What did Tolkien really mean ....

[littlemanpoet]

.... by consciously Catholic in the revision?

I know there was a thread on Books for this some time ago, but I simply cannot find it. As I recall, it was a decidedly unresolved discussion anyway. And some ideas have been percolating in my gray matter on the topic lately anyway, so I thought I'd raise this up, yes, one more time, to see if new light can be shed on a topic that seems more thorny than most. Okay, here goes.

First off, I'm not sure this necessarily clarifies anything other than my thinking about it, but I believe it should be noted that this phrase is pulled from a letter Tolkien never intended for popular consumption. He didn't intend it to be published. It was a personal bit of correspondence between two men who were like-minded in terms of their faith; it was written to a Catholic cleric.

Thus, when Tolkien says that LotR was consciously Catholic in the revision, he's saying something to a private individual and expects immediate recognition of what is meant; it's a kind of code.

Okay, now let's take a look at a few things Tolkien did NOT say. He did not say that LotR was consciously

* Christian
* Anglican
* Calvinist
* Nazi
* English
* British
* Northern
* World War I or II

...in the revision; rather, Catholic.

Okay, now, here are the three things I've been able to come up with so far.

#1: I think it safe to say, considering what we know of Tolkien's anxieties regarding LotR, that this means, at least, that Tolkien removed, in the revision, anything that a Catholic, be he pope, cardinal, bishop, cleric, or true-to-the-faith layman, would find objectionable. But is this all Tolkien meant? I have my doubts. What else he may have meant by the phrase may best be assertained by the Letter itself.

Originally Posted by Tolkien's Letters

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

As ever, it seems that the final sentence is the key, but a very ambiguous one. He says there is symbolism. Yet elsewhere he says LotR is not an allegory. What 'bloody' symbolism is he talking about? Any notions?

#2: There is an idea running through LotR that has us "capture a renewed view of our world" such that we see trees and other growing things, but especially trees, as sacred. There is a sacramental attitude toward nature, as if it is imbued with more than the mere functionality of the wood that can be turned to boards, or the sap that can be turned to syrup, or what have you: a tree is a wondrous and very good thing in and of itself, and is alive and should remain so. To use Chesterton's speech, every tree "has a halo".

#3: In my latest "Mythlore" magazine, Volume 25, Number 1/2 (Fall/Winter 2006), A.R. Bossert writes an interesting article entitled, "Surely You Don't Disbelieve": Tolkien and Pius X: Anti-Modernism in Middle-Earth.

S/he shows that between 1908 (the dates of Pius' first encyclicals) and 1963 (Vatican II) the Catholic church took a strong Anti-Modernist stance, Modernism being described as an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist stance. Agnosticism represents the argument that human reason can only consider scientific phenomena (thereby excluding immaterial phenomena such as discerned spirits or truth). Immanentism represents the argument that religion proceeds entirely from within the human psyche, and that faith has no basis outside such an internal religious sentiment (therefore, everyone's opinion about deity is equally valid because it's all subjective anyway).

My point in bringing this up is that because of Vatican II, we tend to forget just how counter-cultural the Catholic church was between 1908 and 1963, standing root and stock, as it were, against the fundamental stances of Modernism. I'm reminded of Davem's comments regarding the Machine. Is not the Machine one of the phenomena that has grown out of (or grown alongside of) Modernism?

At any rate, what this says to me is that we have here another way that LotR may be considered "consciously Catholic in the revision", for it is Sauron who uses the most advanced technology; Saruman whose mind is made up of pulleys and gears (or whatever Gandalf said); it is Boromir who preaches the doctrine of "evil power in the hands of the good is still good". Since these kinds of things are what Catholicism stood against between 1908 and 1963, it makes sense that LotR can in this way also be considered "consciously Catholic in the revision".

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Pardon me for saying so but, I can see why this would be left "unresolved".

[Lalwendë]

First up, I have two questions. One - what do you mean by 'bloody'? If there is symbolism, why is it 'bloody'? Tolkien doesn't say it's 'bloody', so why are we looking for this? Secondly - are we all sure how the word 'fundamentally' is used by Tolkien? Remember he may be using it in the older, looser, English sense, rather than in the modern sense which conjours up images of people whipping one another into a warlike religious frenzy.

Anyway...I think this quote should always be borne in mind:

Originally Posted by Tolkien's Letters
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

We should also remember that it was followed by the following words:

However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;

So we know a couple of facts. He was writing to a Catholic priest and so we must remember his 'audience', and that he would be writing to that audience - he would hardly be expected to say "No! Lord of the Rings is a fully heathen work!" if writing to a priest, even if it was a "fully heathen work". So we must bear in mind that he would emphasise a point here that may not have been an overarching influence at all. This is also private correspondence. If he had wanted his readers to take his work in that way then he would have made a public statement after the fact; however he did not, and as such we must be careful. Hammond and Scull make the point in their new Companion & Guide that all Tolkien's Letters must be used with extreme caution by fans and scholars alike.

So that's that. Now for how much he 'consciously' planned - taking the second half of his statement into consideration, he admits that it is to a certain degree, bluster. He says he actually consciously edited very little, so I think right away we can cast aside any notions that Tolkien sat there with a red pen and a Catechism excising, adding and rewriting to 'Catholicise' his work. If there are Catholic references there, then they are small fry in the grand scheme of the story, and most of them he did not put there on purpose. It seems that if anything, this little bit of 'conscious revision' amounted to removal of references to Earthly religions, possibly an attempt to ensure this could not be mistakenly seen in any way as an allegory, as Tolkien's deep dislike of allegory is well-known.

Now to 'unconsciously Catholic'. I'm interested in lmp's ideas that this is to be found in the 'anti-machine' elements of the theme and in the idea that the earth itself is 'sacred', but these are not exlcusively Catholic ideals in any way shape or form (and I suspect that the Catholic Church is not, in fact, like that in general, as in its history it has sponsored scientists and it has made money like most churches have through business and industry), so I think it may be something else (though I want to explore those ideas too). And this is what I think it is: morality.

Without writing much more about it right now, so as to leave things for discussion, specifically Catholic morality can be found embedded in the story. The idea of 'marriage for life', and associated morality around sex, reproduction and love. The way that life is presented as sacred; I can think of no instances outside acts of war where the death sentence is used. There are Monarchs in Middle-earth, but they are there by 'divine right', harking back to the Medieval Kings, the days before Henry VIII separated the English throne from the authority of the Church in Rome. And at the point of Death, characters 'make their peace' and 'confess'. These are all pretty instinctive beliefs for a Catholic (except perhaps the third) and could indeed be called 'unconscious'. These kinds of things are what Tolkien absorbed into his story, not through choice, but simply because these are ways that he saw as the correct ways to live, in much the same way as if I wrote a story, I too might present capital punishment as ignoble; it would be instinctive.

So that's what I'm putting forwards. As Tolkien himself said, there was indeed little consciously planned, so it might prove fruitless to try and find that stuff, and it will be very little anyway in the grand scheme of one of the longest novels ever written. But there might indeed be some specifically Catholic influence, put there because he couldn't help it, because it was simply part of his outlook on everyday life, and it might best be found in the 'rules' of everyday life in Arda.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

what do you mean by 'bloody'? If there is symbolism, why is it 'bloody'?

As in "by the lady". Ignore it. Purely superfluous.

Originally Posted by Lal

...are we all sure how the word 'fundamentally' is used by Tolkien?

Surely the classic definition should suffice.

Originally Posted by Lal

So we know a couple of facts. He was writing to a Catholic priest and so we must remember his 'audience', and that he would be writing to that audience - he would hardly be expected to say "No! Lord of the Rings is a fully heathen work!" if writing to a priest, even if it was a "fully heathen work".

You seem to be implying that Tolkien is engaging in untruth. Are you suggesting that Tolkien is telling a fellow Catholic something he doesn't really think is true, because his audience happens to be Catholic?

Originally Posted by Lal

So we must bear in mind that he would emphasise a point here that may not have been an overarching influence at all.

This is an assertion, of course, for it may well have been an overarching influence.

Originally Posted by Lal

This is also private correspondence. If he had wanted his readers to take his work in that way then he would have made a public statement after the fact;

Perhaps and perhaps not. What seems most likely to me is that this Catholic author is acknowledging something he knows to be true, to a fellow Catholic reader; basically letting him in on a secret that the rest of the reading world need not know. The problem is, we have the Letter before us. Isn't it true that his public statements by and large stated what he didn't want his readers to miscontrue from LotR?

Originally Posted by Lal

...we must be careful.

Quite.

Originally Posted by Lal

Hammond and Scull make the point in their new Companion & Guide that all Tolkien's Letters must be used with extreme caution by fans and scholars alike.

It's a good point.

Originally Posted by Lal

He says he actually consciously edited very little,

Incorrect. The quote is that he consciously planned very little. We have other records that show that he edited to the point of niggling.

Originally Posted by Lal

...we can cast aside any notions that Tolkien sat there with a red pen and a Catechism excising, adding and rewriting to 'Catholicise' his work.

This is a caricature. He probably had little need for a Catechism. And niggling (excising, adding and rewriting) is precisely the kind of thing Tolkien was known to do.

Originally Posted by Lal

If there are Catholic references there, then they are small fry in the grand scheme of the story, and most of them he did not put there on purpose.

Oh, really? Seeing as your assertion runs counter to Tolkien's own statment, care to explain?

Originally Posted by Lal

It seems that if anything, this little bit of 'conscious revision' amounted to removal of references to Earthly religions, possibly an attempt to ensure this could not be mistakenly seen in any way as an allegory, as Tolkien's deep dislike of allegory is well-known.

I agree that this is at least what he meant.

Originally Posted by Lal

Now to 'unconsciously Catholic'. I'm interested in Elempi's ideas that this is to be found in the 'anti-machine' elements of the theme and in the idea that the earth itself is 'sacred', but these are not exlcusively Catholic ideals in any way shape or form

Nevertheless, the historical record shows that Pius X purposely and aggressively set the entire Catholic Church on an anti-modernist footing from 1908 until 1963. So regardless whether these are exclusively Catholic ideals, there is a clearly Catholic impetus for Tolkien's anti-modernism that was extant during the primary years of his adult life and writing.

Originally Posted by Lal

I think it is... morality.

The 'instinctive' stuff you talk about is more of what I would consider "at least" what he probably meant. I disagree that Tolkien "couldn't help it". We have evidence from his Letters and elsewhere that he carefully scrutinized every word of the text of LotR.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

If he had wanted his readers to take his work in that way then he would have made a public statement after the fact; however he did not, and as such we must be careful.

I'm not so sure he would have made a public statement if that is how he wanted his readers to take his work. There is an option which this argument misses.

Perhaps he was content to avoid such dogmatic assertion. Perhaps he was happy to leave a story that allowed readers actively to come to an awareness of that presence or not, according to their own lights. He was not, after all, a hectoring teacher but instead strove to guide his students to experience literature for themselves. The worth of the tale lies not in the end 'meaning' but in the journey itself.

oh, and, allegory and symbolism are not synonymous. One can exist without the other.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet --

I believe this is the thread you were intially referring to: And consciously so in the revision....

I believe that threads in Haudh-en-Ndengin don't normally pull up through a regular search.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Perhaps [Tolkien] was happy to leave a story that allowed readers actively to come to an awareness of that presence or not, according to their own lights.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Bb

The worth of the tale lies not in the end 'meaning' but in the journey itself.

Well, I don't know that I would say it in quite such a dogmatic 'not this but that' way.

Originally Posted by Bb

oh, and, allegory and symbolism are not synonymous. One can exist without the other.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Child

I believe this is the thread you were intially referring to:

Yes. I was unable to find it. I dare say that index needs work.

Originally Posted by Child

after a lifetime of devotion to the Legendarium and less than two years before his death, Tolkien had come to believe that he had been chosen as an instrument by God to convey the story of Arda to those around him and that this story contained some profound religious truths that had an immediate impact on at least a few of his readers. Of the three options listed, I prefer this one.

Yes. For Tolkien, a Catholic, to acknowledge himself as an instrument of God is not hubris, not arrogance; rather, deepest humility. Believers in the Judeo-Christian God who are honest about their beliefs recognize that God is the ultimate Author, and uses believers, and unbelievers as well, to forward God's purpose.

Originally Posted by Lal

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work Tolkien claims it is a 'fundamentally' Catholic work. He does not mean it is a 'rules based' 'fundamental' work, he means at heart it's the work of a Catholic.

fundamental:1a: serving as an original or generating source; 1b: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.

There are other definitions that deal with change or science, or Religious Fundamentalism, but those are different things than what Tolkien is talking about. If Tolkien had meant that LotR is fundamentally the work of a Catholic, he would have stated it so. Instead he wrote that LotR is a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. Using the above, most general and (ahem) basic definition of the word, what Tolkien is thus saying (knowing how to use English correctly) is that Catholicism serves as an original or generating source; OR serves as a basis supporting LotR's existence OR determines LotR's essential structure or function. One of these three.

Originally Posted by Lal

Here we're all at sea as we do not know if he sat there editing with Catholicism in mind, or if he means that he could see this after publication, or at which point in the whole process of writing. We just don't know. But he does tell us more later in the letter.

I agree with Fordim and Helen that Tolkien is most likely talking about the pre-publication revision process.

However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little

This is humility, and downright self-effacing. Which is not to say that he's being untruthful; rather, he's downplaying any implication or inference that he is some kind of genius master planner who could pull off this major "trick". Which actually falls in line with the quote Child reminded us of earlier.

Anyway, I hope to relate some more of what I've learned in regard to 1908 - 1963 Catholicism and how it compares to LotR, but it'll have to wait for another day.