's vision & in some measure shared it....Smith saw no demarcation between holiness & Faerie.

(p136) TCBSianism had come to mean fortitude & courage & alliance. ...But the TCBS had absorbed patriotic duty into its constitution not simply because its members were all patriots. the war mattered because it was being fought 'so England's self draw breath'; so that the inspirations of 'the real days' of peace might survive'...

Gilson: 'I have faith that the TCBS may for itself - never for the world - than God for this war some day.

Tolkien already believed that the terrros to come might serve him in the visionary work of his life - if he survived.

(p174) Tolkien: 'Regarding, presumably, those same 'idle chatterers', the journalists& their readers whom Smith execrated, he wrote that 'No filter of true sentiment, no ray of feeling for beauty, women, history or their country shall reach them again.'

(p180) Smith (after Rob Gilson's death in battle) 'The group was spiritual in character, 'an influence on the state of being', & as such it transcended mortality; it was 'as permanently inseperable as Thor & his hammer'. the influence, he said, was, 'a tradition, which forty years from now will still be as strong to us (if we are alive, & if we are not) as it is today.

(Tolkien) 'the TCBS may have been all we dreamt - & its work in the end be done by three or two or one survivor ... To this I now pin my hopes..'

(p253) Smith had wanted them to leave the world a better place than when they found it, to 're-establish sanity, cleanliness, & the love of real & true beauty' through art embodying TCBSian principles.

(p308) 'The 24 year old Tolkien had believed just as strongly in the dream shared by the TCBS, & felt that they 'had been granted some spark of fire ... that was destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world

(p309) But The Lord of the Rings, the masterpiece that was published a decade & a half later, stands as the fruition of the TCBSian dream, a light drawn from ancient sources to illumnate a darkening world'.

So right from the start of the Lost Tales, Tolkien is attempting to cast the TCBSian philosophy into artistic form. It culminates in the publication of LotR - at least during his lifetime. So, its not, or was never intended to be, simply a story. Its not an allegory in the strict sense, but the Legendarium could be seen as a mythologisation of TCBSianism vs the 'world'.

If there is an underlying 'truth' it is perhaps the 'truth' that the TCBS believed in - & so we're back to the question of what 'truth' Tolkien is revealing to us in his works - some kind of 'absolute', archetypal TRUTH, or simply what he felt to be true about the world, & we have to ask ourselves how close the two are.

Wherever we come down, its clear that whatever he was doing, he was attempting to do more than simply 'entertain' readers, because the TCBS was born in the hearts & minds of idealistic young men in peacetime & blasted apart on the Somme. Tolkien's mythology came into being during the horrors of mechanised warfare. But we enter it (or most of us do) as the TCBS would have originally, & it represents for us, as it would have for them, before the war, as a place of escape, of beauty, excitement, sadness, so we simply cannot read it as Tolkien would have read it himself when he came back to it to comment on its meaning for him. For us, it will have no 'meaning' beyond itself, & wahtever meaning we find in it for ourselves & our lives in this world, they will not, cannot, be the same as they were for Tolkien, so, our interpretations of it are as valid as his.

Which is not to say that he didn't intend us to find TCBSian values in it, & to find them more attractive than what was on offer in the 'primary world'. So, I'd say the book certainly contains deliberate 'meaning', that there is an intention on Tolkien's part that we should find in it waht he wants us to find, & also that he wants us to agree with him - but we never really could, because we're our own people, living our own lives, with our own experiences which we take to Middle Earth with us, & bring back out transformed.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Also I wonder how much more really there is of use rather than curiousity to emerge from letters and diaries ..... love him or loathe him CRT IS a scholar and I doubt that he would suppress much that was relevant to the opus, however loyal and loving a son he also is ..... but then although they are fascinating, I can't help think there is something deeply unpleasant about
reading letters intended for one recipient and even more a diary intended for no-one (not everyone does write them with an eye to posterity )

Ok, I see this. Then again - was Tolkien an important literary artist, or simply a clever, inventive, storyteller? Is he worth trying to understand as a man? Should Carpenter's (& Garth's) biography have been written. Should the Sil, UT & HoME have been published - Tolkien clearly wouldn't have published them as they are , because none of them are actually finished.

And this thread? Should we be even discussing this subject? Well, Tolkien published the Fairy Stories essay, which is a discussion on the nature & value of myth, legend & fairystory, which sets out his own 'philosophical' stance on the subject. Are we to simply accept what he says there, without asking what he means, & how he came to his position on the subject? If his stories become in a sense public property when they're published, then don't his views & beliefs also become public property when he 'publishes' them? Perhaps if the rest of his letters & his diaries were published we would be able to end this kind of speculation.

[Mithalwen]

I WAS trying to make a distinction between stuff he had written regarding Middle Earth ( and from even my superficial reading of HoME it seems to contain every last jotting on the back of an envelope.) and private writing.

I want to know everything there is about Middle Earth certainly, and he put Middle Earth into the public domain so I think it is reasonable that these be published or accessible ...( but when reading them I think it should be remembered that they are unfinished work at best and much is in draft or part- formed ideas)

HoweverI am not sure we have the right to know everything about the man. As with not knowing more of Olorin, than was revealed in Gandalf, I don't think we have the right to know to know more about him than he reveals in his work. So I think we don't have the right to have unlimited access to personal letters and diaries and the question of whether he was a great artist or a great storyteller is irrelevant. It has to stop somewhere.... would it be ok to see his medical records? Get his priest to break the seal of confession? Exhume him to see if he were genetically programmed to some mindview........ Biographical information can be a distraction from the work.... I don't think that venturing part of yourself into public life means you totally lose the right to any privacy, though given the success of the tabloid press in the UK I am clearly in a minority on this one.

Finally I don't think for a moment that it would end speculation - much more likely to feed it. After all if "published" essays such as Tree and Leaf are obscure enough to need explanation then how much more explanation are letters and diaries going to need? After all the only person who usually reads a diary knows exactly what the writer means!.... and generally such documents are less considered than more formal writings. Tolkien lived in the age of the letter which may have given permanent form to trivial thought and so disproportionate significance to those who would praise and blame them....... More information doesn't always resolve matters just raises more questions...

[davem]

To what extent is the story seperate from the storyteller? I think this is the question. If the mythology stands alone, as if it were history, then we would have no real requirement to know about the historian - though that might help us to understand if the historian was biased in any way, & whether he was being selective in the facts he gave us.

But if the mythology is the man in some sense, then an understanding of the man will give an insight into the mythology.

It brings us back to the question of whether the mythology was intended to impact on the primary world in any way. If it was, then Tolkien the man was attempting, through his mythology, to affect us & our world. So, we're back to the question of what Tolkien's intention was, whether it changed, & if it did, why?

Suppose he'd succeeded in his original intent, & our world had been impacted to some extent, wouldn't we have the right to know about the man who had done that?

Yet, if he did change in his intentions, a more interesting question - in the context of this thread - arises - how can it be that a mythology which began with that intent of 'moral regeneration' of the English, produced as its greatest manifestation a work (LotR) which had no purpose behind it than simple entertainment?

[Mithalwen]

I am aware I may have dragged this discussion somewhat off topic but one line of thinking leads to another ....... and I am aware that I may be getting out of my depth.....

don't think I can reply on the hoof withgout my brain exploding ....