J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth

[Child of the 7th Age]

Several friends have told me that, in the December 6 version of the Wall Street Journal, there was an article discussing religious overtones in Tolkien's writings. I didn't see this article, but plan to try and dig it out of the library on Monday.

This same article discusses the following book: J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth by Bradley J. Birzer, which was apparently recently published.

I looked on a couple of websites and dug up the following description:

Peter Jackson's film version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the accompanying proliferation of Rings-related paraphernalia, has once again brought the work of J. R. R. Tolkien to a popular audience. There are, however, few full and accessible treatments of the religious vision permeating Tolkien's influential works. Bradley Birzer has remedied that with his fresh study, J. R. R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-earth. In it Birzer explicates the religious symbolism and significance of Tolkien's Middle-earth stories. More broadly, Birzer situates Tolkien within the Christian humanist tradition represented by Thomas More and T. S. Eliot, Dante and C. S. Lewis. He argues that through the genre of myth Tolkien is able to provide a sophisticated -- and appealing -- social and ethical worldview. (cited from A libris)

Did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article, or are you familiar with this book? I can't find it in my local bookstores and, before shelling out money, would like to hear if anyone's read this, and their comments.

[piosenniel]

Sharon -

I have only glanced at these as yet:

Review of book:

Review

Foreward to Book:

Forward

Introduction of Book (PDF format)

Introduction

Early article by the author:

Birzer Article

Wall Street Journal review:

Wall Street Journal Review

Where to get it:

Amazon

B&N

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: piosenniel ]

[burrahobbit]

I haven't checked out the links yet, but it sounds interesting. And I just love seeing the words

Christian humanist tradition

[Birdland]

I read the article Child. It sounds like Birzer is raising the ol' "allegory" specter. For instance Gandalf reference to "The Secret Fire" is supposed to be a direct reference to The Holy Spirit? Aragorn is doing a half-genuflection? Maybe Tolkien kissed the Bishop's ring once and thought "Hmmmmm, now there's an idea..."

Every author is going to bring his experiences and upbringing into his work, but for Christians to claim exclusive rights to the symbols and images in LoTR is a bit of a stretch. The mythical aspects of the elements water, fire, air and earth certainly were not "thought up" by Christianity. Neither was the gesture of hand to head, (or heart). And Christianity does not deserve all the credit for certain concepts of morality, or notions of Good and Evil.

I can't wait for someone to write "Tolkien and the Tipitaka", or "Finding The Lord of The Rings in the Koran".

[Child of the 7th Age]

Piosenniel,

Many thanks for the links. The only one I had looked at before was Amazon.

[/b]Burra,[/b]

Hey, Burra, behave!

Bird,

You may be interested in the context in which these questions arose.

As you know, I live in a small 'neighborhood', which is not Christian, within a large city. I've always felt it's kind of like being a hobbit in Bree. Within that smll neighborhood, I have the reputation of being the local 'expert' (don't laugh!) on Tolkien and his writings as well as fantasy in general. People, especially younger ones who are friends of my children, ask me questions about the movies and the books. Those have exploded in number since the movie came out.

I had two adults separately drop by on Saturday and seriously bring up that article in the Journal. They raised a number of questions that have often been discussed on this board, specifically whether a non-Christian can truly appreciate the LotR to the same degree as a Christian. We also talked at length about Tolkien and Lewis, and how they found the latter more difficult to approach.

Of course, I went into my song and dance on layers of meaning in Tolkien, how the books should not be reduced to one dimension (however rich that dimension is) and the fact that the LotR is not allegory. I just thought it was interesting to see how discussions on this board have, in effect, spilled out into the general population because of the impact of the movie. Before PJ's release, that article would never have been published and that discussion would never have taken place!

sharon

[mark12_30]

Allegory specter? It doesn't look that way to me at all. Allegory is one-to-one correspondence of character to character, and I don't see that in the author's introduction to the book. The review, maybe, but not the author's introduction.

I agree that the genuflection thing in the review (Aragorn at Boromir's death ) is a bit of a stretch, but I can see how many Catholics would immmediately associate the two.


Regarding the "Christian Humanism" thing, this definition from the introduction clarifies the author's use of the phrase for me:

In his thinking about truth, reason, science, art, and myth, and in his hope for a renewal
of Christendom and an end to the ideologically inspired terror of the twentieth century,
Tolkien fits in nicely with a group of twentieth-century scholars and artists which we
might collectively label as “The Christian humanists.”22 The Christian humanist asks two
fundamental questions: (1) what is the role of the human person within God’s creation?
and (2) how does man order himself within God’s creation? Christian, or theocentric,
humanism, as opposed to anthropocentric, secular, Renaissance, or Enlightenment
humanism, argues that one cannot understand man’s position in the world until one first
acknowledges that man is created in the image of God and lives under the natural law
as well as the divine law.

In terms of water, air, fire, etc, remember that Tolkien is a Catholic who stated very clearly that the Gospel is the one and only completely true myth. For Tolkien, all the worthwhile myths before and since, point forward and backward to the Gospel, to the incarnation, crucifiction, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He hated allegory, but he certainly had no problem using Myth to point to transcendant truth-- and, he stated that the culmination of that transcendant truth lay in the Gospel, which he called "the one true Myth."

For a mystical Catholic such as Tolkien, fire naturally comes to represent the Holy Spirit, and all references to fire will be examined in that light-- is this a foreshadowing of the Holy Spirit? Likewise, water. I certainly agree that all myths regarding water were not written by Christians. However, if a mystically-oriented Christian takes Tolkien's mindset that all myths point toward the Gospel, then that Christian will consider many, many myths about water, and wonder "Is this a foreshadowing of The Holy Spirit?" If all truths point to the supreme Truth, and that Truth is the gospel, then a Christian would expect many, many truths to foreshadow it. And that was Tolkien's point of view, as I understand it, from reading "On Fairy Stories", and from what I have gathered in his letters, and from an article detailing parts of his conversation with C. S. Lewis.

I'm seriously considering ordering the book; after reading the introduction (Thanks Pat!) it seems quite worthwhile to me.

[mark12_30]

We're cross posting again, Sharon! Like old times. Nice to be back. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Birdland]

Child, when I was a kid one of my favorite books was an old collection of Japanese fairy tales. If you read these stories you can find most of the 10 Commandments covered in these fables, (As well as a good dose of "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten"). Don't lie. Don't be greedy. Don't steal. Honor your parents. If a monkey asks to share your food, you better do it. (OK, maybe this last one wasn't in the Bible.)

I suppose if you read that the warrior Momotaro was found as a baby in the river, you could cry "Shades of Moses!", but since this folk tale is hundreds, if not a thousand years old, long before Christian missionaries made it to Japan, it would be hard to say that the story of Momotaro was inspired by Exodus.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can find references from Scripture in most of the old myths and folk tales throughout the world. But it isn't because these stories were based on Scripture. It's because Scripture is based on the people who have been writing these stories since the beginning of time. Amazing how similar we really all are, isn't it?

[Bill Ferny]

Funny… I tend to think that all of creation is based on the truths to be found in Holy Scripture, and that these truths are based on the Divine Will.

Thanks for the links!

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Here's an important Tolkien quote that I think deserves to be kept in mind when discussing allegory:

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the auther.

Without having read Birzer, I made the connection between the Secret Fire and the Holy Spirit independently, based on the applicability of the symbol of the Secret Fire to my religious beliefs and my freedom as a reader.

Has Tolkien purposely integrated Christian aspects into his works? Of course he has ... "consciously so in the revision."

Has Tolkien also drawn elements from pagan mythology into his works? Of course he has ... before coming across a post where Child of the 7th Age mentions the similarity between Tolkien's Elves and Elves of Celtic legend, I made the same connection myself, having picked up a book on Irish fairy tales during a trip to Ireland in 1991. (I speak just enough Gaelic to order apple pie ... "Bewollum piog ul!" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) My interpretation of Tolkien's Elves bearing an uncanny resemblance to Irish Elves was based on the applicability of the similarities between the texts and my freedom as a reader.

Has Tolkien also drawn from Norse legend? As a matter of fact, he's used the names of my actual ancestors for his main characters. Yep, historical record (the proof of which I posted in another thread and am willing to provide to anyone who missed it and is still curious) documents the existence of Gandolf and Frodo (the spelling found for my particular ancestor may've actually been Frodi or Frothi, if I recall.) On my last visit home for the Thanksgiving holidays, I was shown the latest documentation, and was amused to see the "Hobbit name" of Odo also comes from Scandinavia.

* ALERT, GOING OFF ON A TANGENT TO MUSE ON TOLKIEN'S FURTHER (quite non-allegorical) INSPIRATIONS: * The other odd thing is that the genealogical lines of the other ethnicities in my blood can be more clearly traced to their origins, much like Elves and Dwarves. My Scandinavian roots however, end earlier on if I recall in an obscurity strangely reminiscent of the vagueness surrounding the origins of Hobbits, because if you go back far enough, you end up being descended from legendary figures whom people nowadays regard as mythical or fictional.

Gandalf the Grey

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Whoops! What have I done? I was asking about a book, and somehow I've started a discussion.

Helen I am also planning on ordering the book, if my finances will bear it. December is a notorious month for breaking the bank.

I know many people on this board have warmly endorsed Finding God in the Lord of the Rings. I got that book from the library, and it did nothing for me. Don't know if it's because I came from another belief system than the author, or simply that his approach to writing just didn't suit me. On the other hand, I enjoy Joseph Pearce's works, the biography he wrote and the other one he edited (Tolkien: Man and Myth), both of which have a strong Cartholic flavor.

So I wanted to get some sense of what the work was like before I shelled out my pennies. Pio's links were very helpful, and I learned enough that I hope to order it. Helen, let me know if you get it first.

Bird -- Yes, I do agree with much that you say. Every belief system, every religion and philosophy, every subconscious element that Jung describes---all draw from a common pool of imagination and experience that belongs to all humanity. I remember the first time I realized that the Bible was not the only place where the story of the flood appeared. I was overwhelmed with that thought.

On a gut, personal level, the existence of that common pool seems to suggest that we do come from one Creator. And I hope that those things that unite us are more important than those that divide us (although sometimes I fear the reverse!).

So, yes, it is possible to interpret all the values and themes and elements in Tolkien as coming from that common pool. This is true whether we're discussing good vrs. evil, the images of light throughout the entire Legendarium, or how Lembas nourishes hroa and fea. And it's possible to view and enjoy them on that universal level, no matter what your personal belief system is.

But I think people have a point when they say that, sharing the specific mindset of an author in religious terms, gives them an advantage in understanding his perspective. I do share certain common ground with Tolkien. I am a theist, and I see religion as central to the meaning of life. I think that makes it easier for me to understand certain things in Tolkien's mind that influenced how he wrote, as well as to be sympathetic to that mindset.

However, I am neither a Christian or a Catholic. Since I have a doctorate in medieval and early modern history, I know at least something about those belief systems. But, no matter how much I know, I can not share in the 'joy' the same way that a committed Catholic might when he discovers that Galadriel and the Virgin Mary share certain common elements.

Having said that, however, I still think we have to put the whole thing into an even wider perspective. Tolkien was not one thing. He was many. He was a philologist, a defender of England, a man who loved his wife, a protector of the green earth, and someone who knew an enormous amount about history. He was also, to a great extent, a product of his Edwardian upbringing. This list could go on and on.

What it means is that relgion is only one point of contact with Tolkien. There are many others, all the different things which gives each of us a unique perspective. For example, I lived in Britain for some time and got a real feel for the countryside, which I know ties in with my feelings about the Shire and hobbits. And, please, no one lecture me that Tolkien presents an idealised picture! Of course, I know that. By the same token, having worked for a year as a servant girl outside of London and having ancestors who worked in the Cornish mines, I find myself very sympathetic to Sam when Merry and Pippin raz him with their upper class ways!

So, as far as overall understanding goes, I think that is dependent on many things and this goes way beyond what would strictly be labelled 'belief systems'.

Gandalf

Tolkien himself was very clear about the connection between the Secret Fire and the Holy Spirit in his own Letters. This is where I learned this, and I suspect that Bizer read this too.

I remember you discussed this once in a thread about your ancestors. And certainly, many of these names are pulled directly from northern legends (including all the dwarves in The Hobbit).

You know, there is very little discussion on the boards of various critics who've written about Tolkien. We prefer to figure it out on our own, and I think that is the best. But there are times when it helps to look what others have said. The one thing that stikes me is this. I can randomly pull up five different names of recent, serous critics from my bookcase--Verlyn Flieger, T.A. Shippey, Wayne Hammond,Patrick Curry, Joseph Pearce.

If you read these critics, it's almost hard to beleve they are discussing the same author. (Well, it's true that names like Frodo and Galadriel are common to all!) They are so fantastically different in approach and interpretation. I think this is even more true of Tolkien than some other contemporary writers. And the reason for this enormous diversity is the author himself, that he simply can't be reduced to a single dimension.

sharon

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]