My Library Was Kingdom Large Enough
Here it goes.
Books I'm currently reading: Aside from The Once and Future King, I'm also reading Citizen of Rome by Frederick Wilhelmsen, and Mustard Seeds by L. Brent Bozell. Both men were editors of Triumph magazine in the 60s and 70s, and laid the seeds for Christendom College. Their essays serve as a compass for those who would seek to Instuare Omnia in Christo.
Book I recently bought: Byzantium by Stephen Lawhead. A novel about St. Aidan, an Irish monk who was chosen as part of a team assigned to present the Book of Kells to the Byzantine Emperor. Along the way he gets captured by Vikings, involved in the court intrigue of Baghdad and Constantinople, loses his faith, regains it, and becomes a man in the process. Fascinating!
Books That Have Meant A Lot To Me:
1. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien- What more needs to be said that hasn't already been said. Tolkien provides not only a fine piece of apocalyptic and creative literature, but also a defense of the values of Western Civilization, Catholic Social Teaching, and the ideal form of government as expounded by Dante. Arise, Men of the West!
2. The Once and Future King by T.H. White- A very human look at the Arthurian legend, with an in-depth analysis of Arthur's plan for "Might for Right," Merlyn's educational methods, and Lancelot's interior struggles. A heart-wrenching book which will make one appreciate being human.
3. Triumph by H.W. Crocker, III- Finally, Catholic history as it was meant to be. Not only do we contain the key to the gates of Heaven, but we also built, guided, and protected Western Civilization for 1200 years! Read this book, and the idea of ecumenism will forever seem strange to you!
4. The Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis- A most unusual look at science fiction, and by the far the most superior. The adventures of Elwin Ransom as he fights to protect Mars, Venus, and finally Earth from the armies of darkness. I won't say more, since that might ruin it for you all. Read on.
5. The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton- A Catholic historian cannot consider himself to be such without this on his desk. I can't say anything about this book- Chesterton says it all.
There you have it. A brief look into my library. Tags? I think not.
Adieu.
Books I'm currently reading: Aside from The Once and Future King, I'm also reading Citizen of Rome by Frederick Wilhelmsen, and Mustard Seeds by L. Brent Bozell. Both men were editors of Triumph magazine in the 60s and 70s, and laid the seeds for Christendom College. Their essays serve as a compass for those who would seek to Instuare Omnia in Christo.
Book I recently bought: Byzantium by Stephen Lawhead. A novel about St. Aidan, an Irish monk who was chosen as part of a team assigned to present the Book of Kells to the Byzantine Emperor. Along the way he gets captured by Vikings, involved in the court intrigue of Baghdad and Constantinople, loses his faith, regains it, and becomes a man in the process. Fascinating!
Books That Have Meant A Lot To Me:
1. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien- What more needs to be said that hasn't already been said. Tolkien provides not only a fine piece of apocalyptic and creative literature, but also a defense of the values of Western Civilization, Catholic Social Teaching, and the ideal form of government as expounded by Dante. Arise, Men of the West!
2. The Once and Future King by T.H. White- A very human look at the Arthurian legend, with an in-depth analysis of Arthur's plan for "Might for Right," Merlyn's educational methods, and Lancelot's interior struggles. A heart-wrenching book which will make one appreciate being human.
3. Triumph by H.W. Crocker, III- Finally, Catholic history as it was meant to be. Not only do we contain the key to the gates of Heaven, but we also built, guided, and protected Western Civilization for 1200 years! Read this book, and the idea of ecumenism will forever seem strange to you!
4. The Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis- A most unusual look at science fiction, and by the far the most superior. The adventures of Elwin Ransom as he fights to protect Mars, Venus, and finally Earth from the armies of darkness. I won't say more, since that might ruin it for you all. Read on.
5. The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton- A Catholic historian cannot consider himself to be such without this on his desk. I can't say anything about this book- Chesterton says it all.
There you have it. A brief look into my library. Tags? I think not.
Adieu.
posted by Charlemagne at 12:10 PM
22 Comments:
I never thought of LOTR as a political work. I don't think Professor Tolkien was mainly thinking about that. Although Farmer Giles of Ham is the book that has come closest to making me a distributist, with The Napoleon of Notting Hill a close second. But those books aren't quite distributist -- more in favor of small government, without much mention of the economy.
Ecumenism is a good thing, you know. "That there may be one flock and one shepherd..." The most direct way of achieving this is by converting everyone else.
Sorry if it seems that every time you post, I just have to argue with you. After all, it's true . . .
Rather to echo what Sheila said, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Tolkien was arguing the case for Christian monarchy, especially when no other forms of government are touched on. I also think it's reading too much into it to say that he was writing to praise values uniquely western. His books are about individual human virtues, not social or governemntal ones.
"A Catholic historian cannot consider himself to be such without this on his desk." I've been managing.
I must agree with Sheila on this one; I'm all for ecumenism. And LOTR is not about politics, except that a certain famous democrat reminded me very much of Tolkien's Curunir (Saruman the White). ;)
"Ecumenism" is one of those words that has become so overused - and misused - that it is nearly impossible to tell what people mean by it. I think most Catholics don't have a problem with ecumenism as defined and authorized by the Church; I think people object to certain perversions or corruptions of the ecumenical idea, often with not-so-subtle relativist overtones.
But ultimately I have to agree with the ladies (and the Magisterium) here. If the actual idea of Ecumenism itself is "strange", then I don't know what John 10:14-16 is doing in the Bible.
I might also add that, coming from a Protestant family, the question of Ecumenism is hardly an abstract one for me. The anti-Ecumenical attitudes among some Catholics are very damaging to the efforts of those of us, including myself, who seek to live in an authentically Ecumenical spirit, in faithfulness to the Church and Magisterium.
Just my $0.02. :-)
Well, my 2cp says that Tolkein didn't write a defense of monarchy. That doesn't mean he didn't think it was the best and/or most logical.
However, you can't have a defense without an attack, and there was no attack on monarchy -- except perhaps in the person of the Steward of Gondor. (I suppose you could also bring in the usurpation of the thone of Rohan, as well.) If you wish to make a distinction between dictatorship and ordained monarchy, that's something that can be done with LotR; otherwise, it's not really political.
You have to remember that Tolkien was living in England when he write LOTR. There isn't a large anti-monarchy movement there. At least, not as large as in the U.S., where we are told from first grade that kings or single rulers as evil and enslaving. England still has its monarchy. Although the royalty of England doesn't have much power anymore, national sentiment was and is still very high around the royal family. It tends to be a rallying point for the British. I think that the public defense of a concept that would be defended by an Englishman in a work for English readers would be a little absurd.
In referring to ecumenism, I was referring to the perversions of the Modernists, not the teachings of the Church. Sorry if I offended anyone on that, it was not intentional.
As for Tolkien's monarchism, allow me to provide two links-
J.R.R. Tolkien, TradCat- http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/jrrtoleintradcat.html
Kingship in the Work of the Inklings- http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/inklings.html
The issue was not Tolkien's views. It was whether or not he meant his books to argue the case for a Christian monarchy. If he did, he did a poor job, because the vast majority of readers do not finish the books and saying "a Catholic king, that's what we need by golly!"
I don't know about the second link, but the first article smacked too much of the divine right of kings ideology.
Oh, don't worry, no offense taken. I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning; thanks for the clarification.
I should commend you for not tagging anyone in your post. A most gentlemanly gesture, to be sure. (-:
True, the vast majority of Tolkien's readers do not sense the monarchist elements in the story, but neither do they sense the Catholic elements either. Remember, the first fans Tolkien had in America were the hippies, and Tolkien was not exactly pleased to have this particular group of people in his following.
Did anyone miss the obvious? What was the title of the third book? What did the people of Gondor look forward to with such great enthusiasm? Whose hands are the hands of a healer?
I would be more inclined to call this missing the obvious: Taking a book that is clearly about good and evil, with everything else simply incidental to that struggle, and turning it into political thesis.
How can one argue for a particular system when no other exists? Every people of Middle Earth has a king. Sauron is king of Mordor. Rohan is weakened by it's king falling under a spell. Aragorn's own ancestor was accessory after the fact, failing to take the opportunity to do the right thing. Nine kings in particular allowed themselves to be deceived by greed and power and became slaves of evil. When one looks at both sides instead of just one, one sees we are not dealing with a hagiography of monarchy as a the ideal political system. If anything, Tolkien is being very real about the nature of monarchy and its inseparability from human weakness. As a Catholic scholar, he had doubtless read the first book of Kings. I highly recommend it to you too.
True, and as a Catholic scholar he had no doubt heard of the French and Communist Revolutions, the Risorgimento, and the Spanish Civil War.
The evils plaguing Middle Earth began coincidentally when the monarchy either a) failed to do its duty, or b) was not around to do its duty. Gondor grew weak after the line of kings died out, Arnor fell into ruin when the nine kings placed their own ambitions over that of their people, Rohan fell prey to Saruman when Theoden left the rule of the realm to Wormtounge, Numenor sank into the sea when its king tried to overstep his place; indeed, the whole of Middle Earth was easy hunting ground for Sauron until the king finally assumed his rightful place.
Excellent observations. And what we can draw from this is that what is more evident in Tolkien's works is an advocacy of that which is rightful, not that which is royal.
"Rightful" and "royal"...hmm. There's a difference?
I should certainly hope so. If not, there are serious implications for any non-royal statesmen ruling today, to say nothing of our own founding statesmen.
Besides, you're the college kid here. I thought you were the ones who studied a lot knew how to cut important distinctions in order to avoid confusion. That is after all, one of the main purposes of exegesis. I'm afraid I don't have time for one now, but these links should help.
Rightful
Royal
Hey, if I may change the subject a bit - is that L. Brent Bozell you mention the same person who coauthored some books with W.F. Buckley back in the 50's? He wrote a very interesting book on Joseph McCarthy that I read for a research paper last semester (Buckley writes quite a bit about him in his religious autobiography, too.); I didn't realize he was somehow involved in founding Christendom College. That's interesting; correct me if I misunderstand you.
Did Tolkein know much about the proud Christiand Democrats in Germany? Long live Konrad Adenauer!!!
Mark- Yes, that is the same Brent Bozell. He founded Triumph magazine in 1966 because he felt that Buckley (his brother-in-law) and the NR weren't Catholic enough. He didn't exactly found the college, but his ideas influenced Dr. Carroll.
Mr. Morris- Who's to say that the founders weren't wrong? This is what we call thinking outside the box. Try it.
Santiago- I have heard of the Christian Democrats, and although I admire Adenauer in many respects, I think Stauffenberg would have made a better leader. Capitalism and democracy saved Germany for a time, but now they are following the rest of Europe down the slippery slope.
Try it? I've tried Divine Right of Kings before. It brought me ought in a rash. Oddly enough, the Church didn't like it either. Kept saying something about how it was bad for society to be governed by "the arbitrary will of men", and that as long as authority looked out for the common good, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."
Who's to say they weren't wrong? I will.
A prince, whose character was thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, was unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
But prior to this, who did say they weren't wrong? I said there would be dire logical consequences, because honestly, I sometimes worry you go into a statement without seeing the other end.
And what about King Tarquinius? Do either of you actually expect that after Lucretia was raped and killed herself in shame, Colatinus, Lucretius and I were just going to bury her and be done. We didn't care a mite about how he came to the throne or how royal he was. All we cared about was getting rid of him.
And were Colatinus and I unrightful consuls just because we rose up against the king? A rightful ruler is one with the public approval at his feet and the public good in his hands, mind and heart, to hell with being royal.
As Jonathan Lee Morris's dad, I agree with him. Just a few clarifications for everyone's benefit:
* I can't believe that Tolkien was polemicizing for a monarchical political program, or any other. At the same time, it is difficult to appreciate those books without a little of his tenderness toward monarchy rubbing off on one.
Likewise I don't much cotton to traditionl English snobbery, but it's hard to get through BRIDESHEAD without catching a little of Waugh's passion for it.
* Let's distinguish between sacral kingship, an idea that some of the Germanic tribes had back in their pagan days and transferred over in varying days into Catholicism; and the Divine Right of Kings, which was a a Protestant ideology designed in part to justify the supremacy of the king over the Church. It attained its distinctive formulation in Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in the late 17th century, which defended the theory so badly as virtually to kill it.
Sacral kingship, unlike divine right of kings, found a home in Catholicism for a while, but it's a bit of an "Uncle Buck" kind of guest, because it's always threatening to turn into caesaropapism and bust up the place. Ask St. Thomas Becket.
David, I'm as ready to drop this as you are especially since I leave tomorrow for a long time, but I think before we do, there are a few things that should have been mentioned but never were.
First of all, you were asking about "the hands of the healer". That does not come from Tolkien, but rather from the Old Testament, where a king could bless and annoint subjects for sacredotal, but also in some cases, healing reasons. Bear in mind though, that prophets could also do this, and Gandalf was the one who "annointed" Aragorn.
Also, regardless of what Tolkien liked, there is no "ideal" form of government, expounded by Dante or not. It's not just that every system has a weakness, though that is true. It's that different countries may need different forms depending on their size, society, and culture.
Post a Comment
<< Home