Christianity and Tolkien

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Draugohtar

I'd first like to say alot of the discussion since my last posting seems to make a case I'm more than happy with. I do believe you have Christ figures dotted through LOTR, but that's my opinion; I don't require anyone else to hold it.

You hold only to certain figures and not to others, no Beren and Lúthien for example, despite their entering and temporarily defeating Morgoth (Satan) in the Hells of Iron. Of course Tokien certainly knew that Hell was simply an English word used to translate Hades which in turn, in the Old Testament, translates Hebrew Shᵊʼôl. But Tolkien still refers to Morgoth’s second earthly dwelling as the Hells of Iron. For the figures you recognize you stress that they are not parallel to Christ in all details but then suddenly start insisting on a discrepancy in the story of Beren and Lúthien.

I think your Christ figures and mine make sense only in the same way that a pagan figure who is resurrected could be called a Christ figure meaning that the figure parallels in part the story of Christ. But all these characters are also both more and less than that. They are themselves, mainly and chiefly: for example Aragorn is the chief hunter of his age who, like Muḥammad, also becomes a great king in his own lifetime, and who marries an elf-woman as does the similar Dietrich von Bern to the Elf queen Virginal in one tale, and who dies by what amounts to suicide.

Put simply if Tolkien wandered into Mass tomorrow, he might be annoyed that it's not in latin, but otherwise it would all be 100% familiar.

As described by his son, J. R. R. Tolkien was more than just annoyed and it was definite, not just “might”.

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

This is something that I personally would always take into account when trying to determine a degree of Catholic belief into his books, that the beliefs he had are not necessary the same ones as the current Church or any given contemporary Roman Catholic, as well as the difference in time periods and how any given religion would be viewed.

Consider also that Tolkien’s discussion of original sin in “Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth” and his associated idea that good rulers of Númenóriean descent die by suicide (if they are not killed earlier). I know nothing in Roman Catholic tradition that would support this, other than the account in La Queste de la Sante Graal which explains that Lancelot’s father King Ban had to same gift from God of dying whenever he wished to and that was really how he died, not as the common version tells which relates that King Ban died of sorrow when he saw from a distance his last castle burning.

Considering that Ban’s death left his wife and infant son abandoned in the wild, I see the earlier version as more moral, that Ban died from what we would now call a stroke and so was blameless in his own death rather than that he would rather die and abandon wife and child then live without his castle.

Though we see an example of capital punishment in The Silmarillion, when Turgon orders Eol killed. It's curious because Turgon seems to be portrayed as one of the more moral characters. Of course, there are massive differences between Gollum and Eol, and the Silm and LotR.

The current Roman Catholic position is that, as much as possible, capital punishment is to be avoided and there is now no capital punishment in Vatican City. But the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the general legality of capital punishment ordained by governments as sometimes reasonably deemed necessary for the protection of the state and citizens. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...n_Vatican_City . I think that Tolkien shows nothing that disagrees with the current Roman Catholic position in the execution of Eöl, considering that Eöl had killed his own wife and Tugon’s sister with a poisoned spear in trying to kill his own son, and that Eöl now knows the location of Gondolin which Turgon insists be kept entirely secret.

Also Elves believed that mostly death was not a permanent end of their lives, but merely the beginning of a temporary imprisonment in Mandos.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

With the same success one can call The Sil and COH "Norse". There are certainly many parallels and similarities - but the problem is that they are still not 100% Norse. You can't write 100% Norse mythology unless you are creating the Norse mythology, and living it, and etc. Tolkien created Tolkien mythology; hence, he wrote Tolkien. You can't write with only one influence; there will always be others that creep up, even subconsciously.

I personally do not see The Silmarillion as even 50% Norse. It is too much Tolkien’s own invention and when it borrows, it borrows as much from Finnish and Classical mythological tales. I also feel a hint of Zarathustran mythology and Irish tales of the Tuatha Dé Danann. The story of creation owes more than anything to Hebrew/Christian traditions but radically alters them. The Middle-American Popol Vuh tells that people were created before the sun and moon and lived for many generations before the sun first rose.

I would disagree. For me the "physical", history/story part of a religion is certainly interesting but it does not make up for what stands behind the story. Jesus may be the central figure, but what central message comes with it? You do not mention any value or virtues in your list.

Tumhalad2 appears to have taken nothing from what anyone has said here. Quite possibly he is just a troll.

[Bêthberry]

My apologies for a very late reply to Boromir's question to me. It's been difficult to find enough time to be able to frame the kind of thoughtful reply his post deserves.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

My counter question to Bb, however, is what reasons would Tolkien have to deceive the recipients of his written letters?

LadyBrooke provided the gist of my response.

Originally Posted by Lady Brooke

I'm not Bb, but I wouldn't consider it so much deception, as tailoring what you say to your audience - I wouldn't go in and tell my college professors half the things I might tell my best friend. I don't speak the same way around my mom and her family as I do around my dad and his family. I think it's natural human behavior to stress certain things around certain audiences, and that could have played into what Tolkien wrote to certain people. And like you said, memory plays a huge part in it.

Indeed, I never used or implied any sense of dishonesty or deliberate misrepresentation in my comments about the nature of letters. It is not a matter of deception but of degree of emphasis and of enthusiasm that makes a personal statement between friends differ from a general public or critical statement.

Tolkien's Letter, No. 142 to Robert Murray, (written December 2, 1953) is very clearly written to a dear and close friend, of the family as well as of Tolkien himself. It is a lovely, personable letter, one of the most personable ones the we have in the selected letters and I've always found it a fascinating fact that Father Murray was the grandson of the founder of the OED. Tolkien's first academic position was working on the OED, the letter W.

There are a couple of points I would make simply as a scholarly or pedantic analysis of the letter as we have it. It is edited, as two ellipses point out. And it is a response to a letter from Father Murray, with his critiques of the LotR, read in manuscript. In fact, apparently Tolkien himself had invited Father Murray to make comments. Even with Carpenter's summary of Murray's letter, I would be interested to see that letter in its entirety and even the previous one from Tolkien with the invitation to comment, nosy little stalker that I am. It would help to know, for instance, if Tolkien had asked for any particular direction in comments or critique. When we ask friends for their opinion, often the shared subjects of interest (and shared dislikes!) form part of an expected context of conversation. Did Tolkien invite religious interpretation? (And if so, did he do so with any other of the people to whom he showed the manuscript and pre-publication copies?) Or was it a spontaneous readerly response on Murray's part?

First of all, clearly this letter is part of an extended discussion about LotR. As Tolkien writes,

Originally Posted by Letter 142

I have been cheered specially by what you have said, this time and before,

It would be so nice to know what Murray had said not just this time, but "previously". We don't have the full discussion here in this letter.

Second, Tolkien makes an interesting claim about Murray's comments.

Originally Posted by Letter 142

you are more perceptive, especially in some directions, than any one else, and have even revealed to me more clearly some things about my work.

It is quite interesting for an author to say to a reader that the reader has pointed out things the author had not fully realised. Often this kind of comment is a compliment to the reader. Is is simply a courteous way of saying, "Well, I never meant that but you could be right" ? The remaining part of the paragraph does say that this direction was originally unconscious on Tolkien's part, and then "consciously so in the revision", but that of course raises the question of what it was originally and how much of that original impetus was edited out or changed. The other point about this comment is that Tolkien says Murray speaks "in some directions", a phrase which suggests that those directions are not all-inclusive: there are other directions which Murray does not address. This suggests at least the possibility of a caveat on the interpretation that LotR is exclusively a Catholic book. Certainly Tolkien ends the paragraph not with more detail about the Catholicity of the book but of his own personal faith. He slides into personal psychology rather than literary statement. Of course a book will show evidence of an author's personal beliefs and psychology because that is part of his world vision. But that is not quite the same thing as saying the book is exclusively about that world vision.

Another point also suggests this, the subject of the paragraph following this one, in which Tolkien discusses his love of the Classics in contrast to works of English Literature and his great interest in Philology.

Originally Posted by Letter 142

Also being a philologist, getting a large part of any aesthetic pleasure that I am capable of from the form of words (and especially from the fresh association of word-form with word-sense), I have always best enjoyed things in a foreign language, or one so remote as to feel like it (such as Anglo-Saxon).

Again, this is personal. But elsewhere in other letters and essays Tolkien has talked about how the Legendarium had its genesis in his creation of the elvish languages and that the stories necessarily became the fleshing out of those languages.

Perhaps Tolkien, a private man, was very reticent to speak about his faith, a faith which was censored and derided in the England of his time, to anyone who did not share it. And perhaps he thought identifying the book as Catholic would harm its sales. We don't know and can merely conjecture.

But my point about most claims for religion is that they don't explain the non-religious motivation. One of the links in Boro's link does attempt to discuss how the pagan world view and Catholic world view coincide, but very few discussions consider the relationship between the philology and the faith. That is why I think this Letter is so misused (although not the only one misused).