Life-Giving Ladies: Women in the Writings of J.R.R. Tolkien

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The St. Austin Review, a Catholic cultural journal, is dedicating its July/August issue to "The Catholic Genius of J.R.R. Tolkien" they have posted a pdf of the table of contents on their website at http://staustinreview.com/2008/06/22/julyaugust-2008/ and it looks pretty interesting. They also have posted a pdf of one of the full articles in the issue, "Life-Giving Ladies: Women in the Writings of J.R.R. Tolkien" by Sandra Miesel. It is very interesting read. She makes a few points that I think are debatable, but overall, I think it is a solid piece (and not particularly oriented towards Catholicism, except for a few references to comparisons of Mary and mostly Galadriel). I think it would be worth discussing if others are interested in reading it.

It can be downloaded at: http://staustinreview.com/assets/july08/miesel.pdf

[ArathornJax]

Tried to get into it and their server must be down right now. Then again it is late at night, almost 2am here, and that could be it.

[Rowanberry]

At least now the link worked.

Yes, a very interesting article, although some of the author's interpretations seem a bit far-fetched to me; like, the One Ring as a feminine entity? Also, I believe Tolkien made quite clear that Míriel's "failure in her responsibilities as wife and mother" is an early symptom of Melkor's marring of Arda.

But, in one thing I do agree with Miesel: that Tolkien was entirely too enamored of identifying Galadriel with the Virgin Mary, especially late in his life. In my opinion, turning Galadriel the Rebel into Galadriel the Saint only diminishes the character by making her more unrealistic, and is a bit of a "Greedo shoots first" kind of change.

[solicitr]

I did like this observation, though:

Distraught after Aragorn’s
death, Arwen lays herself down and dies of
grief on the hill where they first met. It is
the last recorded act of an elf woman in
their race’s history, balancing an earlier
queen’s death by depression at the start of
the Elder Days.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I liked the observation, too. What I didn't like was trying to force a parallel between Sam and Rosie's romance and Aragorn and Arwen's romance. I thought that was ridiculous.

But not as ridiculous as the Ring as Sauron's female essence. I completely agree with you about that, Rowan.

[vison]

I liked the observation, too. What I didn't like was trying to force a parallel between Sam and Rosie's romance and Aragorn and Arwen's romance. I thought that was ridiculous.

Why?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll have to re-read that part of the essay to properly answer that question, which I will try to do later. But in the meanwhile, let me ask you whether you read the essay, and if so, whether you thought that the parallel that she tries to make betweeen the two romances is meritorious.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I just wrote a fairly long response to your question, vison, and it got et. I'll have to try again some other time.

[vison]

I'll have to re-read that part of the essay to properly answer that question, which I will try to do later. But in the meanwhile, let me ask you whether you read the essay, and if so, whether you thought that the parallel that she tries to make betweeen the two romances is meritorious.

The thing is, I intensely dislike any imputation that somehow Sam and Rosie's romance is not "high" because they themselves are not "high" enough. It smacks of "class" and I sometimes have a hard time defending Tolkien to myself. This is where I was going with my assertion on another thread that he was one of the "ruling class" or one of the establishment: some say he had what many people see as the middle class love of a lord.

I have been in many jolly arguments on this very subject, although not particularly often on the actual romance/marriage itself. One of the real failings of LOTR, and it is one of VERY few to me, is what seems like the sudden and unprecedented mention of Sam's longing for Rosie 'way into the story. I wish Tolkien had revised it ever so slightly, just a little mention of Rosie and moonlight at the party. (PJ got that bit, although not at all in a way I liked very much.)

See, if I lived in Middle Earth, I'd be a Hobbit. My Dad was Sam to a T. I am a common person, I would never have been an Elf and certainly never a Maia. I wouldn't even have made it to the Dúnedain! I thought one of the most profound things in LOTR, the one that redeemed Tolkien from snobbery, was when Aragorn bent his knee to Sam and Frodo.

Tolkien was a man of his time. There was nothing revolutionary in his ideas, at least as far as I've read. But he stepped just one step ahead of his contemporaries in his exaltation of Sam Gamgee at the Field of Cormallen.

As for Frodo. Well, Frodo fell between two stools, didn't he? He had that Elvish air, that scent of Númenor. He was destined for Valinor. It was not a happy destiny.

Tolkien saw himself as Beren, his wife as Lúthien. I would, in the bottom of my heart, like it better if he saw himself as Sam and Edith as Rosie. I am being mean, maybe. He had that Victorian adoration of an idealized maiden/woman (complete with rivers of sable hair drifting on the breeze in the moonlight . . .) that had nothing to do with the realities of human existence. I sometimes think of his convoluted and sad notions of Elven sex and reproduction.

So he gave Sam and Rosie 13 children and the Elves? One or two. Or none. And it wasn't the children, it was the sex that made them, if you follow me.

At any rate, I think the author of the article was stretching things with the comparison but I wish she wasn't. It wasn't her, it was Tolkien.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

First of all, I realized after the fact that I know who the author is. I knew the name sounded familiar, but I didn't place it at first. If you are reading this, Sandra, let me reiterate that I think overall it is a very good essay. Don't think that my criticism of one or two small passages reflects my overall opinion of the essay, because it does not. And besides, you will have an opportunity to get back at me by criticizing parts of my published work soon enough!

My primary objection to the comparison is a little different than vison's. Here's the part that I don't agree with:

The wedding of Rosie Cotton and Sam Gamgee is a humble parallel to that of Arwen and Aragorn. Each groom gains a bride of higher status whom he had no realistic chance of winning, and together they revitalize their land.

Setting aside vison's objections to the presence of any "class" divisions at all in LOTR, there simply is no evidence at all that Rosie was a "higher status" than Sam was in the way that the half-Elven Arwen was in comparison to the high Man, Aragorn. Tolkien specifically says that the Cotton family rise in status did not occur until after the Scouring. The Cottons were basically on the same social strata at the Gamgees; Sam even talks about Rosie's brothers and Rosie herself being his childhood playmates. Far from his having "no realistic chance of winning" her, she was his natural mate.

Nor is there any evidence at all that together they revitalized the Shire. There is no mention of Rosie at all during the time that Sam is working on fixing the damage that Sharkey and his men did, nor is there any indication that she helped him with his duties during his long tenure as Mayor. I suppose that it could be argued that she helped revitalize the Shire by giving birth to so many children, but that is really not comparable in any way with Arwen and Aragorn both restoring the the royal line of Gondor and Arnor, and reuniting the long-sundered branches of the Half-Elven.

I do agree that "Thoughts of Rosie encourage Sam in his darkest moments on the Ring quest" but that doesn't really justify calling the Rosie/Sam relationship a parallel to the Arwen/Aragorn relationship. That would be true of any couple who are separated by a dark and desperate quest.

As to your comments, vison, I agree that Sam and Rosie's romance was no less "high" than Arwen and Aragorn's. About the only real parallel that I see between the two situations is the one that you mention in criticizing Tolkien regarding Sam and Rosie's relationship: in both cases Tolkien barely mentions the relationship at all during the course of the quests. Whether that was a good or bad devise is a question worth considering, but I don't have an answer for it right now.

So he gave Sam and Rosie 13 children and the Elves? One or two. Or none. And it wasn't the children, it was the sex that made them, if you follow me.

I'm afraid I don't follow you; not at all. Can you clarify what you mean?

[Athrabeth]

I agree that Meisel's essay is pretty solid, although I don't really see much more depth to her assertions than can be found in any reasonably knowledgeable discussion of Tolkien's themes. It really is a more of a surface overview of the topic as opposed to a detailed and substantive examination. For example, she connects both Galadriel and Goldberry to the "feminine element" of water, but fails to expand that rather cursory observation into what could have been a deeper (and far more interesting, IMO) examination of the symbolic importance of water in Tolkien's works and how that meaning connects to both characters.

As for the Rosie/Sam, Arwen/Aragorn comparison:

The wedding of Rosie Cotton the hobbit maid and Sam Gamgee the Ring-bearer is a humble parallel to that of Arwen and Aragorn. Each groom gains a bride of higher status whom he had no realistic chance of winning, and together they revitalize their land. Thoughts of Rosie encourage Sam in his darkest moments on the Ring quest. She is his
source of hope and touchstone of normalcy, his garden’s perfect bloom.

Nope. I don't buy it. Especially the "source of hope" assertion. I know that in Mordor, Sam thinks back to swimming with the Cotton boys and their sister Rosie as memories of water assail him. Are there other specific references? None certainly spring to my mind. In "his darkest moments", Sam naturally thinks of the Shire - of its beauty and abundance and comforts - but Rosie? Where are we privy to thoughts of Rosie being his "source of hope and touchstone of normalcy"? I think Meisel is straining at reading between the lines with this one. I very much agree with vison, that such thoughts for Sam would have felt very "right and proper" to me.......but I guess not to Tolkien.

Although, to be fair, Tolkien did write (in Letter #131)

I think the simple 'rustic' love of Sam and his Rosie (nowhere elaborated) is absolutely essential to the study of his (the chief hero's) character, and to the theme of the relation of ordinary life (breathing, eating working, begetting) and quests, sacrifice, causes, and the 'longing for Elves', and sheer beauty.

The three heroines balance each other. Arwen complements Galadriel as future to past. Arwen’s fruitfulness renews the line of true kings and her land flourishes, but the rightful elf king never returned to Galadriel’s realm and her preserving powers fade.

I wonder what "rightful elf king" she had in mind? An heir of Amroth? I'm stumped on this one, too. No "rightful" lord of the Eldar could stop the fading of Lórien. Galadriel's "preserving powers" are greatly enhanced by the Ring of Adamant, which is diminished after the destruction of the One. It really is a very strange comment on Meisel's part.

Another cautionary tale on the limits of conventional femininity is the story of the ents and the entwives. The ents wander the most ancient forest shepherding trees but their mates the entwives settle down to
tame vegetation in orchards and gardens. The entwives’ absorption in their work, at the cost of procreating entlings, dooms their race.

Well, that certainly is an interesting take on the sad tale of the lost Entwives. I've always assumed that that they just got blasted and scattered in Sauron's scorched earth drive, having left the shadowy protection of Fangorn for the fields and meadows of adjacent lands: that's why there were no Entings for "a terrible long count of years". The Ents were just as absorbed in their "shepherding" as the Entwives were in their husbandry, after all, so why are the latter solely held as culpable for the doom of their race by Meisel? They grew apart. Being Ents, I rather think that they assumed they had close to an eternity to get back together. They were wrong. I agree that it's a cautionary tale, but one that's more about the perils of taking for granted the time we expect to have with those we love, or perhaps equally about not being able to find compromise in order to preserve and extend our closest relationships.

[vison]

Excellent posts, Voronwë and Athrabeth.

To explain what I mean when I say "it wasn't the children, it was the sex that made them". Well.

I very much wish I could find the cite for this, the subject arose on another site long ago. But the short version is that Tolkien explained, among other things, that for the Elves, once they had married and had a child or two, their sexual urge faded and died. Now, that is a very abbreviated explanation and as I said, I wish I could quote the actual thing. I can't remember now if this was in one of Tolkien's letters or elsewhere.

For a man of Tolkien's era, particularly a Catholic and particularly brought up as he was, the whole subject of *sex* was pretty fraught with pain and trouble. Fraught. indeed, I think he was describing what he wished it was like for a human man in England of the early 20th century. To be free of sexual desire, to be free of the fear of another child. . . and, at bottom, to know that he was like all men in the end, full of animal urges and not "pure" and not "high". If he was like an Elf, he could love and adore Edith without low desires entering the picture at all.

I know the Silmarillion was a little different, but when *sex* is in the picture, it leads to trouble.

Sam and Rosie are earthy, of the earth, free to be sexual, free to have 13 children, there was no front of gentility to be kept up, no worries about providing for all those kids, no school fees, etc. Maybe Tolkien imagined that was the way English farm workers thought? As for Rosie being of higher status than Sam, I think she was as her father was a farmer on his own land and Sam's father was a handyman and gardener for Bilbo and Frodo after. Farmers are not usually "gentlemen", although some are. But they are of higher status than the men and women who labour for them. Their children might well be playmates, but I think Sam might not have been thought good enough for Rosie if it hadn't been for the events of the Quest.

I'm not doing a very good job of explaining all this right now, I apologize. I'm watching Detroit beat the Mariners and keeping score in order to improve my scorekeeping.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

vison, here is the passage you are thinking of, from The Laws and Customs of the Eldar, in Morgoth's Ring:

After the betrothal it was the part of the betrothed to appoint the time of their wedding, when at least one year had passed. Then at a feast, again shared by the two houses, the marriage was celebrated. At the end of the feast the betrothed stood forth, and the mother of the bride and the father of the bridegroom joined the hands of the pair and blessed them. For this blessing there was a solemn form, but no mortal has heard it; though the Eldar say that Varda was named in witness by the mother and Manwë by the father; and moreover that the name of Eru was spoken (as was seldom done at any other time). The betrothed then received back one from the other their silver rings (and treasured them); but they gave in exchange slender rings of gold, which were worn upon the index of the right hand.

Among the Noldor also it was a custom that the bride's mother should give to the bridegroom a jewel upon a chain or collar; and the bridegroom's father should give a like gift to the bride. These gifts were sometimes given before the feast. (Thus the gift of Galadriel to Aragorn, since she was in place of Arwen's mother, was in part a bridal gift and earnest of the wedding that was later accomplished.)

But these ceremonies were not rites necessary to marriage; they were only a gracious mode by which the love of the parents was manifested, and the union was recognized which would join not only the betrothed but their two houses together. It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete. In happy days and times of peace it was held ungracious and contemptuous of kin to forgo the ceremonies, but it was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, both being unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble. In days of old, in times of trouble, in flight and exile and wandering, such marriages were often made.

As for the begetting and bearing of children: a year passes between the begetting and the birth of an elf-child, so that the days of both are the same or nearly so, and it is the day of begetting that is remembered year by year. For the most part these days come in the Spring. It might be thought that, since the Eldar do not (as Men deem) grow old in body, they may bring forth children at any time in the ages of their lives. But this is not so. For the Eldar do indeed grow older, even if slowly: the limit of their lives is the life of Arda, which though long beyond the reckoning of Men is not endless, and ages also. Moreover their body and spirit are not separated but coherent. As the weight of the years, with all their changes of desire and thought, gathers upon the spirit of the Eldar, so do the impulses and moods of their bodies change. This the Eldar mean when they speak of their spirits consuming them; and they say that ere Arda ends all the Eldalie on earth will have become as spirits invisible to mortal eyes, unless they will to be seen by some among Men into whose minds they may enter directly.

Also the Eldar say that in the begetting, and still more in the bearing of children, greater share and strength of their being, in mind and in body, goes forth than in the making of mortal children. For these reasons it came to pass that the Eldar brought forth few children; and also that their time of generation was in their youth or earlier life, unless strange and hard fates befell them. But at whatever age they married, their children were born within a short space of years after their wedding.* For with regard to generation the power and the will are not among the Eldar distinguishable. Doubtless they would retain for many ages the power of generation, if the will and desire were not satisfied; but with the exercise of the power the desire soon ceases, and the mind turns to other things. The union of love is indeed to them great delight and joy, and the 'days of the children', as they call them, remain in their memory as the most merry in life; but they have many other powers of body and of mind which their nature urges them to fulfil.

* Short as the Eldar reckoned time. In mortal count there was often a long interval between the wedding and the first child-birth, and even longer between child and child.

Really, it is the last paragraph that you are thinking of, but I thought I needed to quote it at length to keep in context. I think it is very telling that Tolkien sets it up so that it is the physical act of making love that achieved marriage. The two went hand in hand; the "ceremonies" were really beside the point. There was no such thing as "pre-marital sex" or sex outside of wedlock, because it was the sex itself that achieved the marriage. I find that a very compelling thought.

It is also important to note that by mortal count, the Elves undoubtably had many years of being sexual beings. Consider that the marriage begins with the first time that they make love, but that by mortal count there is a long interval between that time and the begetting of the first chiild, and an even longer period of time between child and child. There is every indication that during this period they continue to desire each other, and to "re-consummate" the marriage at will, not just the couple of times that they have children.

I think the idea of the will and desire fading after the time of having children passes is more due to the concept of the extreme long lives of the Elves than to a puritanical notion of sex. Remember, we are talking of hundred's of years of making love to the same person. I could see why the desire would fade and they would want to move on to the "many other powers of body and of mind which their nature urges them to fulfil."

[vison]

Why?

I don't think Tolkien had a "puritanical" view of sex at all.

Gotta go.

Will be back.

[ArathornJax]

and post some thoughts. I also think this will link up nicely Voronwë with the next letter that I'll post up later in the Tolkien's Letters (Letter 43).

I've held off because I really wanted to think about what I read on this post (I read it yesterday) and related it to what I want to do with my post over on Letter 43. There are some similar themes and some insights that I think will spurn on the conversation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I look forward to both your comments here, and discussing Letter 43.

[ArathornJax]

While thinking about this, I went through my things to read bookmark for LOTR and found this from Renascence Winter 2007 which is "an academic publication of Marquette University providing coverage and analysis of Christian values in literature." see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... tBody;col1

Anyway the article is by Nancy Enright, an assistant professor at Seton Hall in their English Department and the article is at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... tBody;col1

I think it expands some of the thoughts in Ms. Miesels article and it is pro-Catholic. Some points I agree with and others I don't but I'll touch on that more later since my wife just came in with some more "honey do's".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting, in-depth essay, AJ. Like you I agree with some points more than others. But it is definitely a worthwhile read! I particularly liked her take on Éowyn and Faramir.

[ArathornJax]

Wow, great insights and I feel what I contribute has little to add but here I go.

First, the essay overall is enjoyable and for the mere fact that we are discussing it I think it proves worthy. There are errors as has been pointed out, and I would not use some of the wording she does, but overall I enjoyed the text. It is a starting point for discussion.

I have to agree one hundred percent that the case she makes for the femininity of the One Ring to Sauron's masculinity is something I cannot agree with and is really a stretch. I have never made that connection and to be honest, now that I see someone has, I just have to refute it. If putting on a ring is a masculine thing, and a ring of power is feminine, then what are the implications for Galadriel in donning her ring?

Also, in terms of Galadriel having a Marian resonance I think that goes a little farther then Tolkien implied. The quote that she was "unstained" has more to do with his writings on her in Unfinished Tales, that she was going to leave the Undying Lands with the permission of Manwë and the Valar. That she was "penitent" Letter 320 does point out, but her pardon from the Valar is because of her refusal of the last temptation to take the ring to herself. At that point she understood what would happen, that she would fade, lacking the powers of healing and sustaining that she has had for so long.

Thus in the end, she will become just who she is Galadriel, and that is enough. No power, no kingdom, just an individual at peace with herself.
Letter 353 is often used to make this connection where it says that Galadriel was unstained, but from that I take it if you read the letter, that her desire to leave Valinor was justified and normally, if conditions had remained "normal", she would have been allowed to leave. However, she left, even if independent of Fëanor, she still left and fell under Manwë's ban. So Galadriel to me is imperfect and has if I can say, some "human" weaknesses and frailties, or perhaps they are just weaknesses and frailties that are associated with her family/people. For me, she may be more like Martha, who was so busy on the things of this world, that as Jesus was present, he chided her for not sitting and listening like Mary, her sister. Intent is good, just made some less correct choices.

I did notice that on page 3 of the text, the picture by Jef Murray at the Mirror is very reminiscent of pictures and statues I've seen of Mary with my Catholic friends homes and wheIn I've attended Mass or other events with them. If your interested here is his website http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~jmurr ... lkien.html

I have to agree that there is not a lot of depth here. I would have loved to seen an essay comparing the Elvish women or woman (like Aredhel) of The Silmarillion and the human women like Morwen. That brings up my other point, though it is nice to read of the estrangement of Nerdanel and Fëanor, there is another Elven woman that shows that conflicts in marriage do occur. That is Aredhel and Eöl. To me, this is a fastening story to links Aredhel and her son Maeglin to Turgon and Gondolin's fall, and thus to Idril, Tuor and Eärendil. That story is very interesting if you compare and contrast it with the story of Húrin, Morwen and their children. I guess for me, to summarize this, I think there are some real wonderful opportunities written about here, and just not explored.

There is one part though that really sums up what I did enjoy about the article and the many examples cited, even if I do not agree with them all, or would have included different ones. It is this quote:

Through many positive -- and a few negative-- examples, Tolkien celebrates the dignity of females.

I felt that she accomplishes this, I would just welcome less examples and more in depth comparisons.

I also have to say that the story of Aredhel and Eöl also reflect directly from the Silmarillion the nature of sex and marriage in Elvish tradition. Eöl welcomes Aredhel and leads her into his house. And there she remained, for Eöl took her to wife and that Aredhel was not wholly unwilling. From where Eöl lived I can infer that there was no one to marry them, and the notion that he "took" her implies choosing her to be his wife and taking her sexually. Anyway, the text supports the writing from Morgoth's Ring, though in this case, I think the relationship went sour rather quickly in Elvish terms.

[Andreth]

Let me state up front that I am related to Sandra. I have a copy of the original essay.

A few quick things before I come back to post a little more.

1. An entire paragraph was cut from the essay that might have helped her arguments
2. Her footnotes were eliminated, again, hurting her arguments.
3. Her source for the femmine Jungian archtypes was: THE GREAT MOTHER by Erich Neumann, Princeton, 1963. These archtypes are different from the Maid, Mother, Crone ones.
4. The point of the essay was to counter the old femmist argument that LOTR etc are male dominated and women are marginalized. Comparisons between female characters would have taken away from the main point of her argument.