Tolkien: Celtic vrs Teutonic Source Myths

[Andorinha]

This discussion concerns the uses Tolkien made (or possibly made) of the two supposedly distinct source traditions he found in the Celtic and Teutonic literatures. Specifically, did Tolkien draft heavily (for themes, events, character models, customs, and forms of literature) from both these traditions, or is his Middle-earth predominantly a reflection of just one of these great literatures?

[Andorinha]

This topic has evolved from a discussion in Androga's Silmarillion Study, and this initial post is an appeal for more information to Fanuidhol concerning some quotes from Marjorie Burns "Perilous Realms." I am hoping that it may serve as an opening for a deeper discussion concerning just how much of JRRT's Middle-earth can properly be traced to Celtic sources, and how much may be Nordic-Teutonic. Was Tolkien aware of any real split between the two literatures, and did he favour one over the other?

Celtic vrs Germanic 7-09-06

Some initial disclaimers: I am only moderately familiar with literary criticism as it concerns medieval Nordic-Teutonic compositions, but almost entirely ignorant of the parallel studies of the Celtic tradition. While the Nordic-Teutonic scholars I have read are careful to differentiate on the basis of tribal/ geographical/ dialectical differences; and they are careful to point out that their generalizations are valid only for narrow chronological periods -- I do NOT know how modern writers/ critics view the overall Celtic literatrary phenomenon. I would assume that academic conformity would soon push Celtic studies into making the same distinctions, that is, there are many Celtic literatures, not just one. But, I have never read any synthesis on the nature of the Celtic literatures. I have read a number of the Irish source myth/ legends, the Welsh Mabinogion, the Arthurian cycles, etc. and it is probably my ignorance of Celtic critical studies that leaves me puzzled when I try to fathom what lies behind the quote from Marjorie Burns.

Fan: "... and in doing so unite what is magical, sensitive (and Celtic) with what is heroic and masculine (and Teutonic)" c.f. Marjorie Burns, Perilous Realms, p. 138.

Just what types/ examples of Celtic material is Burns using, and does she tell her readers the specific examples of Teutonic literature that figure in her comparison/ contrast? Is there some, perhaps even a majority of Celtic literature that is "heroic-masculine" rather than "sensitive-magical?" Is there a real, demonstrable split here, or can one have, in fact, "sensitive-masculine" and "magical-heroic" as well? I remember the Celtic tales of "Bull Lifting" from Ireland, and some of the deeds of Gwydion of Wales, as being rather more (to my interpretation) masculine-heroic than sensitive-magical. How does she defend this apparent dichotomy?

I ask this specifically, because I can vaguely remember one of Dr. Paul Schach's lectures (1978?) where he mentioned a "discredited and discarded" thesis of literary interpretation (rooted in 18th and 19th century scholarship) that tried to validate a "feminine," sensitive mystique in the Celtic tales and a "masculine," heroic tradition in the Norse-Teutonic; and secondarily, this thesis tried to associate these opposed natures with a suite of supposed "race" differences between the Celts and Germans.

JRRT, heavily schooled in the Old Masters of Late Antiquity and Medieval philological studies, would certainly have known this thesis, and would have had to address it in his own classes -- either supporting it, refuting it, or at least modifying it to suit his own literary criticisms. Here, quite frankly, I do not know enough about Tolkien's course work/ lectures to determine if he himself made the distinction I think Burns seems to be making.*

This might be very important, if we are trying to determine how Tolkien approached this matter; and whether he preferentially used one type of myth (Celtic vrs Germanic) when he came to write his own grand mythology for England, his narratives of Middle-earth.

If it can be demonstrated that JRRT did accept this old thesis, did himself perceive a "feminine-magical-sensitive" mystique in the Celtic sources, and he did contrast this with a "masculine-heroic" set of Teutonic sources, it might go far toward explaining his deliberate statements against the Celtic tradition, perhaps even illuminate some of his Gallophobic letters? If Tolkien thought (correctly or not!) that the Celtic material had some sort of preponderating "feminine" sensitivity to it, he may have down-played the use of Celtic forms and examples as they would simply not be relevant to his main narrative task, the development of a largely "masculine" Middle-earth realm and its heroic dramas. In this hypothesis, I am simply wondering if JRRT then reverted to Celtic examples whenever his narrative required a more "sensitive-magical" approach, as in his versions of courtship, love, and marriage? Is this what Burns is saying?

But, if JRRT, like Paul Schach and others from the next generation of scholars, rejected the supposed split between Celtic (as "feminine-magical-sensitive" and Teutonic as "masculine-heroic") then I begin to wonder just how valid M. Burns' work may be when she attempts to interpret Tolkien for us. LOL! Does this make sense?

_____________
*Here, I may be missing M. Burns' point altogether. Perhaps she does not mean to make (re-make) the old distinction between the Celtic "sensitive-magical" feminine temperment and the "masculine-heroic" of the Teutonic?

I do realize, Fan, that you are taking Burns (p. 138) out of context here to support (quite validly so far as I can make out) the immediate point that there is "an ancestress whose marriage into the line elevates the family ..." (M. Burns, p. 137). But still, it is this phrase "... what is magical, sensitive (and Celtic) with what is heroic and masculine (and Teutonic)" that strikes me -- in and of itself -- as a peculiar thing for a 20th/ 21st century scholar to say.

Alas, I do not have M. Burns' book, not even buried in one of the tubs that fill my garage, so -- if you have the time and the inclination -- I'd like a little more information here. In turn I'll slip you some data from Drout!

Who is Marjorie Burns? (I'll do a "Google" on her myself as well), but is she an academician, a popularizer, or competently both? What "audience" does her book address? Does she discuss the current state of the field of Celtic studies, and tell us where she fits within it? Does she split the Irish, Welsh, Gallic, and Scots material into separate groups or does she lump them all together as one massive source when she finds her supporting examples? Does she break Celtic literatures into significant periods by change through time? Does she see the advent of Christianity as marking any kind of a watershed in the development of Celtic literature? Does she mention/ use the old division of Celtic vrs Germanic based on a "feminine-magical-sensitivty," vrs "masculine-heroic" tradition?

*"Feminine" is my interjection here, following Schach. I do see that Burns does not herself use that term, maybe this is significant? Perhaps when Marjorie Burns makes this distinction between "what is magical, sensitive (and Celtic) with what is heroic and masculine (and Teutonic)" she means something quite different from what I (at first blush) perceive as a renewal of the old "feminine" Celtic system vrs the "masculine" Teutonic one?

THANKS FAN!

[Stormrider]

Go to the TR Members Photobucket site: smg.photobucket.com/albums/v230/TRmembers/
The password is: tolkienrules

In the “Tolkien Conference at Marquette” Album
smg.photobucket.com/albums/v230/TRmembers/Tolkien%20Conference%20at%20Marquette/, you will see pictures of both Marjorie Burns and Michael Drout.

These are the papers they presented at the Tolkien Conference in October of 2004:

"King and Hobbit: The Exalted and Lowly in Tolkien's Created Worlds"...Marjorie Burns

"The Rhetorical Evolution of 'Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics'"...Michael D.C. Drout

[fanuidhol]

Andorinha, I will have some time in the next two days to read and (hopefully) process Burns' book. I promise to take notes and refer to your post -- already printed out -- so I may be able to address your questions.

I got Burns' book on the recommendation of T.A. Shippey for a class he taught. shippeyclass.livejournal.com/5544.html#cutid1

Fan

[fanuidhol]

I had less time than I thought yesterday. So far though, it has become apparent that this book is more "character study", than "source study". To answer some of Andorinha's comments and questions we may have to move beyond Burns. She frequently mentions Tolkien's essay "English and Welsh" which may have some answers. Verlyn Flieger also notes Celtic influence in Interrupted Music and A Question of Time (Eek! I am in quick reply and I don't know the "code" to underline. Interrupted Music and A Question of Time are books.)


The Feminine/Masculine terminology for Celtic/Tuetonic comes from a chapter on female/lack of female characters. I haven't reached this one, yet.

[Andorinha]

Stormrider: Thanks for the bibliographic references and the connections to the Marquette Album -- it is very helpful to have some faces to go along with the names! Wish I had been there, and been forearmed with some of the questions we have right now...

Fanuidhol: I managed to find several book reviews, and a college student's book report on M. Burns' book, and these sources are helpful for getting a general idea of what Burns is doing in the book and how she defines the categories. I was relieved to find that the "feminine = Celtic" term is also used by one of the reviewers, though I have no direct quote from Burns on this matter, yet. It does seem that Burns is using, in some way or another, a thesis I was warned against many years ago. The problem, as I recall it, revolves about the utter subjectivity of the categories, what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" in adventure mythology depends on each and every reader. This may compromise some of Burns' conclusions, but I do not know how many of her arguments really depend upon this distinction.

Let's take our time on this, no hurry, and I'll see what I can pick up from further searches online, and, just maybe, the university library here will have a copy of Burns.

Drout mentions Celtic influences as well, but emphasizes a fight Tolkien had with a French Celtic scholar regarding the continental feeling that Anglo-Saxon literature, especially The Beowulf, was barbaric, and lacking any merit when compared with the French-Celtic Chansons de Geste. I get the feeling that Tolkien may have made a few return digs at this professor by placing some of his comments in the mouth of Saruman -- "drunken brigands rolling in the reek," as a quick paraphrase. I'll work this up more properly in the next few days.

[fanuidhol]

I'm not finished yet. But, I wanted to write this post.

So far --

I believe that Burns is saying that of the Norse/Teutonic group Tolkien preferred Scandinavian, most specifically Icelandic. Of the Celtic group (which includes Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Brittany, Cornwall and The Isle of Man) Tolkien preferred Welsh, vocalized dislike of Irish and seemed to ignore Scottish.

The prevailing attitude in the 19th century was that Teutonic culture was "ruthless but pragmatic" and this was good. Celts were a bit "maudlin [and] a little ineffectual". Other phrases used are (guess who is who) "sought adventures in a fairy world", "realist and looked to tangible things", "conqueror and discoverer", "explored mysteries of the spirit", "wild, incalculable poet" "solid and practical". As RotK was being published Tolkien gave his lecture on "English and Welsh" in which he claimed that the 19th century attitude was a myth that still held sway with some people. Burns asserts however that Tolkien did in fact use the stereotypes despite "his insistence that the two have blended considerably". Burns pg 14-15

In her chapter called Bridges, Gates and Doors Burns states on pg 55-56, "Entrances into Tolkien's Celtic settings are indicated by water crossings...or by archways of bending branches...or by shadowy descents into sequestered valleys. When the mood is primarily Norse, obstinate gates, hefty bridges and inhibiting natural formations more typically lie in the way."
The Norse geography was harsh. Steep mountains, deep valleys, rocks, the sea and bitter cold were what they knew. Somewhere over these obstacles was where their gods lived.
The British Celtic geography was much milder in comparison. The sea was the only thing in common. Because there weren't any real inaccessible places for the gods, the Celts developed the Otherworld (a spiritual world that shared the space with the physical) in which human travelers could access at times, without having to work hard at it. According to Burns, the closest parallels are Rivendell and Lothlorien.
There is more to this line of thought, but I have run out of time.
Feel welcomed to come up with some other examples of Norse/Celtic settings.
Fan

[Andorinha]

Excellent stuff, Fan! This is starting to shape up nicely as a foundation of background data that will be very useful as we try to understand just what influenced JRRT in his choices of "myth models."

THANKS!

[Andorinha]

I am having trouble finding a handy-dandy, quick and easy checklist that allows one to distinguish Celtic from Norse-Teutonic Fairy Tales. In desperation, I am beginning to think there is no such thing, that language is the only decisive criterion. Take the Beowulf, translate it into Welsh, give Welsh etymologies for all the names, and voila, Beowulf becomes a Celtic masterpiece!

I had hoped that there were hard and fast rules of division based upon themes, character types, artistic sensibilities, use of women, stanza form, rhyme, meter, alliterartion schemes etc., but if these considerations do figure in the analyses of these literatures, I cannot yet say.

Unfortunately, for both Nordic-Germanic and Celtic literatures, we do not have the earlier, more purely ethnic compositions. Even the sagas of Iceland are heavily laced with Roman Christian themes, and given forms that may be more French/ Italian than Germanic. The Celtic tales likewise (Mabinogion, and Arthurian) contain many Norman-French continental overlays that may have greatly altered the character of the originals. And almost all the works we have are late, 10th century to 13th century re-workings. And, of course, for British Celtic works of literature, we may be dealing almost as much with Late Imperial Roman forms as actual Celtic material. So, is the Mabinogian, is the Arthurian cycle Celtic, or Romano-British in origin? When Tolkien reacted, sometime in the late 1930s, against Celtic forms, and dropped his project to write "The King of the Green Dozen" as a Celtic-styled composition, was he reacting to elements of Celtic literature he no longer liked, or was he reacting to late Medieval French styles?

More research looms...