I sat down to write this post,
which has been in the box in draft form for a while, and realized that I have
really only two short items to make about the actual connection between the
Arwen of the LotR film trilogy and Tauriel, the entirely new character Peter
Jackson ... and the rest of the original idea was really mainly a defense
against criticisms of the Arwen of Jackson’s films and his insertion of the
Tauriel character into the Hobbit films with no real content in the criticism.
But then I also realized that it's also a great opportunity to get out in
writing a theory that I have long held and pretty much have memorized in my
head but am not sure I have put out there for others to see concerning the
three examples of romantic/courtly love in The
Lord of the Rings (if I did it on Muggle Matters, I don't remember it, and
so the chances of my finding it in those city ruins is doubtful, so might as
well put it out there here too, as long as I've been doing so much writing on
here recently).
Arwen and Tauriel
Basically, I think Jackson
introduced Tauriel because he wanted to show major parallelism between the two
trilogies to make it really gel for the Hobbit trilogy to be the prequels of
the Lord of the Rings trilogy (see my post on Jackson reshaping the canon for
more exposition). That’s the first reason at least, or the big heading reason.
The second reason, under it, would be that there is pretty much no feminine
presence in the Hobbit, and it would be good if there was. Third, romance sells.
None of those reasons is deniable.
And to be honest, I don’t think any
of them are terrible reasons. In my experience, most of the people who harp on
most about “fidelity to the original text” never understood the original as literature
that well to begin with and sometimes don’t even remember the details all that
well of the original text they are pitting against the film scene. I’m not
saying that a valid criticism can’t be made. But I am saying that I haven’t
heard it made yet, and I have heard a fair few criticisms.
So, as I said, I have really only
two observations to make on the paralleling between Tauriel and Arwen. The
first is the healing scenes with the white light backdrop that functions a sort
of aura or halo for the female elf: Arwen saying something like “what grace has
been given to me, let it pass to him” and the scene in which Tauriel is
chanting while healing Kili in The Desolation of Smaug. The visual phrasing and
lighting are too similar to be anything other than a direct mirroring.
The second connection is that both
Arwen in Fellowship and Tauriel in one of the Hobbit films have the term “she-elf”
applied to them in a derogatory way by one of the baddies. Arwen’s is in that
key scene at the fords. I apologize for not having the exact film and setting
for Tauriel; I have all three films and I could pin it out, which I will do at
some point, but it is distinctly there and I clearly remembering thinking as
soon as I heard it that Jackson did it precisely to make Tauriel mirror Arwen
in the LotR trilogy. I’m very confident that these are the only two places the
term is used in the films, and in both cases it is direct discourse and
derogatory.
Arwen in the Fellowship
of the Ring Movie
So, I’m coming back now to the
snippet I said above about those who made criticisms but sometimes don’t even
know all of the pertinent details in the original, and then I am getting off
the warpath and onto something more positive.
So, the warpath: there were those
who, when the first of the movies came out, complained about Arwen's amount of
screentime. At least one of them that I can remember got details wrong. The
first big instance for any criticism is the ride to the fords and the facing
off against the riders at the fords. This particular person criticized the
change from it being Glorfindel at the fords to it being Arwen. The thing is,
neither elf did in the book what Arwen does in the film. Neither actually rode
the chase from the riders (Glorfindel is basically right at the end, and he is
only one among the group), and neither faced off against the riders at the
fords (while Gorfindel is revealed as an elf lord, it is unclear whether or not
anybody sees this other then Frodo in his ring-induced hazy state, and other
than this, Glorfindel is, again, simply one of the groups carrying fire-brands
and spooking the horses toward the water), and most importantly, neither called
the flood that swept the riders away. The last is because of what really called
the charging-horse tide down on the riders.
Even the person who has done the
Wikipedia page on Glorfindel misses the fullness of this if they give Gandalf
and Elrond equal credit for an enchantment. It was nature itself under the influence
of Elrond’s ring that did it. This isn’t mechanical booby-trap magic; this is
organic. Through the power of his ring, the natural elements of his realm are
so in tune with Elrond’s disposition toward evil, and really with the goodness
of good itself, that they reject the riders at the border of land ruled by
Elrond through his ring. This work is about the rings and their wearers and
bearers, not about a cool spell-slinging D&D group (fine as those are; and
I honestly mean that; I’ve never been into it, but the people who are seem to
have good honest fun … it’s just not what Tolkien was doing; he was doing
something on a very different level).
Now, here is where I start to leave
the warpath. I think that, while Liv Tyler’s screentime may have been a reason
like making sure the film makers got the star value of the star they paid,
there is also a fittingness to having Arwen there at the fords. The reason is that, while Arwen does not
square off against the riders in a specific “on-screen” scene in the book, she
does square off against them in a key thematic way in the structure of the
trilogy.
To handle this material, I have to
jump off into a distinct section that I will also be making into a separate
post. In beginning that section here, I have to note that the Arwen part does
not come until the end of that section, so I will forecast here (hopefully
keeping the reader’s interest) that is has to do with the Arwen and Aarogorn
relationship being an instance of courtly love that embodies one of three
aspects in which courtly love symbolizes divine grace.
Love and Grace in the Lord
of the Rings
I am doing this both as an
independent post (because I think it merits it) and as a final section to the
post on Arwen and Tauriel (because it is the justification for saying that
Arwen squares off against the nine riders in the structure of the book trilogy,
which I use as the justification for having her square off against them in the
film because it is harder to get this type of structural element into a
film—although, as will be seen, it might be more accurate to say that she
“circles off” against them, meaning that the structure relies on a one-year
cycle).
Tolkien and Theology
So, this is a theory I developed a
very long time ago, probably during my days of working on my MA, which would
place it between 2001 and 2004, but I came up with it on my own and it is one
of my most central theories in thinking about how Tolkien’s interests in
philosophy and theology shaped his work and how he instantiated themes of that
nature into The Lord of the Rings.
First, I must mention the simple
fact that theology and philosophy did come to the fore in Tolkien’s thinking in
the time of writing The Lord of the Rings,
versus his emphasis on philology and its connection with mythologies in the
decades when much of the material in the Silmarillion
was taking its original shape. His son Christopher relates this in his
introduction to The Silmarillion: “In
his later writing mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and
philosophical preoccupations.”
Tolkien was, among even other
academic things, a medievalist. He was also friends with Charles Williams, who,
as I have mentioned in another post (in the epilogue defending romance in my
post on a proposed chiastic reading of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), wrote a short work called Religion and Love in Dante and a longer work called The Figure of Beatrice. The key point from those works for this
discussion, and one with which, as a medievalist and friend of Williams,
Tolkien would have been familiar, is that, for the medieval mind, courtly love
(romance leading to a marriage; i.e., courting) was symbolic of divine grace.
And, being of a more theological/philosophical turn of mind coming into the era
of writing, things of this class would have been very much in his mind.
(Note: Much of Tolkien’s drive to finish The Lord of the Rings from C. S. Lewis, who was very philosophically
driven himself. This relationship is noted by Loconte in A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War, which I appealed to heavily
in my post on Tolkien’s Incarnational imagination: Lewis’s space trilogy got a
chance with the publisher mainly because of Tolkien’s recommendation, and
according to Tolkien himself, he was able to finish The Lord of the Rings only because Lewis incessantly drove him to
keep writing it.)
Grace Builds on Nature:
Healing, Elevating, and Perfecting
Because Tolkien was an actual academic studying medieval
literature, his interest in theology and philosophy would not be of the garden
variety. He would have been familiar with the actual movements and formulations
particular to medieval theology and philosophy. And especially as his friend
Charles Williams was writing on religion and love in Dante, he would have been
particularly interested in matters of divine grace (the thought on which began
to take its distinctively medieval shaping at the hands of St Augustine, often
referred to as the “Doctor of Grace” [much as Aquinas later was known as the
“Angelic Doctor” for his development of thinking on angelic being and
intelligence], at the end of the patristic era/beginning of the medieval era).
There was a specific formula used in medieval theology for
the relationship between grace and nature: “grace builds on nature.” But the
meaning of this formula was much debated. For an orthodox theology (meaning a
correct theology for Western, Catholic theology, not Eastern Orthodox), there were
two poles to be avoided. The first was what would be called the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian
position. This position says that nature is pretty much alright on its own,
just not complete. Therefore, for this position, “building on” means building
on top of without really needing to do any work to nature itself. The other
position I would call the “deconstructionist” position. This position says that
nature is so broken that it cannot be used as is and, therefore, “building on”
means grace completely deconstructing nature and using the pieces to build
something new that is basically unrecognizable as the nature with which it
began. Any theology of grace and nature attempting to be orthodox had to sail
between these two extremes like Odysseus between Scylla and Charybdis.
Now, here is where the presentation of this theological
thinking gets vague as far as my source work goes. The place I heard about this
first was in an MA level course, and because I did not focus in patristics or
medieval (both usually under the historical wing of academic theology) or
systematics (where one would more thoroughly cover a “theology of grace”) in
doctoral studies I did not uncover more about this since. At the time, though, I
asked the professor via email whether the precise formulation I am about to
describe as medieval theology’s answer to the problem came from specific
sources or, on the other hand, was his own formulation of broader and more
loose strands that he observed in sources. His answer was the latter, but I
suspect that he was not remembering the source work quite so thoroughly when he
replied (it was not the greatest email response I have ever gotten in the first
place, to be honest: he simply highlighted my description of that option in my
original email text with no other communication in his reply). I believe that
other authors in whom I have encountered very similar phrasing, while they know
of this professor, are not as likely to have taken it from him, but the biggest
reason for my original suspicion that the threefold formulation I am about to
describes predates that particular professor is that it fits what I am about to
describe after that as the theological thinking in the particulars of The Lord of the Rings, which was written
years before this professor was even born, let alone graduated college in 1979.
But such is life … I’m not making any claims to have come up with the
formulation; I’m just applying it (but like I said, the fact that it can be
applied so well to a work written before this particular professor was born
makes me suspect that it is much older than his mind and its work on medieval
theological material).
[Addendum 1/24/2017: In copyediting an article for a journal, I have come across a comment that the dual role of grace as healing and elevating is a central theme in the prima secundae (first part of the second part) of Aquinas's Summa theologiae.]
In any event, the medieval theology formulation that avoids
those two poles is that “grace heals, elevates, and perfects nature.” Nature is
broken even according to its own original structure etc, and it needs to be
fixed. But this is not enough because nature also contains within itself a
trajectory for a perfection that it cannot attain on its own, and so grace must
help nature to reach even its own intrinsic goals. These first two aspects mean
that nature remains recognizable as itself once it is healed and perfected (the
perfection was already implicit even in the broken nature), thus avoiding the
deconstructionist position, but they also counteract the Semi-Pelagian error
because not only was nature broken, but it also could not complete its own
stated task even when not broken.
But beyond all this comes the third aspect: grace elevates
nature (and this is the one with which the Aragorn-Arwen relationship connects,
but we will get to that in good time). Grace gives to nature a new perfection
above and beyond even the one that was built into it but was unattainable by it
without help. After this new perfection is revealed, it can be seen how the first
foreshadowed it, but before that revelation, it cannot be guessed; it is
completely new and above what nature can discern about itself on its own.
Courtly Love in The Lord of the Rings
So, if we combine the two major things described—courtly
love as symbolic of grace and grace as healing, elevating, and perfecting
nature—and we are examining the work of an author we know to be versed in and
focused on medieval theology, we might expect to find in his work three unique
instances of courtly love that correspond neatly to healing, perfecting, and
elevating. And I would argue that that is precisely what we find in The Lord of the Rings.
The three instances of courtly love (and I would argue that
each of these is concretely and demonstrably present as a courtly relationship
and that there are no others of this level, or really any, within the work)
are:
Faramir–Eowyn (heals);
Sam–Rosy (perfects);
Aragorn–Arwen (elevates).
Healing
Faramir and Eowyn are both wounded in two ways. First, they
are both displaced persons when they meet each other in the houses of healing:
as a right and honorable captain of Gondor, Faramir has a right to be on that
front line at the black gates, suicide mission though it be; and Eowyn feels
like a warrior born into a maidens body. Second, they both bear wounds from
father issues, and these are clearly described by Aragorn when he examines them
in the houses of healing before leaving for the suicide mission: Denethor’s
preference for Boromir, especially after that eldest’s death, has taken a toll
on Faramir; and Eowyn had to watch her surrogate father, Theoden, wither into
dotage and near senility under the influence of Grima Wormtongue. BUT, in the
houses of healing they find each other, and in falling in love, they are healed
of these wounds.
Perfecting
Now we turn to the most endearing of the three, Sam and
Rosy. They represent the “perfecting” aspect because of one simple fact: they
are the only of the three couples that we see actually have a child within
the actual scope of the trilogy’s narrative (meaning not having to go
outside the actual story to find the line of Aragorn and Arwen in the
appendices). But I would also argue that they are the only ones we see at all
“have a child,” even in the appendices, in the fully human experiential sense
of that phrase. The offspring of Aragorn and Arwen are described only in their
role as being in the line of kingship beginning with Aragorn. That is a
dynasty, not a family. I am not saying that Aragorn and Arwen don’t have a
loving family, just that that is not what we see even in the appendices.
With Frodo’s little bit of prophecy that we see before he
leaves for the gray havens, we see Sam and Rosy’s family grow, and it grows
with children named for loving parents and their dear friends. That is family,
not dynasty. And the main point for this exposition is that it is “coming to
fruition,” fulfilling the end that is inherent in the original relationship:
the community of two grows to become the community of three, and then the
community of four, and so on.
But that good family life inside the Shire could not have
done so without the larger battle against evil having been won outside the
Shire, and that is symbolic of grace as something outside the nature of the
love between the couple. Nature needs grace even to achieve its original goals;
it needs grace to perfect it.
Elevating
Now we come to the “elevation,” which is the most involved
to describe for several reasons. The first is simply that it is more complex
because it takes place on the structural level. The second is that
demonstrating the elements in that structural level takes some excavation work.
So, the most basic level (which will be supported in a
moment by the structural excavation) is that Arwen’s betrothal to Aragorn is
squared off against the onset of evil. But, while evil cannot even exist
without good existing for it to be contrasted with, good always has a life of
it’s own above and beyond merely conquering evil. Therefore, while Arwen’s
betrothal symbolizes the overcoming of evil, it happens only on midsummer’s
eve, whereas the wedding itself, the true, full good, happens on midsummer’s
day. That structure represents grace elevating nature because the wedding, the
true good, goes beyond the betrothal, the mere overcoming of evil.
Now for the real structural work that supports the position
that the betrothal to Arwen symbolizes the overcoming of evil because it closes
out a structure beginning with the onset of evil: the elevation is also
represented in midsummer’s day going beyond a one-year cycle structure, from
midsummer’e eve to mid-summer’s eve.
There is no place in the actual narrative of the Lord of the
Rings trilogy that says “on midsummer’s eve … evil began its onslaught.” In
fact, there isn’t, that I can find anyway, any mention in the actual story
narrative of the opening midsummer’s eve as a distinct day with some distinct
event occurring on it. What actually put me on to all this was an insertion by
Jackson/Walsh into the film. They have Saruman tell Gandalf something like “the
nine riders crossed the fords of Isen on midsummer’s eve” (paraphrase from
memory). You want to know how I know that that’s an insertion and that Saruman
never said those words in the book? It’s because the nine have an airtight
alibi for that midsummer’s eve established in the appendices. On that particular
midsummer’s eve, June 20th, they were attacking Osgiliath down on
the Anduin river between Minis Tirith and Minas Morgul.
The key detail given in the appendix is that the attack on
Osgiliath on June 20 was not just to try to retake the whole city (including
the far bank, the Minis Tirith side). It was an excuse to leave Minis Morgul
without that being noticed as out of the ordinary. All the spies of Gondor would
think is “of course they left Minus Morgul … to come try to beat us at
Osgiliath,” and then while those spies are scrambling fighting their hearts out
in Osgiliath, they don’t notice that the nine riders have actually slipped off.
But to where did they slip off? They set out, the appendix tells us, to look
for the ring. That is the onset of evil—the beginning of the actual search for
the ring.
(NOTE: The
Saruman line in the film, like the reference to the 40-days journey to Moria I
mentioned in my post on Lewis’s space trilogy as a table of contents for theInklings’s basic project, is one of the things that make me think that at least
Fran Walsh is probably a good bit more knowledgeable about some of Tolkien’s
artistry than many who criticize the films: there is no reason I can think of
to slip the narratively unconnected comment about anything happening anywhere
on midsummer’s eve unless you know something of what Tolkien is doing with the
date, particularly that it is the date of an onset of evil. The attack on
Osgiliath as a ruse would have been too much to get in, especially when nobody
in a larger audience will really know what or where Osgiliath is, and even the
longtime fans will probably miss the significance if they are not approaching
the work from the standpoint of literary structure, which is a distinctly academic
approach … but crossing a river we can probably guess as the bad guys getting
somewhere near to somebody’s home and hearth kind of thing; just the way he
says it is enough clue that danger is on the rise because these bad guys called
the nine, whoever they may be, have managed to invade somebody’s home turf).
This is a straight-up one-year cycle structure that pits the
onset of even in the form the setting forth of the riders against the
overcoming of evil in the form of the gray company bringing Arwen from the
north one year later to the day, midsummer’s eve. Tolkien and Lewis and the
other Inklings were well versed in medieval and earlier literature using nature
dates. Tolkien himself uses the autumnal equinox (Sept 22nd, my own
birthday, actually) as the mutual birthday of Bilbo and Frodo in conjunction
with the fact that they are both 50/51 (I believe) when they start their
journey, which is the smack-dab middle of the average Hobbit lifespan, and so
they are “midway through life’s journey,” a very Dantean theme, but on the wane
(so the autumnal equinox rather than the vernal). It doesn’t get more up
Tolkien’s alley than this.
Excavation
(required for the elevation)
The excavation work is that, as I said, you have to go to
the appendix to get the June 20th date, and that puts it outside the
scope of the actual narrative of the story. And for a long time I thought this
might be a significant weakness in my theory. But in listening to the LotR
trilogoy again within the past year on driving trips, I noted that, in the council
of Elrond and in the conversations Gandalf has with Frodo at Rivendell, while
“June 20” and one particular incident did not come up, “towards the end of
June” DID appear a lot with descriptions like “I heard about some stuff going
down that made me need to change my shorts” (I believe that’s the translation
used in Down-to-Earth in Middle Earth:
The Lord of the Rings in Modern Lingo
… just kidding, but I do think it’s a fun hypothetical title).
All joking paraphrases aside, Gandalf does talk a lot about
hearing of things happening toward the end of June that made him very worried
and changed his plans as far as where he was going and who he was going to see
and made him very anxious for knowing that the hobbits had gotten on the road
in good time. And I take this as enough presence of midsummer’s eve in the
actual narrative itself for something big as the onset of evil to pair off
against Arwen’s betrothal one year later to the day, especially when we have
the material from the appendix to clarify by informing us of exactly
what Gandalf did hear near the end of June.
Short Sum
Up
So, all of that detail of the excavation and the one-year
cycle has been to support that Arwen does indeed square off against the riders
in a one-year midsummer’s eve cycle and that this not only somewhat justifies
somebody like Jackson/Walsh putting her at the fords in the film (because you
can’t really work that kind of structure into a film) but also, and even more
importantly, contributes to a larger reading of a medieval theology of grace in
the presence of courtly love in The Lord of
the Rings. And that second one in particular is part of my ongoing thinking
about the interplay between Tolkien’s Catholic faith and thought and his
imagination in his narrative sub-creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment