Charles Williams Did influence JRR Tolkien's writing - The Place of the Lion and The Notion Club Papers

For the past fifty years it has been normal to assume that JRR Tolkien disliked (probably because he was jealous of) Charles Williams; and that Williams did not influence Tolkien's writing.

Despite that Tolkien personally claimed such things in writing; none of these are strictly correct. 

Tolkien was good friends with Williams, during Williams's life - it was only some years after Williams died, when Tolkien became aware of some aspects of CW's biography, that Tolkien turned against Williams and began to make misleading statements to play-down their friendship. 

The denial of Williams's influence on Tolkien is more complex. As a generalization, it is true to say that the two men had different minds, aims, and literary styles - and there is no striking influence of Williams noticeable in the works Tolkien published during his lifetime - especially not The Lord of the Rings. 

But more can be said. 

One major influence of Williams is not in The Lord of the Rings, but in the fact that it was attempted at all, and soon became a more ambitious book than The Hobbit, and directed at adults. 

This was - I believe - a consequence of the powerful effect - on CS Lewis as well as JRR Tolkien - of encountering Williams's novel The Place of the Lion in 1936. This led Lewis and Tolkien making a "deal" to embark on attempting to write "adult" fantasy or science fiction novels of a kind they especially liked reading. 

Lewis produced the Space Trilogy, and Tolkien produced two unpublished (in his lifetime) attempts at a time travel story: The Lost Road (attempted immediately), and The Notion Club Papers (attempted about a decade after Tolkien and Lewis's deal). 

And it is in an un-published  (and un-finished) work by Tolkien, The Notion Club Papers, that the influence of Charles Williams can be seen. 

Therefore, Williams did influence Tolkien's writing - and in a direct fashion - but the piece of writing Williams influenced was neither completed nor published by Tolkien.

Indeed, edited drafts of the Notion Club Papers did not appear in print until 1992, embedded in the Middle of the Sauron Defeated volume of Christopher Tolkien's The History of Middle Earth - nearly fifty years after Williams's death, and nearly twenty years since JRR Tolkien's death.   

In the event; Williams's influence was invisibly absorbed-into The Lord of the Rings, but only via the secondary effects of the NCPs, which were mainly on Numenor and its use as a "backstory" for the Dunedain; and the Numenorean language of Adunaic (which evolved into the Common Speech of Middle Earth). 

It seems to me very likely that Tolkien's writing of The Notion Club Papers was a direct consequence of the death of Charles Williams. 

The Williams derivation is seen firstly in the origins of the NCPs as a playful "alter-ego" discussion group, explicitly referencing The Inklings, read to The Inklings as work-in-progress in instalments, and with characters loosely-based on the post-Williams membership. 

In this respect I regard it as significant that there is no Notion Club member who is described as based-on the just-deceased Charles. It is as if the NCPs was a tribute to Charles's memory, and as such to include CW among the somewhat facetious caricatures the NCP membership would have been disrespectful and altogether inappropriate. 

Yet, if I am right, The Notion Club Papers were developed as a creative celebration of Tolkien's friend and fellow Inkling Charles Williams, conceived in remembrance of the catalytic and transformative effects of The Place of the Lion, back in 1936. 

According to Christopher Tolkien's dating; The Notion Club Papers was written during a period from late 1944, a few months before the death of Charles Williams up to the summer of 1946 after which work on The Lord of the Rings was re-commenced, and the NCPs were set aside finally and irrevocably. 

These dates set a bound to work on the Notion Club Papers - they were written between late 1944 and mid 1946; but there is (I think) no reference to the NCPs until August 1945 (in Warren Lewis's diary), and my prediction would be that the Notion Club Papers was begun in mid 1945, some time after Charles Williams's death on 15th May.   

During this period when work of LotR was suspended; it is likely that the Notion Club Papers was Tolkien's major writing project - alongside preparing his essay On Fairy Stories for publication in a memorial Festschrift volume for Charles Williams. It seems that Tolkien's thoughts, and those of the Inklings as a group, were almost certain to be much occupied with Williams.  

Among Charles William's novels, The Place of the Lion is the only one that we know for sure was highly-rated and valued by Tolkien. 

And, among CW's novels, The Place of the Lion is distinctive in its structure. A group of modern people have formed a kind of spiritual research society, and these inadvertently open-up a "channel" to the ancient and primal world of Platonic Ideas or Archetypes. This channel to another world operates through the minds of group members.

The various Platonic Archetypes then flood-through the minds of particular people; enter into the modern world, and begin to wreak havoc. 

In broad terms; this is an exact analogy to the basic plot of the Notion Club Papers. A group of writers become deeply interested in viewing other times and places, making various attempts to attune their minds with the past and remote parts of the universe; and thereby the NC inadvertently establish a channel of contact with the persons and era of the downfall and drowning of Numenor.  

Once this channel has been opened among NC members, then the winds and tidal waves that had destroyed Numenor flood-through into the modern world, and wreak havoc. 

Therefore, in a general sense, The Place of the Lion offered Tolkien a model for building a relationship between the modern everyday world, and some other world with more profound and transcendent aspects; a model that involved the deliberate attunement of minds happening among members of a particular group. 

Or, to put it differently (and as explicitly stated within the NCP), The Place of the Lion provided for Tolkien a way of linking mundane history to mythic reality, on the assumption that the remote past was actually mythic in its reality. 

On such a basis; at one point, Tolkien considered using The Notion Club Papers as the framing for the Hobbit/ Lord of the Rings/ Silmarillion; as a way of explaining how knowledge of Numenor/ Middle Earth/ Arda, came to be transmitted to modern times.

In the end, Tolkien framed his stories with the fiction that ancient manuscripts (such as The Red Book of Westmarch) had survived through the millennia, and somehow come into his hands as their "editor"; but while writing the NCPs, he was exploring the idea that there was a direct, mind-to-mind, transmission of such knowledge via the Notion Club.   

In sum; a specific focus on The Place of the Lion among all of Charles William's work, and a consideration of the chronology and form of Tolkien's writing, and the inclusion of Tolkien's unpublished and unfinished works; leads to a recognition of a strong, and indeed decisive, influence of Charles Williams on JRR Tolkien.  

**

Note: As can be seen in the links above, I (as well as others) have fairly often commented that The Notion Club Papers was Tolkien's "Charles Williams novel" - in a general sense, and in an "atmospheric" way. 

I am now saying more than this, and in a much more specific sense: that the NCPs was not just "a" Charles Williams novel, but related to one particular novel: The Place of the Lion. 

And furthermore that this was purposively so: that Tolkien wrote The Notion Club Papers with Charles Williams and The Place of the Lion in-mind.  

Why Tolkien "cordially disliked allegory"?

Tolkien declared in his introduction to The Lord of the Rings: I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. 

This seems straightforward, and we would expect Tolkien to eschew allegory altogether. 

But there is a sense in which this statement is misleading if taken generally, because Tolkien himself wrote and published allegory; especially the short story Leaf by Niggle - which does not make much sense unless understood as a Christian allegory. 

Nonetheless, Tolkien was sincere in his dislike of allegory when this was falsely attributed. 

And this can be understood if The World as depicted by an allegory, is contrasted with The World as depicted in the kind of mythopoeic fantasy that Tolkien most desired to write. 

The core difference is that an allegorical world points to the modern mundane (and therefore materialistic) life as its reference. 

In other words; an allegory deliberately and by intention maps-onto everyday life - whether that world be politics, recent news, social phenomena and trends, or something else. 

The idea with allegory is that the reader should enjoy the story, which might be a fairy-tale-like beast fable such as Animal Farm; but also be aware that the story has another kind of ordinary reference; mapping outside-itself and more superficially - nearer to our everyday world and this life as we know it. 

By contrast; the kind of mythopoeic writing favoured by Tolkien aims to build a fantasy world that points-at a spiritually-deeper world. A world of enchantment, of greater phenomena and enhanced experiences. 

Mythopoeia could be characterized as aiming to have a world underpinned by perspectives that induce mystical, religious, spiritual, magical associations in the reader.

If the invented world is regarded as a subcreated world; then an allegorical subcreation intends to make us think more superficially and materialistically; whereas a mythopoeic subcreation wants us to be aware of depths below. 

An allegory aspires to be "relevant"; whereas mythopoeia aspires to be profound. 

 

Tolkien's vehemence against allegorical interpretations of The Lord of the Rings Therefore, mythopoeic fantasy needs actively to avoids pointing the reader at modern, mundane life; because an allegorical reading of LotR would subvert its intention - by making the story "relevant" it makes it superficial; it ceases to be profound, enchanting, mystical.

It is evident, therefore, that if the reader starts suspecting allegory of a fantasy, and begins interpreting a story in terms of mundane modern references - this will sabotage the possibility of the kind of mythopoeia Tolkien desired to write with Lord of the Rings.  

For readers to be encouraged to "interpret" LotR as an allegory, would prevent the book from being experienced as the kind of story that Tolkien most wanted it to be. No wonder he so much hated and resisted this false attribution! 

Considering matters more generally, it can also be seen the price that is always and inevitably paid whenever story-makers (whether in novels, movies or on television) strive to make fantasy narratives relevant to "real life". 

This is one reason why recent mass media have degraded mainstream fantasy worlds such as Doctor Who, Star Trek and Star Wars - by striving to make them "relevant" to the mainstream modern materialistic world we inhabit. 

When storylines are made allegorical of "current issues" - and even more strongly when directly didactic elements are inserted - all hints of profundity and enchantment are excluded. 

In general the serious problem with allegory for modern alienated mankind; is that it pushes us back into exactly that shallow, boring, mundane life that we were hoping to transcend by our experience of "other worlds" 

 

Four approaches to understanding JRR Tolkien: historical, philological, Roman Catholic, unique genius

At the time of his death in 1973, not much was published concerning the nature of JRR Tolkien as a man - and a fair bit of what I knew and was publicly available was riddled with inaccuracies (e.g. William Ready's "Understanding Tolkien..." of 1969). 

I think that the present understanding of Tolkien emerged in a broadly chronological fashion, through four broad phases:

1. Historical

2. Philological

3. Roman Catholic

4. Tolkien as an unique genius 

The first major source of information was of an historical and biographical nature; especially the authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter (1977) and the edited selection of Letters in 1981; and much has been added since, especially by Hammond and Scull's "Companion". This approach provides what might be termed Tolkien in his historical context. We learned such matters as the facts of Tolkien's life, marriage and family, his career, friends and colleagues, publication history of his works, the rise of his reputation. 

Although it had always been noted that there were influences in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings that derived from his academic specialty; in 1981 came the seminal Road to Middle Earth, from TA Shippey. This (and further work since, from other scholars in the field) revealed Tolkien as philologist; and explained how the philological approach motivated and underpinned the fictional works. At this point we began to get a feel for Tolkien's inner life - because this way of working was distinctive to the particular tradition of scholarship of which he was so gifted an exemplar. 

From the 1990s, and especially through the work of Joseph Pearce; I began to become aware of a growth in scholarship that recognized JRR Tolkien as a devout Roman Catholic. This has since grown considerably, and it can be seen that there are many characteristically Catholic themes and perspectives throughout Tolkien's work. 

These three approaches all regard Tolkien mainly as an example of some broader category: man of his time and class, man of his academic speciality, man of his church. But perhaps it was not yet clear what made Tolkien his own unique self. 

It was after reading Verlyn Flieger's A Question of Time, and being stimulated to read Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth that I began to develop some idea of his father's distinctive innermost nature. This is an extraordinary resource, and different people will respond to different aspects. Here I speak for myself. 

I began to feel an inner perspective when studying the very close-up and empathic exposition of the writing of Lord of the Rings. I was also affected by some of the factual material on particular characters and races - Galadriel, Morgoth, Sauron, the Elves, and others. 

But mainly, it was due to the semi-autobiographical qualities of the Notion Club Papers that I began to realize that Tolkien was an unusually inner-motivated person; exceptional in the strength and dominance of his imaginative life. 

Here were serious and engaged discussions of mystical, paranormal, supernatural and magical phenomena of many kinds - from personal experience, seemingly - and sometimes confirmed by Christopher Tolkien's notes.  

This domination by an inner perspective was, I think, the basis of Tolkien's genius; indeed, I then began to realize that this was a defining aspect of genius. 

For me at least; my understanding of Tolkien has traversed a great span. Starting from the rather dull, typically Oxfordish, reactionary, and narrowly-opinionated character of Humphrey Carpenter's evaluation...

And going all the way across the spectrum to my current picture of a man who experienced extremely strong inner drives, vivid imaginative pictures, powerful emotions, and extreme mood swings. 

The Three Rings magic and High Elven agriculture

I find myself inclined to speculate on the workings of agriculture among the High Elves of Middle Earth leading up to the time of the War of the Rings* - and from information within The Lord of the Rings.

We are told enough about the agriculture and gardening among Men and Hobbits to understand how they sustain themselves, but very little indeed about the Elves. We hear nothing of fields and farms, or agricultural labour, of the kind that would be needed to sustain Men and Hobbits. 

Elves are said to enjoy hunting, arts and crafts, singing and scholarship; but the idea of a Elf engaging in ploughing, herding cattle, shearing sheep and other agricultural tasks seems almost absurd. 

Indeed, it seems as if the Elves of Rivendell and Lothlorien must support themselves "by magic" - and what slender evidence there is, suggests that this might be so - in a way.  

In The Lord of the Rings, there are only three colonies of High Elves in Middle Earth: Rivendell ruled by Elrond, and Lothlorien ruled by Celeborn and Galadriel Of these we are told a fair amount. Of the third enclave, the Grey Havens ruled by Cirdan, we know almost nothing. 

The problem is that it is made clear the Elves of Rivendell and Lothlorien have almost-nothing to do with the Men (or Hobbits) in their vicinity. 

There is near zero communication between these Elves and the agriculture-pracicing Men (and Hobbits) living nearby; which apparently rules out any significant amount of these Elves trading for food.

Yet, there are certainly feasts at the rather small and exclusive enclave of Rivendell (population a few hundreds, at most) - and there are plenty of other good like clothes, and the materials for craftsmanship in several areas.

Lothlorien supports an apparently larger population, of what seem like thousands (from the description of their tree city, and implied by their role in the War of the Ring); Lothlorien Elves also weave cloth, make ropes, have tools and weapons in plenty; and access to supplies of the cereal grain that goes-into Lembas.    

Lothlorien provides a clue to part of a possible answer in the form of Galadriel's gift to Sam: the little box containing a marvellous kind of earth; even a single grain of which is capable of causing massively accelerated and healthy thriving of plants - such that several/many years of growth happen in just one season. 

This must be magic, not biology; and that points at Galadriel's Elf ring - one of The Three - as a possible basis for this magic. 

I am therefore inclined to speculate that the Elves of Lothlorien were capable, by using the same kind of magic that enchanted Sam's gift, to grow what they needed very quickly, with little effort, and using only small areas of land. 

So, there is indeed "High Elven Agriculture" - but it is highly and rapidly productive on such a small and temporary scale as to be almost unnoticeable to the casual and short term visitor. 

If this can be allowed; then we have the same answer for Rivendell, where Elrond wields another of the Three Rings, and indeed the senior and most powerful of them.   

As for the High Elven enclave of the Grey Havens, we know that its ruler Cirdan originally had the other Elf ring, but yielded it to Gandalf (who puts it to altogether different uses). There must be sufficient elven mariners and shipbuilders in the Grey Havens to fulfil its primary role - a few hundred, perhaps? - and these will need feeding and provisions.  

But we also know that there is a frequent movement of High Elves between the Grey Havens and Rivendell. 

So, in terms of its agricultural "means of support" - how it feeds and clothes itself - the Grey Havens, may well be an outpost of Rivendell, and so a beneficiary of the magical agriculture sustained by Elrond's Elf Ring.

+++

*I leave aside the Wood Elves of Mirkwood - because they are only much known via the Hobbit; and before the habitations of Middle Earth had been defined by the later book. From what we are told in The Hobbit, the Wood Elves live by hunting and trading (for instance for wine and food) with the Men of Lake town; and - it is vaguely implied - with other more distant but undefined Men. 

What the Wood Elves are trading for their food and wine is unclear; although it may be that the large treasury of the Elvenking (gold, silver, jewels etc) is being gradually expended as a capital resource. If the Mirkwood Elves do depend on Lake Town, it provides a self-interested motivation for the Elvenking's crucial assistance in saving the residual population, and rebuilding Lake Town after Smaug's depredations.

I also tried to focus here, only on what is gathered or guessed from a reading of Lord of the Rings as such - therefore ignoring any things JRRT said about Middle Earth; and also ignoring the posthumously published material of a History of Middle Earth nature.