Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

21517Re: [mythsoc] Re: religion in Tolkien

Expand Messages
  • dale nelson
    Oct 15 6:00 AM
      This is very helpful, David.  To your second point ("and so on") I can add only that the faithful of Middle-earth have literal angels, messengers of God, in their midst, since "Gandalf is an angel," as Tolkien said somewhere in an interview.  Someone can remind me of the source; but I'm sure it had appeared by the time Imaginary Worlds was written, although I'm not sure that Lin Carter saw it.  Granted, Gandalf has idiosyncrasies that we don't usually associate with angels, even after his return from combat (cf. the war in heaven) with the Balrog.  But he appears among the faithful peoples to bring counsel, encouragement, correction, etc.  I actually think Tolkien took the angelic aspect about as far as he could without raising distracting questions among readers.  Similarly, I'm glad that it is not a commonplace of commentary on Tolkien to regard Gandalf as a Melchizedek/Melchisedec figure (the priest-king who appears to Abraham after his victory, etc.).... and so on.  (I don't think it entered Tolkien's mind to see Gandalf as an angel at first, back when he was writing The Hobbit, and I wouldn't care to speculate on when it was that Tolkien "realized" this.) 


      From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 10:24:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: religion in Tolkien


      If we're going to respond to Lin Carter - which I am about to do at
      considerable length - we need to have at hand what he actually said.

      Carter's contentious comments on religion in Tolkien appeared only briefly
      in his 1969 book on Tolkien, which was focused on placing LOTR in the
      context of the history of fantasy literature, rather than on evaluating
      Tolkien's work. But his 1973 book _Imaginary Worlds_ was a history of
      fantasy, and its view of Tolkien was focused on evaluating his achievement
      in that context. LOTR had been so widely praised that Carter felt there was
      room to emphasize what he saw as the book's flaws, and one of the things he
      said was this: When he writes that "Tolkien's world has no religion in it,"
      Iluvatar and the Valar don't count.

      "That is not what I am talking about," he writes. "A religion is much more
      than just the presence of an actual god, or gods; it is also an established
      canon of inspired writings and an organized priesthood, a system of temples
      and shrines, and so on." Medieval societies of the kind Tolkien used as
      models had such an organized religion, he says, and other fantasies inspired
      by them have had them to. Then he gives a long list of examples, from Conan
      the Barbarian on up. "But there is no religion at all in _The Lord of the
      Rings_ - no temples, shrines, priests, prayers, amulets, scriptures, ikons,
      idols - _nothing!_ None of the many characters, not even the heroic
      warriors, so much as swears by his gods. Obviously because they _have_ no
      gods. Which is simply incredible in a primitive world of wizards and
      warriors and walled stone cities." (Imaginary Worlds, p. 122-24)

      The first thing that occurs to me to say in response to this is, "By
      Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have neither the Ring nor me!"
      which is what Frodo says to the Nazgul at the Ford of Bruinen. Luthien, or
      even Elbereth, may not technically be gods, but from a Catholic author they
      are definitely serving the function of angels or saints in this context.
      Anyway, so much for characters not swearing by them. There are other
      examples; this one is particularly memorable.

      Secondly, Carter has a rather limited idea of what an organized religion
      requires. The medieval Norse, for instance, did not have any canon of
      inspired writings that we know of. Their legends and poems about the gods
      and heroes were neither canonized nor considered sacred texts the way we
      consider the Bible. The Jews, after the fall of the Temple, simply
      abandoned the heriditary priesthood that had served them before that; even
      today, rabbis are not really "clergy" in the sense that Christians use that
      word; a rabbi is a learned man, not a priest. Some Asian religions, I
      believe, do without temples and shrines, and the diaspora Jews also rank low
      on that scale.

      The peoples of Middle-earth, however, do have some of the "and so on" which
      Carter doesn't enumerate. If they don't have a canonized scripture, they do
      have the kind of stories of the gods and heroes of the past that customarily
      appear in scriptures, even a creation myth (though Carter didn't have access
      to this one, as it first appeared in _The Silmarillion_ which hadn't been
      published when he wrote). They have some rituals, notably the moment of
      silence before eating that Faramir and his men perform at Henneth Annun.
      This, Faramir explains, is a gesture of respect towards Eldamar and Valinor,
      so they also have a holy place. They have funerary customs and respect the
      dead, a common religious practice. And, as Carter would say, so on.

      What they have more than any of this, however, are aspects of religion that
      are not dreamt of in Carter's philosophy. These are the moral and spiritual
      content of religious belief, which underlie every action the admirable
      characters take, and indeed drive the whole plot, because it is a spiritual
      concern to rid the world of an evil menace, and not a practical
      consideration to defeat the bad guy in the black hat, that inspires the
      decision to destroy the Ring, rather than - as practical men like Boromir
      would prefer - use it. I hardly need to go into this here, as so many
      authors have done so brilliantly. The best source for this purpose is
      Richard Purtill's _Lord of the Elves and Eldils_, because like Carter he was
      writing before _The Silmarillion_ and proves his case, rather dazzlingly,
      from LOTR alone. (Ellwood's _Good News from Middle-earth_, the other
      pre-Silmarillion religious study of Tolkien, is a hunt for Christ figures
      and new-age woo-woo, and even if you want such things, would not be suitable
      for countering Carter.) Of more recent books on Tolkien's religious
      dimension that consider the posthumous writings, I'd say the best ones which
      still focus mostly on LOTR are _The Battle for Middle-earth_ by Fleming
      Rutledge and _Following Gandalf_ by Matthew Dickerson. (The Birzer and
      Caldecott books mentioned by others are OK, but these are much better.)

      So the answer to Carter is that he's framed his question wrongly - what
      Tolkien lacks is not religion, it's colorful religious trappings - and even
      taken as Carter frames it, his charge is not entirely true. But
      nevertheless, his observations are not entirely hallucinatory, so we can
      also raise the questions of whether what he sees is, as he claims, "simply
      incredible," and of why Tolkien writes it this way. But these are further
      observations on the topic, not directly answers to Carter, because they
      attempt only to explain the case; they don't answer it.

      From an external, author-based perspective, we can say that Tolkien couldn't
      have his pre-Christian characters be Christians, for obvious chronological
      reasons, but he didn't want to have them worshipping false gods, so he made
      them the virtuous pagans of (mostly hypothetical) Christian theology. Some
      of the authors on religion in Tolkien go into this point.

      From an internal, character-based perspective, though, there's an answer so
      breath-taking that, again, it is not dreamt of in Carter's philosophy. The
      reason his pagan warriors don't worship false gods is that, through the
      Elves, and they through the Valar, have unfiltered access to the truth about
      the spiritual universe. (The truth as Tolkien sees it, of course, but as an
      author he has the right to make his Catholic theology the unfettered truth
      within his own fiction.) They don't need false gods; they have the real
      God. They don't need priests and rituals and so on; they have a closeness
      to the divine that few today are fortunate enough to experience. That
      palpable sense is part of what makes LOTR such an inspiring book.

      That's what I would say if I were on Ellen's panel, and I hope it helps.

      David Bratman

    • Show all 22 messages in this topic