Minor Works -- 3 - Smith of Wootton Major

[Bêthberry]

Posting some general thoughts in reply to everyone posting on the issue of who can enter Fairie.

It is true that Tolkien's thoughts about what a proper fairy story is developed in response to his attempt to write an introduction to MacDonald's "The Golden Key", which Tolkien no longer found as satisfying as he once did. However, that does not mean that Tolkien's "Smith" imitates or follows MacDonald's story or as a story owes specific intertextual details.Other than the woods of course, but they are plentiful in fairy stories anyway.

MacDonald's Golden Key involves two protagonists, Tangle and Mossy. Both are "sent" into fairy. Several of MacDonald's other fairy stories also involve several protagonists, Princess Irene and Curdie.

And of course one of the original stories of Tolkien's Legendarium involves Beren and Luthien.

So there is quite a bit of evidence that fairie in other stories is not limited to a sole protagonist.

Sorry, RL calls me away, with just a stunted post. Au revoir.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And of course one of the original stories of Tolkien's Legendarium involves Beren and Luthien.

So there is quite a bit of evidence that fairie in other stories is not limited to a sole protagonist.

I take your broader point about entry into faerie as not being a journey made alone in all cases (though I think that Tolkien's own journey is better characterised as alone than as with companions and that that is relevant here, given that Smith is somewhat autobiographical*) but now it is my turn to quibble, because I do not think Beren and Lúthien supports that point at all: Beren enters faerie alone and never does quite return to the realm of Men. Lúthien is, after all, of faerie herself.




*Actually, given the autobiographical elements of Smith is it perhaps a wistful comment on Tolkien's own children that none of them--including Christopher--have received the Star?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I wonder if you are objecting to patriarchal characters in a patriarchal society written by an author with an essentially patriarchal world view? I could imagine similar objections leveled against 'The Arabian Nights,' along the lines of 'how dare that king keep a harem, one wife ought to do for him.'

Well, I guess you can put it that way, but I do not recall having problems like that with any other Tolkien's stories. That is why it struck me as particularly unusual with the Smith.

I also agree with what you said about Alf, indeed he's a king and an "alien" one at that; maybe that covers it (but for example the king in Farmer Giles is put under quite heavy and obvious scrutiny by the author; yet nothing like that happens to Alf. Is it that Tolkien did not consider it his place to argue against the King of Faery?).

But my main beef is with the Smith himself and I would have expected Tolkien to show perhaps a little more, hmmm, empathy, in the sense that: it is awfully unempathetic of the Smith to just go adventuring and leave the family behind.

Unless...

Originally Posted by Formendacil

*Actually, given the autobiographical elements of Smith is it perhaps a wistful comment on Tolkien's own children that none of them--including Christopher--have received the Star?

...unless this. I guess the only way out is if we say that the Smith is autobiographic through and through, and that the Smith goes alone simply because Tolkien did. (That however then DOES make the Smith a 100% allegory - say goodbye to your principles, Mr. Tolkien!) So the Smith's treks to Faery that he makes alone are the direct allegory of Tolkien's own treks to Middle-Earth that his wife did not take part in. (But how about the kids? Or is the final discussion of the Smith with his son a sort of explanation of that? The son however still seems to remain a bit "out"; he does not seem particularly knowledgeable of where exactly his father had been going or particularly enthusiastic.)

And anyway, this does not "exonerate" the Smith, it only makes Tolkien himself look worse, if we apply the Smith's tale and what I consider his shortcomings to Tolkien himself.

But yes. Perhaps it is, like you said, LMP, the sort of patriarchal head of the family who is the free man to go and enjoy his hobbies as long as his wife is waiting at home with the meal. I am only disappointed in that case because I sort of expected more.

This is actually related to another thing I would like to mention, but perhaps I'll do it a bit later since we seem to be having a good conversation going on here as it is...

Also looking forward to the continuation of Bethberry's post, because I very much like (and second) the questions and ideas posed there...

Oh, and I still wanted to comment on this:

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As for Nokes, he is described as qualitatively different from the other villagers. They are guilty of overlooking Alf as the duly appointed next Master Cook. Nokes is guilty of something other: vanity. Thinking more of himself than is his due. And thinking less of Alf than is Alf's right. So I find it interesting Tolkien speaks of the villagers' wrongfulness matter of factly, in a sense of 'these kinds of things happen all the time and people are just like that.' Whereas with Nokes, Tolkien takes time to especially condemn the man's presumptuous vanity. What does Tolkien, I wonder, find particularly despicable about this kind of vanity as compared to the villagers' presumptuous inconsideration?

I did not mention it but I also very much empathise with the feeling you reflected in one of your earlier posts; that of it being "unfair" of Prentice being skipped over and disregarded by the village and all that. It is in fact so much obviously unfair to me that I considered it unnecessary to mention it. But I very much agree.

I personally always read it the way that the satisfaction eventually demonstrated on the character of Nokes is sort of substitutionary for the whole nameless mob of villagers who had been ignoring Alf. They were doing so possibly to a lesser degree than Nokes himself - I'd say rather passively by letting Nokes hog the spotlight than actively; although not that it is objectively any better, maybe even worse. Or who is worse, the actively bad people, or the people who see them and do nothing...

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But my main beef is with the Smith himself and I would have expected Tolkien to show perhaps a little more, hmmm, empathy, in the sense that: it is awfully unempathetic of the Smith to just go adventuring and leave the family behind.

Well, perhaps Smith wasn't absent from his family such a very long time. In Tolkien's essay on SoWM I found this interesting detail:

But it is also necessary that Faery and the World (of men), though in contact, should occupy a different time and space, or occupy them in different modes. Thus though it appears that the Smith can enter Faery more or less at will (being specially favoured), it is evident that it is a land, or world of unknown limits, containing seas and mountains; also it is plain that even during a brief visit (such as one on an evening walk) he can spend a great deal longer in Faery than his absence counts in the world; on his long journeys an absence from home of, say, a week is sufficient for exploration and experiences in Faery equivalent to months or even years

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

Well, perhaps Smith wasn't absent from his family such a very long time. In Tolkien's essay on SoWM I found this interesting detail:

A very interesting idea, in which I see a connection with Lothlórien.
Mortals entering the realms of the immortal briefly partake of the difference the effect of time has upon those who aren't subject to the passing of years.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Closer than some might think, because when Tolkien wrote the Lorien chapters, no time passed in the outside world while the Company was in the Naith. When Sam was puzzled by the new moon a week after leaving, and surmised (still in FR) that "it's almost as if we didn't spend no time in there at all," it was literally true: the Fellowship crossed Silverlode on January 14 and left on - January 15.

He changed his mind about this, but not until five years later. Why he did is a mystery; I haven't found any note, scrap or jotting which gives a clue as to his reasons.

It's interesting though that Tolkien seems to have inverted the traditional "time is different in Faerie" trope. Much more usual is that found in everything from Thomas the Rhymer to The King of Elfland's Daughter to Tolkien's own The Sea-Bell: a few days inside equals decades outside, and the poor wanderer emerges to find all his loved ones long in their graves. Even Washington Irving tapped into this- although he has Rip van Winkle sleeping for 20 years rather than feasting in Elfland, it happened because Rip had partied with fay-creatures and passed out for 20 years as a result of drinking their booze.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Closer than some might think, because when Tolkien wrote the Lorien chapters, no time passed in the outside world while the Company was in the Naith. When Sam was puzzled by the new moon a week after leaving, and surmised (still in FR) that "it's almost as if we didn't spend no time in there at all," it was literally true: the Fellowship crossed Silverlode on January 14 and left on - January 15.

He changed his mind about this, but not until five years later. Why he did is a mystery; I haven't found any note, scrap or jotting which gives a clue as to his reasons.

It's interesting though that Tolkien seems to have inverted the traditional "time is different in Faerie" trope. Much more usual is that found in everything from Thomas the Rhymer to The King of Elfland's Daughter to Tolkien's own The Sea-Bell: a few days inside equals decades outside, and the poor wanderer emerges to find all his loved ones long in their graves. Even Washington Irving tapped into this- although he has Rip van Winkle sleeping for 20 years rather than feasting in Elfland, it happened because Rip had partied with fay-creatures and passed out for 20 years as a result of drinking their booze.

The same can be said of the Gaelic tale Oisin in Tir na nÓg, when Oisín returns from the Land of the Young after 300 years and has a famous debate with St. Patrick, and Oisín, who becomes ancient and dying once he steps on mortal land, stubbornly refuses to be converted to Catholicism, much to the dismay of Patrick.

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

It's interesting though that Tolkien seems to have inverted the traditional "time is different in Faerie" trope. Much more usual is that found in everything from Thomas the Rhymer to The King of Elfland's Daughter to Tolkien's own The Sea-Bell: a few days inside equals decades outside, and the poor wanderer emerges to find all his loved ones long in their graves.

In the same essay by Tolkien on SoWM from which I have quoted before, Tolkien continues:

In many Fairy Tales use is made of the idea that time passes quickly in Faery, so that a man who finds his way there may come out after what seems a brief episode to find that years, even centuries have passed. Except as a mere device to bring a man out of the past into contact with a (to him) future time - that is in a tale of which this is the real point, and Faery as such is not seriously considered - I have always felt this to be a mistake: a mistake in credibility, if Faery of any kind is taken seriously. It is true that the seeming time in Faery being immensely longer than it is felt to be is usually told of mortals that intrude into Faery. It is also true that in some actual experiences the time they take may seem short, and be found to be much longer when contact is made with ordinary affairs again.This occurs especially after absoption (mainly of intense interest and also usually pleasure) in some things as reading, seeing plays, revelry or meetings with friends. I have often said that this idea must have originated in inns: for nowhere does time "fly" so fast compared with daily experience as when sitting and drinking and conversing with dear friends in an inn. I am sure there is some truth in this. But there are other experiences. Notably that of dreams, in which a long (or full) experience may be found to have occupied a short time in the extramental world. "Narrative" is perhaps the only common measure. What takes a long time to relate adequately is long. (I mean: relate, if one wishes to, or has to, relate it. A diarist who enters against one day "nothing to relate " probably means nothing that interests me, or nothing of the kind that I usually record for future reference.) "O minutes great as years!" Dream is perhaps a better analogy for the purpose. But also this must be considered: the Faery of this tale is a particular one. If one accepts it, while "within" the tale, then clearly the Rulers of Faery - who are presented as interested in Men (not necessarily primarily) and beneficently - must be able to arrange that the experiences in Faery of favoured human persons may be enjoyed without dislocation of their normal human life. The time of their Faery must be different, even though it may be at points contiguous. For them human time is or may be also longer than that of Faery. The King dwells in Wootton for 58 years.

btw, in the Chronicles of Narnia, the passage of time in the different worlds is also different. Overall, time in Narnia goes by much faster. When the children return from there, only a few moments have passed in their own world.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I take your broader point about entry into faerie as not being a journey made alone in all cases (though I think that Tolkien's own journey is better characterised as alone than as with companions and that that is relevant here, given that Smith is somewhat autobiographical*) but now it is my turn to quibble, because I do not think Beren and Lúthien supports that point at all: Beren enters faerie alone and never does quite return to the realm of Men. Lúthien is, after all, of faerie herself.


*Actually, given the autobiographical elements of Smith is it perhaps a wistful comment on Tolkien's own children that none of them--including Christopher--have received the Star?

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you about Beren and Luthien.

Largely because I was referring to the entire concept of Beren and Luthien, that started with "The Tale of Tinuviel" which we have in BOLT 2. The evolution of the narrative is fascinating. Beren is originally an elf--well, "gnome", or Nordor elf. In Christopher Tolkien's index, under Beren, there are five listings for Beren as man or elf.

In the index to John Garth's "Tolkien and the Great War", there are 10 listings for "Beren (Elf, lover of Tinuviel" and on for Beren as mortal, as befits his extensive analysis of Tolkien's early writing, pp. 261-265.

Ultimately of course Tolkien went for "mortal". But central to the narrative, throughout its evolution, is the essential aspect of the male being enchanted by the elf maid. This is a constant in fairy tales, starting with Thomas the Rymer, whose gift of prophecy is link to his talents as a poet. (This personage and the story belongs to legend, pseudo-history, and medieval verse romance.) Thomas is carried off by the Queen of Elfland but eventually returns to the mortal world with her gift. The story also borrows motifs from the fairy tale Rapunzel, as well as Greek mythology.

What specifically happens through the iterations of their story changes to suit Tolkien's narrative purpose, but the place of the lovers within traditions of fairie remains constant. SoWM seems to pick this up with Smith's dancing with the elf queen. What was one of the astounding developments in the evolution of the tale of Beren and Tinuviel was the increasing strength and power and agency of Luthien, from passive elf girl to woman who is not afraid to use her powers. But that Luthien seems to have disappeared from SoWM and we have Smith alone, who quite surprisingly is given the job of iron monger, as task not previously depicted in the Legendarium as an elvish skill.

But as to the question of autobiographical elements or allegory, it is worth while to recall what Tolkien wrote to Christopher after Edith's death, in Letter #340.

For if as seems probable I shall never write any ordered biography – it is against my nature, which expresses itself about things deepest felt in tales and myths

.

So perhaps in SoWM Tolkien was moving away from the very personal aspect of the Beren and Tinuviel narrative and more towards his influences in literary art. I note also that Niggle is a single male while Parish is seen as encumbered with a wife.

There is a new biography of Edith Bratt coming out I think in September from Walking Tree Publishers, "The Gallant Edith Bratt", which provides fascinating new evidence for the influence Edith had in Tolkien's early years of writing.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, I am going to have to disagree with you about Beren and Luthien.

Largely because I was referring to the entire concept of Beren and Luthien, that started with "The Tale of Tinuviel" which we have in BOLT 2. The evolution of the narrative is fascinating. Beren is originally an elf--well, "gnome", or Nordor elf. In Christopher Tolkien's index, under Beren, there are five listings for Beren as man or elf.

In the index to John Garth's "Tolkien and the Great War", there are 10 listings for "Beren (Elf, lover of Tinuviel" and on for Beren as mortal, as befits his extensive analysis of Tolkien's early writing, pp. 261-265.

Ultimately of course Tolkien went for "mortal". But central to the narrative, throughout its evolution, is the essential aspect of the male being enchanted by the elf maid. This is a constant in fairy tales, starting with Thomas the Rymer, whose gift of prophecy is link to his talents as a poet. (This personage and the story belongs to legend, pseudo-history, and medieval verse romance.) Thomas is carried off by the Queen of Elfland but eventually returns to the mortal world with her gift. The story also borrows motifs from the fairy tale Rapunzel, as well as Greek mythology.

What specifically happens through the iterations of their story changes to suit Tolkien's narrative purpose, but the place of the lovers within traditions of fairie remains constant. SoWM seems to pick this up with Smith's dancing with the elf queen. What was one of the astounding developments in the evolution of the tale of Beren and Tinuviel was the increasing strength and power and agency of Luthien, from passive elf girl to woman who is not afraid to use her powers. But that Luthien seems to have disappeared from SoWM and we have Smith alone, who quite surprisingly is given the job of iron monger, as task not previously depicted in the Legendarium as an elvish skill.

What I find interesting is that Tolkien actually divorces his tale from the usual motifs about how mortals encounter Faery, which is, as you referenced, Faery Abduction, and the examples such as Thomas Rhymer, Tam Lin, or the stealing and replacement of mortal infants with fairies in their cribs (a folk description of stillbirths) are just a few of many.

There are also numerous citations for Breaking Faery Taboo, or mortal incursions on the Faery realm which are punished, like entering a fairy ring or stumbling onto a faery rade or in the case of Rip Van Winkle and the Irish tale of Oisín, where they return to the mortal world aged beyond recall.

Nowhere that I can recall in folklore are mortals gifted an entrance to Faery. That seems more Tolkienesque than true to folklorish motifs.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

What I find interesting is that Tolkien actually divorces his tale from the usual motifs about how mortals encounter Faery, which is, as you referenced, Faery Abduction, and the examples such as Thomas Rhymer, Tam Lin, or the stealing and replacement of mortal infants with fairies in their cribs (a folk description of stillbirths) are just a few of many.

There are also numerous citations for Breaking Faery Taboo, or mortal incursions on the Faery realm which are punished, like entering a fairy ring or stumbling onto a faery rade or in the case of Rip Van Winkle and the Irish tale of Oisín, where they return to the mortal world aged beyond recall.

Nowhere that I can recall in folklore are mortals gifted an entrance to Faery. That seems more Tolkienesque than true to folklorish motifs.

Of course he would. That's why he's the writer he is and not some and not some second or third string hack or pulp.

What Tolkien does is transform motifs in fairy tales (and elsewhere). In so doing, he does not dismiss fairie but instead expands it. SoWM is all the more intriguing when readers can see how he transforms (and I use that word in a Genette manner) the received tradition.

btw, the gift to mortals from fairies is likely a technical issue. It's not like Tolkien could just have Smith run off and become enchanted with the Fairy Queen and then just saunter home to wife, not after the romance and love of Beren and Tinuviel. The dancing has to be elevated by the Fairy Queen having a Fairy King, a couple who work together to educate the mortal. It also reverses the gift from Thomas the Rhymer, which was given when he departed Fairy.

[littlemanpoet]

I can't find the quote from one of you, who mentioned Smith's occupation as mere ironmonger. Did Tolkien perhaps choose his occupation because of the possible pun of himself being a 'word-smith?' Reading the descriptions of Smith's faerie-blessed works in that light, it seems that Tolkien may be saying that his own craft of word-smithy was enriched by Faerie. And this could be taken in the sense of his philology as well as being a writer of stories.

To expand upon Guinevere's evidence that the Village Hall and Kitchen and Master Cook are a play on the village church and parson, the reversal of gift draws attention to itself. Gift given without merit, as described in SoWM, is known as grace. It seems to me that Tolkien's description of the King and Queen of Faerie as essentially benevolent cuts across the grain of the tradition of Faerie as well, and in this he seems to follow George MacDonald instead of the larger tradition. Faerie seems to partake of spirituality in some sense. And thus SoWM has in some ways the feel of a parable, not unlike George MacDonald's work.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I can't find the quote from one of you, who mentioned Smith's occupation as mere ironmonger. Did Tolkien perhaps choose his occupation because of the possible pun of himself being a 'word-smith?' Reading the descriptions of Smith's faerie-blessed works in that light, it seems that Tolkien may be saying that his own craft of word-smithy was enriched by Faerie. And this could be taken in the sense of his philology as well as being a writer of stories.

To expand upon Guinevere's evidence that the Village Hall and Kitchen and Master Cook are a play on the village church and parson, the reversal of gift draws attention to itself. Gift given without merit, as described in SoWM, is known as grace. It seems to me that Tolkien's description of the King and Queen of Faerie as essentially benevolent cuts across the grain of the tradition of Faerie as well, and in this he seems to follow George MacDonald instead of the larger tradition. Faerie seems to partake of spirituality in some sense. And thus SoWM has in some ways the feel of a parable, not unlike George MacDonald's work.

Well, originally it was Verlyn Vlieger.

It is worth noting that while Niggle is an artist, Smith is an artisan, a blacksmith who works with iron, traditionally an element inimical to fayery. That Tolkien should have chosen this medium for his central character I find quirky and perplexing. But then, nobody ever said Tolkien was an easy read. (I certainly never did.)

in her essay which examines many of the contradictions in Tolkien's comments and his writing, https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol38/iss1/3/.

That edition which Guinevere recommends, the one edited by Flieger, has some very interesting comments from Tolkien about SoWM. I'll quote a few passages which pertain to our discussion, of course with the provisio that I don't think an author's comments necessarily are the last word on his or her art.

Tolkien's essay opens with

This short tale is not an 'allegory', though it is capable of course of allegorical interpretations at certain points. It is a "Fairy Story", of the kind in which beings that may be called 'fairies' or 'elves' play a part and are associated in action with human people, and are regarded as having a 'real' existence, that is one in their own right and independent of human imagination and invention. It is cast in an imaginary (but English) country-side, before the advent of power-machinery but at a time when [community prosperity] had begun to have an effect in making many of them vulgarly self-satisfied, and coarser. pp. 111-112

While Nell and his daughter Nan were probably themselves elf-friends and even walkers in Outer Fairey, Ned was dependent on his father: he could receive 'Fairey' only through the lore and companionship of the older Smith. p.141

But (as in my stories generally) it will be observed that there is no religion. There is no church or temple.... In a story written by a religious man this is a plain indication that religion is not absent but subsumed: the tale is not about religion or in particular about its relation to other things. p. 142

I'm not sure if this helps or hinders us, but it does add piquancy to the soup. And nice punning about wordsmith and a blacksmith.