PhD Research Prospect

[Ephtariat]

I thought I should share my PhD research prospect in a more extensive form, so that you can get a better idea of what I'm about to do. Here it comes.

Giant’s Daughter, Fairy Mistress, Reverse Orpheus: Folktale Types and Motifs in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Tale of Beren and Lúthien

PhD Research Prospect
Supervisor: Thomas Honegger
Candidate: Giovanni Carmine Costabile
Friedrich Schiller University Jena

In the 2020 Special Edition of Tolkien’s translations of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, with Pearl and Sir Orfeo, we can find straightforward confirmation of the connection between Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Lay of Leithian: “Christopher concluded that it can therefore be stated with reasonable certainty that J.R.R. Tolkien had Sir Gawain in mind even as he worked on the poem that would become The Lay of Leithian” (Tolkien 2020: 12).
In Tolkien and Gordon’s Preface to their 1925 edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the reader is repeatedly (x, xvi) referred to George Lyman Kittredge’s 1916 Study of Gawain and the Green Knight for discussion of the sources of the Gawain-Poet. In Kittredge’s work, one finds a detailed reconstruction of the textual history of two folktale types, named the Beheading Challenge and the Temptation, in medieval Irish, French, German, and English romances. The French author of the hypothesized original of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is supposed to have merged the two types in a single tale of Sir Gawain that the Gawain-Poet then skillfully embellished and refined to give shape to his masterwork of Middle English romance, so that “the poem as we have it is a skilful combination of two entirely independent adventures so managed as to produce a harmonious unit” (Kittredge 1916: 107).
Since Kittredge refuses to consider evidence that is not directly supported by the textual traditions he examines, he excludes that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight may have originally been a Fairy Mistress, or a Giant’s Daughter, story, as J.R. Hulbert and Jessie Weston had each independently theorized. Nonetheless, in the second part of his volume, Kittredge dedicates an extensive chapter to one of the romances he had previously surveyed in his study of the Beheading Challenge, the 13th century French La Mule Sanz Frein, reconstructing it as a fusion of a Fairy Mistress and a Giant’s Daughter type of story. Moreover, Kittredge explicitly admits that the Temptation, one of the tale types shaping the main narrative of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, probably owes its origins to historical developments of the Fairy Mistress and Giant’s Daughter types.
In the late 1910s, shortly after the publication of Kittredge’s study, Tolkien begins to write his early version of the romance of Beren and Lúthien, “The Tale of Tinúviel”. Verlyn Flieger (2012) argues that the story of the Elven maiden and her mortal lover is indebted to the motif of the Giant’s Daughter as exemplified in the Welsh tale of Culhwch and Olwen, but I think that it would be more precise to state that, inspired by Kittredge’s reading of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Tolkien devised his own fusion of the types of the Fairy Mistress and the Giant’s Daughter, also merging both of them with a reverse form of the myth of Orpheus that finds a happy ending and features a gender reversal of the main hero. Indeed, what Kittredge calls the feminine sovereignty of the Fairy Mistress, to be opposed to the masculine prerogative that is found in the Giant’s Daughter tales, agrees perfectly with a female Orpheus and with the reversal of the usual tragic outcome of the hero’s feat.
My proposal for research involves a careful analysis of the way in which Tolkien reworked folktale types and motifs in his tale of Beren and Lúthien under the influence of his interpretation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, building on my previous research on three related subjects: Tolkien and folktale motifs (Costabile 2018a, 2018b); Tolkien and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Costabile 2024a); and Tolkien and the Orpheus myth (Costabile 2022, 2024a, 2024b). In “The Tale of Tinúviel,” the Fairy Mistress and Orpheus types are still implicit and/or underdeveloped in many aspects, since there is no Elf-Man relationship, and the retrieval of the beloved from the underworld is only one version among others, and it involves a prayer that is not stated to be sung. Instead, much emphasis is placed on the animal helper Huan and the animal foes Tevildo and Karkaras. In this early phase, the tale is chiefly configured as a Giant’s Daughter tale merged with a beast fable, barely offering some hints as to its future developments. It is in the 1920s unfinished poem Lay of Leithian that the Fairy Mistress type first acquires noteworthy relevance, and the tale begins to adopt the shape with which readers of The Silmarillion are familiar. The Orpheus type, though, is an even later addition, at least in its main feature of Thompson motif F81.1 Orpheus, whereas the Thompson motif D1275.1 Magic Music was already an early feature of the tale.
At least 50 different motifs from the Motif-index of Folk-Literature compiled by Stith Thompson are discernible in a form or another of the tale of Beren and Lúthien. Placing each motif in the context of the three tale types being discussed, as well as in its historical relation to other motifs throughout European (and especially Northern European) folktales and romances known and studied by Tolkien allows one to draw a clearer and larger and more defined picture of the literary significance of Tolkien’s undertaking and the value that his story had for him and has for us.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Ephtariat, why are we discussing your PhD proposal in 'Media Adaptations'? I am sure it fits, but am curious as to the explanation. But let me see if I am following your proposal. First, is this right on chronology?

Late 1910s: Tolkien is reading Kittredge's 1916 study of the Gawain poem, and composing 'The Tale of Tinúviel', wherein Beren = a gnome (Lúthien is imprisoned in a tree), and we have what is called a 'Giant's Daughter' type of tale.

Early 1920s: Tolkien is working with Gordon on a translation of SWGK and at the same time on 'The Lay of Leithian' (Christopher Tolkien as source). Now Beren = a mortal and the tale incorporates also the 'Fairy Mistress' type of tale - and as such becomes a synthesis of 'Giant's Daughter' and 'Fairy Mistress'.

Later (not sure when) the tale is further developed to include also the 'Reverse Orpheus' tale.

Second, your challenge. Tolkien and Gordon (1925, p. xv) present a diagram that I presume is derived from (or compatible with) Kittredge (1916) in which SWGK arises from two distinct genealogical lines: (a) Celtic story of temptation and (b) Celtic story of challenge (in their diagram the French source is only relevant on (a)). So on the face of it, there is no 'Giant's Daughter' and no 'Fairy Mistress' types involved at all.

But - this seems to be your real argument - not only do other scholars of the day (e.g. Weston) discuss these other types, but Kittredge also discloses them in the later part of his book. And therefore we have good reason to picture Tolkien reflecting on the relationship of these various different story types as a result of reading Kittredge's volume.

Is that about right or have I missed stuff and messed up?

[Chrysophylax Dives]

At the heart of what you are saying seems to be a reflection on chapter VI of Kittredge where the two types of folktale are distinguished according to gender:

(a) Fairy Mistress: the female fairy has the power

(b) Giant's Daughter: the Other realm is ruled by a male tyrant

And you are reading the 'The Lay of Leithian' as a creative synthesis of these two types of story that establishes a new relationship of Fantasy and gender?

[Ephtariat]

I think that in The Lay of Leithian it is key, as it will then be developed in The Lord of the Rings, the renunciation to power. The highest power is the renunciation to power, but in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien only indirectly characterizes this renunciation as feminine. Sure, there is Galadriel's renunciation to the Ring behind its eventual destruction, and Bombadil is probably immune also because of Goldberry, and Arwen renounces immortality, but it is all vague. In The Lay of Leithian Luthien does not yet renounces immortality because the poem is incomplete (the motif first appears in its full form in The Sketch of the Mythology), but it is all there. I often quote these lines, but I simply cannot overstate how great they are:

A love is mine, as great a power
as thine, to shake the gate and tower
of death with challenge weak and frail
that yet endures, and will not fail
nor yield, unvanquished were it hurled
beneath the foundations of the world.
(lines 3348-3353)

The only thing to which I can compare these lines is:

Love is strong as death,
jealousy as hard as hell,
the lamps thereof are fire and flames.
(Song of Songs 8,6 DRC)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

You took my breath away.

כִּי-עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה, קָשָׁה כִשְׁאוֹל קִנְאָה: רְשָׁפֶיה רִשְׁפֵּי, אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה

[Ephtariat]

[Chrysophylax Dives]

So I'd just like you to unpack, please. I post:

(a) Fairy Mistress: the female fairy has the power
(b) Giant's Daughter: the Other realm is ruled by a male tyrant
And you are reading the 'The Lay of Leithian' as a creative synthesis of these two types of story that establishes a new relationship of Fantasy and gender?

And you respond:

I think that in The Lay of Leithian it is key, as it will then be developed in The Lord of the Rings, the renunciation to power. The highest power is the renunciation to power, but in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien only indirectly characterizes this renunciation as feminine. ... In The Lay of Leithian Luthien does not yet renounces immortality because the poem is incomplete (the motif first appears in its full form in The Sketch of the Mythology), but it is all there.

What is key = Tolkien's synthesis between the Giant's Daughter and Fairy Mistress types of story, right?

And you appear to be saying that this synthesis = the renunciation of power, specifically a feminine renunciation of (magical) power, yes?

I'm just trying to understand.

[Ephtariat]

Fairy Mistress = Feminine Power
Giant's Daughter = Masculine Power
Fairy Mistress + Giant's Daughter = Conflict between Feminine and Masculine Power
Fairy Mistress + Giant's Daughter + Reverse Orpheus = Feminine Renunciation of Power that wins against Masculine Power but by doing so benefits both men and women

[Silky Gooseness]

This is fascinating, Ephtariat - I look forward to reading more.

Also happy to move it out of Media Adaptations should you wish, but equally happy for it to stay according to your preference: will you be mentioning any of the screen or audio adaptations in your work or just original texts? (That’s out of interest, not a challenge for you to move it.)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Ephtariat, so a question of sorts (apologies if it is vague or indicative of me not getting something; also @Silky Gooseness, I'm happy you are reading because I value anything you might contribute on this).

If I read you right, you discern a development in the versions of the story, so that in the 1910s ('The Tale of Tinúviel') we have only the Giant's Daughter tale, and only in the 1920s 'The Lay of Leithian' do we have also the Fairy Mistress, and only now and after this do we arrive at renunciation of immortality by the Fairy Mistress, and so the synthesis.

But already in 'The Tale of Tinúviel' we have the imprisonment in the tree and the hair-cutting and escape. Is this haircut not a classic image of just the renunciation that you are talking about?

[Ephtariat]

@Silky Gooseness I'm going to focus entirely on Beren and Luthien, whose tale has never been adapted to the screen. The real life story of Tolkien and Edith was the subject of the 2019 biopic "Tolkien" by Dome Karukosky, that I love, but I'm not sure I can do more than a passing mention in my thesis, at best.
About audio adaptations, the volume "Beren and Luthien" has been read by Timothy West, and the chapter "Of Beren and Luthien" in "The Silmarillion" has been read by Matthew Shaw and Andy Serkis, but I don't think I will be concerned with their rendering.
I love a song on Beren and Luthien by Blind Guardian, "When Sorrow Sang", in their "Nightfall in Middle-earth" album, Tolkien's "Song of Beren and Luthien" from "The Lord of the Rings" as interpreted by Tolkien Ensemble and (especially) Clamavi De Profundis, and "Luthien's Lament" by Eurielle. Again, in my thesis I lack the space to do more than simply reference.
I posted in Media Adaptations because I thought it was the right place for personal publication announcements, as I saw others post theirs here.

[Ephtariat]

@Hill I'm sure that Tolkien had in mind to merge the 3 types from the start, but in the "Tale of Tinuviel" the emphasis is strongly put on the Giant's Daughter and the beast fable, whereas it is first in the "Lay" and in the "Sketch", respectively, that the Fairy Mistress and the Reverse Orpheus come into the limelight. They both were already present in a rather implicit form in the earlier versions of the story, but it is in the "Lay" and in the "Sketch" that they first appear in their full power to acquire the importance that is their birthright.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

But one night a dream of the Valar came to Tinuviel and she dreamt of Beren, and her heart said: “Let me be gone to seek him whom all others have forgot”; and waking, the moon was shining through the trees, and she pondered very deeply how she might escape. Now Tinuviel daughter of Gwendeling was not ignorant of magics or of spells, as may well be believed, and after much thought she devised a plan. The next day she asked those who came to her to bring, if they would, some of the clearest water of the stream below, “but this,” she said, “must be drawn at midnight in a silver bowl, and brought to my hand with no word spoken,” and after that she desired wine to be brought, “but this,” she said, “must be borne hither in a flagon of gold at noon, and he who brings it must sing as he comes,” and they did as they were bid, but Tinwelint was not told.

Then said Tinuviel, “Go now to my mother and say to her that her daughter desires a spinning wheel to pass her weary hours,” but Dairon secretly she begged fashion her a tiny loom, and he did this even in the little house ofTinuviel in the tree. “But wherewith will you spin and wherewith weave?” said he; and Tinuviel answered: “With spells and magics,” but Dairon knew not her design, nor said more to the king or to Gwendeling.

Now Tinuviel took the wine and water when she was alone, and singing a very magical song the while, she mingled them together, and as they lay in the bowl of gold she sang a song of growth, and as they lay in the bowl of silver she sang another song, and the names of all the tallest and longest things upon Earth were set in that song; the beards of the Indravangs, the tail of Karkaras, the body of Glorund, the bole of Hirilom, and the sword of Nan she named, nor did she forget the chain Angainu that Aule and Tulkas made or the neck of Gilim the giant, and last and longest of all she spake of the hair of Uinen the lady of the sea that is spread through all the waters. Then did she lave her head with the mingled water and wine, and as she did so she sang a third song, a song of uttermost sleep, and the hair of Tinuviel which was dark and finer than the most delicate threads of twilight began suddenly to grow very fast indeed, and after twelve hours had passed it nigh filled the little room, and then Tinuviel was very pleased and she lay down to rest; and when she awoke the room was full as with a black mist and she was deep hidden under it, and lo! her hair was trailing out of the windows and blowing about the tree boles in the morning. Then with difficulty she found her little shears and cut the threads of that growth nigh to her head, and after that her hair grew only as it was wont before.

Then was the labour of Tinuviel begun, and though she laboured with the deftness of an Elf long was she spinning and longer weaving still, and did any come and hail her from below she bid them be gone, saying: “I am abed, and desire only to sleep,” and Dairon was much amazed, and called often up to her, but she did not answer.

Now of that cloudy hair Tinuviel wove a robe of misty black soaked with drowsiness more magical far than even that one that her mother had worn and danced in long long ago before the Sun arose, and therewith she covered her garments of shimmering white, and magic slumbers filled the airs about her; but of what remained she twisted a mighty strand, and this she fastened to the bole of the tree within her house, and then was her labour ended, and she looked out of her window westward to the river. Already the sunlight was fading in the trees, and as dusk filled the woods she began a song very soft and low, and as she sung she cast out her long hair from the window so that its slumbrous mist touched the heads and faces of the guards below, and they listening to her voice fell suddenly into a fathomless sleep. Then did Tinuviel clad in her garments of darkness slip down that rope of hair light as a squirrel, and away she danced to the bridge, and before the bridgewards could cry out she was among them dancing; and as the hem of her black robe touched them they fell asleep, and Tinuviel fled very far away as fast as her dancing feet would flit.

Book of Lost Tales 2, pp. 17-18

@Ephtariat What is this type of tale? Or what are the types in play? Is this the same type exactly as Rapunzel?

[Romeran]

@Ephtariat is "Bombadil is probably immune also because of Goldberry" a well understood or described theory somewhere? It's the first I've heard of it but interested to hear more. Perhaps it's discussed in @Priya's Goldberry Thread which I've yet to have time to go through I'm hardly a Tolkien scholar so apologies if this is a naive question.

Are these citations: (Costabile 2018a, 2018b), (Costabile 2022, 2024a, 2024b) easily accessibly to the public? A quick google wasn't super useful but would be easier with more to go on. I know often some publications require subscriptions to read and alas I'm no longer at a university where I would get free access.

I'm curious what you see as the outcome, or how discussion or scholarship will proceed once you've published your work? Does this bring new analyses to light that had been previously discarded (I think?). I will admit that my background is, as you well know, largely within mathematical and statistical science rather than literature! But I'm naively trying to understand how this sort of thing works.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Are these citations: (Costabile 2018a, 2018b), (Costabile 2022, 2024a, 2024b) easily accessibly to the public? A quick google wasn't super useful but would be easier with more to go on. I know often some publications require subscriptions to read and alas I'm no longer at a university where I would get free access.

Yeah, @Ephtariat if I could turn a question into a complaint? These citations are meaningless to us unless you also add a bibliography that spells out what they are (preferably with links to anything open access).

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran The two 2018 publications are open access:
https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol36/iss2/7/
https://journals.tolkiensociety.org/mal ... le/view/22
The 2022 is open access as well:
https://scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolk ... 14/iss2/7/
The two 2024 ones are both forthcoming: one of them is a peer review article in Mythlore that is going to be available open access, the other is a Peter Lang volume that is not open access.

[Ephtariat]

@Hill See above.

[Romeran]

@Ephtariat thanks for the citation links! Now to my other questions :D

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Hill See above.

I do see. What a horrible mess! I asked for titles, not urls.

What you need to do is work out how to insert a link into a Title - this works on the music thread too :)
Go to 'Full editor' on the Reply option, select your Title and press the chain icon; now add on the left hand side, after url and before the square parenthesis, =link, where link is what you have simply pasted above.

BUT MORE IMPORTANT: please don't forget my questions above about the haircut. Thank you

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran

I'm curious what you see as the outcome, or how discussion or scholarship will proceed once you've published your work? Does this bring new analyses to light that had been previously discarded (I think?). I will admit that my background is, as you well know, largely within mathematical and statistical science rather than literature! But I'm naively trying to understand how this sort of thing works.

Any literary study offers a new prospect on a subject already studied or studies a new subject, in dialogue with the other researchers. My thesis will both contribute to the understanding of the tale of Beren and Luthien and to the study of the influence of Middle English Studies on Tolkien. Usually people neglect Beren and Luthien and all the Silmarillion tales to focus on LotR and The Hobbit, while I'd rather do the other way around. Similarly, people usually think that Old English and Old Norse are the primary sources of Tolkien, while I argue it's Middle English.

[Ephtariat]

@Hill The two 2018 publications are open access:
https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol36/iss2/7/
https://journals.tolkiensociety.org/mal ... le/view/22
The 2022 is open access as well:
https://scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolk ... 14/iss2/7/
The two 2024 ones are both forthcoming: one of them is a peer review article in Mythlore that is going to be available open access, the other is a Peter Lang volume that is not open access.

[Ephtariat]

@Hill The two 2018 publications are open access:
Costabile, G.C., “Bilbo Baggins and the Forty Thieves: The Reworking of Folktale Motifs in The Hobbit (and The Lord of the Rings)”, Mythlore, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring/Summer 2018a), pp. 89-104
Costabile, G.C., “Fairy Marriages in Tolkien's Works,” Mallorn 59 (2018b): 6-13
The 2022 is open access as well:
Costabile, G.C., ““A Greater [Music]” and “A Song of Greater Power”: Lúthien's Song and Dance in the Light of the Ainulindalë”, Journal of Tolkien Research: Vol. 14: Iss. 2 (2022), Article 7
The two 2024 ones are both forthcoming: one of them is a peer review article in Mythlore that is going to be available open access, the other is a Peter Lang volume that is not open access.
Costabile, G.C., “Orpheus and the Harrowing of Hell in the Tale of Beren and Lúthien”. Mythlore, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2024, forthcoming).
Costabile, G.C., The Mirror of Desire Unbidden: Retrieving the Imago Dei in Tolkien and Late Medieval English Literature. (Peter Lang Verlag, 2024, forthcoming).

[Chrysophylax Dives]

:)

But don't forget my Rapunzel question above, please.

[Ephtariat]

I'll get back on Rapunzel in a moment. ;-)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Sigh. I should get paid for this. Your Bilbo link works but the other two do not because your link is not complete - both contain ... As in the second:

https://scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolk ... 14/iss2/7/

[Ephtariat]

The Rapunzel motif in Thompson's Index is classified as F848.1 Girl‘s long hair as ladder into tower. I have not yet studied the analogues (apart from Rapunzel itself, that of course I know). But I believe that the cutting of the hair may at best be seen as a hint to her eventual renunciation, since it chiefly depends on her using her hair as ladder, thus motivating the necessity to cut them after they have grown to an abnormous length. She does not cut her hair short, we should assume. Luthien just restores her hair to about their usual length. Does this respond to your question?

[Ephtariat]

@Hill Now the links work. I too would like to get paid for a lot of precious advices I give. If the pay was higher when the precious advice is ignored, I'd be a billionaire, I think.

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran

is "Bombadil is probably immune also because of Goldberry" a well understood or described theory somewhere?

Just an idea I had, I don't think it's discussed anywhere.

[Romeran]

Just an idea I had, I don't think it's discussed anywhere.

Ah okay. I would be very interested in hearing more on this subject!

]
Usually people neglect Beren and Luthien and all the Silmarillion tales to focus on LotR and The Hobbit, while I'd rather do the other way around. Similarly, people usually think that Old English and Old Norse are the primary sources of Tolkien, while I argue it's Middle English.

Ah I see that makes sense, and given that Tolkien was largely an expert in Middle English this at least makes sense to me.

I suppose the focus on TH and LotR make some sense simply due to being pieces of work which Tolkien published in his lifetime versus material he never necessarily "finished".

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran

I suppose the focus on TH and LotR make some sense simply due to being pieces of work which Tolkien published in his lifetime versus material he never necessarily "finished".

Yeah, that's the main reason. Also human sympathy for Hobbits (that I understand, but does not constitute a reason). As I was discussing with @Hill recently, Tolkien states that his mythology is "Elf-centred", and even if one may also argue that LotR stands on its own as "hobbito-centric", it's not the Hobbits as a people who are the focus, but only those few who love the Elves. So, once again, the centre are the Elves. And Tolkien textually says that Beren and Luthien express the same theme, that of the little ones who turn the wheels of the world while the eyes of the Great are elsewhere, that will then be represented by Hobbits.

[Ephtariat]

Also, one should consider that Tolkien's main literary purpose was the publication of The Silmarillion. He tried once before The Hobbit was published, and was turned down. When he was asked to publish a sequel to The Hobbit, he proposed LotR together with The Silmarillion, and was refused again. It's like The Hobbit and LotR are by-products, really, not what he meant to do. Of course the by-products of a genius are still masterworks, but his heart was always in the First Age,

[Romeran]

I've always felt that TH/LotR are not "hobbit-centric" so much as the hobbits provide a perspective that is more likely to align with the reader (e.g. being somewhat more "modern" or "relatable") but which we, the readers, then get to explore this world which is most certainly not Hobbit-centric. I.e. they are a more convenient "narrator" (even if it's just in the sense that the hobbits "wrote" these books) to help tell this story to a modern audience. The Silmarillion lacks this, however, I think Beren and Luthien (and to a certain extent the Children of Hurin) doesn't suffer so much as the rest of the Silmarillion in terms of really lacking a relatable narrator/perspective since I think Beren (and Turin) are somewhat more relatable themselves. This comes from my completely uneducated perspective stolen (or at least inspired by) Shippey.

[Romeran]

Also Re: The Sil getting repeatedly rejected I think this says a lot about the modern reader (or at least modern at the time and the higher real publication costs in the early 20th century) than the content. Tolkien was writing the Sil (and to a certain extent LotR too) in a very particular way which was meant to feel more like reading an ancient mythology than a modern "novel". It's clear Tolkien was writing more for himself as these were the sort of things he enjoyed reading. The publishers were likely far more concerned with what the general public would enjoy (and pay for) and feared this was less likely to be enticing. Of course after it exploded in popularity the demand for "all things Tolkien" meant that it did eventually get published (alas posthumously) but even still I'd wager a lot that TH/LotR are considerably more widely read.

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran While I certainly respect, alas, admire, Shippey as a scholar, he is certainly not Tolkien himself. When Tolkien contradicts Shippey, I am with Tolkien.

I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be ‘hobbito-centric’, that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble. (Letters, no. 181)

[Romeran]

@Ephtariat I suppose it depends on what you mean by "hobbito-centric" here Tolkien defines it as " primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble" but as you point out yourself, LotR is neither concerned with hobbits specifically or universally, nor are a large fraction of the characters hobbits, and indeed as you point out the set of hobbits which we are concerned with are the ones who are of most interest to the elves -- largely because they have become involved in their story. Furthermore, it's becoming embroiled in the world and problems of elves (and men) that we follow the hobbits. So while Tolkien is clearly correct when he says that it's hobbit-centric in the sense of being a study of ennoblement, this is only one notion of what it means to be "hobbito-centric" as you as well laid out above. I therefore don't think that the quote from the letters is truly in contradiction to what I said or what Shippey said. I don't believe (but my memory may not be perfect) that acting as a relatable narrator is the only reason we have hobbits, however, it certainly acts as a valuable reason.

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran I don't think that the publishers's concerns were only money back then. Today it certainly tends to be so. But back then a publisher had cultural bias very often, meaning they were not only, sometimes not even primarily, concerned with sales (also because back then the market was different, and readers would often buy anything that was published in their favorite genre, or series, of books, rather than cherrypicking, often rather randomly, as they do today). Tolkien wrote what he himself classified as romance (not in the sense of love-story, of course, but in the wider sense in which we speak of medieval romance). There was certainly plenty of readers who would buy his romances, as they bought William Morris, as they bought the fairy books by Andrew Lang, etc. I think that Allen and Unwin's concerns were rather on the side of being worried that Tolkien's romances could support, or be accused of supporting, even indirectly, the cause of Irish independence (one reviewer famously mentioned "those Celtic eye-splitting names!" in The Silmarillion), the Catholic cause (see Tolkien's comments on cutting all references to organized religion in LotR), or other similar worries.

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran The problem lies in thinking that Tolkien is concerned with the problem of what is relatable for the reader. As you yourself said, he wrote chiefly for himself. So, clearly what would best appeal to a reader was, at best, a secondary concern for him. Indeed, when he says that LotR is "primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble", the word "primarily" by itself necessarily means that reader-applicability is at least secondary. I may go as far as to say it's even tertiary, or four-tiary, last-iary. :-)

[Romeran]

I find that particularly surprising. Is there some wider discussion on their rejections that goes into this? Publication costs then were considerably higher than they are now, I'd be surprised if a publisher was willing to take a risk on a book which they didn't think would turn a profit -- after all that's the purpose of the business both then and now as they aren't a publicly funded corporation like the BBC.

I also can't imagine a world in which someone aiming to publish a book to the public is completely unconcerned with whether the material would be relatable to the reader. If he only had himself in mind, why bother publishing at all?

[Ephtariat]

Yeah, there's no document supporting either my claim or yours. Allen and Unwin only raised technical reasons for turning down Tolkien's Silmarillion, so from there one could go either my direction or yours.

I didn't say "completely unconcerned". I said that such a concern would come second, third, fourth, even last. To come last something must first exist, as logicians undoubtedly would point out. :-)

[Romeran]

I imagine, like most things, it's a mix of a variety of reasons and since no one is around anymore to talk about it I guess we'll never know!

I agree that it was not likely his primary concern (and therefore it is certainly not the case that the primary purpose of the hobbits is to be a window into the world), but I would argue that by the very fact he wanted them published at all, indicates a reasonably high level of concern with material that he felt would be relatable to a wide enough audience to warrant publication. And my point wasn't that hobbits acting as a window was a primary use of hobbits either, just a valuable one.

[Ephtariat]

I would say (and correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm more familiar with the cultural politics of literary publishers than you are. You admitted you're not familiar with Tolkien's correspondence with Rayner Unwin. I assume you're entirely ignorant of Tolkien's correspondence with foreign publishers as well. And you probably (again, correct me) never were in direct contact with literary publishers discussing your own literary publications or other authors's. I'm not saying that makes me automatically right, but perhaps I'm more informed on the subject?

But that's my whole point. He didn't really want Hobbits published. He published The Hobbit because Rayner Unwin's son liked it. He had written it after telling the story to his children, as a private amusement to share with his friends. And LotR? He wrote it after fans of The Hobbit requested a sequel, and even then, without CS Lewis's encouragement, he might have not done it at all. All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!

[Romeran]

I would say (and correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm more familiar with the cultural politics of literary publishers than you are.

Most certainly

You admitted you're not familiar with Tolkien's correspondence with Rayner Unwin.

I have read The Letters but it's been a long time and I don't trust my memory.

I assume you're entirely ignorant of Tolkien's correspondence with foreign publishers as well. And you probably (again, correct me) never were in direct contact with literary publishers discussing your own literary publications or other authors's. I'm not saying that makes me automatically right, but perhaps I'm more informed on the subject?

I am familiar with the conversations insofar as Shippey has discussed them.

And you probably (again, correct me) never were in direct contact with literary publishers discussing your own literary publications or other authors's. I'm not saying that makes me automatically right, but perhaps I'm more informed on the subject?

Not my own publications, beyond academic publication which follows a very different process but which I'm also quite involved in having done several reviews on approval to publish books for Cambridge press, however, I work for a company that does have a publishing house and I work on the financial assessments so I am very familiar with a profit-maximizing publication.

But that's my whole point. He didn't really want Hobbits published. He published The Hobbit because Rayner Unwin's son liked it. He had written it after telling the story to his children, as a private amusement to share with his friends. And LotR? He wrote it after fans of The Hobbit requested a sequel, and even then, without CS Lewis's encouragement, he might have not done it at all. All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!

Why did Tolkien even give it to Unwin if he did not want it published? He could have kept it to himself. And why would he respond to a request for a sequel if he didn't want it read? He could have said no, he had a job, it was not like he needed to write the lord of the rings.

All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!

I really don't think that's supported that he only cared about the Silmarillion stories. This seems like a rather extreme perspective, do you have some quote from Tolkien indicating as much?

[Ephtariat]

Most certainly

Well, ok then.

Why did Tolkien even give it to Unwin if he did not want it published? He could have kept it to himself. And why would he respond to a request for a sequel if he didn't want it read? He could have said no, he had a job, it was not like he needed to write the lord of the rings.

It was not his idea to get it published. He gave TH to Unwin without particular hopes. Not like The Silmarillion, in which he had put great effort and high hopes. The sequel: he was not against it, but, again, it was not his idea. He didn't have a sequel in mind and only wrote it after being asked. It's the same difference between buying a girl flowers because I love her and buying my employer flowers after a colleague told me it's her birthday. Don't get lost in the "allegory", I'm just using it to make a point.

I really don't think that's supported that he only cared about the Silmarillion stories. This seems like a rather extreme perspective, do you have some quote from Tolkien indicating as much?

I have what I just told you. He proposed The Silmarillion twice after his own heart. He was asked to submit The Hobbit and LotR.

[Romeran]

It was not his idea to get it published. He gave TH to Unwin without particular hopes. Not like The Silmarillion, in which he had put great effort and high hopes. The sequel: he was not against it, but, again, it was not his idea. He didn't have a sequel in mind and only wrote it after being asked. It's the same difference between buying a girl flowers because I love her and buying my employer flowers after a colleague told me it's her birthday. Don't get lost in the "allegory", I'm just using it to make a point.

I'm not saying he wasn't more interested in publishing the Silmarillion but that he gave TH to Unwin at all indicates he clearly wanted it published. Furthermore, why would he agree to the request to write the sequel -- he did not have to say yes? And I don't agree with that comparison, Tolkien did not work for Unwin, he did not need to publish a sequel, they could not fire him. So while yes he clearly was more interested in publishing the Silmarillion (no where am I stating otherwise), but I don't know how you can say he didn't care about publishing the other work (that "all he cared about was The Silmarillion") given that he chose to pursue publication of TH and LotR when nothing forced him to do so.

I have what I just told you. He proposed The Silmarillion twice after his own heart. He was asked to submit The Hobbit and LotR.

I don't think that constitutes as proof that he only cared about The Silmarillion.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

But that's my whole point. He didn't really want Hobbits published. He published The Hobbit because Rayner Unwin's son liked it. He had written it after telling the story to his children, as a private amusement to share with his friends. And LotR? He wrote it after fans of The Hobbit requested a sequel, and even then, without CS Lewis's encouragement, he might have not done it at all. All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!

Ephtariat, I am entirely with @Romeran here. Nobody is questioning that Tolkien put his heart into the Silmarillion. But how The Hobbit and its sequel came to be published is neither here not there. Nobody could write the Prologue: Concerning Hobbits without a deep and abiding love for Hobbits. The Lord of the Rings took well over 10 years to compose, and these years took its author through the dark years of World War II. How could you doubt the passion that the man put into this work?

[Ephtariat]

@Romeran I didn't say "all he cared about was The Silmarillion". You're criticizing your own words. I said "All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!" meaning NOT that his concern for TH and LotR was false, but that his true heart was after The Silmarillion. He called his own wife Luthien. There are no other character names that he gave to real persons that the same characters were inspired by. He worked at the First Age stories throughout his life, while he only came up with Second and Third Age stories after 1930, when he was 38 (almost the middle of his life), and he even came up with the notion of further Ages after the first only after 1936, when he was 44 (older than the middle of his life). There is really no possible comparison of how much he cared for the Silmarillion stories, that were a part of his soul since young age (1910 even, says John Garth, when Tolkien was 18), with middle age stories that he only published after being asked to do so. This entire discussion is preposterous, in my humble opinion, and can only take place because the publishing world is too much influenced by politics. Otherwise Tolkien would have published The Silmarillion, he would have had the same or even greater success, and he wouldn't have felt the need to write The Hobbit and LotR (that he wrote precisely because The Silmarillion was not published, with an intent to get through them to get The Silmarillion published. And... guess what? He was right!).

[Ephtariat]

@Hill I love The Hobbit and LotR, mind you. But they're literature.
The Silmarillion is Tolkien's heart transposed into words. It's beyond literature. You can hear it beating.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

He worked at the First Age stories throughout his life, while he only came up with Second and Third Age stories after 1930, when he was 38 (almost the middle of his life), and he even came up with the notion of further Ages after the first only after 1936, when he was 44 (older than the middle of his life).

This is why you do not understand about Beowulf and elegy.

[Ephtariat]

This is why you do not understand about Beowulf and elegy.

I don't know what you mean by that. Seriously, no clue. Maybe you mean I understand Beowulf and elegy too well? So much so that I don't care if I contradict those who think that Tolkien saw himself as the Beowulf-Poet reincarnate, even if they're called Shippey and are Emeritus Professor, or even if they're good friends besides esteemed Tolkien scholars such as you?

[Romeran]

@Romeran I didn't say "all he cared about was The Silmarillion".

But you said precisely that:

All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories!

Unless you somehow take exception to equating "The Silmarillion stories" with "The Silmarillion" and there's some important nuance I missed?

meaning NOT that his concern for TH and LotR was false, but that his true heart was after The Silmarillion.

Then I argue you misspoke, because this is not what "All he truly cared about were the Silmarillion stories" means, as the negation of this is "he cared about more than just the Silmarillion stories"

stories that he only published after being asked to do so

As @Hill points out one does not slave for 10 years over a book during a tumultuous period of time simply because he was "asked to do so".

Otherwise Tolkien would have published The Silmarillion, he would have had the same or even greater success, and he wouldn't have felt the need to write The Hobbit and LotR (that he wrote precisely because The Silmarillion was not published, with an intent to get through them to get The Silmarillion published. And... guess what? He was right!).

While I agree that Tolkien's initial intention was to publish the Silmarillion and had he done so he may not have published The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, I do NOT agree that it would have had greater success. It has now been decades since both The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion have been in publication and even if you only count sales of books which came after this was the case, The Lord of the Rings absolutely crushes The Silmarillion in terms of sales, it's wildly more popular and for good reason (and I Love the Silmarillion). I think your very obviously strong bias towards the Silmarillion is showing (just like @Hill 's bias for The Hobbit )