Adoption and Foster Care

[mark12_30]

Bilbo adopted Frodo.

Elrond fostered Aragorn.

First Aunt Beatrice, and then Father Francis, fostered Tolkien.

What other adopted/ foster relationships are there in Tolkien's works?

How do these relationships compare and contrast? How deeply did Tolkien's own experience affect his characters' relationships?

(And if C7A started another thread like this, please link it. I searched, and found not.)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Thingol and Túrin too.

There was certainly great love in all of these relationships, and they were all beneficial to both parties....I....think? Could argue?

Have any other authors (who never had such experiences as Tolkien) placed as great an emphasis on adoption and foster care in their books? It immediately strikes me as a pretty straight-forward consequence of the author's life.

Interesting topic.

[Bêthberry]

It is an interesting topic, Helen.

There's orphans aplenty in Victorian literature. Pip in Great Expectations for one. Jane Eyre for another. Earlier on, Tom Jones was a foundling. Well, really an illegitimate child abandoned because of the mores of the time. They don't have a very good time of it. except for Tom of course. (I wonder, what 'baggage' does the name 'Tom' carry?)

But then Cinderella was an orphan, wasn't she? or just motherless? Snow White? Could this also be part of the fairy heritage?

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Well, Theoden looked after Eomer and Eowyn after their parents died. I think it's touching that despite Theoden had a child of his own, he called Eomer his son (LotR, book 5, ch.5) and probably treated him as one, too. There's also great affection between Theoden and Eowyn. After all, she was ready to die for him. I'd say that Theoden replaced Eomer and Eowyn's parents pretty well.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But then Cinderella was an orphan, wasn't she? or just motherless? Snow White? Could this also be part of the fairy heritage?

Are you using 'heritage' in the literary sense, or, are you speaking in terms of genetics-- changelings, The Great Silkie, etc... or fostering: 'fairy Godmothers'? Interesting possibilities.

"The Fairy Wife" concept is near & dear to me, as is also the Dol Amroth story. I hadn't thought of those connecting with this. (I'm not sure yet if they do.)

[Lalwendë]

There is also the Galadriel/Arwen relationship after Celebrian leaves Middle-earth, which seems to be close between grandmother and grandaughter. It is interesting how all these relationships are positive when often literature, films and particularly TV soaps often exploit the vulnerability of the 'orphan'. This might be more understandable in older literature as such situations would be a lot more common and the official support netwroks did not exist as they do today (though they still leave much to be desired sadly).

It's not something I had particularly noticed before, but now I've thought about it, Tolkien does have a very positive outlook on such relationships. It could of course be simply a necessity in such societies that children left alone are cared for, or that it might be difficult for a figure such as Aragorn's mother to bring up a child in the wilderness; it could be sheer practicality. But there do seem to be a lot of these rleationships in the books, so it's likely they are a reflection of Tolkien's own upbringing.

[Elrowen Tinúviel]

Didn't Maglor look after Elrond and Elros for a time?
I forget the exact situation... been a while since I read the Silmarillion.

Elrond also helped raise Arathorn II as well as Aragorn, right?

-Elrowen

[Eruanna]

An interesting topic
Although I think that Tolkien was undoubtedly influenced by his own experiences of losing both of his parents at an early age the theme of the adopted/fostered hero is one that crops up time and again in literature. I can think of many instances from Greek myth to the Bible, Shakespeare and beyond.
Not all of these adoptions/fosterings ended happily, but here are a few of the positive ones I can think of:
Beowulf, who was 'sister-son' to the King of the Geats, his own father having died, he was raised by his uncle, the king.
Moses, adopted and raised by the sister of the Pharoah of Egypt.
Luke Skywalker, orphaned and raised by his aunt and uncle (sorry, I had to add that one
Each of these, having been raised in a benevolent atmosphere went on to perform heroic deeds. I wonder if those whose experiences were less fortunate were spurred on to less glorious deeds? Time for some research, I think!
Like Bethberry, I also wonder if we can include the influence of fairy tales?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But there do seem to be a lot of these rleationships in the books, so it's likely they are a reflection of Tolkien's own upbringing.

I don't mean to discount your conclusion, but I do wonder what conditions we assign or ascribe to autobiographical impulses. I mean, I know that there is a profound link between the author and his writing, but I sometimes think we too quickly or easily assume that correlations are causations.

Other than the similar presence of the trope of orphans and foster care, what evidence is there that this would be derived from Tolkien's own experience?

I don't ask to be curmudgeonly but because in my reading of writers' letters and relations with other writers I have found that the autobiographical impulse is rarely so directly or openly satisfied. It is usually far more complex and hidden. I mean, it is interesting that Tolkien associated himself with Faramir, the younger brother, yet he was the older brother in real life. And we all know what happens to the older brother.

Loss of parents at an early age is profoundly unsettling for a child's development. We know that Tolkien had a very close relationship with his mother through their mutual faith. And we also know that to some extent he harboured regrets at the role his guardians played in his love affair with Edith. Yet Edith too was similarly orphaned, was she not? Does that explain why both Aragorn and Arwen were motherless at the time of LotR? Or does it perhaps provide a wider way to explore a variety of issues about character, loyality, motivation? And is fostering that is blood-based more successful than fostering that is assumed without blood ties?

Changlings and selkies, Helen I think Tolkien has omitted from his perilous realm. Why?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I don't mean to discount your conclusion, but I do wonder what conditions we assign or ascribe to autobiographical impulses. I mean, I know that there is a profound link between the author and his writing, but I sometimes think we too quickly or easily assume that correlations are causations.

I think that as something as profound as your upbringing and your relationship with parent/guardian has an influence on your own personality, then it would surely follow that this would also have an effect on any creative endeavours. Tolkien's later experiences in WWI would be discernible in his writing, so why not his upbringing? But you are right that we ought to be careful in what links we make from life to writer. A case in point is Daddy by Plath, which at first glance might make the reader think she despised her father, while the opposite is true; to a certain extent the (controlled) rage of this work is due in fact to love, and to use only a biographical approach risks a mangled interpretation. But I'll leave that there, as there are seemingly as many ways to interpret Plath as there are to interpret Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Or does it perhaps provide a wider way to explore a variety of issues about character, loyality, motivation?

Yes, it does give us a lot of opportunites by way of textual analysis too. For example, the fact that a character is without their parents does provide other narrative opportunities. In a way, that character is free to act without the ties of family, both in terms of not being restricted by expectation and not being responsible for a relative. There are a lot of avenues to explore in this direction within the text.

I suppose the most interesting question this raises is whether life experience really does influence a writer and to what extent?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't mean to discount your conclusion, but I do wonder what conditions we assign or ascribe to autobiographical impulses. I mean, I know that there is a profound link between the author and his writing, but I sometimes think we too quickly or easily assume that correlations are causations.

I agree that it is difficult to come to hard-and-fast conclusions; unles the author tells us point-blank it is hard to know the "why's". Better, perhaps, to simply note similarities, or correlations if you like, and then letting the silence linger while each of us ponders what the similarities might mean. I will be happy if this thread does that.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Other than the similar presence of the trope of orphans and foster care, what evidence is there that this would be derived from Tolkien's own experience?

Not much evidence, but there is the parallel that Aragorn draws between Arwen & himself, and Luthien and Beren (by singing 'The leaves were long, the grass was green'.) We do know that Tolkien identified strongly with Beren and that Luthien was partly based on Edith, especially the enchantment of seeing her dance in the woods. And in The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, Aragorn calls Arwen "Tinuviel" on their first meeting. Aragorn was forbidden by his foster-father Elrond to marry Arwen til he had essentially marshalled the West, defeated the East, and come into his inheritance (Kingship of North and South).

Meanwhile, Father Francis also forbade Tolkien to pursue Edith until he was-- twenty-one? which was when he was back from the war.

Beren was set to an impossible task-- Luthien accompanied him, and so the task succeeded (more or less); I wonder if this is how Tolkien wished his early years had worked out.

Comparing Tolkien and Aragorn, I think the insistence of the foster-father that the young man earn the hand of the bride by proving his valor/ earning his manhood is a similarity of note.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't ask to be curmudgeonly but because in my reading of writers' letters and relations with other writers I have found that the autobiographical impulse is rarely so directly or openly satisfied. It is usually far more complex and hidden. I mean, it is interesting that Tolkien associated himself with Faramir, the younger brother, yet he was the older brother in real life. And we all know what happens to the older brother.

Loss of parents at an early age is profoundly unsettling for a child's development. We know that Tolkien had a very close relationship with his mother through their mutual faith. And we also know that to some extent he harboured regrets at the role his guardians played in his love affair with Edith. Yet Edith too was similarly orphaned, was she not? Does that explain why both Aragorn and Arwen were motherless at the time of LotR? Or does it perhaps provide a wider way to explore a variety of issues about character, loyality, motivation?

I don't see why it shouldn't do both. Layering. Like an onion-- or is it a parfait?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And is fostering that is blood-based more successful than fostering that is assumed without blood ties?

Good question.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Changlings and selkies, Helen I think Tolkien has omitted from his perilous realm. Why?

On the surface-- but Aragorn was essentially raised by the elves, no? Not really a changeling, but not a 'normal' man, either.

The Silkie was probably omitted by basic catholic morality; I have no problem with that omission, really. Makes LOTR a nice, family friendly book.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by mark12_30:
Meanwhile, Father Francis also forbade Tolkien to pursue Edith until he was-- twenty-one? which was when he was back from the war.

When I first read about poor Tolkien's love life, I almost laughed and cried at once. Not at Tolkien, no, I'm not mean, but my brother has just gone through the exact same experience, pretty much...and was still in the middle of it when I read about Tolkien and Edith.

I think there are many things written in Tolkien's books and histories that reflect what he went through in life. And not so that he could cling to the past and to the hurt, but more like a memory. Something in every human that has the ability to do something well longs to tell the story of the emotional things that have happened in the past though their art.

The greatest authors are often men and women that have been through a lot in life - loosing parents, going through war, loving someone and being torn apart from them, seeing bondage and longing to see freedom - and they want to release all that stuff that's in them and sometimes the only way they can do that is to write.

And because they have so much experience in life and actually have something to write about that they've been through first hand, their books are great and become classics and so it goes on.

But these are only fragments of thoughts that I have not had time to complete and never will complete totally. All I'm saying is, it's possible that Tolkien put a lot into his books that happened to him in life on purpose.

- Folwren

[Bêthberry]

Here goes my third attempt at replying--and here's hoping that I won't be called away before I can finish.

Okay, in light of the many examples and comments here, let me suggest a way to develop this trope that Helen has kindly handed us.

Let's assume that Tolkien was exploring his own upbringing through these myriad examples. I guess the first question I would ask is, "Does Tolkien use himself as a way of explaining of the world, or does he use the trope of fostering as a way to explain himself? We don't normally consider him one of the autobiographical poets, like Lal's example of Plath, so how do we understand what these references are doing in the stories. Are they essential or are they plot fillers?

If is Tolkien exploring his own fostered childhood, does he come to any conclusions? What sort of self-understanding might be at work here? Is he suggestsing something about the human mind and its capacity to function? Does he suggest a long-suppressed longing for an absent mother? What, if any, emotional pain is there in these stories? Is there any angst in these examples which suggest Tolkien was writing out his pain or anger? Is there anything sublimated that the writing covers over, in denial?

Are we given enough details about these fosterings to see their various effects?

These might be, I hasten to add, the wrong kinds of questions to ask. They presuppose a kind of pyschological complexity derived from the modern novel, a genre Tolkien was not using. (Note, I do not say this as a complaint or criticism.)

I seem to recall something in either Carpenter's biography or in the Letters that Tolkien did harbour regrets that a youthful infatuation was blown out of proportion into something more than it should have been by the guardian's instransience. I'll have to look for this passage, as clearly it will be important here to specify the exact context, but I'm running out of time.

One quick specific note, though.

Originally Posted by Helen

The Silkie was probably omitted by basic catholic morality; I have no problem with that omission, really. Makes LOTR a nice, family friendly book.

One of the things which intrigues me about Tolkien's interest in early myth and heroic narrative is how he turned to Norse mythology for his mythology for the English nation. He 'sided' with what were the interlopers, the invaders, the Anglo Saxons and not with the native Celts and Britons and Welsh. Was this, as Helen suggests, a moral decision? I don't quite understand the issue here, as I have seen many children's books about selkies which are fit reading for a family, as they lack explicit exploitation and graphic details. Possibly this is an aside, however, to the main topic here.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

If is Tolkien exploring his own fostered childhood, does he come to any conclusions? What sort of self-understanding might be at work here? Is he suggestsing something about the human mind and its capacity to function? Does he suggest a long-suppressed longing for an absent mother? What, if any, emotional pain is there in these stories? Is there any angst in these examples which suggest Tolkien was writing out his pain or anger? Is there anything sublimated that the writing covers over, in denial?

There may have been some autobiographical element in Tolkien's repeated use of fostering but it was a common theme in Celtic tradition, both in legend & in fact, as it was found to be an effective way to ensure peace & unity between families. Tolkien certainly drew on Welsh myth & legend & the Mabinogion was a major influence. Possibly this theme in the myths touched him more deeply because of his personal circumstances, but it wasn't his invention. Caitlin Matthews' 2 volume study of the Mabinogion, Mabon & the Mysteries of Britain & Arthur & the Sovereignty of Britain are a good place to start on the relevance of Fostering in Celtic society.

One of the things which intrigues me about Tolkien's interest in early myth and heroic narrative is how he turned to Norse mythology for his mythology for the English nation. He 'sided' with what were the interlopers, the invaders, the Anglo Saxons and not with the native Celts and Britons and Welsh.

'Britain' in the modern sense, is a political invention. Tolkien was not 'British' but English, & it was the English, alone, who he felt lacked a mythology. He clearly felt his ancestry to be English, so he would not have seen the Anglo-Saxons as 'interlopers' or 'invaders'. It wasn't a matter of 'siding' with anyone - he clearly felt in his heart & his bones that he was English - he states as much in his letters. Over here very few of us will refer to ourselves as 'British' if we're asked about our nationality - in fact, generally speaking, the Scots & Welsh (& Cornish, etc), would be quite offended to be called 'British', identifying themselves with their own country rather than with the political entity of 'Britain'. The English are increasingly taking the same approach. I tend to think of myself as English, not 'British' (though if you were to ask me I might even put being a Yorkshireman (or a 'Tyke') before being English.

Long way of saying its perfectly understandable that he wrote a mythology for England - though as one speaker (Ronald Hutton??) pointed out at Birmingham what he actually seems to have produced was a mythology for America.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

There may have been some autobiographical element in Tolkien's repeated use of fostering but it was a common theme in Celtic tradition, both in legend & in fact, as it was found to be an effective way to ensure peace & unity between families.

Yes, it is a very literary--or perhaps narrative would be the better term here-- trope. This was my suggestion in my first post here. I think that to explore autobiographical interests, one would have to find fairly extensive development of the theme, which is what my questions were directed to. In addition to pointing out all the examples of fostering in literature and mythology, and in Tolkien's life, it would be, imho, valuable to consider how the theme is explored in the story. Certainly, for Arwen and Aragorn, there is the strong suggestion that this fostering works into the theme of the elves and men.

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien certainly drew on Welsh myth & legend & the Mabinogion was a major influence. Possibly this theme in the myths touched him more deeply because of his personal circumstances, but it wasn't his invention. Caitlin Matthews' 2 volume study of the Mabinogion, Mabon & the Mysteries of Britain & Arthur & the Sovereignty of Britain are a good place to start on the relevance of Fostering in Celtic society.

My comments were directed more to Helen's comment concerning, for instance, selkies. I don't doubt there's much to be found in the Welsh mythology, but there are a few querilous comments about things Celtic in Tolkien's Letters, which I don't have at hand now. Still and all, disparaging comments in Letters don't automatically mean absence in the work of art.

Originally Posted by davem

'Britain' in the modern sense, is a political invention. Tolkien was not 'British' but English, & it was the English, alone, who he felt lacked a mythology. He clearly felt his ancestry to be English, so he would not have seen the Anglo-Saxons as 'interlopers' or 'invaders'. It wasn't a matter of 'siding' with anyone - he clearly felt in his heart & his bones that he was English - he states as much in his letters. Over here very few of us will refer to ourselves as 'British' if we're asked about our nationality - in fact, generally speaking, the Scots & Welsh (& Cornish, etc), would be quite offended to be called 'British', identifying themselves with their own country rather than with the political entity of 'Britain'. The English are increasingly taking the same approach. I tend to think of myself as English, not 'British' (though if you were to ask me I might even put being a Yorkshireman (or a 'Tyke') before being English.

Point taken, although, as you will note by the bolding that I added to the previous quotation from your post, the term 'Britain' seems to carry a literary function as well as political one.

EDIT: John Milton might be forgiven, after the Commonwealth and then Restoration, for calling his history, The History of Britain, that part especially now called England. He was an early enthusiast who wished to make use of the Arthurian tales, if I am not mistaken.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I don't doubt there's much to be found in the Welsh mythology, but there are a few querilous comments about things Celtic in Tolkien's Letters, which I don't have at hand now.

I think you have to distinguish (as Tolkien did) between Irish myth & Welsh. Certainly he seems to have disliked the Irish language but loved Welsh. It seems to me that his disparaging comments regarding things 'Celtic' refer much more to Irish myths & legends rather than Welsh. The Irish legends are much darker, more full of blood & vengeance, as well as being more 'outlandish' (now I suppose someone will throw 'Culhwch & Olwen' at me!). All that said, I don't think that anyone would deny that the Mabinogion was a major influence on Tolkien.

I think delving too deeply into the biographical aspect is fraught with danger - we don't know enough about the man - Helen stated that Tolkien married Edith at age 21 after returning from WW1. He didn't. He was born in 1892, so he would have been 21 in 1913, a year before WW1 began & they were already married before he went. They married (according to Carpenter) on 22 March 1916 & Tolkien embarked for France on 4 June of that year. I don't mean to pick on Helen here, but I think there is a danger of reading the text & making assumptions about Tolkien's life which may not apply.

Point taken, although, as you will note by the bolding that I added to the previous quotation from your post, the term 'Britain' seems to carry a literary function as well as political one.

Matthews was writing about Celtic (ie 'British' or non-Anglo-Saxon) myth, so her usage is correct. I think, in the post colonial period the inhabitants of these Islands have been forced into a rethink of our identity. 'Britain'/Britishness' seems to have been a concept which came into being with the Empire & has died along with it. The English were the last ones to hold onto the term & saw it as synonymous with English. Since the Welsh & Scots have reasserted their own unique identity in increasingly vociferous ways & have now gained their own Parliament (Scotland) & Assembly (Wales) & the same thing is happening in Northern Ireland, we English have come more & more to seek out our own identity, seperate from the Celts. Tolkien seems to have seen that coming & realised that just as the Celts of these Islands drew on their history & legends for their sense of identity, the English would seek to do the same.

John Milton might be forgiven, after the Commonwealth and then Restoration, for calling his history, The History of Britain, that part especially now called England. He was an early enthusiast who wished to make use of the Arthurian tales, if I am not mistaken.

Well, the Arthurian tales were pretty much the only body of legend associated with these Islands - Tolkien had to invent a mythology. Arthur was king of Britain & fought his battles against the incoming Anglo-Saxons, so it would be impossible for the English to claim Arthur once they had stopped thinking of themselves as 'British'. Even worse, the Arthurian tales as we have them are mainly of French origin & were taken up by the Normans (via Geoffrey's Historia in the first instance, then via Layamon, Wace etc, down to Malory). It was these very Arthurian stories that drove out & replaced the myths & legends of the conquered English.

Of course, Tolkien didn't reject the Arthurian legends out of hand - he even began to write an epic poem on Arthur - he just felt that England needed a national myth. That 'throwaway' comment in my last post, about the Legendarium having become rather a 'mythology for America' says a lot in this context. Why have so many modern Americans not adopted the tales of the First Nation peoples & gone rather for Tolkien's Northern European inspired tales?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, the Arthurian tales were pretty much the only body of legend associated with these Islands - Tolkien had to invent a mythology.

Did the English even need a 'mythology' or body of legend? The one available to the English, the Arthur stories, is very much altered from what it may once have been, and is also very French. Nevertheless these stories are very well loved. I think their introduction into English culture has a great deal to do with the Norman Conquest and several centuries where the Latin and French languages were the languages of those in power, and the desire to imprint the Norman culture of the conquering class on English society. The shadow of those centuries still looms large in the English consciousness and perhaps Tolkien's rejection of those stories may have been partly to do with this.

But there already was a strong tradition of legend in England - the problem is that it was and mostly is, held orally by ordinary people. These types of tales include Robin Hood, the best known, but also many other folk tales. Some have been lost with urbanisation, maybe their relevance was not as important, and it remains to be seen how many will survive the mobility of people that we see today; as children grow up far removed from older relatives will they hear the old folk tales as often? Will they be lost as we descend into the homogenised English culture which is dominant over regional identity such as identifying as Geordies, Tykes, Dalesmen, etc.

It isn't surprising that the Welsh and Scots are determined to hold on to their own regional cultures and languages. Although I understand that even in Scotland the dominance of the two largest cities is homogenising culture there.

These old folktales might have some hope of survival in the form of children's writers making great use of the evocative and exciting creatues and ideas they possess. JK Rowling (love her or hate her) is making use of them, and Tolkien made use of them (as seen with Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow etc). Though I do have to say that Tolkien's own mythology makes much more use of creatures of his own imagining - he is no comprehensive saviour of the old English folk tale.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think delving too deeply into the biographical aspect is fraught with danger - we don't know enough about the man . . . . I don't mean to pick on Helen here, but I think there is a danger of reading the text & making assumptions about Tolkien's life which may not apply.

At last something I can clearly agree with you about! I also harbour this deep reservation about biographical interpretation. I think it is very easy to read a novel--or, as Lal mentioned, poetry, especially such as that of a poet like Plath--and become inspired to read the story back into the author's life, which often becomes the next reading one does after the initial story itself. (This is also why I have reservations about determining the author's intent, but that's another story.) I think it is also true that where we lack specific information about an author's life, we become tempted to 'apply' the story to the life in order to make up for the 'gaps.' It is also difficult, without know how the creative mind operated, to ascertain the role of other reading in an author's inspiration. Often readers miss this, as readers will not of course share exactly the same reading experience with a writer (I include myself in this), and it is the reading of the language as much as the desire to explore one's life which informs one's creative urge. (For Bloom, it is also the desire to shake off this readerly experience which informs great writing.) Creative writing can be therapeutic but most of the most beloved works do not derive alone from life therapy--there is art involved as well--art as the deliberate as well as unconscious seeking of 'the right word', the 'beauteous form,' the sturdiest structure' (or flimsiest, as the need might be).

Here I might remind the discussion here of something we all know--the amazing way that language--linguistics--inspired Tolkien. He created the mythology at least in part to provide a place for his invented languages to be employed. Tolkien explores words rather than his own life, you might say. This is not to deny that his life also gets into the story, but to suggest that its presence in the story is not easy to isolate.

Originally Posted by davem

I think, in the post colonial period the inhabitants of these Islands have been forced into a rethink of our identity. 'Britain'/Britishness' seems to have been a concept which came into being with the Empire & has died along with it. The English were the last ones to hold onto the term & saw it as synonymous with English. Since the Welsh & Scots have reasserted their own unique identity in increasingly vociferous ways & have now gained their own Parliament (Scotland) & Assembly (Wales) & the same thing is happening in Northern Ireland, we English have come more & more to seek out our own identity, seperate from the Celts. Tolkien seems to have seen that coming & realised that just as the Celts of these Islands drew on their history & legends for their sense of identity, the English would seek to do the same.

And that Empire began, some have suggested, with colonising Ireland. Although of course it was the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who pushed out the earlier inhabitants to the fringes of the island.

Originally Posted by davem

Why have so many modern Americans not adopted the tales of the First Nation peoples & gone rather for Tolkien's Northern European inspired tales?

A bit of a broad generalisation there, as much of our reading is dependent upon the mass marketing of both our book and movie industries as upon readerly intent. I could name several Canadian authors who are inspired by First Nations mythology, but there's a truth about invaders and interlopers there, too.

EDIT: cross posting with Lal and now little time to reply. Wasn't York originally a Viking outpost? No wonder Yorkshiremen are so antipathetic to Southerners. And no wonder the Brontës received the kinds of criticisms they did--Irish and Yorkshiremen! (Gaskell used the Yorkshire heritage to explain away the 'inelegant' aspects of the works to Southern types.)

I am ever so fascinated by such internet sites as Mysteries of Britain--an incredible wealth of story and legend there. And wasn't Robin Hood a Yorkshireman who fought against the Norman French invaders?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Wasn't York originally a Viking outpost?

York was there long before the Vikings came. It was an important provincial Roman city, known by them as Eboracum, but settlement on the site goes back further even than they. The Anglo-Saxon Northumbrians knew the settlement as Eoforwīc. There are some etymological details on Wikupedia. The Vikings captured the city in 866, after which it became the centre of a Norse kingdom that existed until 954. After the last king, Erik Bloodaxe, was killed at the battle of Stainmore, the kingdom was gradually absorbed into the Wessex hegemony. Eiríksmál , a poem commissioned by his wife, records Eirík's arrival in Valhalla.

I was interested to read about fostering in Celtic sources, but it's an important theme in many of the early cultures of Europe. The sources in which it is particularly evident are the Icelandic sagas, in which many of the characters are fostered by followers of their parents. The political uses are evident in the fact that Hákon, king of Norway was officially foster-son to Athelstan of Wessex; and in Laxdæla Saga he is described as 'Athelstan's Fosterling'.

The social convention seems to have been to send one's children to be fostered further down the social spectrum. I would suggest that Tolkien is more likely to have been drawing on Icelandic sources than Celtic ones, although I don't doubt that he could easily have known both. The important point is that fostering was an important means of perpetuating family alliances and personal loyalty. That Tolkien used such a theme is not surprising at all.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

And that Empire began, some have suggested, with colonising Ireland. Although of course it was the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who pushed out the earlier inhabitants to the fringes of the island.

Well, one could argue that the invasion of Ireland was an extension of the Norman Empire, which had first taken in England. Then again, the Normans were descendants of the Vikings, & among their invasion force were Bretons, who had originally been refugees from the invading Anglo-Saxons who had settled in 'France' & formed 'Little Britain', the continental counterpart of 'Greater (ie 'Great') Britain, or Brittany. Hence from the Celtic viewpoint the Norman Conquest could be seen as a return home for the 'exiles'. How far do you want to go back?

A bit of a broad generalisation there, as much of our reading is dependent upon the mass marketing of both our book and movie industries as upon readerly intent. I could name several Canadian authors who are inspired by First Nations mythology, but there's a truth about invaders and interlopers there, too.

Is the statement 'so many readers that broad a generalisation? I didn't numbers I can't see that 'several' (authors) counters 'so many' (readers). My point was that Americans seem to have taken Tolkien's Legendarium to heart to an even greater extent than we English. Certainly most of the critical works I have on Tolkien are written by Americans, published in America, & read by more Americans than English readers. One could even include Shippey in that statement as he is now, apparently, an American citizen. He told us at Birmingham that in his citizenship 'exam, or test, or whatever kind of arcane process it is, he was asked to write a sentence in English to demonstrate his command of the English language & he wrote 'Need brooks no delay, but late is better than never.' & was almost failed by the examiner! Fortunately he had his lawyer with him & so got his citizenship. Anyway, I digress. I think the point is that Tolkien seems to speak to Americans' need for a mythology far more even than it does to the English. I really don't think that here we're dealing simply with an entertaining story (or series of stories) but with something much deeper - Tolkien himself wrote of Americans being involved in the stories in a way he was not (or something along those lines - don't have the letters to hand.

Its an interesting question whether one responds most strongly to a mythology which ones own culture produced. Certainly Americans seem to like to identify themselves with their culture of origin as much as with their nation (African-American, Jewish-American, Irish-American, Native-American, etc). I also notice that many American neo-Pagans have adopted the (pseudo) Celtic 'path' rather than the traditions of First Nation peoples. I think that, as so many Americans have European ancestry they respond to a 'mythology' which has its roots in European soil. In other words, what they brought with them speaks to them more strongly than what they found - one could suggest that that is the answer to your question as to why Tolkien chose to 'side' with the Anglo-Saxons over the native Britons....

Tolkien explores words rather than his own life, you might say. This is not to deny that his life also gets into the story, but to suggest that its presence in the story is not easy to isolate.

The story has to work on its own terms to be effective. If it is only understandable in terms of the author's life then we would need to know the author's life in great detail in order to understand the story, & it would be little more than 'symbolic' autobiography. So, we could argue that a story like the Fall of Gondolin could be read in two completely different ways - in one way as pure 'myth', in another, in John Garth's phrase, as Tolkien's own experience of WW1 'seen through enchanted eyes'. The point is, we can never know exactly what Tolkien experienced on the Somme or how it affected him, so we can only experience & be affected by ithe former.

I think this is why Tolkien rejected the idea of 'allegory' so forcefully & promoted 'applicability' in its place. We cannot read the Legendarium as Tolkien's 'autobiography' as we cannot know his life experience (certainly not what went in his head & what his experiences meant to him).

Having said that, CT makes a very interesting comment in the introduction to vol 12 of HoMe to the effect that what he has produced is a literary 'biography' of his father. I don't think he has, btw. I think, in the end, such a 'biographical' reading of Tolkien's works is more likely to unravel the story (or dismantle the Tower). Its an interesting 'game' but I'm not sure it gets us anywhere in terms of experiencing the Art

Edited for reasons of accuracy.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In the last two paragraphs of his post Squatter makes a valiant attempt to get this discussion back on topic - well done! I would like to ask the other participants to do the same, as most of the discussion at present is taking a turn far away from what mark/Helen started discussing. If there is a need for general thought on the source mythologies and related issues - as related to Tolkien, of course! - please begin a new thread for that topic.

[Lalwendë]

Another instance where fostering is widely seen is in the modern day African community; children are often sent to live with members of the extended family, sometimes being sent overseas. Similarly, families in the British Afro-Caribbean community will sometimes send children to live with relatives in Jamaica - the usual reason given is that the schools are seen to have better discipline. In Tolkien's LotR it could be said that Gilraen sends Aragorn to Rivendell as there he will be educated to his advantage.

Originally Posted by davem

The story has to work on its own terms to be effective. If it is only understandable in terms of the author's life then we would need to know the author's life in great detail in order to understand the story, & it would be little more than 'symbolic' autobiography.

That's a very good point. Again I'll bring up the example of Plath, and how so many read her work with her life in mind - as though they seek to solve the enigma of suicide through examination of the text for biographical information. I wanted to throw in a quote by Alvarez here, as it would have been relevant to the use of biography in literary criticism but I can't find it! Anyway, it referred to the Author's control - how the personal can be used but it is also manipulated. So, I think Tolkien would have brought in those life experiences which he had, and it is interesting to consider them, even useful in some areas of interpretation, but we must also bear in mind that they are controlled and manipulated, subjugated to (subsumed in?) the Art.

[mark12_30]

I do agree that it's possible to overinterpret a work as being autobiographical.

However, since Tolkien had the name "Luthien" carved on his wife's headstone, and declared his own affinity with Beren in letters ("Beren" was later carved on his headstone as well), investigating his connections with that myth (Beren and Luthien) and its heir (Aragorn and Arwen) does not seem to me to be much of a stretch.

[Bêthberry]

Well, what do you think that connection means, Helen?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

However, since Tolkien had the name "Luthien" carved on his wife's headstone, and declared his own affinity with Beren in letters ("Beren" was later carved on his headstone as well), investigating his connections with that myth (Beren and Luthien) and its heir (Aragorn and Arwen) does not seem to me to be much of a stretch.

I think this was a case of 'applicability'. In a letter to his children regarding placing the name Luthien on his wife's grave he said something along the lines of 'she was my Luthien, & knew she was.' - very different from saying 'She was Luthien.' And of course it was his children who placed the name 'Beren' on their joint gravestone, & we don't know if he would have approved. We certainly don't know if Edith considered Ronald her 'Beren' (much though he might have seen himself in that relation to her) - not having his love for the mythology she may not have thought of him in that way at all. Maybe another example of him & his stories remaining in the dominant position even after death. I can't help wondering what her reaction would have been to being forever associated in the minds of Tolkien's readers with one of her husband's fictional characters.

However, back to the topic of this thread, I do wonder why Tolkien's orphans all seem to be single children. Its easy to forget that Tolkien had a brother, Hilary, who went through the same trauma at an even younger age. If the orphan/fosterling theme is autobiographical why don't we see at least a few orphaned pairs?

[Lalwendë]

I can't help thinking that the inspiration for Luthien was in some way Edith - at least, Tolkien may have created Luthien as an idealised version of what he saw when he saw his wife dancing in the woods at Roos, East Yorkshire.

Hmmm, pairs of orphans? Well, Boromir and Faramir lost their mother at a young age, and from the text I do not get the impression that Denethor can have been fully involved in their upbringing in the way a father might be today. I often get the impression that the offspring of the powerful (e.g. Tony Blair's kids, Prince William etc) lead something of a restricted life as a direct result of having powerful, time starved fathers who themselves need to restrict their own behaviour being in the 'public eye', much as Denethor would have been.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I can't help thinking that the inspiration for Luthien was in some way Edith - at least, Tolkien may have created Luthien as an idealised version of what he saw when he saw his wife dancing in the woods at Roos, East Yorkshire.

I think this brings up another interesting dimension. It was pointed out in an essay in Tolkien the Medievalist that Ronald & Edith were at Roos during Ronald's convalescence - this was in mid November. Now, mid November on the North Sea coast is no place for dancing outdoors, & there certainly would not have been any Hemlocks in bloom.

In other words, that whole episode was far more a fantasy than reality. Again, we seem to have Ronald seeing the world 'through enchanted eyes'. If his own life experiences found their way into his mythology it was probably in a way that was very far removed from the fact. It seems like the reality served as a basis for what appeared in the mythology, but once it had found a mythological form this mythological version of the truth seems to have 'fed back' into his memories of the primary world, so that in his memory Edith did dance among the Hemlocks in a woodland glade at twilight, rather than freezing in the blustery winds off the North Sea in November.

[mark12_30]

"When Bilbo was ninety nine, he adopted Frodo as his heir, and brought him to live at Bag End..."