|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 5, 2008 1:40:51 GMT -6
Excellent post, Fredegar!
RE: "Tolkien eventually rejected the Victorian ideas and seemed to equate the 'wee-ness' with the lack of dignity. I don't think they're necessarily synonymous but that was his prerogative as a writer."
Spot on, for my money. I've looked, but so far have not found any explanation from either JRR or Chris Tolkien as to why diminutive stature seems so suddenly to have repelled him. "Goblin Feet," "Tinfanf Warble," and several other perfectly acceptable poems suddenly become abhorrent to him, why?
John Garth, in his biography of JRRT, "Tolkien and the Great War," pp. 74-80 talks a bit about this alteration, but offers no real solution, no smoking gun mechanism for JRRT's change of mind.
In his essay "On Fairy-stories," Tolkien addresses the "diminutive size" aspect of fairies/ elves (pp 5-6 in "The Tolkien Reader" version), and puts in his bid for expanding at least some of them to normal human size. But I am uncertain here if he is using source material from pre-existing works in the European tradition of Fairy Tales, or if he is just introducing this concept on his own. Fredegar, in your studies, were there any traditions of "human-sized" elves/ fairies before Tolkien? I think I remember something from another novel, Lord Dunsany, maybe in The King of Elfland's Daughter? But this work also might not be considered a valid part of the Fairy Tale tradition?
I just recalled the name Mogan Le Fay from Arthurian legend, is "Le Fay" an actual designation for the type of creature she was, or just a descriptive such as "crazy," "touched" or highly worked up, going fey and killing the sheep as Ajax Minor did? If Morgana's status is "Fay," then I guess there would be "man-sized" fay about in the record before Tolkien?
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Mar 7, 2008 16:24:18 GMT -6
Hi, guys! When I haven't been sick, I've been working or doing more simple tasks. I haven't got any further into HoH.... In answer to Andorinha's reply #86 -- Return of the Shadow: pg 41 probably Bilbo "Asks Elrond what he can do to heal his money-wish and unsettlement. Elrond tells him of an island. Britain? Far west where the Elves still reign." Granted Tolkien does not specify Tol Eressea, but... Fan
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Mar 7, 2008 20:11:36 GMT -6
I'm confused.
Rateliff is trying to prove Tol Eressea = Britain, and Shire = Britain, therefore Tol Eressea and Shire are the same general area, therefore Hobbiton is in Beleriand, right? RotS would then tend to act as further evidence against Rateliff, right? Tol Eressea is now (where it should be) in the far west, Bilbo is in Middle-earth and his Shire is therefore not in Tol Eressea. To accomplish this, JRRT had to have abandoned the very early concept of Tol Eressea and Kor = England, or he has to abandon the idea that the Shire = England. LOL, can't have it both ways... Do you see what I mean?
It seems to me that JRRT is still using a very fluid concept of geography even as late as the 1940s-1950s when he composes LOTR, while Rateliff wants to use bits of old, abandoned georgraphy when ever it suits him.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Sept 19, 2008 5:42:26 GMT -6
More confusion...
I'm reading The Return of the Shadow, looking for any hints regarding the Flame Imperishable, Secret Fire, and Fire of Udun -- when, instead, I find a bit that fits in here; and, as I'm interpreting it, this makes it even more clear that JRRT was still using a highly fluid geology for Middle-earth as late as 1938. Is Britain supposed to be the Shire? Or is Britain Tol Eresea? Or is Britain neither of these as it lies some place else?
In a note to himself, just trying to work out the sequence of events for the sequel to The Hobbit, JRRT, in RotS, "A Long-Expected Party," p. 41, says:
"[Bilbo] asks Elrond what he can do to heal his money-wish and unsettlement. Elrond tells him of an island. Britain? Far west where the Elves still reign. Journey to perilous isle. I want to look again on a live dragon."
What does this mean? Is there a "live dragon" on the "perilous isle," or just somewhere along the way there? Is the "perilous isle" Britain? Is this perilous isle Britain, and also the same island mentioned just before, the island where the elves reign? Is this perilous isle, dragon isle, Britain isle, elven isle the same as Tol Eresea? If so, then Britain cannot be located in the area of the earth where we find the Shire, although Rateliff has been trying to tie Tol Eresea/ Britain/ and the Shire into one locale.
The more I read the HOME volumes, the more examples I find of just how fluid everything was before 1954/ 55 and the publication of LotR.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 20, 2008 6:18:43 GMT -6
In a note to himself, just trying to work out the sequence of events for the sequel to The Hobbit, JRRT, in RotS, "A Long-Expected Party," p. 41, says:
"[Bilbo] asks Elrond what he can do to heal his money-wish and unsettlement. Elrond tells him of an island. Britain? Far west where the Elves still reign. Journey to perilous isle. I want to look again on a live dragon."
What does this mean? Is there a "live dragon" on the "perilous isle," or just somewhere along the way there? Is the "perilous isle" Britain? Is this perilous isle Britain, and also the same island mentioned just before, the island where the elves reign? Is this perilous isle, dragon isle, Britain isle, elven isle the same as Tol Eresea? If so, then Britain cannot be located in the area of the earth where we find the Shire, although Rateliff has been trying to tie Tol Eresea/ Britain/ and the Shire into one locale. After reading The Silmarillion, I just thought it was a reference to Tol Eresea or Valinor. Before reading the Sil, I just thought it was an island! What if JRRT was trying to tie England into his tale in the beginning but later on just decided to write the story for what it was and gave up on the England ties since it didn't fit anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Sept 20, 2008 18:45:42 GMT -6
In his essay "On Fairy-stories," Tolkien addresses the "diminutive size" aspect of fairies/ elves (pp 5-6 in "The Tolkien Reader" version), and puts in his bid for expanding at least some of them to normal human size. But I am uncertain here if he is using source material from pre-existing works in the European tradition of Fairy Tales, or if he is just introducing this concept on his own. Fredegar, in your studies, were there any traditions of "human-sized" elves/ fairies before Tolkien? I think I remember something from another novel, Lord Dunsany, maybe in The King of Elfland's Daughter? But this work also might not be considered a valid part of the Fairy Tale tradition? Wow, how did I miss this post all those months ago? Sorry, Andorinha. (I mentioned some of this on other threads so I hope I'm not just repeating myself. ) Yes, there are traditions of human-sized faeries/elves before Tolkien. This was in the ancient myths though, not from fairy tales. The earliest faerie legends in Irish/Celtic mythology concern a race called the Daoine Sidhe or Theena Sidhe (pronounced "Theena Shee"). They were a race of tall noble immortals who lived in hollow mounds beneath the earth. Most folklorists believe that the Sidhe legends were an echo of the Irish gods. As Ireland was Christianized, the old gods were recast as either mortal ancestors of the Irish people or as faeries (the Sidhe). As time went on, the faeries became less god-like and more like the "little people" of later legends. Some stories even try to explain this by saying that the faeries were shrunk by the sound of church bells (Christianity proving its dominance over the old pagan traditions). The same thing happens in Norse mythology. Originally, the elves and dwarves were close to human size and were considered to be nature spirits just a step below the gods. But as time goes on, this tradition falls out of favor and we get stories of miniature elves who live in trees or help around human households. Tolkien's version of the Elves was trying to recapture that earlier grandeur that they had in Norse and Celtic myth. Which is kind of ironic considering that he was devoutly Christian and Christianity was largely responsible for the "dwindling" of the faeries in the first place. I guess he was trying to reconcile the two world views, to show they were not mutually exclusive. I just recalled the name Mogan Le Fay from Arthurian legend, is "Le Fay" an actual designation for the type of creature she was, or just a descriptive such as "crazy," "touched" or highly worked up, going fey and killing the sheep as Ajax Minor did? If Morgana's status is "Fay," then I guess there would be "man-sized" fay about in the record before Tolkien? Morgan le Fay is an interesting case. In Arthurian lore, she is not literally a fay but Arthur's half-sister. "Le Fay" was just a title, indicating that she used ancient magics and had a faerie-like appearance. However, a lot of scholars have tried to determine where the character came from originally and whether she was considered a faerie or goddess at one time. There are all sorts of theories. Some think she was inspired by a Celtic mother-goddess called Modron or the Irish war-goddess the Morrigan. There are also stories of water sprites called morgans, I think. Likely, all of these were factors in the creation of Morgan le Fay. So it's another case of an old legend that was rewritten to blend with a Christianized story. Anyhow, I apologize for the detour from your Tol Eresea discussion but I hope this clarifies things.
|
|
|
Post by Andorinha on Sept 22, 2008 11:12:46 GMT -6
Thanks, Fredegar, this does help clarify some of the material.
Fredegar's: "Yes, there are traditions of human-sized faeries/elves before Tolkien. This was in the ancient myths though, not from fairy tales."
Sigh, more library work for me, I know VERY little about the Celtic mythologies of Ireland. Ah, makes good sense that original faries would "diminish" in time as new belief systems arise, RE "s time went on, the faeries became less god-like and more like the "little people" of later legends. Some stories even try to explain this by saying that the faeries were shrunk by the sound of church bells (Christianity proving its dominance over the old pagan traditions)." I think JRRT mentions something like this, that his own elves will dwindle in numbers and "diminish" (in size?) as the Fourth Age, time of Man's dominance developes...
Re : "Morgan le Fay is an interesting case. In Arthurian lore, she is not literally a fay but Arthur's half-sister. "Le Fay" was just a title, indicating that she used ancient magics and had a faerie-like appearance. However, a lot of scholars have tried to determine where the character came from originally and whether she was considered a faerie or goddess at one time."
Excellent! Sigh, looks like even more research required for me here, LOL!
Thanks, Fredegar -- VERY helpful information!
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 22, 2008 18:28:44 GMT -6
It is rather sad to think that the Christian church bells would shrink the godlike faeries in importance, power, and/or size. Pagan tales sure clashed with the new Christian beliefs, didn't they? I don't know why the old tales couldn't have kept in tact and impact along with the new religious doctrine.
Anyway, the little sprite-like faeries are fun in their own way, so their inception isn't a complete loss.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Sept 23, 2008 0:41:16 GMT -6
I think JRRT mentions something like this, that his own elves will dwindle in numbers and "diminish" (in size?) as the Fourth Age, time of Man's dominance developes... Yeah, Galadriel even says "I shall diminish and go into the West." Throughout LOTR, the elves' time is passing and their power is waning. I always wondered if Tolkien was implying that the elves who remained in Middle-earth would continue to diminish in power and stature until they eventually evolved (devolved?) into the miniature elves of later folklore. It would be in keeping with Tolkien's in-universe explanations for other "later" legends (the Valar inspiring the classical gods, the seven dwarf-lords perhaps being remembered as the Seven Dwarves of Grimm's Fairy Tales, etc.). Tolkien seemed to want to establish a bridge between his imagined archaic past and stories of the ages that followed it. Yeah, the unfortunate pattern of every powerful religion seems to be to want to stamp out what came before and prove itself to be the only game in town. The powerful nature spirit faeries were likely too similar to the pagan gods and thus seen as being idolatrous to church leaders. And since they weren't angels or demons, weren't completely good or evil, they were difficult to classify in a Christian world view. Hence, over time the stories lose some of their bite. Faeries cease to be alien and unsettling demi-gods and more like harmless little mischief-makers. I do agree with you about the sprite-sized faeries though. I have a great fondness for Little People. They're not as grand and dignified as their Sidhe "ancestors" but they're adorable.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 23, 2008 6:17:34 GMT -6
Yes, very true! The churches had to be firm and very strict with their followers in their inception. It must have been a very trying time for the leaders to bring their flocks to the proper beliefs. The people must have been in shock, too. They feared the wrath of God if they didn't follow the new doctrine but loved the old ways still. It would seem as if the Christian ways were harsh and severe to those who didn't follow. The history of Christianity can be very cruel to read about. Nowadays people have lost most of the fear that was instilled in them years ago and people are more lax and leisurely in following these beliefs. God can be very loving but He can also be very angry. And the Church was trying to convey that message to the followers.
|
|
|
Post by Fredeghar Wayfarer on Sept 23, 2008 18:01:20 GMT -6
Yes, very true! The churches had to be firm and very strict with their followers in their inception. It must have been a very trying time for the leaders to bring their flocks to the proper beliefs. That depends on what you consider the "proper" beliefs. That's a notion I've always been very uncomfortable with. From the church's point of view, they were trying to steer the pagans onto the "right" path to save them. From the native people's point of view, it may have seemed like their culture and beliefs were being marginalized or suppressed. Hence the desire to retain them in altered form. Sorry, I don't mean to stir up a religious debate or bring my personal baggage into this. I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives, Stormrider-- you from a Christian POV and me from an agnostic one. At any rate, as mentioned, that sublimation/adaptation of the pagan beliefs produced a wealth of material and different forms of faerie creatures in folklore. So there was an interesting result.
|
|
|
Post by Stormrider on Sept 24, 2008 5:56:38 GMT -6
That depends on what you consider the "proper" beliefs. That's a notion I've always been very uncomfortable with. From the church's point of view, they were trying to steer the pagans onto the "right" path to save them. From the native people's point of view, it may have seemed like their culture and beliefs were being marginalized or suppressed. Hence the desire to retain them in altered form. Yeah, there were definately two sides to the story here! I'm not siding with either myself, but I was looking at it from the Christian viewpoint when I typed my comments above. I agree it was difficult for the pagans, too. I recall the conflict in the novel, Hawaii, and how the natives felt about being Christianized. They tried so hard to keep their old ways in some form or another, too, while the missionaries struggled to uncorrupt the natives. It was very interesting to see both sides of the struggle. Hmmm...is this the History of the Hobbit thread? Wow! we got way off track! ;D
|
|
|
Post by fanuidhol on Sept 25, 2008 6:16:27 GMT -6
More confusion... The more I read the HOME volumes, the more examples I find of just how fluid everything was before 1954/ 55 and the publication of LotR. This is why I often say in a post that involves HoMe -- This is what Tolkien was thinking at THIS particular time. I love looking at the evolution of Tolkien's ideas and where they end up. But, I still don't have the 2nd volume of HoH...I do have a birthday coming up though...hint, hint. Fan
|
|