Why read Tolkien's Notion Club Papers?

*

Published in Beyond Bree July 2012 pages 1-2

Newsletter of the Tolkien Special Interest Group in American Mensa.

http://www.cep.unt.edu/bree.html

*

WHY READ TOLKIEN'S NOTION CLUB PAPERS?

By Bruce G Charlton

The Notion Club Papers (NCPs) is an unfinished and posthumously-published modern science fiction novel by JRR Tolkien which he wrote in 1945-6 and read aloud to The Inklings during a long gap in the writing of The Lord of the Rings. He had become bogged-down over what seems an almost trivial detail in the narrative: synchronizing the phases of the moon in the different parts of the tale.

*

The draft novel material can be found on pages 143-327 of the Sauron Defeated, which is The History of Middle Earth Volume Nine, edited by Christopher Tolkien and published twenty years ago (1992) – and in addition there are a further hundred pages of drafts of the history of Numenor which was intended to have been integrated into the story.

This is a big chunk of writing, done at the peak of Tolkien’s powers, so it may be surprising that it is not better known – but of course the Notion Club Papers form merely one part of a scholarly volume also dedicated to charting the evolution of Lord of the Rings, so few Tolkien fans are aware of its existence.

Yet even when they are aware of the NCPs, few Tolkien fans trouble to read it. And this is understandable. What we have is a mere fragment: a scrappy ‘set-up’ for a very ambitious fiction which is mostly unwritten. Furthermore, the novel is not just un-finished, but hardly begun I terms of its action. Most novel readers are looking for a complete and coherent story with clear characterisation – and the NCPs do not offer anything of that type.

*

Why read it then?

I can only try to explain what draws me back to this tantalising work again and again.

In the first place there is a delightful sense of eavesdropping on a real-life Inklings meeting, because (as the name implies) the ‘Notion Club’ is modelled upon the Inklings, as reading and discussion groups of – mostly – dons, and meeting in the evening in Oxford Colleges. The style, and even the topics, of discussion at the Notion Club fit very well with what is known of the Inklings at their best.

Secondly, these fragments are worth reading because the NCPs is thematically focused on some of Tolkien’s deepest and most enduring concerns and yearnings – in particular his desire to provide England with a mythology that he felt it lacked, and to re-connect the impoverished modern world view with the richer, deeper perspective of the past. There are particular passages, here and there, which jump out at me; and feel like Tolkien talking of his inmost desires and deepest convictions.

And thirdly because the NCPs were at one point intended to be Tolkien’s fictional link from the modern world to his whole ‘Legendarium’ of the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion legends. Specifically, it seems that the Notion Club was to describe how the stories of ancient and magical times were transmitted to modern times: partly by the dreams experienced by members of the Notion Club, and probably also by two Notion Club members actually voyaging West across the Atlantic Ocean, discovering a long-lost route and coming to the land of the elves.

Yet another aspect is the development of the concept of Numenor, including the invention of the language Adunaic, as the everyday language of the Island. Among this material is a fascinatingly ‘garbled’ version of Numenorean history. Which Tolkien constructed as an example of the way that the original correct information from the elves might have become distorted by the passage of time and cumulative errors of many generations of men.

*

For the past few years I have been accumulating thoughts about the Notion Club Papers and putting them onto a blog of the same name http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/.

One of the most interesting ‘discoveries’ was that the NCPs were written at a time when Tolkien was suffering from severe psychological stress almost amounting to a ‘nervous breakdown’.

This was probably caused by Tolkien having taken on the duties of the Merton Professor of English Language and Literature while at the same time fulfilling his previous role as Professor of Anglo Saxon, during the period while a replacement was being appointed. Not only was he doing two jobs, but each of these jobs was heavier than usual because of the wartime shortage of academic manpower.

It is perhaps because of Tolkien’s psychological state that the NCPs contain – indirectly and put into the mouths of several characters - some of the most personal and autobiographical material Tolkien ever intended for public consumption.

*

And if the writing Notion Club Papers was indeed a ‘therapeutic’ process for Tolkien, then this treatment was apparently effective – since in the late summer of 1946 Tolkien resumed writing the Lord of the Rings and this time he was able to take the work through to completion without any further major hold-ups.

*

So The Notion Club Papers is interesting in its own right, and was also a pivotal work in the development of the Lord of the Rings from a hobbit-sequel into what it became.

Because, although it is now hard for us to believe - while he actually was writing it, the NCPs was the most ambitious work that Tolkien has attempted – a book involving both modern ‘science fiction and multi-layered and linked ancient history: both real and fictional. The Notion Clob Papers were, indeed, themselves a development of an incomplete story begun in 1936 called The Lost Road and now available as volume five of Christopher Tolkien’s History of Middle Earth.

So, the combined efforts of The Lost Road and Notion Club Papers represented a whole decades-worth of effort, albeit intermittent, to bridge the ancient and modern, the factual and fictional, in a single complex work which would explain and introduce all his tales of Faery.

But when Tolkien abandoned The Notion Club Papers, it seems that this vast ambition was instead, somehow, channelled-into the emerging Lord of the Rings, enriching and deepening the concept.

All admirers of the Lord of the Rings therefore have reason to be grateful for the fragmentary and unfinished Notion Club Papers.

*

Tolkien and Lewis's annus divertium of 1936: a catalytic role for Charles Williams The Place of the Lion?

*

I have commented before on how 1936 seems to have been the annus divertium (watershed year) for both CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien - although the effect on Tolkien was less obvious at the time.

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/lord-of-rings-mostly-equals-hobbit-plus.html

That 1936 was a watershed seems valid - but the question is why?

What happened in 1936?

*

It now strikes me as plausible that a major factor in the importance of 1936 - for both Lewis and Tolkien - was Lewis's encounter with Charles Williams's novel The Place of the Lion which he had borrowed from Nevill Coghill.

Some time after reading PotL, Lewis wrote a 'fan letter' to Charles Williams on 11 March 1936.

He indicated that he had brought PotL to the attention of both Tolkien and his brother Warnie who admired it, and Lewis indicated two important ways in which the Williams novel had impressed him.

*

The first was as a warning against the typical scholar's hazard and sin (exemplified in PotL by Damaris Tighe) of researching and writing about spiritual and religious matters, while not really believing in them as realities.

From his letter, Lewis was clearly impressed by Damaris's come-uppance when she is attacked by a disgusting-smelling and gigantic 'pterodactyl' - symbolic of her enthralment to deadly spiritual pride; and before whose onslaught she is helpless, and from whom she is rescued only by the love of her boyfriend Anthony.

Lewis stated to Williams that PotL had come just-in-time to rescue him from some such fate.

*

The second aspect of PotL, and linked to this, was Lewis's excitement about the way Williams depicted the real but unseen realm of 'spiritual warfare' - above or behind mundane life - which in the story break-through to invade mundane life.

(At least, I assume from later comments that Lewis was impressed by this aspect of PotL from the beginning - since he mentions it much in later accounts - as of 11 March 1936 he refers to 'layers and layers' of enjoyment and meaning, including 'the pleasure of a real philosophical and theological stimulus' - and again to 'levels' in a letter of June 24 to Baker; however, at this time Lewis is more explicit about his delight in C.W's depiction of 'good' characters.)

In this contest of super-natural powers, humans are weak players - yet human free will is always operative: there is always a point (or more than one point) in which a human is given a choice; and only if they choose evil can they wholly be overwhelmed by it.

By contrast, a refusal to invite evil into one's heart is depicted (for example in Anthony) as having (by indirect routes, hardly understood) potentially decisive power against vastly superior forces of evil.

*

At any rate, Lewis immediately recognized a 'fellow spirit' in C.W - and took steps to invite Williams (who worked in London) 'down' to an Inklings evening in Oxford (the first of many).

(In England, the slang was always that one went 'up'-to or 'down'-from London - even when 'down' involved travelling north!...)

*

This plot of the 'super-natural' invading the natural was the mode of fiction immediately adopted by CS Lewis in writing his science fiction trilogy starting in 1936 with Out of the Silent Planet and ending with Lewis's most Williams-esque novel That Hideous Strength (1945) and written during Williams' wartime sojourn in Oxford.

It was also the mode of fiction adopted by JRR Tolkien in his only-begun novel The Lost Road which he started in 1936 - and brought further in 1945-6 with The Notion Club Papers.

Furthermore, I have suggested that The Notion Club Papers represent Tolkien's 'Charles Williams Novel in the same sense as That Hideous Strength was Lewis's C.W novel.

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/notion-club-papers-are-tolkiens-charles.html

*

As I have previously argued

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/lord-of-rings-mostly-equals-hobbit-plus.html

- I feel that the Lost Road and NCPs together constituted a major step in the development of Tolkien as a writer, and that the 'therapeutic' process of writing the NCPs was probably vital in making decisive the transformation of Lord of the Rings from being a (mere) sequel to The Hobbit into a book of a very different sort.

Therefore it seems plausible that it was Charles Williams's The Place of the Lion which provided both a moral seriousness (i.e. treating the unseen Platonic realm as real and important) to deepen Lewis and Tolkien's fiction and expand its ambition, and also a plot device by which both Lewis's and Tolkien could structure their attempts at fiction.

*

In sum, Charles Williams major influence on the work of Tolkien and Lewis may have come right at the very beginning of their association, before they had met, and before C.W had ever joined The Inklings - a literary influence, due to their reading of Place of the Lion.

*

Charles Williams did not believe the devil is real

*

Of all the Inklings, it was Charles Williams who had the most interest in magic, witchcraft and the like.

Yet while CS Lewis and Tolkien certainly believed in the reality of purposive evil - the devil and demons, fallen angels, an order of beings between God and Men - it seems that Charles Williams did not; but regarded the devil as a psychological 'projection' or an excuse for hatred.

*

It is hard to be sure of anything concerning C.W's opinions, and maybe they were too subtle and fluid to be nailed-down, but I am pretty sure (especially from references on the subject in The Descent of the Dove) that C.W did not really believe that the devil and demons were real entities - nor (despite the structure of Descent into Hell) did he believe that human life truly is mixed-up with an unseen spiritual warfare between Good and evil.

*

I had always assumed that C.W did indeed have a strong sense of the reality of the devil - but I began to suspect the opposite when pondering his essay What the Cross Means to Me (this is regarded by his biographer AM Hadfield as probably Williams deepest theological work).

In plumbing the ultimate meaning of suffering and misery, I realized that Williams never mentioned that (traditionally, orthodoxly) the Church through most of its history (and in times and places of the greatest Christian devoutness and sanctity) always attributed much - perhaps most - of the evils of the world to Satan and his demonic servants - since the fall of the angels preceded the fall of man (and hell was made and primarily intended for the fallen angels - not necessarily for man).

Williams, by contrast, attributed the evils of the world directly to God. Williams thus finds it hard to excuse God for allowing or inflicting almost infinite suffering as a consequence of the free will granted to imperfect beings.


*

Charles Williams disbelief in Satan is most clear from his book length study of Witchcraft (1941) where he has a chapter of what he terms 'The arrival of the devil' - in which he explains the historical focus on purposive evil in terms of psychological imperatives: "The Church, in fact, had begun to need an opponent whom it could divinely hate."

It becomes clear throughout that C.W regards the devil as mainly an excuse (something imagined or invented) that allowed people to hate, persecute, and engage in cruelty.

This is, of course, pretty much the modern mainstream 'liberal' and secular belief, but is it surprising for Williams - especially considering his fascination with the occult and his close relationship with Lewis and Tolkien.

*

NOTE - this posting comes from e-mail discussions with Dale J Nelson (of Mayville State University) - my thanks to him for sharing his long-term reflections and scholarship on this (and other) matters.

*

Chronicles of Narnia: Review of Brian Sibley's BBC radio dramatisations

*

In the mid-1990s, Brian Sibley adapted the seven books of C.S Lewis's Narnia Chronicles as radio dramas for the BBC.

Each novel was therefore made into a radio play, and the group was linked and framed by newly-written scenes featuring the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve in modern England, in conversation and providing plot summaries etc.

I am at a loss to imagine how this project could have been done any better: given the nature of the medium and the constraints (each book done in about two-and-a-half hours), everything about these dramatizations is good, sometimes great.

The abridgement is masterly such that there is, on the one hand, an illusion of leisurely pace without rush, yet on the other hand all the most important, most moving scenes and profound messages of the books seem to be included and given full value.

There are many wonderful vocal performances - Maurice Denham as the Professor, Bernard Cribbins as Puddleglum and John Sessions as Shift stand-out in my memory - but nearly all are at least good.

It may sound a bit silly, but I would award 10/10 for this - because I honestly cannot think how a radio dramatization of the Narnia books could have been any better. 

*

Charles Williams and the 'modern religious revival'

*

In what I consider to be on the whole the best book yet written about Charles William - I mean Alice Mary Hadfield's first biography: An Introduction to Charles Williams of 1959 - she makes this poignant remark on page 193:

*

Much depends on how the modern religious revival goes. 

...C.W's importance rests on his religious vision. If the present revival continues and men see life more and more under some relationship to a divine Creator, C.W's work will become increasingly important.

His affirmation of a positive relation of religion to human life, so that marriage, politics, neighbours, work, and art can be ways of living the life of Christ, will be found more and more necessary and welcome by the Church and by souls.

His vision was based on personal experience and the operation of the life of Christ in each person.

Among the advocates of systems, churches, organizations, r ethical activities, C.W stands out as the leading English writer who rediscovered and stated the central experience of Christianity for twentieth century minds.

...that Christ lives His incarnation in each human life, in each relationship, each human process in history...

*

1959. England.

Just 53 years ago.

"Much depends on how the modern religious revival goes."


The modern religious revival!

*

Well, we now know just how the modern religious revival went; the fact that it has been forgotten by modern England says it all...

*


The section continues:

...If the reading world turns again to a wholly materialistic outlook, C.W may be neglected by all but a few in each generation who live and move against the tide, and against all evidence respond to the motions of the spirit.

If C.W's work has to be read by people to whom the concepts of religion as well as the language of myth have become alien, he may hardly be read at all.

But that does not seem altogether likely. Rather, it appears that the direction of thought has altered, and men of science and of psychology are ready now to acknowledge the existence of God, and it is probable that once the change is admitted its results will grow rapidly.

*

Alas not...

*

Prejudice in the Harry Potter Novels

*

One fascinating thing about JK Rowling - which was pointed out for me by John Granger's work - is that she is superficially a mainstream politically correct leftist, yet at the deeper level where her literary genius operates, she is astute and honest.

Whatever the superficial and trendy message, the deep structure of the novels reveals reality as we experience it.

*

At a superficial level, the Harry Potter series is about the evil of prejudice - a characteristically modern and politically correct concern.

Yet again and again, the anti-prejudice message is qualified by the deep structure of the novels.

*

So, in one of the funniest plot lines, Hermione forms a Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W) based on her own notions of what House Elves really want, as contrasted with the very different ideas they express and the preferences they show by their behaviour.

Herminone seems obsessed by the unique example of Dobby - who is apparently the one and only House Elf who wants to be free; whereas it seems that every other House Elf wants to be a lifelong indentured servant/ slave, and is made utterly miserable by any other condition of life.

The humour comes from the jarring contrast between Herminone's impeccably PC ideals, and the actuality of House Elf behaviour - a contrast which Hermione interprets as being due to 'false consciousness' - the successful indoctrination of the House Elves.

Her irrefutable assumption is that if only all House Elves could be freed (against their will, of course) then eventually they would be happier.

A further element of acute observation comes from the fact that Hermione will not kiss Ron until he too embraces her delusion (or, at least, does not contradict it) - this phenomenon of 'sexually transmitted' political correctness is a very common matter in modern life.

*

Another example comes from the plot line about Hagrid being half-giant. This emerges in The Goblet of Fire, when Hagrid's admission that his mother was a giantess leads to a press scandal and calls for his sacking - on the basis that wizards are 'prejudiced' against giants.

This prejudice is shown by dark wizards, who presumably dislike the 'mixed blood' aspect - but also shared by good wizards such as the Weasleys who remember that the giants supported Voldemort.

Yet when real giants are encountered in The Order of the Pheoneix it is clear that they are indeed a species worthy of prejudice - stupid, clumsy and violent.

And if giants are not all evil (Hagrid's half-brother Grawp ends-up fighting on the Good side) then clearly most of them are evil, and they are very readily seduced to evil.

So, at the end of the day, it seems that a prejudice against giants is perfectly rational.

*

The other race against which wizards show prejudice are the goblins. We hear of past wars between wizards and goblins and also a law which prevents goblins from using wands.

Goblins (unlike House Elves and giants) are apparently about as intelligent as humans, and have considerably greater skill in crafts and the making of devices. However, goblins are also resentful, paranoid, and inflexible. They all seem to have 'a chip on their shoulders' with respect to wizards.

In Deathly Hallows, Harry is warned by Bill about dealing with Goblins, and that Griphook may not be trustworthy. This sounds like prejudice, but it turns out to be accurate - since Griphook betrays them.

So it is all-too-likely that if goblins were allowed 'equal rights' - and developed enhanced powers from the use of wands - they would become a very considerable danger to wizards. It is probable that wand-wielding goblins would feel justified in taking revenge on wizards for all the unforgotten and brooded-over humiliations of the past.

*

In fact, underneath the PC top-dressing, JK Rowling's attitude to prejudice is very traditional. Prejudices are useful - indeed essential - but we must always be prepared to notice and respond to exceptions.

Giants are generally bad news, but Hagrid is good; House Elves are mostly happy slaves who live to serve, but Dobby needs to be free; Goblins have been subject to discrimination from wizards, yet are often unfaithful or hostile to wizards.

This is, indeed, common sense. Stereotypes are usually accurate - on average, and under normal conditions.

*

Indeed, the whole business about muggle-born versus pure-blood wizards is not quite as outrageous as it superficially seems: because being a witch or wizard is indeed hereditary.

Although there seems little or no correlation between 'purity' of blood and magical ability (Voldemort, the second most magical wizard after Dumbledore, is a half-blood; and Hermione is the best of the younger generation) - yet even a muggle-born witch like Harry's mother or Herminone has actually inherited their magical abilities from a more remote ancestor.

(JKR confirms this aspect of the back-story in an interview I read somewhere.)

This happens because magical parents can have non-magical children - called Squibs. Presumably muggle-born witches and wizards come from Squibs, perhaps after several generations of Squibs when the magical trait has been long-forgotten.

So magic is indeed a matter of 'blood'; but the trait is either non-genetic, non-Mendelian, or in some way complexly-inherited.

*

Thus the world of Harry Potter avoids - in its deep structure - the current insanity of extreme Leftism which regards all prejudicial stereotypes as evil merely because there are exceptions.

We should not, therefore, behave like Hermione, and reject all prejudice (in a way that condescends-to and disregards the expressed desires and revealed preferences of the mass of House Elves) on the basis that the stereotype of happy service is not wholly and always accurate in every conceivable circumstance. And any wizard would be foolish in the extreme to blunder-into a giants colony unarmed, on the assumption that they might be like Hagrid.

Common sense tells us that prejudices and stereotypes are necessary, useful, indeed inevitable - but that to avoid injustice and cruelty we need to be aware of any exceptions - the likes of Dobby and Hagrid - and treat them differently.

*

Charles Williams was NOT "self-educated"

*

The idea that Charles Williams was 'self-educated' (or uneducated) seems to be one that has penetrated the criticism of the man at the highest levels - yet it is just plain wrong!

Here is an example of the red herring, from one of Charles Williams foremost critics:

The mystery ingredient that stops Williams just short of the Greatness category may be revealed in a comment Lewis made about him. Williams was self-educated.

His mind had never had that experience of sustained, given discourse that comes in the lecture room and the seminar. He had had to drop out of school and go to work, since his father never was able quite to bring in enough money to keep the family going.

In the light of this, Williams’s sheer knowledge, and the sweep of his imagination, are breathtaking. He may have been self-educated, but he was self- educated.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-10-033-f

*

I think I understand how this error was made by US scholars, but it is a falsehood!

English upper middle class (professional) people sometimes used 'self-educated' as a euphemism for those with a lower middle class background.

This boundary within the middle class was important because it was the division between the lowest rank of 'gentlemen' and the highest rank of the artisan class. (C.W. had begun life as the son of a lower middle class tradesman - a clockmaker ^).

So by suggesting that Williams (or anyone else) was 'self-educated', the English meant that he was 'not a gentleman' and the most obvious evidence for this was his 'Cockney' accent - but the phrase has next-to nothing to do with Williams scholarly attainment.

*

American critics, presumably, take self-educated at face value - misled by their misunderstanding of the English educational system.

At any rate Charles Williams was very highly educated - by the standards of his place and time (and indeed by almost any standards).

*

As son of a skilled craftsman, Charles Williams began life at the top of the lower middle class; but since he was privately educated at the school now called St Alban's Grammar School, he became a member of the upper middle class - albeit at the very bottom.

The fact that C.W. went through St Alban's school is also evidence that he could not remotely be described as un-educated.

Americans often do not realize the selectivity and advanced education which went on at schools like St Albans - the leaver reached an academic level pretty much equivalent to that of a college graduate in the USA.

*

Take a look at the alumni of St Albans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Albans_School_%28Hertfordshire%29

There are only few schools (some, but not many) who could boast such a roster of famous ex-pupils: including the most famous living scientist: Stephen Hawking.

To have completed one's education at a major English grammar school like St Alban's was to be among the intellectual elite.

*

From St Alban's, C.W. went to University College, London - which has always been highly ranked among English universities - in the rank below Oxford and Cambridge.

Williams left UCL after two years (due to financial problems) without taking a degree - but to complete two-thirds of a degree at an English university in the early twentieth century was, again, to reach a very advanced level of education - just a few percent of the population would ever get that far.

And the level would be considerably beyond that of a US college graduate - perhaps about equivalent to a US Masters degree of that era?

*

It is also worth noting that the English did not have PhDs until 1917, and they did not become normal until several decades later - especially in the Arts and especially at Oxford.

At Oxford, the elite would have a brilliant first class MA and nothing more - further degrees were evidence of a second-rate mind.

(I am old enough to have talked with many people from Oxford who used 'Doctor' as an insult - for example in referring to the literary critic FR Leavis as Doctor Leavis.)

*

So it is nonsense to imply that Charles Williams had an inadequate or deficient education.

Of course Williams was at a lower level than CS Lewis (Oxford triple first class degree in Classics - both parts - and English) or Tolkien (first class degree in English, one of the youngest Oxford Professors of recent times).

But the main difference was in Williams's class origin - Tolkien's father was a bank manager and Lewis's was a solicitor - both upper (not lower) middle class, although at a lowish level within that class.

As lasting evidence of this origin on the 'wrong' side of the great class divide, Williams retained a South East English regional accent throughout his life (which some people refer to as 'cockney').

*

So Williams was someone who was highly-educated, but of a lower class origin - although having been to a great grammar school and studied at university, before becoming a clerk then editor in the immensely respectable firm of the Oxford University Press.

By middle age, Williams was very firmly a member of the upper middle class; and part of the same social circle as the other Inklings.

Nonetheless, it was his relatively lowly class origins (and not his level of education) that account for the unmistakable tone of condescension observable when Lewis and others talked or wrote about Williams.

However, Thomas Howard is quite wrong to suggest that self-education is the 'mystery ingredient' that explains the peculiarities and difficulties of Charles Williams writings. +

*

^ I think I may be wrong here when I say that CW's father was a clockmaker - from the later Hadfiled biography it seems he may have been a junior clerk, which would place CW at the very bottom of the upper class, rather than the top of the working class.
+I will need to write in more detail on this - but I think the basic reason for C.Ws obscurity is that his experience of life was so strange that he could not be any clearer than he was. I used to believe he was being wilfully obscure and pretentious, now I do not think so. The pressure and intensity of Williams mind was such that - for all its weird and disconnected qualities - the prose represents a major toning-down and radical simplification of what was going-on in his head. He simply could not make himself any more comprehensible than he is - which is 'not very'. In a culture where Christian public discourse was at a higher level, Williams would not have had this problem - in such an environment he would surely have been a Saint: and like all Saints unique, not like anyone else.

*

Charles Williams - "phenomenally religious"

*

From An Introduction to Charles Williams, by Alice Mary Hadfield page 38-9:

Adolescence fell away and the man emerged. His mind was phenomenally religious... There was no trace of reaction against the religious atmosphere of his youth either now or later on.

His concern with the sense of God and God's impact everywhere was too pervading to allow any reaction, even any relief.

...he was driven to be about one business only. He pursued it in all the guises of work, poetry, marriage and relationships, and also in the more recognized medium of church life.

The sense of God's presence was by no means always helpful, and could become an oppression. If, as he said to me, every time one broke any part of matter - a match, an envelope, food - one was breaking Christ's body, the whole thing became unbearable.

He found a solution in his strong sense of ceremonial. which at one moment was concerned with adoration and the next was thoroughly enjoying the details of its own behaviour. He loved, indeed, to play and to adore, and he maintained the need of both.

The old prankishness and burlesque of his schooldays found a way in this to give relief to the burden of his sense of the extreme, almost the desperate, seriousness of every detail of the ordinary person's daily struggle with life.

**

Hence, Williams idea of Byzantium - which he (accurately) intuited had been the most complete earthly realization of his own attempt to sustain the constant sense of God and God's impact everywhere.

It was Williams tragedy that he himself had to create (by his personal force, charisma) the public reality of ceremony and play which he subjectively required to function - and this was never more than temporarily or partially successful; and also continually subverted by pride, self-will, limitations of ability and energy, and the sense of its own self-refuting circularity.

*

But, in dealing with Charles Williams, I think we need to accept the judgement of authoritative witnesses that he was a man to whom what might be, in others, merely inklings, notions and philosophical theories, were instead matters of daily, hourly experience.

As C.S Lewis said in The Novels of Charles WIlliams (published in the essay collection Of this and other worlds):

...illumination of the ordinary world is only one half of a Williams story. The other half is what he tells us about a different world...

What have we then? At the lowest, one man's guess about unknowable things. But all who do not from the outset rule out the very possibility of these things will perhaps admit that one man may guess better than another.

And if we think a man is guessing very well indeed, we begin to doubt whether 'guessing' is the right word...

I am convinced that both the content and the quality of his experience differed from mine and differed in ways which oblige me to say that he saw further, that he knew what I do not know.

*

This is CS Lewis speaking about someone he knew intimately, and of course Lewis is generally considered the greatest Christian teacher of the past century.

Listen again to what Lewis said:

Charles Williams saw further... he knew what I do not know.

*

From this, I would argue that the many (millions of?) serious admirers of Lewis are all-but obliged to (at least attempt to) engage with Charles Williams and his work - difficult and hazardous as that task will be for most of us.

*

NOTE: I presume that the phrase of AM Hadfield's phenomenally religious is a pun: intended to imply not only the extreme degree of his religiousness, but also that it was focused on phenomena - on the minute particulars of everyday experience and action.

*

Derek Jacobi's Tolkien Audiobooks reviewed

*

There are three audiobooks of Tolkien's short works performed by the English actor Derek Jacobi: Farmer Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle and Smith of Wooton Major.

There is not much to be said about them except that I suppose it is possible that better performances than these might conceivably be done at some point in the future, so I will award the discs 9/ 10...

But, really, Jacobi's readings of Tolkien are as near perfection as makes no difference.

*

Which Inklings are the Notion Club Principals? And who is missing?

*

There are six main members of the Notion Club. Their resemblances with real-life Inklings are partial and mixed and - in the later drafts - inessential.

But, accepting that, what follows are my current thoughts on the identity of the real-life Inklings upon whom the big six were based.

*

Members Zero. Significant omissions: CS Lewis and Charles Williams.

I now feel that Lewis is omitted from the Notion Club Papers although at an early stage his initials were tentatively noted next to a character called Franks, who perhaps led to the name Frankley. Lewis was the cause and core of the real-life Inklings - but absent from the NCPs for the simple reason that Part 1 is substantially a debate about Lewis, especially his Space Trilogy.

Another core Inkling, Charles Williams, is also absent from the NCPs because he had died (May 1945) only a matter of half a year before Tolkien began to write the book (Late 1945), and Tolkien was not the man to write fiction about a recently-deceased friend.

Lewis would do this kind of thing - i.e. use fresh experience in his writing, as with A Grief Observed - but not Tolkien. Tolkien believed that raw experience needed many years of composting before use in fiction.

The subtraction of Lewis and Williams makes for a big, big difference between the Notion Club and the Inklings - how could it be otherwise when two of the largest and most distinctive characters of the twentieth century are missing?

*

The main six members of the Notion Club are 1. Ramer, 2. Guildford, 3. Lowdham, 4. Jeremy, 5. Dolbear, 6. Frankley.

1. Ramer is the main Tolkien mouthpiece in the early part of the NCPs.

2. Guildford is described as the club's recorder who does not read pieces very much - this role is most like Warnie Lewis; but not much else about Guildford is like Warnie: Guildford is rather irritable and critical; Warnie was the opposite.

3. Lowdham's extravert and boisterous character comes from Hugo Dyson (this was identified by initials in an early draft), but many of his interests, abilities and attributes are from Tolkien himself.

4. Jeremy seems a younger character, and behaves almost like a son to Lowdham - and I suspect he comes originally from Christopher Tolkien.

5. Dolbear was identified by initials with 'Humphrey' Havard in an early draft, and has several clear points of resemblence.

6. Frankley. I don't have any sense of him being developed from any real-life Inkling, indeed he doesn't seem to have much of an identifiable personality or role, and I expect he would have been eliminated from later drafts. Perhaps Frankley is the mere residue or shell of the projected CS Lewis 'Franks' character after the obviously Lewis-ite characteristics have been subtracted?

*

Spiritual warfare in modern fiction

*

Spiritual warfare/ unseen warfare - the fight between Good and evil at a spiritual level (between Good and evil spirits, angels and demons), the battleground of salvation versus damnation as played out in human experience... this is not a familiar subject for modern fiction or fantasy.

But, it is the implicit (and perhaps unintended) subject for much fiction and fantasy - yet how can spiritual warfare be detected when it is not explicit?

It seems to me that spiritual warfare is, by analogy, what is going-on in all of those novels and fantasies in which the everyday world is invaded and inter-penetrated by the extraordinary: the supernatural, the magical, the ancient, the futuristic...

These book have the assumption of an unseen world of reality behind the appearances of the everyday - which I think works (insofar as it does work) by reminding us of the sub-text of our temporary mundane ephemeral lives - the spiritual world of the permanent and the eternal of which we are only partially aware, and which we only partially understand.

*

The Slytherin Problem

*

In the previous post I alluded to The Slytherin Problem, which is the question of why Slytherin House exists at Hogwarts.

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-was-dumbledore-great-headmaster.html

Why would it be a good thing to have a house to educate (mostly) dark wizards and witches to become expert in magic?

I have seen several feeble and unconvincing reasons for this (including explanations by JK Rowling) - such as that not all Slytherins are evil (e.g. Slughorne) - but these are not at all convincing: Slughorne and the like could have been placed in another House - and there is always Hufflepuff as back-up, who will take any misfits.

*

No, the real reason for the existence of Slytherin in Hogwarts is the reason for the power of evil in the life as we know it: and thus in the Harry Potter world also.

Evil is strong in the Harry Potter world as it is described, such that there was no possibility of abolishing nor even of reforming Slytherin House.

Throughout the books, wealthy and influential dark wizards like the Malfoys seem to have great power in the wizarding world, including especially the Ministry of Magic bureaucracy and as governors and parents of Hogwarts, and the media (Daily Prophet).

*

Indeed, the forces of good are, by comparison, restricted to relatively few isolated pockets - those around Dumbeldore and (with reservations) the Auror's office, perhaps.

*

As usual, Rowling's deep instincts are right, even when her public explanations are not fully coherent: in a world like that of Harry Potter of course there would be a Slytherin House!

And Slytherins would make-up an 'old boys' (and girls) network which had a finger in every pie. 

And, if it was not a House within Hogwarts, then there would have been be a Slytherin School - and it would have been better equipped and higher in status than Hogwarts.

*

So, the answer to the Slytherin Problem of why it would be a good thing to have a House to educate dark wizards is that Slytherin House was not a good thing but was in fact - in its total effect - an evil thing.

And that is exactly why Slytherin existed.

Slytherin existed because it was evil, and evil was powerful in the wizarding world. 

*

How was Dumbledore a great headmaster?

*

The Harry Potter saga is insistent that Dumbledore was a great Head of Hogwarts, yet the evidence is that considered strictly as a head Dumbledore was not very good.

1. He was a great teacher himself, apparently, yet we never come across him teaching any classes.

2. He employs Professor Trelawney, who is a terrible teacher (fraudulent, disorganized, has favorites, tries to terrorize students).

3. He promotes Hagrid from gamekeeper to Professor, although he is a terrible teacher (disorganized, no abstracting ability, indifferent to danger of students).

4. He allows Snape blatantly to favour his own House, and to pursue personal vendettas against students.

5. He uses a ghost (Binns) to teach the history of magic, who is a terrible teacher (dull, dry, zero rapport).

6. The Slytherin problem +

Indeed, the standard of teaching at Hogwarts seems to be low - perhaps only McGonagall seems like a really good teacher.

*

Q: So why was Dumbledore a great Headmaster? A: Because he subordinated the business of education to the larger religious concern of fighting Voldemort.

In Christian terms, Dumbledore recognized that the job of education must be subordinated to Christian imperatives, and at times educational sacrifices must be made to spiritual needs.

Dumbledore had reasons to do with defeating Voldemort for doing most of the above, including shirking a share of the teaching; and the other abuses were tolerated as inevitable imperfections.

*

SO - Dumbledore was a great man and a great leader, rather than a great headmaster qua headmaster - but considered in an ultimate sense, the strategies of 'spiritual warfare' must not be sacrificed to tactical  educational concerns.

*

+ The Slytherin problem. There is a serious problem with the existence of a House dedicated to teaching advanced magic to - mostly - evil wizards. The problem, in a nutshell, is to answer the question of how it could be 'a good thing' to teach the likes of Crabbe and Goyle to become expert at magic? I shall write my, probable, answer in a future posting.

*

Corruption in Tolkien's Legendarium

*

It suddenly struck me the other day that corruption is almost the norm in Tolkien's world - even for the greatest, and indeed especially for the greatest.

The greatest of the gods (i.e. angelic powers below the one God) was Melkor, corrupted to Morgoth.

The greatest elf to dwell in Middle Earth was perhaps Feanor, or perhaps Thingol Greycloak - both corrupted by pride and self-will.

And in Lord of the Rings we see Saruman, the greatest wizard corrupted; and Denethor - pure Numenorean, second in personal wisdom and power only to Aragorn, and ruler of the greatest nation of Men. 

Greatness usually is corrupted. This is worth remembering.

Refusal of the Ring by Gandalf, Aragorn and Galadriel was not something to be taken for granted... 

*

The audio-book Lord of the Rings, read by Rob Inglis

*

For the past 4 months I have been listening to the audiobook version of Lord of the Rings, read by Rob Inglis: 44 hours of pure delight (that is the main text; and in addition there is the Prologue and Appendix A).

I would rate it 8 out of 10.

*

A good reading out loud is at least the equal of silent reading to oneself, as witnessed by C.S. Lewis (also one of the greatest readers of his era) - the Inklings was, to a significant extent, a product of Lewis's love of being-read-to.

At any rate, I found it wonderful to hear Lord of the Rings read to me; and better than me reading it to someone else (which I have done).

*

The performance by Rob Inglis is exceptional. Inglis is not a well known actor in the UK, so I presume he was selected because he was so good.

He is apparently Scottish - by his baseline narrative accent (and because Inglis is usually a Scottish name - Inglis was indeed the word used for the Lowland Scottish dialect of Middle English, the language of Dunbar, Henryson etc., to distinguish it form the 'Irish' Gaelic of the Highlands).

I suppose - strictly - a Scottish accent is sub-optimal for LotR, but Inglis has the measured clarity of diction retained by educated Scots - and also provides a basis of English class and regional neutrality from which to distinguish the different grades of people.

His voice has an occasional crack or break in it, which is a fault; and there are some points when (through inadequate preparation or slip of attention from actor or director) the wrong emphasis is given.

But there is a sense of complete commitment to this performance, which carries all before it.

*

The songs are a difficulty in performing the Lord of the Rings, and I have not yet encountered a satisfying solution.

Here, the model is for Rob Inglis to perform the songs unaccompanied, in a trained baritone voice and using a variety of weights and tones of vocalisation.

That is good - and much preferable to the usual method (e.g. the BBC dramatisation) of the sudden arrival into the text of a professional singer, choir and full orchestra; but the actual tunes or melodies are usually not appealing nor convincing to me - at any rate, they are on a much lower level than the words.

The hobbit songs were not folky enough (a tendency to end each verse on the dominant chord seemed odd) and the elvish and bardic chants were not spiritual enough, and too complex.

But at any rate, they are performed with complete conviction, and with no sense of hurrying over them  - and despite my reservations this makes them effective.

*

Indeed the whole thing is effective, very effective: very beautiful, moving and memorable.

**


Note added 1 Nov 2013

I have just found the following interview with Rob Inglis  - which answers some previously unanswered questions such as "Who wrote the songs?". It is from

http://www.audiofilemagazine.com/RobInglis.html

but I have copied it here because I had been unable to find the interview previously, and worry that it may be deleted at some point.

Talking With
Rob Inglis

Recorded Books's unabridged recordings of THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, all narrated by Rob Inglis, are now enjoying renewed popularity as new retail editions of the audiobooks are being distributed in bookstores.

AUDIOFILE: Before we talk about your narration of the books, let's get a technical question or two out of the way. What was the recording schedule like for THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS titles? Where did the recordings take place?

INGLIS: We recorded all three books in the trilogy over a six-week period, so it was quite intense. We actually went back and recorded THE HOBBIT about a year after the trilogy. All the recording sessions took place at the Recorded Books studios in New York in 1990.

AUDIOFILE: Did you do a lot of preparation for all the different voices you employed in the stories, or just dive right in and figure out the characterizations as you went along?

INGLIS: (laughs) Oh, my--I couldn't just dive right in! The various dramatic societies I belong to had all sorts of people breathing down my neck to make sure I got it right! So, yes, there was much preparation. Actually, I was already a bit prepared, I think, because of my one-man stage production of THE HOBBIT. It was my one-man show that actually brought me to the attention of Recorded Books. They heard a recording of one of my shows and asked me to do the full readings of all the books.

AUDIOFILE: Listeners are treated to some wonderful singing performances throughout THE HOBBIT and the three volumes of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Who set the various songs to music?

INGLIS: Tolkien himself had already set a few of the songs to music, but most of the songs one saw on the printed page were without music. So, I had to come up with music for some of the songs, and Claudia Howard of Recorded Books wrote the rest of the music. She also essentially acted as my director and manager during the course of the recording sessions.

AUDIOFILE: Scores of characters appear throughout THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Was it wearying to breathe life into so many characters, and to give every character his own idiosyncrasies and other bits of uniqueness?

INGLIS: It was certainly challenging, but I enjoyed it. It's what I do, interpret and dramatize. And, of course, I didn't do it alone. There is much in the original writing that suggests how a character should be brought to life. It's quite strange. At times it felt like Tolkien himself was talking to me through his prose, telling me how things should be.

--Joseph P. Menta

December 2001/January 2002
(c) 2003 AudioFile Publications, Inc. 

What happens after death? Insights from Tolkien

*

Death, for men , involves the severance of soul from body - and to be a dis-embodied soul is a horrible state (it is indeed, when regarded as an eternal situation, actually Hell).

Thus the state of a disembodied soul is not 'life' - there is loss of personhood. The disembodied soul always survives death, but this survival is in a partial, maimed and suffering state (Hell).

Men were not 'meant' to suffer this severance of soul, they were meant to undergo an assumption directly into Heaven (like the Virgin Mary) - but death and severance were a product of The Fall.

This is why Men fear death - what they fear is the loss of personhood and the pain of being a disembodied soul, with no hope of relief.

Elves also suffer the severance of soul from body at death, but are (usually) reincarnated (restored) in the 'same' body and in the world (in this world) - either on Middle Earth or the Undying Lands.

The work of Christ enabled each Man's soul to be given a new and perfected body after death and to dwell outside of the world in Heaven - indeed, more than this, after death each Man's soul may be perfected as well as being given a perfected body.

Each man may then become a Son of God - something qualitatively superior to a mortal Man, yet still the same person. 

But this is only possible via death - and Men need faith to hope that this will happen.

So death became (by Christ) a Gift to Men - so long as there is faith and hope; while elves could (perhaps) only look forward to 'more of the same' and to be destroyed when the world ended.

Or elves might hope to join Men beyond of the world in Heaven, but (presumably, since they will not have been resurrected) as un-perfected and lower beings than the Sons of God...?

*

See http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/tolkiens-marring-of-men.html

*

Charles Williams regrettable tendency to regard co-inherence as therapeutic 'magic'

*

Charles Williams was the prophet of co-inherence for the modern age - and for that we must be grateful; indeed profoundly grateful since this is a teaching we lack and sorely need.

*

Yet Williams did confuse the issue by his recurrent tendency to regard (or portray) co-inherence in a 'magical', secular and therapeutic fashion, rather than as a matter of Christian salvation.

*

In her early biography - An Introduction to Charles Williams - Alice Mary Hadfield states that she had an unresolved disagreement with CW about the applicability of co-inherence beyond Christianity: Williams persisted in trying to open-up co-inherence as a possibility outside of Christianity while AMH felt that co-inherence was a part of Christianity.

I feel that AMH was correct - and that in trying to push co-inherence outside of Christianity, CW made the concept incoherent - indeed at times it begins to sound either like a magical technology or just wishful thinking.

*

For example, if his novel Descent into Hell is read from a Christian perspective, it is a profound work; but from a non-Christian perspective it is an occult work; because CW discusses co-inherence as effective by mere act of will and without love.

So that one person can (it is asserted) take on the burden of pain or fear from another simply by assenting to this, like picking up and carrying a parcel for them.

*

Now, in the first place this (even if wholly effective) is entirely a non-Christian act of altruism, and in the second place it is a purely therapeutic act - which starts and finishes in the relief of human suffering.

Yet in other places, notably his greatest theological writing - for example in He Came Down from Heaven and Descent of the Dove - Williams makes clear that co-inherence is about love and salvation - it is about saving others by our love for them; and about us being saved not by our own efforts but by the love of others for us.

This strikes me as an insight of first rank importance, the implications of which have barely yet been explored.

*

Why did Williams tend at times to make this error of detaching co-inherence from Christian salvation and love?

My guess is that there were good and bad reasons (as usual) - good reasons would include the hope that by establishing co-inherence as a habit then people might be more likely to become Christian; bad reasons might include a residual (from his early adult life) belief in the reality and potentially benign nature of magic, and an element of wishful thinking that co-inherence might be effective and helpful despite the lack of love.

*

(I sense in CW a difficulty or reluctance in distinguishing Christian love and pathological infatuation. His personality was one of extreme charm and magnetism, but he does not strike me as a naturally loving person - and his enormous and sincere efforts to become so seem forced and, at times, counter-productive. Perhaps - despite his convincing arguments for the validity of the Via Positiva/ Way of Affirmation/ Romantic Theology - Williams missed his personal vocation as celibate religious?)

*

Tolkien, philology and theology

*

Tolkien was a philologist - probably, in terms of ability, the best of his generation.

Philology was a specific technical discipline that focused on language, especially words, especially names – but this was only a tool being put to use in a search for understanding Man’s place in the world.

*

In Roots and Branches Tom Shippey summarises philology as a quest; firstly for a lost unity behind modern diversity in language and culture, both national and regional – including myths; and secondly as the reconciliation of this unity with ‘ideology’.

The ‘ideology might be German nationalist – as in the case of Grimm, or Danish nationalist (in opposition to pan-Germanism) as in the case of NFS Grundtvig, or Finnish nationalist in the case of Tolkien’s most direct influence Elias Lonnrot - who compiled/ created the Kalevala.

*

For Tolkien the aimed-at reconciliation was:

1. The West Midlands

2. England

3. Christianity

*

As is now well known, thanks to Shippey, Tolkien set out to do something for England that was closely analogous to the great 19th century philologists: that is, he set out to use philological methods to infer from fragmentary evidence a lost unity (if not the lost unity) behind English language, culture, ideology, mythology and - ultimately – theology.

(However, while Lonnrot synthesised national myths then presented them as if historical fact, Tolkien chose to present his lost unity in term of fiction, romance, feigned history; as an explicit act of sub-creation.)

*

Tolkien worked intermittently but very seriously to retain a general compatibility between his Legendarium and Christianity.

This can be seen quite explicitly in the material printed in relation to Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth in Morgoth's Ring which is Volume 10 of The History of Middle Earth (edited by Christopher Tolkien) .

(See http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/tolkiens-marring-of-men.html )

*

Tolkien was trying to steer a middle course.

On the one hand, Tolkien had to avoid too close an identification of his Legendarium with Christianity, because then his work would become merely a re-telling or, at most, an allegory.

On the other hand, Tolkien certainly did not want his Legendarium to work-against Christianity in any way.

His hope and intention was, therefore, that the Legendarium should be complementary to Christianity.

His hope was fulfilled, his intention succeeded.

*

The centrality of co-inherence to salvation - Charles Williams as prophet

*

Anyone who has approached the theological writings of Charles Williams will know the importance he places on the concept of co-inherence - yet this is a concept which I have found hard to grasp, and at times I have felt that Williams 'makes too much of it'.

But as I gradually come to grasp its meaning, I begin to see that co-inherence is of profound importance to the Christian life - an importance which it is hard to over-emphasise.

I shall try to explain in my own words.

*

Co-inherence relates to the second great commandment to 'love thy neighbour' (the first being to love God above all).

The deep meaning of this is that we save others, ourselves we cannot save - and it is by love of others that we may participate in the divine plan of salvation.

*

The necessity for the incarnation is that the human will is corrupt and humans cannot save themselves. We really cannot.

And the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ did not affect this fact.

The human will is still corrupt, humans still cannot save themselves.

*

Yet, by 'love of neighbour' we can save each other (our love being, as it were, added to the saving love of Christ which makes the whole operation possible).

*

The fundamental and immovable insufficiency of human will is neglected - we really cannot do anything at all for ourselves directly.

Attempts to live by The Law, spiritual strivings, the inculcation of good habits - these are all in vain.

We just are corrupt, and our will is poisoned at its roots, all such attempts will be perverted and turned against us.

*

But, by the new testament of Christ, our love can save others. This is the 'good news'. This is also 'the meaning of life'.

*

This means (I think) that we have no say in our own salvation.

Because if we did have any say in our own salvation, then we would refuse it - because we are wretched and corrupted creatures.

We would reject salvation - even if it was offered to us on a plate (as, in a sense, it really is).

*

BUT, we can be saved by the love of others - it is their love for us which saves us.

And vice versa, it is our love of others which saves them.

*

However the mystery is that love is inevitably and intrinsically a two way process.

One cannot love another without also being loved by them; or, love of another intrinsically entails love by that other (even when one party does not know the other, even when one is alive and the other dead).

Our love for another can, and will, save that other - whether they 'know about' it or not, whether they want it or not!

They may be be saved even if they do not consent to being saved - because if it required our consent to being saved, then nobody would ever be saved.

*

We can only love others by means of Christ's love - to put it in a simple metaphor, Christ's love will go into us that it may be transmitted to others, and only for that reason.

The saving love comes to us only as an indirect consequence of our love of others.

*

Or, to extend this simple metaphor, Christ brought this possibility into being as a extra to the already-existing possibility of salvation purely from love of God (which already existed for the prophets, for instance - I am assuming the prophets were saved, since at least some went directly to Heaven).

*

To put matters very crudely (my understanding being itself very crude) we have two routes to salvation - the direct route of love of God - which was available to humanity before Christ but is extremely rare and hard; and the indirect route of love of others which Christ 'brought into being'.

This indirect route being more possible to more people - a more accessible mode of salvation. (This the Good News).

*

And, this mode of salvation by love of others works retrospectively (in eternity). Love now is permanent in its effect, which means it is eternal - outside of time.

Thus co-inherence is the solution to the ancient problem of the virtuous pagan born before Christ - it is our love for them which saves them (or had saved them already, as it were, in the moment after death when their souls moved from Time to Eternity).

*

And co-inherence is also the solution to the problem of The Good non-Christian, and of the salvation of children, the mentally incompetent, the brain damaged and so on.

Such may be saved by the love of others (and by the loving prayers of others).

*

Co-inherence is therefore spiritual altruism - the real, underlying, proper other-wordly spirit of altruism.

By this account, co-inherence is - for most people, most of the time - just the most important thing in life.

So Charles Williams was not exaggerating its importance, not in the slightest; he was, indeed, the profound prophet of a fundamental but neglected truth.

*

Another way of thinking about this is that we cannot save ourselves because love of self is pride. Pride, the master sin, stands behind all human motivations as they relate to the self - whatever we try to do for, or by, or with ourselves will be subverted by pride. So how to escape this impasse? By love of God and of others; not by doings, as such, but by love (which may motivate doing, but may not - action may be impossible). Christ will 'supply' us with love, all the love that is ever needed, but only when that love is directed away from the self; when it is thereby freed from taint of pride. This combined with the recognition that love is eternal in its effects - an unceasing and ineradicable source of warmth and light for the soul that has been loved. The effect of us being loved is what compels us to choose salvation - without such compulsion we would not be able to accept it. Thus we may be saved without our knowledge or consent; and may do the same for others. It is an invisible economy of salvation (at least, its working are invisible in this world) .

*

Tom Shippey - the indispensable Tolkien scholar

*

For anyone not themselves a philologist and who finds themselves turning to JRR Tolkien as to a spiritual father or starets, the scholar Tom Shippey is indispensable - I mean the word literally. We cannot do without him.

*

My own understanding of Tolkien divides into two phases - pre- and post-reading Shippey's The Road to Middle Earth.

*

Shippey brings two things: first the technical skill (in itself extremely rare) necessary to analyse Tolkien's methods and purposes; and secondly a basic attitude to life which is essentially identical with Tolkien (Shippey writes from the perspective of a reactionary Christian).

(I do not know to what extent Shippey would explicitly accept the label of reactionary Christian; nonetheless this is without doubt the perspective from which he writes.).

*

Great literary criticism is extremely rare, but Shippey goes beyond literary criticism. Shippey is a real philologist, in the 19th century German tradition, when philology was (briefly) the Master Discipline of academia: combining traditional knowledge of the humanities, the objectivity and precision of science and the creativity of the poet.

Of course, this is precisely what Tolkien was; and it takes Shippey to show us Tolkien's greatness in this respect - and greatness is the proper word, because Tolkien was a truly great scholar, despite his slender publication list.

And Tolkien's fiction came from his scholarship - as Tolkien always himself claimed; but it takes Shippey to tell us what Tolkien's claim meant, and how the process worked.

*

These thoughts have come from (at last) reading Tom Shippey's third book about Tolkien - the collection of essays from 2007 entitled Roots and Branches.

I foolishly delayed buying this book until last week, because I worried that the essays might simply repeat the earlier books, and because the volume seemed over-priced.

I was wrong.  

Roots and branches represents a major extension of Shippey's insights into Tolkien, and it is one of the best books of 'lit crit' I have read - dense with scholarship, insights and wisdom; deft, direct, humorous; sheerly enjoyable.

*

First read Tolkien.

Then, if you want to look into the secondary literature read Shippey's Road to Middle Earth.

Then read Roots and Branches. 

And then read the others... 

* 

The unrepentant orcs

*

In The Lord of the Rings there are several points where there are fairly extensive transcriptions of orc conversation - for example when Merry and Pippin have been kidnapped by the gangs of Ugluk and Grishnackh, and in the tower of Cirth Ungol when Sam overhears Shagrat and Gorbag in discussion, and in Mordor when Frodo and Sam observe an argument between a 'sniffer' and a warrior.

From such conversation, Tom Shippey (in his brilliant essay Orcs, Wraiths, Wights: Tolkien's images of evil) infers that:

'...Orcs recognise the idea of goodness, appreciate humour, value loyalty, trust, group cohesion and the ideal of a higher cause then themselves, and condemn failings from these ideals in others'.

*

In other words, orcs have a moral system which is pretty much identical with that of men - which would not be surprising, since they were (probably) originally men that have been corrupted (mainly by Morgoth).

What is different about orcs is:

1. That they utterly fail to live up to their moral system.

2. Are free from any guilt about this failure.

3. And therefore do not ever repent their wrong-doings.

*

As well as utterly failing to abide by their own moral code, orcs pursue evil in that they try to destroy Good: they destroy virtue, ruin any beauty and lie whenever it is expedient.

*

Thus, orcs represent an extreme limit of human evil.

Orcs retain the inborn Natural Law (the orc moral system) - and are thus typically human.

Orcs are nonetheless dominated by the will to evil - they nearly always choose the evil option (exhibiting original sin) - and in this too they are within the bounds of human behaviour.

All that divides orcs from humans in a qualitative sense is the apparent impossibility of repentance among orcs.

*

Perhaps this was the focus of Morgoth's corruption of men into orcs?

Perhaps Morgoth strove not so much to make men more evil, since there have-been and are men just as evil as the worst orcs described by Tolkien; but rather to breed (selectively?) a kind of man that is - in practice, temperamentally, by virtue of his character - incapable of repentance.

*

That is quite a thought: the only thing dividing humans from orcs is the matter of repentance.

And it is this which makes the difference between the possibility of salvation from humans, and the apparent impossibility of salvation for orcs.

*

Perhaps even this would not be enough to damn all orcs if they were capable of love, or even of eliciting love - but there is no sign of it.

Indeed, it is presumably the inability of orcs to love which is the ultimate cause of their inability to repent.

*

Why doesn't Eru just eradicate the evil of Middle Earth?

*

The short answer is that Middle Earth has been tainted and permeated by the evil of Morgoth, such that everything is involved.

To gain domination over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth – hence all things that were born on Earth and live on and by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be ‘stained’.

(From Morgoth's Ring - volume XI of the History of Middle Earth)



To eradicate evil would, therefore, entail eradicating everything - including all the elves, men, dwarves and ents; all the land itself.

Yet destruction of Middle Earth and all in it would itself be a great evil.

The situation seems insoluble...

*

And this is Tolkien's fictional and sub-created 'explanation' of the necessity for the incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection; because it is necessary for everything - humans and the earth itself - first to die, then to be remade perfect; and this is the only possible cure for evil.

Paradise, complete Good-ness, necessarily lies on the other side of death and destruction - as described in the Revelation of St John (upon which Tolkien had meditated deeply while translating Pearl by the Gawain poet).

*

The 'meaning of life' according to Tolkien

*

From Smith of Wootton Major - extended edition edited by Verlyn Flieger - Suggestions for the ending of the story page 81.

This is Tolkien reflecting on his draft of SoWM

I have edited this slightly for punctuation:

*

When the Smith comes home after surrendering the star, should any more be said about what became of him?


In [an] earlier draft it is said that he could go back to Fayery, for the mark of the star that had been on his brow was still visible to the folk of Fayery; but he could not go deep in, nor ever visit any new place or see any new thing that he had not already seen. 


(This has significance, of course; a time comes for writers and artists, when invention and 'vision' cease and they can only reflect on what they have seen and learned.) 


But that is not the whole point of the tale. Which includes sacrifice, and the handing on, with trust and without keeping a hand on things, of power and vision to the next generation. 


Also another point is that the visions of imagination are not enough; they are only pictures and imaginations. 


When wisdom comes, the mind - though enriched by imagination, having learned or seen distantly truths only perceptible in this way - must prepare to leave the world of Men and of Fayery.

***

Note: This passage brings-out the deep unity of Christian thought between C.S. Lewis and Tolkien -  the idea of the Good things of mortal life as being a matter of 'pictures and imaginations' that serve as distant and evanescent glimpses of eternal truths; which must be loved and learned-from yet renounced, let-go-of. The wise man must love the Good things of this world, yet consent voluntarily to leave this world; yet not from weariness or despair but in hope that the soul may attain utter fulfilment and satisfaction in the next. This hope comes from revelation, but is properly directed and strengthened by the pictures and imaginations of sub-creation.

*

What do hostile critics mean when they say Tolkien is morally simplistic?

*

The accusation that Lord of the Rings is morally simplistic - consisting of whiter-than-white goodies and blacker-than-black baddies - is extraordinarily common among those who dislike Tolkien considering that it is obviously, utterly, absurdly false.

But I think I now realise what they mean.

*

What they mean is not really what they say, that the characters are dichotomously distributed between Good and Evil...

What they mean is that LotR depicts the underlying Cosmic war of Good and Evil, the War of God and the angels and the free peoples; against Satan and the demons, their machines, slaves, servants and dupes.

The line between Good and Evil in LotR does not run between the characters (as the critics accuse) but within each character - no character is wholly either Good or Evil, but some mixture - however there is indeed a war afoot, and the sides are clear and distinct at a cosmic level, and each character chooses on which side they will try to fight.

*

And that is what the hostile critics recognise, and what they loathe - the traditional, and human universal conception of Unseen Warfare between good and evil:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/reality-of-unseen-warfare-excerpted.html

And their recognition and hatred of this depiction of life as fundamentally an Unseen Warfare is (often) precisely at the root of their visceral hostility to Tolkien - because the hostile critics implicitly recognise the reality of this war, but they have chosen not to fight on the side of Good.

***

Note: Something similar applies to many similar criticism of fantasy such as Lewis's Narnia and Rowling's Harry Potter. The best examples of the genre are morally complex at the individual level - but clear and simple at the cosmic level - and it is this real and objective metaphysical morality which modern critics loathe.

*

Torturing Gollum

*

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/05/torturing-gollum-implications.html

*

(Note: I thought this should probably be archived on the Tolkien blog, as well as the Miscellany.)

C.S Lewis on Substituted Love and Exchange in Charles Williams

*

From Arthurian Torso, 1948, condensed from pp 121-5.

Williams realises, as perhaps only great poets do, that poetry is after all only poetry. It is not a substitute for for philosophy or theology, much less for sanctification.

Not even Virgil can be saved by poetry... This poet from whose work so many Christians have drawn spiritual nourishment was not himself a Christian - did not himself know the full meaning of his own poetry... This is the exquisite cruelty: he made honey not for himself; he helped to save others, himself he could not save...

*

The problem of the virtuous pagan is for [Williams] a real one.

The fact that Virgil was a great poet does not in the least alter the fact that he cannot have had Christian faith, hope and charity; without which no man can be saved...

Virgil's death... Every possible grip has failed. The two things he loved, Rome and Augustus, have become, the one a nonentity, the other a swelling, gruesome, obscene, gargantuan shape... Virgil is overwhelmed in the mere flotsam and rubble of what had been his own poetic universe...

And that, as far as Nature goes, would have been the end of the story.

But the second part [of the poem] tells us that as Virgil was about to perish in the 'perpetual falling, perpetual burying', helpers rushed towards him, dived beneath him, caught him as he fell.

They had rushed from what was (to him) the far future, for this transaction is outside time.

All who have been or will be nurtured by Virgil's hexameters rushed back along the timeless corridors to save their 'master and friend', the 'holy poet', to place at his service the faith which they had and he lacked...

*

The present poems means what it says. I think the poet would have said in so many words, if asked, that any Christian Virgilian can this very night assist in the salvation of Virgil.

*

Arthurian Torso - CS Lewis on Charles Williams on Islam

*

From Arthurian Torso by Charles Williams and C.S. Lewis, 1948.

Lewis is here describing  C.W's Arthurian poem sequences on pages 124-5.

It is Lewis's most extended discussion of Islam (that I can recall, at any rate) and seems worth salvaging from obscurity for that reason.

*

Palomides the Saracen Knight, the unsuccessful lover of Iseult, comes out of Mohammedan Spain ‘through the green-pennon-skirted Pyrenees’ and the ‘cross-littered land of Gaul’ to Cornwall and the house of King Mark.

The anachronism whereby Islam is made contemporary with Arthur is deliberate: Islam was for Williams the symbol (as it is certainly the greatest historical expression) of something which is eternally the opposite of Sarras and Carbonek.

Islam denies the Incarnation. It will not allow that God has descended into flesh or that Manhood has been exalted into Deity...

*

It stands for all religions that are afraid of matter and afraid of mystery, for all misplaced reverences and misplaced purities that repudiate the body and shrink back from the glowing materialism of the Grail.

It stands for what Williams called ‘heavy morality’—the ethics of sheer duty and obedience as against the shy yet (in the long run) shameless acceptance of heaven’s courtesies flowing from the ‘homely and courteous lord’.

It is strong, noble, venerable; yet radically mistaken.

It had nibbled at Christianity almost form the beginning in the swarm of heresies which denied the full doctrine of Incarnation.

That is the point of the Prelude to The Region of the Summer Stars. St. Paul preached ‘the golden Ambiguity’—the irony beyond all ironies which the manger in the Bethlehem stable presents, the ‘physiological glory’. But the ‘ancient intellect’ shrank back from the new doctrine...

*

The prelude to Taliessin Through Logres is also concerned with this conflict between the ‘ambiguity’ of Incarnation and the heavy lucidity of mere Monotheism.

On the historical level it is a fact that ‘the Moslem stormed Byzantium’. On the spiritual level huge areas of the world fell back from the subtler and more ‘scandalous’ Faith—and fall back daily in the sub-Christian doctrines of Christ’s person which are dear to the modern world.

This is not the defeat of truth by simple error or of good by simple evil: it is the loss of living, paradoxical truths (for mere Monotheism blinds and stifles the mind like noonday sun in the Arabian deserts till we may well ‘call on the hills to hide us’).

It is the defeat of fine and tender and even frolic delicacies of goodness by iron legalism, the ‘fallacy of rational virtue’.

Islam is true so far as it affirms: we must rejoice that it conquered the old Dualism of Persia. But it affirms unity in such a way that ‘union is breached’; and then, however truly and with whatever grandeur the muezzin cried ‘Good is God’...

*

The mythic Oxford symbolism of Smith of Wootton Major

*

This seems apparent from the wonderful opening section:

There was a village once, not very long ago for those with long memories, nor very far away for those with long legs. Wootton Major it was called because it was larger than Wootton Minor, a few miles away deep in the trees; but it was not very large, though it was at that time prosperous, and a fair number of folk lived in it, good, bad, and mixed, as is usual.

It was a remarkable village in its way, being well known in the country round about for the skill of its workers in various crafts, but most of all for its cooking. It had a large Kitchen which belonged to the Village Council, and the Master Cook was an important person.

The Cook's House and the Kitchen adjoined the Great Hall, the largest and oldest building in the place and the most beautiful. It was built of good stone and good oak and was well tended, though it was no longer painted or gilded as it had been once upon a time.

In the Hall the villagers held their meetings and debates, and their public feasts, and their family gatherings. So the Cook was kept busy, since for all these occasions he had to provide suitable fare. For the festivals, of which there were many in the course of a year, the fare that was thought suitable was plentiful and rich.

There was one festival to which all looked for-ward, for it was the only one held in winter. It went on for a week, and on its last day at sundown there was a merrymaking called The Feast of Good Children, to which not many were invited.

No doubt some who deserved to be asked were overlooked, and some who did not were invited by mistake; for that is the way of things, however careful those who arrange such matters may try to be. In any case it was largely by chance of birthday that any child came in for the Twenty-four Feast, since that was only held once in twenty-four years, and only twenty-four children were invited. For that occasion the Master Cook was expected to do his best, and in addition to many other good things it was the custom for him to make the Great Cake.

By the excellence (or otherwise) of this his name was chiefly remembered, for a Master Cook seldom if ever lasted long enough in office to make a second Great Cake.

JRR Tolkien. Smith of Wootton Major. 1967

*

I shall comment on this section by section, unpacking what seems to me to be implied:

It was a remarkable village in its way, being well known in the country round about for the skill of its workers in various crafts, but most of all for its cooking.

Crafts imply the various branches of scholarship; cooking is, of course - as certainly intended, Christianity. And Wootton Major is clearly a mythic city not merely a village, since it has many specialist craftsmen and is a religious centre. Tolkien's mythic city was Oxford.

It had a large Kitchen which belonged to the Village Council, and the Master Cook was an important person.

Large kitchen implies a Cathedral (i.e. a large church) - the Master Cook is therefore a Bishop.

In the Hall the villagers held their meetings and debates, and their public feasts, and their family gatherings. So the Cook was kept busy, since for all these occasions he had to provide suitable fare. For the festivals, of which there were many in the course of a year, the fare that was thought suitable was plentiful and rich.

In this mythic Oxford, the Cathedral is the centre of human life - and all significant human affairs are conducted in a Christian context and location.

The Cook providing suitable fare indicates the Bishop's spiritual rule over (and likely presence at) all these meetings, debates, feasts, gatherings.

There was one festival to which all looked for-ward, for it was the only one held in winter. It went on for a week, and on its last day at sundown there was a merrymaking called The Feast of Good Children, to which not many were invited... it was largely by chance of birthday that any child came in for the Twenty-four Feast, since that was only held once in twenty-four years, and only twenty-four children were invited.

Every twenty four years means every generation - the feast of Good Children seems like the occasion at which the Bishop's successor is chosen - chosen from among who is good (so far as this can be judged), and chosen on the basis of divine Grace (by who has the star bestowed upon them) and chosen by how they respond to the Great Cake...

For that occasion the Master Cook was expected to do his best, and in addition to many other good things it was the custom for him to make the Great Cake. By the excellence (or otherwise) of this his name was chiefly remembered, for a Master Cook seldom if ever lasted long enough in office to make a second Great Cake.

So what is the Great Cake? Presumably a distillation of the Bishop's wisdom, something like a sermon or homily - what is to be determined is firstly how good the sermon, secondly which child receives the sermon as it should be received- upon that child the faery star (ennobling gift of supernatural Grace) is bestowed.
 
So, Wootton Major hints at an ideal, mythic city of an Oxford type - as Oxford should be: a primarily Christian centre, ruled by a Bishop, and under whose rule the scholarly Arts might flourish - and a place touched with and ennobled by the mystery of faery.
 
*

The web of co-inherence in Harry Potter - who saved Draco's soul?

*

Charles William's concept of co-inherence is strangely difficult to understand, I find.

Perhaps this is a modern phenomenon - we are all trained to think of ourselves as striving for self-actualisation - the idea that we are saved by others is alien and almost incomprehensible.

But I have found the Harry Potter series to be valuable in thinking through the idea, the way in which the books can be understood as being underpinned by a web of self-sacrificing love - in which character's save each-other, but not themselves.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/harry-potter-co-inherence-and.html

*

The idea of co-inherence seems to be that Christians are strictly unable to attain their own salvation directly - but only indirectly.

The two greatest commandments are love of God first, and secondly love of Neighbour.

Thus, our salvation is not attained by our efforts, but given by the Grace of God, and (less recognised) by the love of others.

(Nowhere does it mention love of Self.)

Our first job is to accept this free gift of love, humbly to consent to receive this gift; our second job is to join in the great plan of salvation by loving God and our neighbour - and thus assisting in the salvation of our neighbour.

The hero Harry Potter does both; the anti-hero Draco does only the first part (the acceptance) and does not seem to give his own sacrificial love to others - at least, so far as we know.

*

From Charles Williams we get:

Love of God is the direct path of monasticism - the Negative Way (Via Negativa) the path of asceticism and denial.

Love of Neighbour is the indirect way, the Via Positiva, the path of affirmation. We hope to be saved by our Love of others, by Love of God's creation and creatures.

(The two paths are not separable, but more a question of emphasis.)

*

The Via Positiva is possible because of co-inherence. In a nutshell this is that salvation is not individual but a matter of humanity - joined in a web.

Everyone's conduct, choices, faith affects everybody else - our path affects that of others, indeed of our nation and the world; and what goes on in the world, our country, the people around us affects us. We are all 'in it together' - in Life together, in the quest for salvation together.

*

We depend on others, depend in a very fundamental way - and they depend on us.

So salvation is a web, but a web of not merely mutual assistance, but a web in which salvation runs one-way - runs from others to us and from us to others.

We save others, others save us; our Love saves others, their Love saves us

- we are saved by our Love for others, but only indirectly, not by ourselves 'having' Love for others, but by given Love, by self-sacrificial Love.

*

It is this indirect route, this web of Love which is so profoundly exemplified in the Harry Potter series of novels - because again-and-again we see Harry 'saved' by the self-sacrificing Love of others, and in the end it is his self-sacrificing Love which saves 'the world' from coming under control of evil.

In the context of the novel series, to be 'saved' carries two distinct but related meanings - saving-the-life of and saving-the-soul of.

Saving Harry's life, in particular, is seen not just as a life, but in salvific terms - since Harry is himself the prophesied saviour, who is destined to be the one who will confront Voldemort to determine the fate of the world, he is the only one who can defeat Voldemort.

So, in this fictional world, saving a life is sometimes intended to mean much the same as saving a soul.

*

Dumbledore is the co-inherence expert in the Harry Potter books - he is the only person who seems to understand the workings of Love.

Right from the first book up to the King's Cross chapter of the last; Dumbledore's private chats with Harry are where the reader is told about the workings of love, especially of self-sacrificing love, and indirectly informed how and where it operates between the main characters.

Almost everything we, as readers, know about love in the world of Harry Potter, we are told by Dumbledore. Although he is morally flawed, Dumbledore's comprehension seems to be definitive.

*

Below I will analyse a small part of the complex 'economy of sacrificial love', the web of co-inherence depicted in the Harry Potter series.

I should make clear that I do not believe that the pattern was explicitly deliberate, and I would be amazed if it was directly derived from Charles Williams.

Rather, I sense that the pattern among the characters of HP resulted from JKR having a deep, strong and secure instinctual understanding of these matters, an understanding shared with C.W as a result of similar thought processes, rather than any kind of direct influence from C.W. to JKR.

*

In Harry Potter, love is described much more like a physical thing - indeed a physiological change, than it is like a psychological perception.

Sacrificial love has its effects on the person for whom the sacrifice was made - whether or not the recipient knows of it or its operations.

All that is required of the recipient of sacrificial love to gain the benefit is their passive - even grudging - consent to accepting the salvation which self-sacrifice brings.

*

So in The Philosopher's Stone, Dumbeldore says that Lily's love is present in Harry's actual skin, such that Quirrell/ Voldemort cannot touch him.

This happens despite Harry's lack of knowledge of how such things work.

In Order of the Phoenix, Dumbeldore says that Lily's love is present not only in Harry's blood, but also in the blood of his Aunt Petunia - despite that his Aunt actually dislikes Harry.

This protected Harry from Voldemort as a child despite his lack of knowledge.

That the sacrificial love of Lily's is effective protection requires only that Petunia consents to have Harry in her home, it does not require that Petunia love Harry.

In Goblet of Fire, Voldemort uses Harry's blood - and thus Lily's love - in making himself a new body. This joins Harry and Voldemort with a new kind of protection for Harry.

(Voldemort chooses to reject love, so the protection is one way. When Harry is enabled by his self-sacrifice to offer Voldemort a final chance for remorse, Voldemort dismisses it and tries to kill Harry - this is the refusal of consent to God's love and a rejection of the salvific effect of love by a 'neighbour'.).

*

The way in which the Harry Potter novels describe love as effective with mere consent is seen most clearly in terns of the anti-hero character of Draco Malfoy - who is, it seems, redeemed in some way such that we feel his soul has been saved through the course of the books.

This happens despite that there is no evidence of Draco having reformed much as a character, nor to have become a 'good' person - if the Epilogue's 'curt' nod to Harry at King's Cross is a reliable guide he has merely achieved the negative state of no-longer-being-actively-evil.

But how has this happened - who has saved Draco's soul?

*

In The Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore's main concern is to save the soul of Draco - which he believes will be lost if Draco commits murder.

In this case, the main agent of sacrificial love is Snape.

Dumbledore instructs Snape to kill him (in a kind of euthanasia) in order that Draco does not suffer the wound to his soul which would result from murdering Dumbledore. +


My understanding is that Snape's self sacrifice (i.e. bearing the sin of murdering Dumbledore) is done for Draco - and from Snape's love of Draco, but also on behalf of Harry.

And Snape's self-sacrifice for Harry comes from his love of Lily which led him to swear obedience to Dumbledore  - it is indeed a complex web...

*

As a result of Snape's self-sacrifice it seems as if Draco cannot, from that point onwards, harm Harry

 Draco apparently refuses to identify Harry when Harry is captured and brought to Malfoy Manor with his face distorted and disguised by by Hermione's Stinging Jinx. Shortly afterwards Draco seems to allow Harry to disarm him, with barely a struggle and without a fight.

At this point, Draco still seems to want to serve Voldemort and to harm Harry but something he does not understand (presumably Snape's act of self-sacrificial love) prevents him from doing so: such that when Draco, Crabbe and Goyle confront Harry in the Room of Requirement; Draco wants to leave Harry unharmed (albeit to deliver both him and the diadem to Voldemort - at this point Draco is still trying to serve evil).

However, Draco ends up - ineffectually - trying to protect Harry from Crabbe; is again disarmed, and from that point he seems - passively - to accept Harry's leadership and to stop fighting on behalf of Voldemort.

My understanding is that Draco has - at last - consented to having been saved by Snape's act of self-sacrifice on his behalf; and that this consent is enough.

In a typical working of co-inherence, Snape did the work of salvation for Draco, Draco needed merely to accept it.

*

+ NOTE - It is interesting that here, as elsewhere, Rowling's instinct is sometimes to to have a 'good' character break one moral rule - i.e. the prohibition of euthanasia - in pursuit of a higher moral rule - i.e. to save Draco's soul.

This is, indeed, what must happen with all moral laws if they are to lead to virtue - a higher law will sometimes require the breaking of a lower law, since all laws are summaries of virtue, and not virtue itself.

In the New Testament it is fairly common for Christ to do the same - e.g. breaking the Sabbath prohibitions in order to heal the sick.







*