The Oxford Tolkien Conference 2006 at Exeter College

[Iolanthe]

Oh, I remember that now! I've been having a look through but can't spot anything likely. It's going to annoy me until I find it .

[bruce rerek]

Next week will find me in Oxford and spending my birthday at Holywell Manor. I will keep a log and visit the places and rooms that the Professor graced. To say that I am all a tither is an understatement.
Oh yes, news of my son's work at Oxford will be included in the journal.

[Merry]

Wonderful, Bruce! I look forward to your reports. Soak it all up!

[Merry]

Here are some of my notes about the talk on 'Tolkien's Moral System' given by Father Leon Carrera, O.P., at the Oxford Conference. Leon (and I think he would not mind me being so familiar with his name!) is a member of the Dominican order and lives at Blackfriar's, the famous Dominican house at Oxford. One of the Inklings was a Dominican, Father Gervais Matthew, and Tolkien was a frequent guest at Mass and at meals. In fact, I think Leon told us that the first public reading of Farmer Giles was at Blackfriar's.

Father Leon was a wonderfully friendly member of our little conference community, and invited us to visit Blackfriar's for a tour. More on that later!

Leon's talk focused on how the moral system found in LOTR especially was formed within Tolkien's Catholicism. One has to have a Weltanschauung (worldview) in order to have a moral system, and Tolkien's world included a God. He said that LOTR is all "about God and his sole right to Divine honor." God is "woven into the fabric of the story"--God is the canvas, not the paint. God (Eru) is never present and never named, but there are prayers of thanksgiving and petition. Tolkien decided to bring morals 'home' by presenting them in unfamiliar circumstances, that is, in a myth. And direct references to religion are "fatal" to myth.

Leon addressed the criticism that Tolkien is too simplistic on good and evil. Tolkien tells us in the letters that the primary lesson of LOTR is the importance of pity and mercy, and those lessons are anything but simplistic. Pity is "an absolute requirement of moral judgement" since it belongs first to God: Eru forgave Aule for the transgression of creating Dwarves and allowed them to continue living. Frodo sins by claiming the Ring, but then "the true Writer of the story took over" and restores order. Frodo is doomed to failure, but his pity is answered by divine Pity. This is hardly simplistic good vs. evil.

Leon also talked a bit about Turin, who is a pagan sort of hero. Turin's "folly" is thinking that he is the master of his fate, rather than trusting to divine Providence.

I'm sure there is much more to say here! But I want to make sure to tell you about the end of Leon's talk. He had pictures of some of the statuary in the Blackfriar chapel that Tolkien had prayed in so often, and he hypothesized that Tolkien had included some of the images in LOTR. One was a statue of St. Dominic with- - - a star bound on his forehead! He also had photos of some of the Stations of the Cross, where the Roman soldiers looked exactly like - - - Orcs! There were audible gasps in the room when the photos were shown. Iolanthe and I later visited Blackfriar's and we were given the tour by Leon--such a nice man! And it just seemed that it would be too much of a coincidence to think that Tolkien had not been influenced by those images.

Iolanthe, I don't think you had your camera at Blackfriar's, did you? Pity!

[Iolanthe]

Ah, I did, but I couldn't somehow interrupt Father Leon and the sanctity of the Chapel by suddenly whipping it out and taking snaps . If Father Leon himself hadn't coincidentally opened the door to us (I think we were both gobsmacked) I probably would have taken loads...

The carvings were really remarkable. The Roman Soldier 'orcs' were straight out out the film . The carvings were clearly meant to be symbolic rather than representational with the 'baddies' shown as demons. The statue of St Dominic is by that wonderful British sculptor Eric Gill - the star in the middle of the forehead is quite something! St Dominic, according to Father Leon, is usually shown with the star on his halo, though Father Guglielmo said there is a representation of him with it on his forehead in Mexico. Tolkien must have taken notice of it, especially as Father Leon thought that he had taken part in services in that particular sidechapel as a lay preacher.

I'm glad you've covered this talk, Merry, my notes are sketchy and, alas, I don't have any photos of Father Leon, but I do have a sketch! Merry knows that I'm am a hopeless doodler and doodled most of the people at the Conference :

© Iolanthe. Father Leon Pereira

There are a few minor things to add from my notes:

- He pointed out that LOTR is like the real world in that good is often worked through beings like Gollum where good comes about through no deliberate chosing on their part, and conversely the good can also be a stumbling block.

- Pity is what undoes Sauron - the pity of Bilbo and then Frodo. This is part of the Divine Nature in its highest form and beyond the understanding of Sauron. Something he could never see coming. It's Sam's lack of pity when Gollum is finally turning towards good that leads them to Shelob's lair (an exmple of how the good can sometimes be a stumbling block). Sam only understands Frodo's pity when he bears the Ring for a short time.

- But if Gollum had repented at Shelob's lair the whole story would have been different. It would have become Gollum centered, not Frodo centrered, something that Tolkien himself pointed out and something that he knew he had to avoid.

- Sam is the Complete Hobbit, but Frodo is different. Frodo is more of a Priest (very interesting point I thought...). Sam is a rounded person, transformed by his devotion to Frodo, almost becoming holy though love despite his failings. Father Leon saw Sam as Bilbo's real heir, saving Frodo from Shelob using the same Ring and sword that Bilbo used to fight the Giant Spiders.

- Priest-like Frodo becomes a 'saint' figure but Sam becomes a great leader of the Shire and a great Hobbit.

- The value above all of an ordinary life is exemplified in Sam's return and marriage. Father Leon sees this celebration of ordinary life as the center and main value of LOTR, its true message. It's this that they are all fighting for, this that has to be preserved at all costs.

Like Merry, I really liked Father Leon. It was a great shame that his duties meant that he couldn't be at the Conference every day. He was very gracious showing us around Blackfriars and clearly very proud of the academic tradition there.

[Airwin]

Thank you Merry and Iolanthe for sharing your notes (and doodles ) with us about Father Leon's presentation. How interesting that Tolkien based some of his characters upon statues in the chapel!

It's interesting to read the comments about Frodo and Sam. I'm reading the Two Towers right now. I'll pay extra attention to their journey once I get to it, keeping those comments in mind.

[Philipa]

Because I've been away so long I've now printed out the whoooolllleee story. All eleven pages of it that is. I'll have some great bedtime reading tonight!

I am looking forward to reading Bruce's travel journal was well.

[Merry]

Don't let Iolanthe fool you! Her 'doodles' were terrific sketches of the people at the conference. I hope she shares more of them!

[Iolanthe]

Alison Milbank
Tolkien, Thomism and Chesterton

Dr. Alison Milbank is Lecturer in Literature and Theology at the University of Nottingham and is presently writing a study of Catholic poets G. K. Chesterton and J. R. R. Tolkien.

A 'doodle' of Alison Milbank

© Iolanthe

Alison’s talk was about the possible influence of G K Chesterton’s Thomistic beliefs on Tolkien. Tolkien mentions Chesterton in his letters, practically the only other author he does mention. Firstly Alison gave us an outline of Chesterton’s Thomistic ideas, Thomism being a philosophy shaped by the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas tried to draw Christian Dogma and various aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy together.

She summed up Chesterton’s Thomistic ideas as follows:

There is an ‘is’ and an ‘Is’, the former being things that exist as we see them, as a perception. These are incomplete and subject to change. The latter is the potential, the perfection that has its reality only in God and which we strive for. In other words things have being but we know them to be imperfect. But without this, without potentiality there can be no concept of change. To put it bluntly all things have it in them to be more real than they are.

For Tolkien it’s the ‘otherness’ of things that we reach out to. We strive for their perfect realisation and there has to be an ultimate reality for the mind to want to reach out for it. The mind cannot create the ‘real’ it is reaching for but it can create fantasy to try and reveal them – to create fantasy you can’t help playing God, so theism is inherent in Fantasy. The Creator is being mimicked. Even incompleteness in Tolkien adds to the realism of his creation, it mirrors the incompleteness of the real world.

Tolkien’s fairy stories show his understanding of Thomastic theology. Fantasy, in its recreation of the world gives us the reality of the world.

The Creator gives us freedom in creation. In Tolkien’s creation mythos the Ainur contribute to creation in their song.

Alison summed up the main Thomastic themes in Tolkien as:
God as Creator
Freedom of creation
Diversity (I seemed to have missed the argument for this one…)

Alison then went on to talk more specifically about these themes, looking at the world of the Elves in Middle-earth.

The Elves suffer the immutability of the world around them, they are wedded to the material cosmos. They are mutable too in their fading and loss of power. The Elves of the Third Age are primarily artists, whereas Hobbits are the representatives of action, or praxis, or how we use our free will. In Leaf by Niggle Niggle was consumed with creating and completing his creation before he made his journey (death). He learns practical work in a Purgatorial hospital. It’s only after he’s learned this that he sees the actual Tree he was trying to paint. With Parish, the practical friend he neglected, he completes a whole garden. Parish (praxis - putting knowledge into practice) and Niggle (Poesis – the making of art) joining together to achieve completion. The result is a landscape that is not only beautiful but practical. The Elves combine this too – making applied art not fine art. Everything they create has a use except, significantly, the Silmarils which were designed to hold the light of the Trees, not to be used. They were art for art’s sake.

In Lorien the gifts given to the Fellowhip are ‘set free’ to join the real world. All creations in Lorien have a splendour, a perfection of being, a completeness of the essence of what they are. The Elven rope given to Sam is as perfect a rope as you can get. The gifts all have a radiance or clarity of being – even the rope has a sheen to it. To be seen as they truly are in essence, things have to be enchanted, only then do we perceive the reality of them, their potential realised.

Melkor separated art from use. The Ring is perfect in it’s ‘ringiness’ but has no radiance. It hides itself, it hides its words and it hides its origin instead of illuminating them. It has no clarity – it is magical, rather than enchanted.

Widening these observations, Alison made the point that The Lord of the Rings itself has a clarity and radiance which makes it wholly real by showing us the reality of our own world – that there is something more, in the same way that we feel that there is ‘something more’ in Middle-earth.

Debating a point at the banquet

© Iolanthe

Some other observations Alison made:

In temperament, Tolkien has more in common with Aquinas than Augustin.

The Ring is more of a machine than a work of art. It is made to control, made dependant, not free. So Sauron is a dependant on it and this is one of the reasons he falls, he is lesser than Morgoth.

And some observations from the floor during Questions which are worth noting for posterity:

Why is Sauron represented by only one eye? He can’t see into Frodo’s heart, he can only see how Frodo would use the Ring. It is a single gaze, he can’t really ‘see’ he only has the moral equivalent of monocular vision. He can’t look into the depth of things, he can only see in one dimension.

From our very own Merry (who spoke where I never said a word): One important Thomistic belief is that nothing can be completely evil by virtue of the fact that it is part of creation and God’s creation in its pure initial form can’t be evil.

These are, or course, notes and don't give every argument Alison presented. I’m sure Merry can add something about this interesting talk as this is all her field and she can probably shed light whereas I’m groping in the dark!

[Merry]

My apologies for being so long in responding to Iolanthe's fine report: I am away from home, my computer, and my notes.

I didn't take many notes at Alison's talk. My own interest in the topic was more about how deeply JRRT knew Thomas Aquinas, and she did not address that. I think she was trying to say that Tolkien's knowledge of Aquinas came through a secondary source, G. K. Chesterton. (But there was a persistant rumor at the conference that, somewhere in Oxford, a used bookstore was offering for sale Tolkien's copy of Thomas' main work, the Summa Theologiae, complete with marginal notes. Now that would have answered my questions, I imagine, but I new that it would be beyond my pocketbook!)

One of the bits I remember in the talk used Thomas' criteria for beauty (both in art and in nature)--integrity, clarity, and proportion--to critique the works of art in JRRT's stories. For example, the works of the elves had these criteria, but not the Ring. I think she said that the Ring lacked integrity, which Thomas used to mean the relationship of parts to whole. (But I don't think that Sauron intended the Ring to be a work of art, but rather a technology, but that's another question.)

More when I get to my notes!

[Iolanthe]

I found the whole thing very confusing when I went through my notes - I guess a lot is fading from memory now!

I also see the Ring as technology, not art. Mmmm. That would make a good discussion!!!!

[Lindariel]

Here's an interesting tidbit for that discussion from David Day's Tolkien's Ring, Chapter 14, "The Alchemist's Ring":

The power of the alchemist traditionally evolved through a combination of natural science and supernatural wisdom which are embodied in the crafts of the shaman (or magician) and the smith. These are derived from the symbols and mysteries of metallurgy, and are ultimately emblematic of the physical and spiritual mastery of fire.

Traditionally, the alchemist -- like the magician and the smith -- is given the title 'master of fire' . . . . The alchemist employs both physical and spiritual fire to transform the natural world.

In Tolkien's world of The Lord of the Rings, we have the ultimate evil alchemist in the form of Sauron, the Ring Lord. Sauron is both a magician (or sorceror) and a smith who forges the supernatural One Ring of Power. He has the perfect evil alchemist's pedigree . . . .

In its creation, Sauron's One Ring was the ultimate heresy against the alchemical tradition. It was the evil opposite of the Ouroboros or serpent ring of the alchemist. When Sauron came to the Elven-smiths of Middle-earth and persuaded them to forge the other Rings of Power, he came in disguise as Annatar, 'giver of gifts'. He appeared as a benevolent alchemist [a magician/smith] very like the Greek hero Prometheus. In fact, he was the exact opposite. Prometheus's ring marked the saviour who enslaved himself and gave mortals freedom, knowledge and life. Sauron's ring marked the tyrant who enslaved the world and gave mortals bondage, ignorance and death.

Sounds like an interesting argument for the ring as technology rather than art, and a perverted and twisted technology at that!

By the way, if you haven't read this book yet, I highly recommend it -- a very interesting examination of the many "ring quest" mythologies that contributed to or perhaps inspired Tolkien's work: Norse mythology, the Volsunga Saga, Arthurian legends, Caroligian legends, Celtic and Saxon myths, German Romances, the Nibelungenlied, Greek and Roman myths, Biblical legends (including Solomon's Ring), Oriental myths, the Alchemist's Ring, and Wagner's Ring.

Day maintains that Tolkien radically transforms these legends into something fresh for this century, in that his story is about the "unmaking" of the Ring of Power, rather than an attempt to find, retrieve, or control it:

Tolkien's reversal of the ring quest demonstrates this 'new way of thinking'. Its version of the quest represents a desire to change power structures. Tolkien saw the results of the pursuit of pure power in two wars, and rejected it . . . . Tolkien also displayed this 'new way of thinking' in his inspired choice of heroes. One must not forget the importance of his Hobbits; it would do no good to change the nature of the quest without changing the nature of the hero. Not only did Tolkien turn the ring quest on its head, he also reversed many of the characteristics usually expected of the quest hero . . . . In Frodo the Hobbit, Tolkien found a twentieth-centure Everyman who has, and will continue to have, universal appeal to people of any time and any place. In Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings the Hobbit teaches us that 'attempting to conquer Sauron with the ring' is no longer the goal of the quest. In the end, it is not the power of the mind nor the strength of the body but the instincts of the human heart that save the world. It is the simple human capacity for mercy that finally allows evil to be overthrown.

[Iolanthe]

That sounds a fascinating book, Lindariel! The observation that Sauron is like an evil alchemist is very astute. Sauron's Ring is both a physical and spiritual creation, embodiying his evil power in a perfect form. I suppose that does make it more than technology - a tool created to be put to a purpose - to something quite beyond.

[Merry]

This is great! Thanks for the quotes, Lindariel.

Just a bit of an idea: I know that at least some ancient peoples didn't make the distinction between art and technology. The ancient Greek word for art is techne and it was used to refer to all making. The distinction between fine art and technology is a pretty fine line to draw. We can perceive the differences in the extremes (for example, it's easy enough to see that a Renoir is a fine art and an automobile engine is technology), but what about Galadriel's swan boat?

In this context, I've been remembering that people who saw the Ring often remarked on how beautiful it was. So is there a huge and clear difference between art and technology?

[Iolanthe]

Not really in most cases with Elven creations I suppose, but did Sauron intend the Ring to be art as well as a tool? He wanted to seduce the Elves with his craft and knowledge and could still appear in a fair form when he taught them to forge their Rings. Did the Master Ring have to be even more perfect than the Eleven Rings to rule them? Maybe perfection was just a necessity and beauty was a by-product. Or did it still please him to create something beautiful? Does it lack 'integrity'?