ARTICLES: DWARVES

J. R. R. Tolkien´s "The Lord of The rings" - Mythology, Philosophy, Allegory "Facharbeit" - Essay by Manuel Steiner, written ´00 p.r.i.

There are currently many rumours going on about the movie Peter Jackson has been shooting for a while now in New Zealand: it is going to be a new, epic-style adaptation about the best-known fantasy novel there is: Tolkien´s "The Lord of the Rings". Whereas "normal" people will not likely care about the movie until it hits the cinemas in 2001, Tolkien fanatics have been preying on any slight bit of spy-gained information they could get for months.
While the project itself was greeted by rave opinions, some things caused the Tolkien fan society to frown upon them. The cast of actors, which, for example, includes stars such as Christopher Lee as Saruman and Elijah Woods as Frodo, is less a point of debate than script pieces and a character list for the casts which fans discovered. Seemingly, the director is planning on rewriting the plot of the book in order for to adopt it to modern taste, including changes of the appearance of characters, the role they play and especially their behaviour. The importance of female characters is to be stressed, while smaller roles are to be left out according to the cast script. These planned changes have ignited a heated discussion on the meaning of the book, and the way the characters were meant to be. One Internet website is even collecting a petition they will send to Peter Jackson as soon as there are enough subscriptions; demanding the movie to stay totally true to the novel. Slight differences of interpretation have to be undertaken with care, as there is the danger that the book can be easily misunderstood, as it has always been once and again since it was first published in 1954/55; with diverse misleading allegories and stubborn-minded critics underrating it.
In this essay, I try to provide the information necessary for an understanding of the novel, its mythology and meaning, and I will show common allegories and interpretations and how likely they are to be true to the book´s content.


I. Summary of The Lord of the Rings

The content summary I am going to provide hereby is a necessary basis for an understanding of this essay, though it can neither cover the whole of the book in detail, nor form a basis for serious criticism. For the latter, complete and attentive reading of the novel is inevitable.

The Fellowship of the Ring
The story starts in the Shire, a rural, idyllic area, in which Frodo, a hobbit - their own native word for halfling -, heir of his uncle Bilbo, is told by Gandalf, the wizard, about the hidden powers of the ring he inherited from. It is a ring of extreme power, forged by the lord of all evil, Sauron, and an item capable of granting him, who has just stirred from banishment again, the power to conquer the world and lay it in ashes. Three rings of good and nine of evil can be controlled by the one ruling Ring, but as the Ring corrupts and seduces those near it, and as it seeks its master, the Dark Lord, the only possibility is to destroy it where it was created, in Mount Doom, deep in Mordor, the shadow-land of the enemy. Frodo travels, all the time persecuted and looked for by black riders of the enemy, together with his fellow hobbits Samwise, Peregrin and Meriadoc, later joined by the mysterious ranger Aragorn, called Strider, towards Rivendell.
There, in the council of Elrond Half-Elven, Frodo accepts the duty of journeying to Mordor; and the company formed by Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry, Aragorn, Legolas the elf, Gimli the dwarf and Boromir of Gondor, the land closest to Mordor, departs. On their way to the enchanted Elven wood of Lórien, they lose Gandalf in a fight against a demon in the mines of Moria underneath the Misty Mountains. Aragorn acts as their leader from now on and the company re-supplies in Lórien and travels down the river Anduin by boat. On an island in the river, Boromir tries to convince Frodo of giving him the ring, and when he assaults him, Frodo flees from the company, joined by Sam. Boromir is immediately afterwards killed by orcs when defending the remaining two hobbits, who are captured and taken away.

The Two Towers
During a quarrel among the orcs, Merry and Pippin flee into the forest of Fangorn, where with the help of the Ent - a tree-creature- Treebeard, they are able to cause the forest to rise and attack Isengard, the fortress of treacherous Saruman the wizard. At first, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli encounter riders of Rohan, and later the returned Gandalf in new splendour. In Edoras, they stir the King of the Mark, Théoden, from the influence of Gríma Wormtongue and to fight against Saruman. They take a stance at Helm´s Deep which they defend successfully. In Isengard, they meet the hobbits again and the Ents who are tearing down its walls, overthrowing Saruman.
Frodo and Sam, on their way towards Mordor, capture Gollum, the former ring-owner, who followed them secretly to regain his precious ring. With him as a guide, they bypass the closed gate to Mordor and head south. Gollum, twisted between loyalty to Frodo due to the vow he had to swear on the Ring, and craving for its possession, finally leads them, after a while they spent with rangers of Gondor, into a trap in the pass of Cirith Ungol. There, Shelob, the giant spider, poisons Frodo, who is taken away by orcs, leaving Sam with the Ring.

The Return of the King
While Gandalf and Pippin head for Minas Tirith, Aragorn, who has just revealed himself as the rightful heir of the long deserted throne of Gondor, takes the Paths of the Dead southwards, together with his retinue of rangers and Gimli and Legolas. Théoden rides with Merry towards Dunharrow to muster the Rohan army. These riders appear just in time as Minas Tirith is already besieged by Sauron´s forces. In the battle of the Pellenor fields Théoden King is slain, but, in turn, his niece Éowyn fells the enemy army leader, the Lord of the Ringwraiths. Together with King Aragorn, who appears backed up by undead bonded to him by an old vow, the tide is turned in favour of the defenders of Minas Tirith. In the city, where Denethor the Steward burnt himself before, Aragorn heals the wounded and then rallies an army to march towards the Black Gate of Mordor. On a hill, they stand their ground in the decisive final battle.
In the tower of Cirith Ungol, Sam is able to help Frodo to escape, and they continue their journey through the wasteland of Mordor to Mount Doom, where they meet Gollum again. Frodo refuses to sacrifice the Ring to the flames in the chambers of fire beneath the mountain, but Gollum bites off his finger, and, in his joy, falls into the abyss. With the Ring destroyed, Sauron´s Dark Tower collapses and its master vanishes. After being honoured on the field of Cormallen, the hobbits return back to the Shire, only to see it controlled by Saruman, whom, now powerless, they have to drive off first, and who is then killed by his follower. The last ever to be seen of Frodo in Middle-earth is his sailing into the west with the other ringbearers, leaving, besides others, a married Sam and an enthroned Aragorn behind.
__BACK__

II. Structure and composition

There are several peculiar points about the shaping of The Lord of the Rings. For one thing, Tolkien did not write it with a firm "master plan", but let it evolve and develop as the story goes on, acting out of inspiration from what he himself had written. He admits that some strands of narration only appeared later, and he is quoted of not knowing where to put Strider, or how to continue the story, as the action reached Bree (comp. Moseley,30). Another aspect of Tolkien´s works in general, and The Lord of the Rings in particular is the way he claims to present the texts. It is not invented by Tolkien, but in fact written down by the hobbits in the "Red Book of Westmarch" and merely translated and edited by Tolkien. As he explains in appendix F, he translated what was in the common speech, and anglicised the names (comp. LOTR, 1107ff.). This can be summed up by the thesis that "The story itself is cast as active, the writer as passive" (Moseley,30). The third person narrator, omniscient and unobtrusive, more often than once steps behind first-person narration provided by the characters, or their flashbacks.
For the actual structure of the novel, Tolkien used methods more common in antique or medieval literature. One is the ring composition of Homer, but also other writers and poets in succeeding centuries, like Wagner. A general, main narrative is suspended for the focus on a single person or item, as is the Ring. As the action circles around the Ring, the whole development of plot is also circular: dis- and reappearing of characters (Gandalf), and switches of focus from Sam and Frodo to the others. Paying attention to the cartographic unfolding of the book, the there-and-back-again scheme is also evident: the starting place, the Shire, is the ending place, Rivendell is visited on both journeys - there and back -, and the most extreme point (in both senses), Mount Doom, is also the geographical turning point. The development of plot and tension fits into this scheme as well, with rising action in the first four books, a postponing in book five, which does not mention Frodo at all, and a resolution in book six, with the eagles´ arrival and the departure at the Grey Havens.
A motif of medieval Romance and the Old Norse sagas are the entrelacements of narration in the novel. With the beginning of book three, the one strand of action suspends into several, following the breaking of the fellowship. These are held together, though, by a map and a chronology of days. The complexity also provides some cross-connections only obvious afterwards: the voice Frodo hears on Amon Hen is Gandalf´s; this cannot be known to the reader at first. Another example is Boromir´s corpse drifting down Anduin, seen by Faramir, but unknown to Sam and Frodo (comp. Shippey, 146f.).
The combination of all these structuring methods creates a tension which otherwise could have been lost a bit if there was less complexity, but this way the reader´s attention is always drawn forth and back, with cross-connections and frog-leaps of action.
__BACK__

III. Language and style

For a number of different reasons, The Lord of the Rings contains various levels of rhetoric and style. One point is that it was to be printed in numbers and so it was to reach a broad and anonymous public, not a private circle of friends Tolkien could read the book to aloud. The point of criticism that "the unevenness of tone, the occasional slovenliness of metaphor or simile, (...) may be due in part to this uncertainty about audience response." (Moseley, 43; my italics) is built upon this fact. Because of this, Tolkien had to drop a certain amount of high-style narration he used in former works; and the level of language only rises with that of the action by the end of book one. Before that, especially when still in the Shire, The Lord of the Rings was planned as a direct sequel to The Hobbit, using those stylistic devices to create a book for children.
Later, the author is still confronted with the task of aligning the speech of characters to their background, as he has to draw together "different worlds of words" (Moseley, 44). Indeed, it is clearly visible that Tolkien did nothing else than to link utterance and choice of words to a character´s way of thinking; with orcs and trolls using simple and crude speech, high elves speaking solemnly and elegiac, and the Rohirrim resembling old Anglo-Saxons in their stave-rhyming, heroic tone.
Medium tone and a certain joyfulness are presented by the hobbits, as their colloquial style and words are familiar to us. High style is achieved by Tolkien´s often found solemn, parallelistic and polysyndetic sentences, like the description of the Rohirrim arriving at Minas Tirith (comp. LOTR, 820) or the passage where splendid King Aragorn Elessar is beheld entering the city (comp. LOTR, 947).
Along with this linguistic device goes another one, the "lift of linguistic register and [the use of] deliberate archaisms" (Moseley, 51). Of the latter Tolkien provides many: old forms for common words, when writing "hither", "thither" and "whither" or "nigh", "naught" and "aught", and through archaic expression no longer, at least not frequently, used: the solemn "tidings" for the modernistic "news", or the phrase "to be loath to" instead of "reluctant". As formal and elegiac these may be, they are also sometimes a contrast to other phrases, and due to the complexity of narration, a unity of style and language is never to be achieved; only an isomorphic relation of utterance to character which equals the impression that "Tolkien seems never fully to solve the problem of rhetorical level" (Moseley, 42).
The poems Tolkien throws in mostly fit into the respective characters´ rhetoric and background as well. The Hobbits have jolly, sometimes unsuitingly humorous verses, "nursery rhymes", as they are called frequently by Shippey. Elven poems express their race´s dignity and solemnity with their melodic rhythm, which is, in those verses held solely in Sindarin, also the only aspect the reader realises. Special attendance is laid on the rhymes and songs of the Rohirrim, and more than once they resemble their role models, old Anglo-Saxon and mainly Old Norse poetry in more than merely structure. These are stave-rhyming poems, with the heroic ideals and the fury of their people expressed in their songs, but parallels to the Poetic Edda are there in an imitative degree, too: thus the battle-cry of Théoden charging reminds clearly of a stave in the Voluspá. There the world´s end is described with the words "axe-age, sword-age / sundered are shields / wind-age, wolf-age / ere the world crumbles" (Moynihan,330; quoted from Lee M. Hollander, The Poetic Edda, 9); Théoden´s cry imitates this both in rhythm and meaning, and also uses similar words: "Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, / a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!" (LOTR, 820). Similarly, the Long List of the Ents on pages 453 and 572 appears like a lore-poem such as the Grímnismál, as both tell of the names of things and living creatures. But as the first example shows, this parallel is just formal, with different context, and not an allegory, which I will prove later. With Tolkien´s love for poetry, there are still many poems which do not improve the overall of the novel, and it is true that the "poems only really work when tightly linked to their narrative context, to heighten that moment." (Moseley, 51).
__BACK__

IV. The importance of philology

Underlying all of Tolkien´s works is his philology, both professional and out of pure love for language and words. Sound and tone of certain languages and works took Tolkien´s heart literally by storm. Such was the case with Gothic; such was it with Finnish, to which his invented elven language Quenya bears resemblance, and such was it with Welsh, which inspired his language of Sindarin.
Languages, and not seldom single words alone inspired him greatly for his fiction; indeed, "he thought that ideas were sent to him [...] through the hidden resonances of names and languages" (Shippey, 263; my italics). This is where philology comes into play. Tolkien was greatly interested in words and their history -i.e. their etymology - and expressed this in his fiction. This way, he tried to bring the world of words he appreciated so much both into a mythological context and into a historical background he presented as fact. To quote the man himself: "I like history, and am moved by it, but its finest moments for me are those in which it throws a light on words and names" (Shippey, 62). As this was not so often the case, he tried to correct this, giving names and words to history which of course he had to invent first, as anything else would be against his own principles if he assumed a language to have existed before our time which actually never has. To these invented languages, the history of his fiction is second, less in importance than in the process of creation where the languages were first; his fiction was developed as a method to present them. As he admitted himself, "The ´stories´ were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse!" (Shippey, 22; quoted from Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter, 219).
Along with that goes Tolkien´s belief of an "inner value" of languages; he was convinced that "people could feel history in words, could recognise language styles, could extract sense from sound alone" (Shippey, 104). Here Tolkien might be concluding from himself onto what others think, but to him there probably even existed a language in which each thing had its own respective and true name, fitting it perfectly and understandable to everyone. Such assumptions are expressed in the character of Tom Bombadil, who was, Adam-like, the first to give all things their suiting names, isomorphic with reality.
All this together explains Tolkien´s own opinion that his work was "largely an essay in linguistic aesthetic. " (Shippey, 104; quoted from Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter, 220). Tolkien also seemingly really liked to use "talking names". Be it, that all predecessors of Éomer were named with some Anglo-Saxon word for "king", or be it that Gandalf´s name in "the South" is Incanus, Latin for white-haired. Another example, overlooked in the various works of serious authors and critics, is the name of the Old Took, the oldest hobbit ever: Gerontius means nothing but "after the manner of a very old man". In any case, the meaning describes the named one, and "to name is to know" (Moseley, 54).
Depth, as it was the quality Tolkien valued most in any work, is, apart from his invented languages, mainly achieved by the names he contributes to persons and things. To form a contrast to literature - which Tolkien saw as the opposite of the ancient spirit contained in Old English literature, not least his much adored Beowulf epic poem - ,his aim was to use philology - what he called "the special burden of the Northern tongues, [...] the special advantage they possess as a discipline" (Shippey, 8) - in order reawaken this spirit. So, not surprisingly, his whole fiction is built on words, on etymology, philology. He derived a high amount of his cosmos solely from traditions, old tales of Elves, Dwarves, Ents and Dragons which he wanted to present; and as they were philological facts, it is understandable that, through his mingling of poetry with philology, the fictional outcome bears a certain degree of fact, too. Other names, for example place names in the Shire, have existing counterparts, mainly in the region after which the Shire was more or less exactly modelled, i.e. Middle England around Worcestershire. In this point, there are two diverging types of names in Middle-earth: names after which a story, character or place was invented ("Names always generate a story in my mind" (Shippey,60), said Tolkien) ; and those which bear a name given after their invention; although in the latter case it is possible that the author had this idea, this name, in mind from the beginning on.
The Lord of the Rings works exactly according to Tolkien´s principle that "the word tells the story" (Shippey,15), he admitted in one of his letters (comp. Shippey, 15); the principle that a label tells much to the knowing one. A philologist - such as Tolkien himself - would recognise the hidden meaning of persons and places revealed in their names, and the importance of this name-meaning is not to be underestimated. If name, "label", and perception diverge, both should be taken into account. It is probable that Tolkien would have given the first the priority; as it is with Aragorn, really Elessar, the "Elven-star", who appears dark and probably malicious at first meet. But here the lines of the poem providenced for him strike: "All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost.". Here it is as T. A. Shippey pointed out: "Tolkien´s belief was that ´the word authenticates the thing´" (Shippey,51; my italics).
Conclusively, as it is that actually the whole Lord of the Rings was built on the basis of philology, and the inspiration Tolkien got from words, it is only logical that one cannot follow Tolkien´s way of thinking without taking this into account as one of the most shaping factors for him and his works. Virtually, "there is no division between Tolkien´s philology and his fiction." (Moseley, 1).
__BACK__

V. The mythology of Middle-earth

The creation of mythology
What becomes evident from the above chapters, is that Tolkien would not have been satisfied writing normal mainstream-literature. He wanted to reawaken old traditions through another medium, involving myths; and facing criticism for being odd to the common unwritten laws of writing. Indeed, "Tolkien was not setting out to write ´literature´, [...]though he may, with growing certainty have been setting out to write mythology." (Moseley, 52; my italics). This included realigning the focus away from individual characters, as in cosmical myths people have to step behind and give the universal aspect the lead. It is like W. H. Auden said of Tolkien; that Shakespeare created characters and developments, whereas Tolkien created worlds and myths (comp. Murray, A. : Das Tolkien Quizbuch, 67. Klett-Cotta, o.J.,o.O.)
There were three main reasons for Tolkien doing so: his philological interest which drew him towards myth, his wish for expressing his poetry in an appropriate medium, and, not to the least extent, his intention of giving England, "the most demythologised country in Europe" (Shippey, 268), a mythology it never had over the past centuries, as a result of the Norman invasion in 1066 and the Industrial Revolution.
One aspect of The Lord of the Rings is what nowadays can be simply called Fantasy, the fiction of peoples, places, and circumstances unreal in the normal world. Most of this cosmology is found in folk- and fairy tales of older times, and also in the higher form of folk tradition, the Sagas, ballads and epics. Some of these sources which inspired Tolkien were undoubtedly the poem Pearl and Sir Orfeo, to a high degree Beowulf, the Icelandic Elder Edda, and also the Nibelungenlied (though not the Wagner version). In them, and in old folk ballads, the belief people had in creatures like dragons, elves and dwarves was reflected, and since Tolkien was a lore-master in this field, "the inconsistencies of those traditions may only have made Tolkien itch to create a Zusammenhang" (Shippey, 211).

Mythological resonances
He combined aspects of the respective creatures or phenomena to form the inhabitants and conditions of Middle-earth, sometimes developing something "from scrap", from a single word or idea - like the mentioning of orcs in Beowulf, a Mirkwood in the Lokasenna and Hlodhskvidha of the Poetic Edda, or the idea of a forest coming to life and attacking in Shakespeare´s MacBeth; which Tolkien brought to real movement, literally speaking, as he disliked the idea that the forest in the drama did not really charge. Elves are a blending of several sources, leaving out a bit from this one, for example the ´changeling´ idea, and adding a bit from that one, like the characteristics of the Celtic dwellers in the otherworld, the Tuatha Dé Danaan. Similarly, the dwarves are almost entirely inspired by those from the Edda, but passed their habit of turning to stone in the sun, which is a central trait of them there, on to the Trolls, and in turn got the Rumpelstiltskin-aspect of not telling anyone their real names, which can be found in Grimm´s fairy tales. (comp. Shippey, 106).
The human peoples were modelled after legends, too; but they also show - after all, they are men - traits common in reality and history. For example, the Rohirrim, of which Tolkien said they resembled the ancient English only in language and in the circumstances they are put in intransitively, are actually at least very close to those Anglo-Saxons of legend and poetry (comp. Shippey, 112). A certain aspect of them is their native ferocity, which led Shippey to claim "They behave like mail-shirted Red Indians." (Shippey, 115). One reason for this, as Shippey points out, may be the way a land shapes its inhabitants; as the real Anglo-Saxons, and also those of legend, were typically Germanic in not being a horse-people (Caesar already mentions their habit of dismounting from their horses in battle in his De Bello Gallico). In response, Gondor seems like a parallel to Ancient Rome - more powerful, more civilised and advanced, but also more decadent in virtue.
The mythical role of Gandalf is also composed of different aspects obvious from different points of view: his resurrection in splendour on the hill in Fangorn forest reminds as well of Jesus as it does of Balder, the Teutonic god of justice, mercy and light, whose death marks the beginning of the world´s end and whose resurrection starts a new age. Gandalf´s self-sacrifice in Moria is similarly ambivalent: like Jesus, who died for his people; but also like Odin, who hung himself on the top of the world-tree Yggdrasil, and gained the knowledge of the Runes afterwards, and who sacrificed one eye to gain insight into fate, like Gandalf returns from death with new power. The central item of the novel, the Ring, can be seen as having its idol in Draupnir, Odin´s Ring of Power; though that would include contributing allegorical character to The Lord of the Rings; even though there are actually quite many other magic rings in myths and tales.
Middle-earth has a mythology itself, too, which mainly appears in the various songs; such as the Fall of Gil-Galad, a promethean character like an elven Icarus, or the Story of Beren and Luthien.
Another blending of existing cultures and their myths is found in the often overlooked field of numerical symbolism. Many figures, from important issues to small details, are composed of one of the two most common "sacred" numbers: 7 in the Jewish-Christian, i.e. biblical, tradition, and 3, and its products, the important figure in Norse and Christian tradition alike. As Tolkien explained, the elves themselves preferred to reckon in 6´s and 12´s, which are 2 X 3 and 4 X 3 (comp. LOTR, 1080). In the novel, symbolic numbers are frequent, as one would expect for a mythical tale: there are three elven rings, nine (three times three) rings of the mortal, and, thus, Ringwraiths; nine members of the Fellowship of the Ring which departs from Rivendell; 27 (nine times three, three times three times three) steps up to the tower of Orthanc; and Denethor is the 27th ruling steward of Gondor. Concerning the number of seven, there are seven rings of the dwarves; seven Palantíri, the seeing stones of old; seven stars of Elendil, which are also found in Aragorn´s standard; and seven walls and towers of Minas Tirith. A combination of three and seven is the number of orcs slain by Gimli in the battle at Helm´s Deep: 42, two times three times seven, or six times seven. There are assuredly more examples of such kind, but in no way can one number or field of numbers actually be associated with a specific culture in Middle-earth alone.

The novel as a myth
The fact, which I hopefully have already made clear, that some topoi exist on certain mythological aspects among different perceptions, and between Tolkien´s Roman Catholic point of view and that of others; that there are "narrative elements in the Gospel which have analogues in other myths and other cultures" (Moseley, 27) which Tolkien was aware of, this fact is acknowledged by Tolkien through his belief that "myth, and structures of narrative[...]are essentially true, grounded in a greater Truth"(Moseley,27).
Tolkien said, "The significance of a myth is not easily to be pinned on paper by analytical reasoning." (Moseley, 25). Indeed, this is absolutely true to the fact that the mythology of The Lord of the Rings can never be grasped as a whole, because it is still distant from us, and we can simply never live in Middle-earth. What the novel has in it regarding myth and mythology, is but the "uncertainty and the glimpses of an alien world that defies understanding." (Shippey, 100; my italics). What one thinks to understand is thus mostly what seems familiar to him: most readers see resonances in myths they know (comp. Shippey, 102). It is the reader´s perception, too, which decides the level and style of a myth, or if and what mythical meaning something has. For some scenes and settings, different levels of suggestion are possible, from myth, behind which one suspects a greater meaning; low mimesis, when there is a faint air of a higher, yet unreachable concept; and irony, if you take things with uncertain background cum grano salis, with a bit of wit (comp. Shippey, 198).
In what way then is The Lord of the Rings as a whole a myth, for certainly it has its mythology? If you take Northrop Frye´s definition "the hero is a divine being and the story about him will be a myth" (Shippey, 190), then you can justify the mythic status of the novel when taking into account the divine aspects of Gandalf, as a Maia, a lesser kind of a god; the elves, who are immortal, and Frodo, who has traits fashioned after Jesus Christ: mercy and pity. Another criterion provided by Shippey is The Lord of the Rings as "a story embodying the deepest feelings of a particular society at a particular time" (Shippey, 184); and, defining the novel with a single expression, it would be a "myth against discouragement" or a "myth of the Deconversion" (Shippey, 184).
__BACK__

VI. Philosophy and cosmos

Religion and religious background
Most, if not all, of the philosophy in The Lord of the Rings is based on Tolkien´s own Roman Catholic view of life. In this, like in many fields of his fiction, Tolkien had a distinctive opinion with a sense and understanding for the archaic, which took thoughts from as far back as the earliest church founders. The God-given task of creating in the name of the Lord underlies Tolkien´s attitude of being merely an editor, a sub-creator. The sub-world he created is rooted in our reality, which is in turn rooted in God himself. This way, the transcendental spirit can be said to underlie all of the book, just like his Christian "views underlie all the fiction of Tolkien" (Moseley, 11). This alignment of his fiction in a certain way towards the metaphysical is due to the belief in the better after-world in comparison to earth, which is central in Christianity; as St Augustine, a church father who wrote De Civitate Dei - The City of God - put it, "here is no eternal city, here is no abiding stay." (Moseley, 13). Man was put by God in the responsibility to create, and so it is logical that in the creation of a faithful Christian, "the mind of God may be read" (Moseley, 20). In Tolkien´s belief, man was a fallen being, in need of the forgiveness and grace of the Lord, who loves his creation and brings it to new glory after a great end; after a great conflict between the fundamentally divided Good and Evil. These forces, Moseley points out, turn the universe into "a place of struggle" (Moseley, 60). Middle-earth certainly is such a place, it is a "battleground of constant moral conflict" (Moseley, 63), and the ideological stances make the conflict more terrible than as if it was a materialistic struggle, because evil takes delight in its deeds for their own sake, not because of the benefits of maliciousness. In this cosmology, evil always has the initiative, and an initial advantage. Because of this, it appears at first like a hopeless struggle of the small against the endless power of darkness, but in the end, not least due to celestial intervention, the powers of good are always triumphant.
This stance derives from two different views of evil Shippey explains in his "Road to Middle-earth" : Boethian and Manichaean. In the view of Boethius, an early Christian philosopher, evil is actually nothing, merely the absence of good; thus it cannot create and is itself not created. As it cannot exist where there is good, it is bound to lose eventually. The Manichaean view is that evil is real and poses an immediate threat. The balance of good and evil causes an eternal struggle of both forces (comp. Shippey, 128f.). To cut it short, Boethian evil is the lack of good, where Manichaean evil exists per se as a counterpart of good. This contrast is reflected in the nature of the Ring: it is uncertain whether it is like a sentient being of its own, which corrupts its bearers out of its own maliciousness, or whether it is just an item which amplifies thoughts and intentions already existent in the minds of the ring-bearers. The question of evil thus is whether it is "an inner temptation or an external power" (Shippey, 131). Tolkien shows a combination of both views in his novel, but a tendency towards the Boethian view can be read from his attitude towards an epitome of evil in Middle-earth, shadows: "Shadows are the absence of light and so don´t exist in themselves, but they are still visible and palpable just as if they did. That is exactly Tolkien´s view of evil." (Shippey, 133; my italics).
The approach the good must make towards evil is, apart from the courageous fight (which will be a topic of mine later), the treatment of evil with good. Responding to it with pity and mercy, like Frodo did on Gollum, is the highest aim in the conflict of both sides. In The Lord of the Rings, it is like Jesus said: "Forgive and be forgiven.". In contrast, it is often the case that "evil deeds further the cause of the good." (Jacobsen, l. 528f.). Such examples are Boromir´s assault on Frodo, which caused Frodo to leave the party and find his own way into Mordor - which he did successfully -, or Gollum´s bite which cost Frodo his Ring-finger, destroying the Ring forever.
The influence evil has on the good side is mainly that of temptation, of bringing the good away from their righteous intentions. It worked with the dwarves who went to Moria and eventually dug out the Balrog-demon out of greed, it also worked with Saruman who was tempted and corrupted by his greed for power and knowledge. In his case, evil, in the form of corruption, turned the most powerful of the good into an ally of its worst enemy: corruptio optimi pessima, as goes the Latin proverb. For sure, the fall of the good is one important topic of The Lord of the Rings.

The philosophy of The Lord of the Rings
The philosophy of life which is apparent in The Lord of the Rings wholly develops around the central conflict of good versus evil, and the Ring, as an item of evil, but in the hands of the good, is, in its nature, both a mirror of the whole constellation, and the item for which the war is actually fought. The responsibility everyone has to fight evil is due to the consequences the conflict will have in any way: loss and change are inevitable, and every inhabitant of Middle-earth is forced to choose his stance and, if on the good side, defend the threatened homeliness; because all refuges will be extinguished by the Dark Lord if the resistance lacks decisiveness: the Shire, Lórien, Rivendell will all perish. As Tolkien certainly was more interested in the complex of morality and values, it is also consequent that he turned towards the "big scale", being "interested less in the specific social than in the generic human." (Moseley, 65). The inevitability of moral choice which men are confronted with casts a spot on the predicament of humanity in the novel. This is for sure pessimistic, but not desperating; Tolkien would not have admitted such an attitude on the side of the good in Middle-earth. The characters in the novel do not have the possibility to realise it, but the outcome will be, that eventually evil will prove too wicked to be victorious; what the characters see is only their situation in which the fight against evil is inevitable, and where their judgement still has to stay the same righteous one. The fate of one person is signed once he made up his mind.
Still, Tolkien proves his skills as a writer in depicting the other side, too: the one of those who do not have a choice or make the wrong one still with good intentions, and he also gives examples of characters who choose not to choose: these are virtually neutral characters. Leif Jacobsen explains this in detail in his essay "The Undefinable Shadowland - A study of the complex question of dualism in The Lord of the Rings". Boromir, Gollum and Tom Bombadil are all exceptions from the black-white scheme Tolkien is often accused of. Boromir makes the morally wrong choice, but never with any evil intentions, only influenced by the Ring. Tom Bombadil, on the other hand, who chooses not to take part in the conflict at all, who, in this field, neglects his moral duty, is still seen as more positive as Boromir is by most. Gollum is different from both in the way that he does not care about anything else than only himself, and the longing for the Ring he is poisoned with. He shuns the evil side of Sauron as much as he would be reluctant to evil deed if he was not incited to it, be it by craving for the Ring, or be it by the derogatory treatment by Sam.
The Ring, apart from its influence as a tempter, is also item of an important philosophical attitude: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".(Shippey, 124). Here Tolkien makes the step from mythology to philosophy, and the thought expressed is actually quite modern. Not only does the greed for power cause people to act in an unjust and egoistic way, but also does its possession influence a person negatively, even turning good into evil. Just like the ring exposes its bearer by amplifying his emotions, does power reveal the true character of a person once he is in a position where he can afford to ignore precautions. Another, even more modern thought is the addiction the ring causes; and this is very close to real, i.e. drug-, addiction: it controls mind and body, one´s action, and still it can be restrained, like drugs can be. This is why Gollum, weak of willpower and knowing of no evil of the ring, succumbs wholly to it, and why others are able to withstand: those of the most noble of mind, like Gandalf and Galadriel, and those of the purest of heart, such as Sam, prove those of Tolkien´s critics wrong who claimed there was such thing as an unrealistic temptation of the Ring; it only takes a willpower strong enough, which some do not have who still need not to be wicked at all. This whole perception of power as corruptive, exposing and addictive is a contrast to many an old opinion, where abuse of power was not as much a concern as was powerlessness; and where it was meant to be the goal of human longing, and its notoriousness was a virtue - as Henry Kissinger said, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac".
The transcendental forces are the neutral factor for both good and evil, and their role in The Lord of the Rings is mainly that of co-operating with the earthly actions and responding to them. Although these powers of fate, luck and fortune are inconstant, posing a "basic denial of security throughout The Lord of the Rings" (Shippey, 138), they still seem to be affected in some way by the events in the war. The decisions the characters make are thus a blending, a "continuos interplay of providence and free will" (Shippey, 137). In the novel, there is no such thing as total dependence from luck, and mostly there is no possibility of totally free choice. Courage, optimism and toughness seem to make an impression with the forces of fate: fortuna fortes adiuvat, "Fortune aids the brave", is the antique proverb for this circumstance. It is not a "biased fortune", which some critics believed to have seen in the novel, but one which helps the one who helps himself. Tolkien did show a certain soft-heartedness, for example in the surviving of Sam´s pony Bill, but when luck aids the hobbits in Mordor, it is due to their spirit of never giving up, not just to the author directing things in an unrealistic way. Providence is also a central item, especially the providence which brought Aragorn the crown. People in Middle-earth are sometimes bound to actions dictated long ago by the powers of fate, not only Elessar, but also the fall of the Lord of the Nazgûl is prophesied. The end, a happy ending, is predicated too; but all this does not flaw or infiltrate the course of events and their likeliness, because things could have taken a different way were it not for the glorious deeds of the free people, and because there are casualties: Lórien is to perish, along with the elves in Middle-earth; the dwarves are about to dwindle; there are casualties in battle, such as Théoden and Boromir, and, not least for Tolkien, much beauty is to be lost along with all these things.

Values and virtues of Middle-earth
It is from what I explained above - religiosity and philosophy - that the values apparent in The Lord of the Rings derive. Such values and ethics, which were common in the time and surroundings of J. R. R. Tolkien are at least partially found in the novel. The concentration on the WASP, the White Anglo-Saxon Person, is as visible as is the patriarchal organisation of life. In Middle-earth, there certainly is male domination, and countries are led by archetypal warrior kings. They, their rightful kingship, and their development into it are also a main topic of the whole novel, with the characters of Aragorn, Théoden, Éomer, Faramir, Denethor as examples of medieval-style rulers. Paradigms for the righteous kings Tolkien depicts, partly with the exception of Denethor, can be taken from the earliest sources: the Kings of Israel, David and Salomon, the Roman Emperor Augustus, and, highest of all, Jesus Christ, rex iudaeorum - the king of the Jews, the Romans called him - as the ideal of the just and noble ruler and king, the rex iustus. The eurocentrism of the novel, as it might be called, leads to what can now be seen as racial stereotypes, with the swarthy and mean Southlanders; yet such parallels do not have a racist origin in Tolkien, they are only there to explain the view of the people of the north and west, and how they see the foreigners - bear in mind that the story is told by the winners.
Love between the genders is not a major feature of the novel. This is in part due to the roles of the sexes in the world of Middle-earth, where women are distant, if beautiful, and preserved from the business of war and policy. Elf women are a bit of an exception, like Galadriel, but the other exception, Éowyn, who tries to break out from her preconceived role, can only find freedom in the archaic image of being a shield-maiden of ancient style. Central values thus are the fellowship among men, brotherhood, mutual support and loyalty. One could dare to say, these are the positive values of the ethics of the Third Reich, with Kameradschaft at its heart, a term including all those above, to prove Tolkien´s critics wrong of calling him a WWII novelist. Love is a topic in the cases of love for things, places, one´s family and friends. Concerning love in the novel, it is once again not the close examination of an experience that matters; what "does matter is the shape and force of the story, the mythos" (Moseley, 64).
Such vagueness in certain fields only stresses the importance of the ultimate interest of Tolkien: the morality. The morally bad side is of course the evil side, but its manifestation is remarkably that of modernity: Saruman is the prime example for this. His intrusion into the world of Middle-earth with policy, modernity and progress, poses the destruction of the old and beloved, like the mill in the Shire. Denethor is an example for the weaknesses of the civilised cultures, too: his self-assuredment, "over-subtlety, selfishness, abandonment of the ´theory of courage´" (Shippey, 118) (the latter explained in detail below) are all marks of modern decadence.
The counterpart to this which Tolkien provided was the typically "Northern ´theory of courage´ [...] whose central item is that even ultimate defeat does not turn right into wrong." (Shippey, 109). The role model for this is the Norse apocalypse, Ragnarokr, in which the gods, the Aesir and Vanya, are inevitably defeated, each one knowing about his own death - Odin being slain by Fenrir the wolf, Thor dying when felling the Midgard serpent -, but they do not refute. The gods know about the outcome of the final battle against the giants, but their courage of not succumbing to evil, temptation and refutation made a great impression with Tolkien. Partially, this northern virtue is due to the Teutonic belief of the afterlife, where the warriors slain on the battlefield are resurrected and join Odin´s legion in Valhalla to fight on Doomsday: the Einherjer. Théoden, probably the most northern of all characters in The Lord of the Rings, hints on exactly this belief in his moment of agony, since his last words are "I go to my fathers"; he speaks of "their mighty company" and of "a golden sunset" (LOTR, 824).
But, Christian as he is, Tolkien also gives prospect to a new "ultimate" yet milder bravery: "laughter, cheerfulness, refusal to look into the future at all" (Shippey, 142). This is demonstrated by the hobbits, especially Sam, with his habit of not knowing what lies ahead but still going, not caring what follows. As he already explains after the meeting of elves on the way to Buckland in the Shire, "I know we are going to take a very long road, into darkness; but I know I can´t turn back. [...] I have something to do before the end, and it lies ahead, not in the Shire. I must see it through [...]." (LOTR, 85). Sam and Frodo keep up this attitude on their way to Mount Doom constantly.
The hobbits, although they are certainly not the ideal of courage and bravery, are nevertheless important for Tolkien´s presentation of recommended virtues. As T. A. Shippey explains, " In The Lord of the Rings he had learnt - by mixing hobbits in with heroes - to present them [i.e. the virtues Shippey lists on the preceding page, ´stoicism, nonchalance, piety, fidelity´] relatively unprovocatively." (Shippey, 240). In this regard, he did compromise with modern times and taste a bit, as these virtues, as high as they are held in the novel, are distant from the average nowadays reader.
The contrast of Pagan (courage) and Christian (piety, mercy) virtues is solved by Tolkien by mediating between heathen and Christian; by telling "a story of virtuous pagans in the darkest of dark pasts, before all but the faintest premonitions of dawn and salvation" (Shippey, 180). Tolkien provides a prospect of salvation for the heroic pagans in the novel, and those of other literature, like Beowulf, and he gives a model of "elementary virtue existing without the support of religion" (Shippey, 184), as there naturally was no Christian religion yet. By hovering between heathen and Christian, fatalism and salvation, Tolkien can be said to translate "the wisdom of ancient epic [...] into a whole new sequence of doubts, decisions, sayings, rituals" (Shippey, 113). It is not to the least extent exactly this what makes The Lord of the Rings a myth of cosmical and philosophical dimensions.

Myth versus philosophy
Defining both myth and philosophy naturally points out the differences between the two. Still, both can be found in The Lord of the Rings, and both seem to be handled with the same care by the author, not preferring one in contrast to the other, although the levels are different. The resurrection of the writing of myth, which Tolkien underwent, is certainly due to a fundamental need which is not satisfied thoroughly enough in our scientific, technical world where the magic of imagination and fiction is almost suppressed (comp. v. Müffling, 11). Philosophy has, in turn, found more and more people interested in it, sometimes turning it into low popular-philosophy. Where myth generally appeals to religiosity and emotions, philosophy appeals to the intellect, the mind (comp. v. Müffling, 12). The vividness and rich imagination myth possesses in contrast to philosophy (comp. v. Müffling, 11), is why it became popular with The Lord of the Rings; it is the novel´s philosophy of life that lets it stand proud in company of other great works in the history of literature.
__BACK__

VII. The question of allegory in The Lord of the Rings

The origins of allegories
The point that many people see The Lord of the Rings as allegorical has different reasons, recent history being probably the most immediate one. It cannot be denied, though, that non-literary and cultural phenomena led, to a certain degree, to a growing interest in the novel, boosting its success. There are undoubtedly many things which can be seen as parallels to historical events or a certain view of life, but Tolkien makes clear that allegory, which would be using characters and events in the novel only to convey his message, and not for the sake of the story, never was his intention. Seeing, how many people abused his books for their interpretations, he wrote in the foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, "As for any inner meaning or ´message´, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical." (LOTR, xvi). Tolkien brings the argument against the often heard allegory of World War II, that the outline of the story was there way before 1939. On allegory, he further notices, "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations. [...] many confuse ´applicability´ with ´allegory´; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." (LOTR, xvii). Elsewhere, Tolkien gives another stance towards this treatment of his works: "an allegorical description of an event does not make that event itself allegorical." (Moseley, 76; quoted from Pearl and Sir Orfeo).
It may be the case that "this rejection of allegory could be seen an invitation to see if it will fit" (Moseley, 76); but mainly it was Tolkien´s view of history which denied allegorical meaning. "History, thought Tolkien, was varied in its applicability. But if you understood it properly, you saw it repeating itself." (Shippey, 152; my italics). Exactly this repetition of history can be read from The Lord of the Rings; not a modelling after certain history, but a portraying of a common piece of human history which war is a main shaping factor of. This way, the novel is allegorical, but not for a certain and single circumstance, but for the flow and the events of human history as a whole. Reducing the novel to a single concern is different from making applications with symbolic events in the way that "the symbolic allows the reader and his recognition a part in the creation of significance, the allegorical denies that chance." (Moseley, 72). Because history is repeating itself in a way, application is naturally possible, as it is with most events happening in real life; a new war can almost always be compared with and seen as parallel to one before it.
But application can almost not be excluded when reading The Lord of the Rings: "The real point is that Tolkien´s theories about nature, evil, luck and our perception of the world generated as a sort of by-product modern applications and political ones." (Shippey, 155). Any allegory or application has therefore to be handled with care, and most allegories can, in the sense of the author, be refuted at least so much that there only remain undetailed parallels, as I am about to demonstrate.

Historical allegories
The most common sort of allegory for The Lord of the Rings is calling Tolkien a war-writer and the book a reflection of a historical war, either the first or second World War, or the Cold War. World War I is there mostly seen only as an influence on Tolkien, his experiences in the Somme dictating the description of landscape and countryside in Mordor, and causing him to demonize progress and technology. Tolkien admitted that Sam Gamgee is modelled after several soldiers in the 1914 war, the privates and army batmen (comp. Kessler, 1f.). Like in both wars, the enemy in The Lord of the Rings is not seen as a mass of individuals and humans, but as a collective entity. But these are merely parallels, and certainly not the whole complex of the novel. What is more, one can say for sure that Tolkien would have started to shun Germanic lore, had World War I been a really deep influence.
Using the novel as an allegory of World War II is frequent, and it is true that close parallels can be drawn in several things. Denethor and Saruman remind the attentive reader of puppet governments, Vichy and collaboration like Quisling´s. As an allegory, Warren Lewis said: "A great deal of it can be read topically - the Shire standing for England, Rohan for France, Gondor the Germany of the future, Sauron for Stalin..." (Kessler, 3). A blending of World War II with the Cold War is often found in this field of allegory, and some students in "England and the US read off from Tolkien´s books a political mythology for that time of a Cold War which could easily have become a hot one" (Moseley, 72); while others adopted Tolkien´s dislike for progress for their Green movement. Different events and conditions in the novel lead to several interpretations regarding World War II; mainly comparing Sauron with Hitler and the Ring with the atomic bomb. The comparison that orcs are products of genetic cross breeding, goes in this direction, reminding of the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele on Jews in Auschwitz.
But all those allegories of Sauron being Hitler, allied with Saruman standing for the USSR and battling against the western allies of Gondor and Rohan are flawed, not least because of mistakes and historical deficits of the respective authors. The personification of Hitler standing for all evil of Nazi-Germany is still only the most neglectable mistake. Skeparnides, for example, proves it has been a long time since he has visited school and learned about the second World War, by dating the German invasion of Russia, the Operation of Barbarossa, back to 1943, where in turn it was 1941 (comp. Skeparnides, l. 101). Michael Tagge is no better, or historically more correct, when claiming that "Hitler [sic!] experimented with a variety of genetic experiments in order to produce the Aryan race." (Tagge, l. 57f.; my stresses). Neither did Hitler undertake a single experiment himself, nor did the Nazis want to "produce the Aryan race" - nothing could be more away from the truth, because the self-assured Nazis firmly believed that the Germans were the ultimate embodiment of the superior Aryan race; why then should they have tried to produce it? The terrible experiments of Dr. Mengele had different "aims". Another grave mistake of his is claiming that, "In Europe, most of the languages are romance languages, all except German. German is very different from any other European language." (Tagge, l. 151 f.). Tolkien, as a philologist, would rotate in his grave. Tagge there completely ignores the relations of the Germanic (!) languages of German, English, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic and others, even Yiddish.
The various allegories themselves can, independently from the above, be rejected, like the one mentioned in The Road to Middle-earth: the Ring standing for the A-bomb, being seized and used against Sauron, who would be enslaved and Barad-dûr occupied. Saruman is able to gain the knowledge for making a Great Ring of his own in Mordor. One can say that the parallels are exact, Sauron being the Axis powers, the free people the Western allies, and Saruman the USSR (comp. Shippey, 316). However, this is evidently not The Lord of the Rings; it is only that, had the novel been meant as a World War II allegory, this is how the plot would have to be; in fact it is not meant this way, proving this allegory wrong. It would be no war novel anyway, as it is certainly not an anti-war novel. Furthermore, when Tagge writes that "The battle in Mordor and the Ring being destroyed and therefore ending the war reminds me of the late stages of World War II, when the US dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima" (Tagge, l. 97 ff.), he neglects two important things. For one, the bomb on Hiroshima was only the first, followed by the one on Nagasaki; this way, this parallel is not maintainable. What is more, casting the Ring into the fire was a deed of saving lives, of reducing potential of destruction, whereas the bombing of Japan was the total opposite. Skeparnides unwillingly says precisely what is the quintessence of all this : that the Ring War is "a direct parallel to both World Wars and human history." (Skeparnides, l. 96 f.). The Lord of the Rings, as a parallel of human history in general, can of course not be reduced to be a parallel to a single event, and by no means can Tolkien be assumed to have done so.

Ideological allegories
Tolkien has also often been accused of, or been admired for, conveying an ideological or philosophical stance through his allegedly allegorical novel. Rosemary Jackson called Tolkien´s high fantasy "a conservative vehicle for social and instinctual repression" (Moseley, 72) and a confirmation of a bankrupt middle class. Whatever the portrayal of gender and class in The Lord of the Rings may have caused in certain readers, it cannot be denied that the novel is so close to medieval and ancient style that these cannot be arguments against Tolkien - and you cannot accuse the medieval poets for it. The same goes for Skeparnides, calling Tolkien, along with Shakespeare (!), an "overseer [...] of this male value system" (Skeparnides, l. 31 f.).
A very different stance comes from the Norwegian musician and pagan activist Varg Vikernes, currently still imprisoned for murder. He claims that Tolkien depicted the evil side as a mirror of heathendom, and compares Barad-dûr with Odin´s throne Hlidhskjalf, the Ring with Draupnir and Sauron´s all-seeing eye with Odin´s one eye (comp. Moynihan, 150). Whereas the trolls seem to him like Norse Berserkers, and the Uruk-Hai like Ulfhethnar - werewolves -, the elves appear "typically Jewish" to him, "arrogant, saying ´We are the chosen ones´" (Moynihan, 150). This derives from Vikernes´ unique view of good and evil, differing from the normal, western, Christian philosophy: "But even though Burzum [the name of his band - the author] means darkness, it´s really the light of Odin. Darkness is light." (Moynihan, 151). It is true that the wolf element which appears on Sauron´s side is typically heathen and that wolves were sacred to Odin; and one could even further the radical view of Vikernes by comparing the longing of the elves for Valinor with the longing of the Jewish people for Zion.
But what even Vikernes must notice is the "heathenness" on the side of the good, too: Gandalf, as an Odin-like wanderer, the dwarves with their runes, and the Rohirrim with their Anglo-Saxon, and, thus, Germanic, image. Yet more prominently against Vikernes´ stance is the actual belief of Tolkien: "he had little tolerance for real pagan myths or for naive mythiciers" (Shippey, 178); and Tolkien was, as a Christian, still not less opposed to paganism because of his interest in the north: "He had no doubt that paganism itself was weak and cruel" (Shippey, 179), denying the frequent image of the "noble pagan".

Allegorical elements in the novel
A more understandable and moderate view is that Tolkien did not intentionally write allegory, but could, as a human being, not entirely keep out allegorical elements. For Skeparnides, the outcome of the conflict "provide[s] a powerful allegorical message." (Skeparnides, l. 90 f.), and he asserts that a fictional world like Middle-earth can be only be built on characteristics of the real world. Still, the weak point of his essay is, that in contrast to Tolkien´s statement, he tried to prove the existence of allegories within the novel as intentional and inevitable. This is, as the author would affirm, wrong, whereas the point that parallels may be there unintentionally, unconsciously put in by Tolkien, is an argument not found in the essays discussed above.
Michael Tagge tries to prove his claim "If ´fantasy is based on hard fact´ (Ready, 177), then The Lord of The Rings is completely based on historical events, lands, religion, governments, and other works by different authors" (Tagge, l. 151 f.) by providing the example of the Forodwaith people who are modelled after Eskimos.
As I hope to have made clear above, such parallels are not modelled after reality, but simply always apparent where there are human beings described; in this case, any people living in an ice desert would behave like Eskimos and like the Forodwaith people.

Some answers to the question of allegory
Apparent from all those assumptions, interpretations and allegories is mainly one thing: that "the sense of a hidden significance in the book led readers to impose many allegorical readings on it which said as much about their own needs and values as about the book" (Moseley, 76). This is actually the quintessence of what is behind inventing allegories: everyone makes one fit for his own philosophy. This is, of course, reductive, as a good allegory would demand to take up "every single detail [...] into the scheme of parallel meanings of a single notation, and this cannot be done with his [i.e. Tolkien´s] work" (Moseley, 77). Like Mordor and its evil, the concept is "cosmic in significance rather than contemporary" (Moseley, 77). It is like Tolkien said in Beowulf, "large symbolism is near the surface, but [...] does not break through, nor become allegory" (Shippey, 152). This fits as well onto The Lord of the Rings, as allegory would inevitably mean that the novel had only one meaning; and this alone proves almost all allegories wrong - had Tolkien had an allegorical intention, then still all of those assumptions would be wrong except the single one which Tolkien really would have meant.
Concerning the applicability of human history and of human mythology, it definitely is "risky business finally to draw a Tolkienian ´inner meaning´ from these various ´applicabilities´" (Shippey, 155).
The topics of the novel are far too cosmic to be allegorical - good versus evil is far too often found -, but the wide spectrum nevertheless leaves the reader plenty of room for his own applicabilities, he only could not assume them to be the single inner meaning of it. Parallels may well fit, but it is another case whether they are true to Tolkien´s intentions - most of them are not. In any conflict, you can align one or another side to those of The Lord of the Rings; even more so if you do not agree with the Tolkienian conception of good and evil. It is probably only the disbelief of people in Tolkien´s greatness of imagination which led them to accuse him of allegorical, biased, or reality-copying writing.
In my humble opinion, giving the novel such allegorical meanings as those described above, reminds me of a habit of the ancient Romans who thought foreign gods were nothing but their own Roman gods, only under a different name. They then named them after their own deities, destroying that of the foreign gods which did not fit into their scheme. There is one suitable expression for both habits: plain reductionism.
__BACK__

Epilogue
It is obvious that this essay can only glimpse on the vast realm of Tolkien´s works and the illustrious world of Middle-earth. Yet, what it tries to be in short, is a starting point for serious debate, with the maxim of unbiased and objective reading and interpreting. Anything else would be unworthy of the legacy of the great author J. R. R. Tolkien was. The popularity of the novel - British book stores elected it the book of the century, as did many polls on the Internet - inevitably includes a large number of readers who take the book as propaganda, which it is not. We should far more be thankful for a piece of myth which brings us spirit and emotion into the cold and ratio-dominated world of technique and modern literature. To come back to the beginning, and, thus, to form - how fitting - a ring, the movie can only be looked forward to if all allegories are kept out and Tolkien´s views in - we do, for example, not need orcs in Nazi uniforms; but anything else apart from "biased filming" is welcome.

Abbreviations and bibliography of consulted works

Primary sources

Secondary sources

__BACK__