September 3, 2002

Kingsfoil, Allegory and Religion
Richard P

Kingsfoil is actually mentioned in the Fellowship, I think at Weathertop, shortly after the attack of the Nazgul. If you remember, Aragorn goes off after the attack, telling Sam and the other Hobbits to guard Frodo. He then returns telling them that he found the plant a short way from the roadside, and that it came from Numenor. (I think those are the details, but I'm quoting from memory so the exact time and place may be wrong). However, I am sure that Kingsfoil or Athelas is mentioned in the Fellowship at around that point, and if not by exact name then its use is implied.

To Pip, I wasn't sure if your post about allegory was slightly sarcastic or not. ;)
At any rate, I feel I have to disagree with you here. I think that allegory can be taken way way to far, and that in your last post you may have taken that step too far. I mean to say that Lembas is a representation of the Eucharist? Thats a little far fetched as lembas is used as a food, good for the body and spirit (meaning I think, good for morale rather than any religious "spirit"), it also tasted nice and its potency grew the less it was mingled with other food. I'm sure many of my Catholic friends will agree that communion bread, even after being blessed is neither sustaining for the body, nor nice tasting, and certainly doesn't get better if you don't mix it with anything else.
Also on the allegorical discussion we could take Gandalf. Many quote him as the stand out allegorical character in Lord of the Rings. Obviously he is Christ. Well, in that he kind of dies... although a deeper look into Tolkien's mythos shows that "death" is perhaps too strong a word. He is sent back, but because he has not finished the job yet. Christ's resurrection is to prove that there is life after death. Gandalf's "resurrection" is not to prove anything, its to finish the job. Gandalf also contains many elements of Odin, one of the Norse gods, so as such he cannot be seen as an allegory of just one historical figure, but maybe two and probably alot more historical figures. (Which would rather ruin the point of the allegory, as an allegorical character can only really be successfull if he represents one ideal, by representing many he is no longer allegorical.)
It confuses me that people will assign so much percieved allegorical meaning to Tolkien's work, simply because he is a Catholic. Why not assign it to Star Wars, which is probably more allegorical than Lord of the Rings, or even the Godfather, which can be interpreted allegorically, or the Matrix (Neo is killed and rises again to give new hope to mankind, but I don't hear everyone screaming "obviously an allegory of Christ!!!").
And finally, from the Professor's mouth (or pen), from the same Letter as I quote below;

"But an equally basic passion of mine, ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) ...... I dislike Allegory - the concious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth and fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily it will be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearlywill it be acceptable just as a story."

Basically, what Tolkien is saying here is that:
a)He is admitting that some subsoncious reference to ALL of the different texts, myths and tales that Tolkien read and grew up with probably happened. That is just a cross-pollination of different ideas. But deliberate allegory, such as Tolkien MEANING lembas to represent the Eucharist, or Gandalf representing Christ, is what Tolkien disliked, and so didn't participate in it. This is why Gandalf can be compared to so many mythological characters. And as such, that is the proof that Tolkien did what he said, and didn't use concious allegory.

b)Only concious allegory can be allegory, since if the author did not intend something to be an allegory, it isn't. If the author then says that he dislikes allegory, and went out of his way to avoid concious use of it, you can be pretty sure its not their, and that the work, then, isn't allegorical.

c)Tolkien also says that the more fantastical (or perhaps "un-allegorical") the work is, the easier it is to interpret as allegorical, since the option is open. For instance, we do not have lengthly discusions on the fact that Neo in the Matrix is a Christ figure, because Neo is meant to be an allegory of Christ, short and simple. Persecuted, killed, risen again to save mankind. But we can have lengthly discussions about Lord of the Rings being allegorical because the language Tolkien uses in order to describe his myth aren't always everyday, are not totally familiar, and so leave room for interpretation.

(IMHO, of course ;) )

Here I'm also going to start again (sorry) this religion arguement thing again.
Here is a quote from a letter from Tolkien to Milton Waldman, which acts as a preface to the second edition of the Silmaillion, and which is an explanation of that book;

"...there is no English myth... Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world... imperfectly naturalized...bound with the soil of Britain but not with English...it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian relgion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, this seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit..."

So, basically, we can take it that there are no direct references to Christianity, or Catholicism in Lord of the Rings, or any of Tolkien's Middle-earth work.
Now onto the allegorical side, as I discussed above, I don't think that there are any intentional allegorical ties to either Catholicism or Christianity. Which boils down to sub-concious allegory (which is then arguably not real allegory anyway). And as Tolkien said in the letter above, myth and fairytale have to contain and reflect moral and religious values. That is not that they should be related to any particular religios sect. Religious values for all Christians are basically the same at the root where it matters, and for most other religions that applies as well. Moral values can be seen as being wholly independant of religous creed. There are some morally corrupt Christians and some atheists who have the highest moral standards.
So it is unfair to call Lord of the Rings a Catholic work, in the sense of, being a work inspired by the Catholic Church. However, you could apply the word catholic, as in meaning "universal", to the Lord of the Rings, as it is a book that perhaps unlike any other is completely catholic, it can be read and fully understood in terms of any moral lessons it contains by any person, of any nationality, race, background or religious creed; as lonng as they have the ability to read.