1
The Lord of the Rings as Parable
Allegory, Parable, and Fairy Story
The word âallegoryâ comes from the Greek word allegoria which means âto speak of another.â âIn this sense,â according to Pearce, âevery word we use is an allegory.â Every word is a symbol that signifies, or points to, something other. This is also very close to the definition of âmetaphorâ from the Greek metapherein, meaning âto carry over.â As John Dominic Crossan explains, âmetaphors invite us to recognize the human necessity of âseeing as,â the dangerous and vertiginous necessity to create the ground we stand on.â This means that there is technically no such thing as purely âliteralâ language. The Greek words allegoria and metapherein both mean to âspeak of something as another,â or to see something as, but as we will learn later, there are slight differences between allegorical speech and metaphorical speech. Astoundingly then, all language is intrinsically and inescapably allegorical/metaphorical. Allegories may or may not contain metaphorical language, but they will always contain allegorical language. This means that all discursive language (logos) relies on allegorical/metaphorical language (mythos), for there is no such thing as purely literal language. Yet there is a difference between allegorical composition and allegorical interpretation. Whereas the former is in the hands of the author, the latter is in the hands of the audience. The challenge with any type of allegory is discovering to what extent the author âintends us to trace allegorical correspondence.â Importantly, allegorical interpretation ought to be understood âas a result of Platonism with its distinction between the transcendental world of ideas and the earthly reality of shades.â In fact, it may be that Tolkien disliked the âconscious and intentionalâ allegory precisely because it is antithetical to Jesusâs art of the parable. Lewis seems to agree with Kreglinger, for he wrote of allegory as a âcomposition (whether pictorial or literary) in which immaterial realities are represented by feigned physical objects e.g. a pictured Cupid allegorically represents erotic love.â Allegories separate while parables bring together. Might it be possible that there is a spectrum of allegories? As we explore Tolkienâs correspondence, it will become abundantly clear that Tolkien was aware of a spectrum of allegories.
To some degree, allegory is inevitable both in composition and in interpretation. With regards to composition, one key issue is how well allegory is woven into a narrative. Another is the worldview of the author writing the story, for it is the authorâs philosophical views which will determine, in part, how allegorical the story will be. How so? Although Platonism and Christianity have much in common, two areas where they differ greatly is in metaphysics and eschatology. According to J. Richard Middleton, âcentral to the way the New Testament conceives of the final destiny of the world is Jesusâs proclamation in Matthew 19:28 of a âregenerationâ that is coming.â Despite its ubiquitousness in popular Christianity today, a disembodied heaven is not our final destiny. According to biblical cosmology, âheavenâ refers to the transcendent aspect of reality. Moreover, the Bible consistently speaks of heaven and earth coming together one day in the future of human history. Our ultimate destiny is to live in a new heaven and a new earth, rather than our souls âgoing to heavenâ when we die. As it is with eschatology, so it is with metaphysics. Orthodox, historical Christianity affirms a holistic metaphysical view of reality and history and does not view heaven as completely independent of the physical universe. It was Plato and his successors who taughtâin the Phaedo and Timaeus especiallyâthat after we die, we will go to a disembodied, separate reality. If an author tells a story from the Platonic rather than Judeo-Christian point of view, the narrative becomes âan earthly story with heavenly meaningsâ rather than a holistic, comprehensive story that sees heaven and earth overlapping and interlockingâand one day, coming completely together. In the former type of allegory, allegory is on the surface of the narrative; it is explicit and usually quite apparent. In the latter type of allegory, it is latent, implicit, and generally more difficult to detect. This is just one example of how an authorâs worldview might influence the composition of a very allegorical story.
Regardless of which type of allegory one has in front of them, one thing is certain: neither allegorical composition nor allegorical interpretation can be completely avoided. As Lewis once wrote of the Christian tradition, while we are free to try and ârestate our belief in a form free from metaphor and symbol . . . the reason we donât is that we canât.â As we said at the beginning of the chapter, allegory is woven into our very speech. The question for an author is not âCan I avoid allegory?â but âCan I avoid writing the kind of allegory that is translucent, explicit, and direct?â The question for the audience is how to interpret a storyâfor no story is self-interpretingâwithout turning it into the a type of story the author did not write. The readerâs interpretation of the story is also worldview-dependent. In the Foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien stated, âI cordially d...