• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Bear with me here.... An Argument of Allegory

Well Barley, it has been an interesting discussion. However, like you I feel that we will not get any closer to agreement on this one point.

I do wish to thank you for making me think more about my views on this matter and for making the discussion itself very enjoyable. :)

Also as you have said 'I have spoke me piece and I stands by it!' So too have I, and unless I find out something to alter my viewpoint, I will also withdraw.

*Deep bow in return*

Until the next discussion my friend :)
 
Gothmog said:
...I do wish to thank you for making me think more about my views on this matter...

An excellent and important point! I have found that over the years here at TTF, the practice of engaging in ongoing discussions has allowed me to be clearer even to myself about what I think about various issues, and has as a consequence enabled me to express myself about them much more clearly than otherwise.

So thank you! :)

Barley
 
To put a stamp on this man's stupidity, he would use as evidence the fact that Aragorn (Whom he called "Aragon" in class [ no 'R] )was wed to Arwen, and Sam to Rosie Cotton.

As if Marriage was only part of Christian Culture . . . :rolleyes: :mad:

: : : Just prior to the Bell ringing, dismissing us from class : : :
"OK, gentlemen, when we get back from Christmas Break be looking for Matrimony"
"Between who?", asks a classmate
"Aragon and Arwen, and Sam and Rosie."
: : : : : :

Just knowing that he's trying to justify his argument with THIS is enough evidence for me to send him to the pits of Utumno.
 
As with anyone who believes something quite blatantly incorrect, your teacher is just taking what to him is perfectly good evidence to justify himself. To him, his reasoning is entirely logical and correct. Unfortunately for him, thinking 2 plus 2 equals 5 doesn't change the entire mathematical system.

What you have to do is take every singal example of Tolkien stating there is no allegory and put it all into one paper, then refute every one of his claims of allegorical examples one by one in the most detail and with citing the most sources you possibly can, as well as every definition of allegory you can find from reputable sources (just in case he doesn't know better), and you should give it to him and say "Mr. So And So, I do not agree with you in that Tolkien used Allegory in The Lord of the Rings. To this end, I have compiled a paper in defense of my belief so that you may read the evidence I have presented and consider whether or not you may be mistaken." If he says no, you can either go along with the project or take it further, going above his head and saying your teacher is assigning projects that don't make sense or what-not. If it were up to me, I'd write a paper at least 20 pages long in my defense, but that's just because I'm really, really stubborn and am very argumentative, and I would never rest until I made him admit he was wrong.
 
And to Khorny's recommendations I would add: pass out copies of the finished paper to your parents and every person in class, as well as your teacher's superior, probably the Department Head.

Barley :cool:
 
Last edited:
YES!!!! That's even better!

As they say in Galaxy Quest: Never Give Up, Never Surrender!!!
 
The easiest way of settling this:
If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?

Or is it too simple? ;)
 
Élhendi said:
The easiest way of settling this:
If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?

Or is it too simple? ;)
Thus spake Zarathustra... :D

Seriously, a look at Zoroastrianism - as I've tried to hint at in a previous post - would provide us with with quite a few more applicabilities...
 
I think that the success of the Narnia movie among non-Christians implies that it is not as simple, Élhendi :). The movie is based on a blatantly allegorical story and it has kept most of the allegories in the plot, very obviously for those who know C.S. Lewis' intentions.

In other words, even if the Muslims and Hindus say that the work does not apply to their religion, I'd still take Tolkien's words about it seriously and say that the work is not allegorical. In this debate I am a Gothmogian :D -- if the author (a) knows what allegory is about and (b) denies that it is there, then the matter is settled, for me at least.

(Most of the cases of "inadvertent allegory" would require a denial of (a), but this can't be the case with Tolkien).
 
Élhendi said:
The easiest way of settling this:
If the works of JRRT only applies to Christians, then there is a high probability of Allegory.
But if the works also applies to other religions, then Applicability is the word.
Could someone please call in the Hindus and the Muslims?

Or is it too simple? ;)

I haven't seen the movie yet, but when I have, I'll come back and give you a review from the point of view of a (now appallingly wayward) Hindu! ;) :p Contact Inderjit for the Muslim take! :D

Without having seen the movie, I can say this as one having had experience with the Hindu Weltanschauung:

• All manner of creatures (including the kind that Lewis writes about) exist in various dimensions.
• All actions done for personal ends are karma and therefore lead to further consequences; all actions done for the sake of God are dharma (and therefore free of karma).
• In Hindusim, everything is Hinduism, including everything that exists and does not exist, including all religious beliefs. Everything that exists and does not exist is God. So everything that Lewis is writing about as Christian allegory and simply as story is perfectly acceptable to Hinduism as facets of itself.

Barley

PS: I recently posted my 2200th post; now I'm at 2194? What gives???
 
Last edited:
"The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision". Elsewhere he states "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic" (ibid.). In 1958 he wrote that The Lord of the Rings is "a tale, which is built on or out of certain ‘religious’ ideas, but is not an allegory of them."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/JRRTOLK.HTM

What of these? I seem convinced now, actualy . . . Although some of the stuff my teacher was saying seems way out of line, it seems like he's got every reason to take that path, after reading the article.

Galadriel bestows upon the Fellowship seven mystical gifts, which are surely analogous to the seven sacraments, and as such are real signs of grace, and not mere symbols (and hence this is a specifically Catholic feature of the book).

or Frodo’s willingness both to serve and to carry his burden. Or, in the provision of lembas, can we not see the Eucharist. Before the Fellowship depart from Lorien they have a final supper where the mystical elvish bread lembas is shared, and they all drink from a common cup. Given Tolkien’s remark that "I fell in love with the Blessed Sacrament from the beginning and by the mercy of God never have fallen out again" some comparison with the Last Supper is inevitable. And it would be strange if Tolkien’s tryst with the saving bread was not somewhere replicated in his great saga.

Frodo's taking up of the sin of the world (Ring) and taking it with him, to his OWN destruction.

Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided? It seems like Tolkien was inconsistent, saying how much he hates allegory, but then admiting to putting symbolism in. But it's not like Tolkien to be inconsistent, so I'm not sure what to think.
 
BlackCaptain said:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/JRRTOLK.HTM
Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided?

• Don't be bowled over by authority. Your author has his own agenda.
• Don't be bowled over simply by "credentials."
• Don't be bowled over by the fact that the article appears on the web and "looks important" and the language reads with "authority."
• Remember that there have been thousands of articles written about Tolkien that are thoroughly supported by research, many of which are at loggerheads with each other.
• You have just as much right to your views as anyone, and the more you can support what you say, the more solid they will be, despite other scholarly works to the contrary, and other people who make other intense assertions. The more one believes in something, the more passionate will be the output — no matter which side of the argument is being put forward.

Barley :)
 
BlackCaptain, that article is nothing more than one person's opinion. No matter what other people might have put into words here and there, they cannot be free from the fact that the author himself specifically denies that there is any allegory in The Lord of the Rings.
 
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, it might become difficult to argue your teacher, Black Captain, if you're not well read in Tolkien and myths. This goes even more so if you want to take it up with such evidently well read and narrowly focused people like this David Alten (who is, btw., very much arguing along the lines of Joseph Pearce, IMO).

Anyway, here are some thoughts regarding your quotes from the article:

Tolkien tell us that:

"The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision". Elsewhere he states "I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic" (ibid.).

Now the first sentence is from a letter to Father Robert Murray, a Jesuit and friend of the Tolkien family (it is even said that Tolkien played a certain role in Murray becoming a Jesuit). But it is interesting to note that in the passage from this article the first sentence is taken out of context - as is done by most of those who want to hijack LotR as an entirely Catholic or Christian allegory.

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. 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; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it.

From: Letters #142 (my italics)

Now, if we take Tolkien's statements above seriously and he has "...not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion'..." why would anyone still be able to find such references abound? If Tolkien so disliked allegories would he purposely draw such parallels and then deny that?

Galadriel bestows upon the Fellowship seven mystical gifts, which are surely analogous to the seven sacraments, and as such are real signs of grace, and not mere symbols (and hence this is a specifically Catholic feature of the book).

The number seven occurs quite frequently in LotR (seven stars, seven stones, seven rings, seven kings, etc., etc.) as well as in many myths. Seven was the number of the known celestial bodies in the early civilizations of the near east and has ever since become the number of days in a week, giving the days their names. And consequently - since these celestial bodies were considered deities - we often encounter seven deities or seven pairs of deities (the Valar make no exception to that) in myths.

Also what are the parallels between the seven gifts and the seven sacraments? Is there anything that holds water? I doubt it.

Gandalf or Aragorn (and even possibly Frodo) may be seen as Christ-like: with Aragorn the king entering his kingdom, the return of whom everyone is expecting; the apparent "resurrection" of Gandalf when he dies on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum after the fight with the Balrog; or Boromir’s surrender of his life for his friends in order to save his companions (made all the more remarkable because of his earlier attempt to seize the ring by force and by his subsequent repentance); or Frodo’s willingness both to serve and to carry his burden.

Here the author seems to mix up a hero with a 'Christ like'-figure. Quests where the hero has to carry a heavy burden even to the point of self sacrification for a greater good are a common motif in myths and heroic tales with hundreds if not thousands of examples. Death and resurrection is not unique to Christian tradition either. It is the basic underlying myth of all agricultural societies (out of death comes new life, the seed 'dies', is 'buried' in mother earth and becomes 'resurrected' as a new plant in spring) and found in other myths (the sun-deity dies each evening and is resurrected next morning, the moon dies once in a month and is resurrected). Joseph Campbell in his The hero with a thousand faces maintains that every hero has to 'die' - by giving up his ego - in order to fulfil the quest and is then 'resurrected' with a new consciousness at a higher level.

Or, in the provision of lembas, can we not see the Eucharist. Before the Fellowship depart from Lorien they have a final supper where the mystical elvish bread lembas is shared, and they all drink from a common cup.

We can, but we must not. That is the 'applicability' Tolkien readily admits. Self-sacrification or sacrification of a god-king is found in rites from primitive cultures as well as in agricultural societies. The flesh of the sacrificed king was either eaten or spread over the fields (depending whether it were hunter/gatherer/pastoral or agricultural societies). In Greece, for example, this was practiced up to the 2nd millennium BCE. Later someone else was made king just for this 'ceremony' - and the actual king continued to rule afterwards - and again later animals were sacrificed (hence the sacrificial lamb) or the sacrification became an entirely symbolic ritual with no 'casualties'. In the OT it is Abraham sacrificing - or willing to sacrifice - his only son and and in the NT it was Christ sacrificing himself again. Thus Christianity merely 'inherited' or 'borrowed' that ritual from other - older - cultures and whether one decides to see this final supper in Lórien as an allusion to the Eucharist (or another such ritual) or whether one sees it as an ordinary meal (sharing bread and drinking from one cup also wasn't invented by Christianity) is up to the reader. Applicabilty, not allegory, again....

Only if one purposely reads such things into the story, the allegory is there, if one doesn't it's applicability.

----

But I suppose you will have to take up some reading, and make your homework, if you still intend to argue your teacher and people like this David Alten, Black Captain...
 
Last edited:
Allegory, allegory. I will post a few quotes about allegory here (from the Letters)

  1. The darkness of the present days has had some effect on it. Though it is not an 'allegory'. (Letter 34)
  2. Do not let Rayner suspect 'Allegory'. There is a 'moral', I suppose, in any tale worth telling. But that is not the same thing. Even the struggle between darkness and light (as he calls it, not me) is for me just a particular phase of history, one example of its pattern, perhaps, but not The Pattern; and the actors are individuals – they each, of course, contain universals, or they would not live at all, but they never represent them as such.
    Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory
  3. But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite
  4. Thank you for your letter. I hope that you have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings? Enjoyed is the key-word. For it was written to amuse (in the highest sense): to be readable. There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all.
    It is a 'fairy-story', but one written – according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay 'On Fairy-stories' that they are the proper audience – for adults. Because I think that fairy story has its own mode of reflecting 'truth', different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or 'realism', and in some ways more powerful. But first of all it must succeed just as a tale, excite, please, and even on occasion move, and within its own imagined world be accorded (literary) belief. To succeed in that was my primary object. (Letter 181)
  5. There is no 'symbolism' or conscious allegory in my story. Allegory of the sort 'five wizards = five senses' is wholly foreign to my way of thinking. There were five wizards and that is just a unique part of history. To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs.
    That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability. There always is. (Letter 203)
  6. The situation was conceived long before the Russian revolution. Such allegory is entirely foreign to my thought. The placing of Mordor in the east was due to simple narrative and geographical necessity, within my 'mythology'. The original stronghold of Evil was (as traditionally) in the North; but as that had been destroyed, and was indeed under the sea, there had to be a new stronghold, far removed from the Valar (Letter 229)
http://www2.rinennor.org/search.php?q=allegory&r=30&b=4&d=50 :) Tolkien doesn't like allegory. That's all (at least I think that's all :) )
BlackCaptain, did you talk to you teacher?
 
BlackCaptain said:
Can anyone prove this argument wrong, now, with that first quote provided? It seems like Tolkien was inconsistent, saying how much he hates allegory, but then admiting to putting symbolism in. But it's not like Tolkien to be inconsistent, so I'm not sure what to think.

I don't see any inconsistency, BC. I agree with Tolkien's evaluation of his own Christianity being clear in his works, but this does not imply the use of allegory. The point is that Tolkien had a very clear notion of what allegory is; he was using the word according to that notion (which is, by the way, fundamentally correct -- wider definitions bring with them, as we have seen, several conflicts of interpretation).

According to Tolkien's usage of the word "allegory", not only we must agree that he took any hint of it out of the book, but we also must agree that there is absolutely no way in which allegory could have "sneaked back in" unconsciously.

So, while your teacher certainly has some valid points about Catholic features in the work, the bone of contention here seems to be the definition of allegory. Ask your teacher about it. Research some definitions on the net. And compare them with the Tolkien usage (there are lots of info in this thread about it, as well as in the Introduction to LotR).

It is always possible, in a discussion, that both sides are right even when they disagree ;). Different definitions of the same word is the easiest way to achieve that.
 
Right . . . I understand it as his opinion. But nothing can discredit TOLKIEN'S own opinion when he says:

"The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision"

Unless this is a fake quote?? But I think I remember reading it somewhere anyways, so I'm not sure.
 
BlackCaptain said:
Right . . . I understand it as his opinion. But nothing can discredit TOLKIEN'S own opinion when he says:

"The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision"

Unless this is a fake quote?? But I think I remember reading it somewhere anyways, so I'm not sure.
You didn't bother to read the posts in this thread, now did you? :rolleyes:
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top