The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - LotR

mark12_30 · 06-09-2004, 10:58 AM

Mr. Underhill and davem-- about Lembas and the host, as well as Galadriel and Mary (and Aragorn and the harrowing of hell and.... -- Augh! Brakes! Brakes!... phew.)

Regarding Tolkien and the one-to-one correspondence of these things, I agree with you, Mister Underhill, that caution is advised. However I also see davem's point that these things (lembas, Galadriel) sprang from somewhere deep, and I think must bear some imprint of Tolkien's faith. How to reconcile?

A "type" is not the same as an "allegory". A type is an imperfect forshadowing rather than a tight one-to-one correspondence. Allegories are properly one-to-one correspondences. Types are less tightly bound. With this I think Tolkien would have been comfortable, because (from his perspective) types have prophetically arisen in historical personages since the beginning of the Pentateuch.

Alert: Those uninterested in Biblical discussions may happily skip to the next post now.

For those few who are still with me: Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and other historical personages are each considered a 'type' of Christ, meaning that they are an imperfect foreshadowing, and it is the 'job' of each of them to foreshadow only certain aspects of Christ, not the whole deal (which would be difficult.) This is the most sensible application here as well. Three of the main characters exhibit imperfect foreshadowings of certain aspects, and may therefore be considered 'types'. (They commonly are.) Taken together, the three make a fair beginning of a picture, whereas any of the three individually would not.

In addition, this leaves room for more 'types' to be discovered. I can think of a Tolkienish fourth right off.

This expands into other areas as well. Lembas, yes; what about Miruvor? Etc. I don't want to go into it here but I think it allows more of Tolkien's own beliefs to shine through (in various places) without his intending to dominate the reader. I interpreted that when he was asked, "Lembas?" his answer was essentially a pleased "Okay, yes, I see that too", not "Well, finally somebody got it."

06-09-2004, 10:58 AM	#49
mark12_30 Stormdancer of Doom Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Elvish singing is not a thing to miss, in June under the stars Posts: 4,349	Mr. Underhill and davem-- about Lembas and the host, as well as Galadriel and Mary (and Aragorn and the harrowing of hell and.... -- Augh! Brakes! Brakes!... phew.) Regarding Tolkien and the one-to-one correspondence of these things, I agree with you, Mister Underhill, that caution is advised. However I also see davem's point that these things (lembas, Galadriel) sprang from somewhere deep, and I think must bear some imprint of Tolkien's faith. How to reconcile? A "type" is not the same as an "allegory". A type is an imperfect forshadowing rather than a tight one-to-one correspondence. Allegories are properly one-to-one correspondences. Types are less tightly bound. With this I think Tolkien would have been comfortable, because (from his perspective) types have prophetically arisen in historical personages since the beginning of the Pentateuch. Alert: Those uninterested in Biblical discussions may happily skip to the next post now. For those few who are still with me: Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and other historical personages are each considered a 'type' of Christ, meaning that they are an imperfect foreshadowing, and it is the 'job' of each of them to foreshadow only certain aspects of Christ, not the whole deal (which would be difficult.) This is the most sensible application here as well. Three of the main characters exhibit imperfect foreshadowings of certain aspects, and may therefore be considered 'types'. (They commonly are.) Taken together, the three make a fair beginning of a picture, whereas any of the three individually would not. In addition, this leaves room for more 'types' to be discovered. I can think of a Tolkienish fourth right off. This expands into other areas as well. Lembas, yes; what about Miruvor? Etc. I don't want to go into it here but I think it allows more of Tolkien's own beliefs to shine through (in various places) without his intending to dominate the reader. I interpreted that when he was asked, "Lembas?" his answer was essentially a pleased "Okay, yes, I see that too", not "Well, finally somebody got it." __________________ ...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 06-09-2004 at 11:10 AM.