Learnings from Signum class on Dante – with reference to class on Morgoth’s Ring - Can they be related to TLOTR?

[Flammifer]

I was struck by Prof. Olsen’s discussion in the Dante class on two types of Allegory: The ‘Allegory of the Poets”, and “The Allegory of the Theologians”. Then by the ‘Four-fold Exegesis’ with Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical levels of interpretation.

How might these apply to TLOTR?

Especially to the question of why JRRT never managed to create a satisfactory ‘Silmarillion’ which integrated with TLOTR?

This is a set of first thoughts. Please add comments and builds.

Some Speculative Assumptions:

• JRRT, unlike Dante, did not attempt to write an Allegory of the Theologians. We know a lot about JRRT’s process in writing TLOTR. We can see that it was an emergent process, without the organization and planning that would have been necessary to consciously write an ‘Allegory of the Theologians”, with a Four-fold Exegesis.
• Assume that JRRT (after the fact) wanted his Legendarium to fit as an Allegory of the Theologians if interpreted that way by readers. He wanted it to be capable of Four-fold Exegesis. I don’t know if JRRT ever said anything that would support this assumption. But, he was a Medievalist. He must have been familiar with the Allegory of the Theologians. Also, as a well educated Catholic, I assume he was familiar with the Four-fold Exegesis of Scripture. JRRT was an extremely adept reader and interpreter of his own TLOTR. Could JRRT, as a reader, have been using the concepts of the Allegory of the Theologians, and the Four-fold exegesis, as a yardstick to measure the success of his attempted synthesis?

Implications of these assumptions for JRRT’s struggles to integrate the Legendarium with TLOTR:

• The literal level of exegesis:

If JRRT wants TLOTR to have a literal level, the Frame is crucial. The Frame (this is a history, written by eye witnesses, and key participants, of actual historical events, in our world (though in ancient and forgotten times, and perhaps subject to the vicissitudes of transcription and translation)) creates the ‘literal’ interpretation of the work. Dante also uses a frame (that he is recounting an actual vision – rather than an actual journey) to ground his story in the literal. Dante had another advantage which JRRT did not. Dante did not invent any characters. They were all real, living or historical people. Professor Olsen, musing on JRRT’s extensive retcons (eliminating the flat earth, placing the creation of the sun and moon at the beginning instead of later, etc.) wished that JRRT had just abandoned the Frame. Was it that this would eliminate the literal level from the Four-fold Exegesis which compelled JRRT to maintain the Frame?

• The allegorical level of exegesis:

JRRT was insistent that LOTR was not an ‘Allegory’. He was referring to “The Allegory of the Poets”, wherein the Author is injecting the Allegory. I don’t think he had any objection to the “Allegory of the Theologians”, wherein the reader interprets the allegory. Just as Dante left clues which, if deciphered, indicate that the three days of his journey covered Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday, showing the allegory of his journey to that of Jesus, so JRRT left clues, indicating that the company leaves Rivendell on Christmas Day, and the Ring goes into the Fire on the Feast of the Annunciation. Pretty clear that JRRT had no objection to readings of TLOTR as Christian Allegory. Also clear, that Hobbits can be read as an allegory of Everyman, and that this was intentional by JRRT.

The ‘Allegorical’ level of interpretation caused JRRT many problems. One was that the existence of immortal Elves, who knew the Valar personally, meant that ‘History’ in Middle-earth could not really be mythologized, nor blurred by oral transmission, transcription, translation. JRRT could have fit his earlier stories of the Creation, and the Valar, and the Lamps, and the Trees, and the Flat Earth, into a whole consistent with Allegory, and Christianity, if he could have passed them off as ‘myths’, figuratively, but not literally, true. However, these histories came directly from the Valar, who were there. In Frame they must be ‘true’. Instead of the Legendarium being allegorical of Christianity, or a different set of myths pointing at the same reality as Biblical stories, the legendarium becomes an alternative reality to Biblical stories, and, within the Frame, a more authoritative and accurate account. A concept which JRRT would have abhorred. Since JRRT believed Christianity to be true (though sometimes figuratively, rather than literally true), he either had to keep ret-conning his mythologies until they became just slightly re-worded versions of Christian tradition (Tolkien commentary, “Already it is (if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity”), or risk, in Frame, his mythology being represented as more authoritative and true than Christian tradition.

Professor Olsen, on JRRT’s commentary, and Christopher T’s response, considered that the Tale of Adanel did not ‘cross the line’ into a parody of Christianity. Even so, the other problem remains. Within the Frame, the Legendarium history (directly received from the Valar) is more authoritative than the Biblical stories. (Not the Tale of Adanel, since this was not a Valar derived story.) This would be a large problem for JRRT. There are other problems in the allegorical level of exegesis. Problems such as the differences between Satan and Melkor, the redemption (or lack thereof) of Orcs, resisted easy ret-conning, and JRRT never came up with satisfactory solutions.

• The moral level of exegesis:

There are many ways that the exegesis works at a moral level. Explorations of the moral virtue (necessity) of Estel, are numerous. Mercy is extolled frequently. The perils of arrogance and pride are illustrated. The moral exegesis was important to JRRT. In many ways, the exegesis of morality in both TLOTR and The Legendarium is clear. However, it does present some difficulties. Most notably, the absence of moral uncertainty around orc-slaying. Is there also some moral differentiation around the morality of God between The Legendarium and Christianity? In Adanel’s Tale, 'The Voice' instructs Men, “First seek to find the answer for yourselves. For ye will have joy in the finding, and so grow from childhood and become wise. Do not seek to leave childhood behind before your time”. Of course, the Men ignore this once Melkor comes along and offers to accelerate their answers. But, surely a moral parent should seek to protect their children from dangerous and seductive predators? The clear difference from the Bible, is that Adam and Eve are not children. Is there an exegesis on the morality of the Divine here?

• The anagogical level of exegesis:

The anagogical level involves interpreting what the work has to say about the ultimate fate of the souls of Men. Undoubtedly, this level is a core concern of JRRT. He would not be so focused on the contrast between immortal Elves and mortal Men if he were not interested in the anagogical. There is a considerable discourse on consideration of the benefits and concerns of immortality versus mortality. Tied to Arda versus freed from Arda. Death as the Gift of Eru to Men, is a concept. Men’s fear of death and envy of the immortality of Elves is another recurring theme. In the Legendarium JRRT gets explicit about the souls of Men leaving Arda to go to Illuvatar after death (though what happens there is never explored). The anagogical level is the one that gave the fewest problems to JRRT.

Question:

Could JRRT’s attraction to the concept of “The Allegory of the Theologians”, and his desire to make his combined work fit within the Four-fold Exegesis, have contributed to his failure to come up with a satisfactory synthesis of TLOTR and The Silmarillion?

It seems that there are three ways that JRRT could have resolved his problems:

• Cut the frame, and explicitly set both actions in an imaginary and sub-created world. But this would have ‘eliminated’ the first level of classical Medieval Four-fold Exegesis.

• Make the mythology of The Legendarium more mythological and less authoritative. This mythology could have been Elvish. In which case the relationship between the Elves and the Valar could have been made less familiar. With more distant, aloof, and mysterious Valar, an Elvish mythology could have been created around the hints they did pick up from the Valar which would have been more ‘mythological’ and less authoritative. The mythology could also have been human (an idea which JRRT toyed with). A more ‘mythological’ Legendarium could have differed more from Christian ‘legends’ (though pointing in similar directions) without the problem of being either a ‘parody of Christianity’ or more true (in Frame) than Christianity.

• Keep to the stories in ‘The Silmarillion’ proper. The wars in Beleriand between the Exiles and the Enemy. Bury the histories of the Creation, the Valar, Eru, the Music, the theology of Men and Elves, etc. and leave them tantalizingly hinted at and veiled in the background. (Like they are in TLOTR).

Any of these three approaches might have allowed JRRT a satisfactory synergy between TLOTR and the Legendarium. None of these approaches seemed to have been acceptable to JRRT.

Could JRRT’s resistance to these approaches have been due to trying to ensure that a traditional Medieval Four-fold Exegesis, in an Allegory of the Theologians, could be applied to the integration?

Highly speculative thoughts here. Please comment and build.

 

[Lincoln Alpern]

I haven't been participating in the Dante class; I appreciate this clear and comprehensive breakdown and its application to Lord of the Rings. Very thought provoking.