Trickster Archetype
Tolkien knew his archetypes. For instance, you can peruse Armand Berger's 2022 book, Tolkien, Europe, and Tradition: From Civilisation to the Dawn of Imagination which opens the dragon hoard of the mythological background of Middle Earth. The scope and intensity of these myths begins to take in what we can properly call Jungian archetypes, since these (too) make their appearance precisely in the sweep of mythical continuity and development of a people, and even of humanity.
Once they are identified, it is hard to deny their presence, which was in occurrence prior to their official identification, in the 20th century. Then again, perhaps archetypes are just a new name for an old phenomenon, the presence of the God and the gods.
Historical in emphasis, this book both documents, and in doing so, helps to coordinate, the lower and the higher realms. More precisely, the Myths themselves are always doing that. These archetypes belong to a world which, at a minimum, if it never was, always is (Sallustius, quoted by John Michael Greer).
I accept John Crowe Ransom's working definition of poetry, in a similar vein:
The critic should regard the poem as nothing short of a desperate ontological or metaphysical manoeuvre. The poet himself, in the agony of composition, has something like this sense of his labors. The poet perpetuates in his poem an order of existence which in actual life is constantly crumbling beneath his touch. His poem celebrates the object which is real, individual, and qualitatively infinite. He knows that his practical interests will reduce this living object to a mere utility, and that his sciences will disintegrate it for their convenience into their respective abstracts. The poet wishes to defend his object’s existence against its enemies, and the critic wishes to know what he is doing, and how.
The poet wishes to help something manifest, or to manifest it through himself. The poet (or mythmaker) uses the innate magical charm and facility of living, fiery language in order to provide a record of something which, by itself, could not leave a record of itself, without ossifying into tablets of stone subject to the elements. Poetry attempts to capture the engraving of the Ten Commandments, and not their degeneration (later) into the traditions of scribes and Pharisees. Poetry wishes even to do even more, to speak with the tongues of men and angels, and to go beyond that, into the living Love and energies of God, which are the foundation of all Reality. It is a poesis, or making, which is a subcreation of the original Creation, a lisping or mimicking or harmonizing, with the language and the fire of God.
The Scriptures themselves have hints along these lines, having this to say:
...who has also qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, which is not written but spiritual, because the written text brings death, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6
Theologically, the implications of this are that the Invisible World (so-called) has primacy over the Visible World, if by visible world, we mean Dead Matter & Empty Space. Archetypes, then, are the medium which connect the lower and the higher worlds. They make it possible for the two worlds to converge in a life-giving embrace, and to interpenetrate. They mediate. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as Dead Matter and Empty Space. But what is perceived as such, is a result of the manifestation of higher worlds. This is the important point.
Again, the Scriptures allude precisely to such -
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25
The second person of the Trinity, the Logos, has manifested and accomplished more than all the books in the world could relate. What does this puzzle refer to? Scripture would seem to go awry, or be prone to exaggeration, if one says this is a metaphor. And to believe that Jesus has a pre-history and a post-history is awkward, given the significance of the Incarnation and the human nature of Jesus. If the point is full Incarnation, then there is only 33 years to account for. Yet the writer attaches significance to this. If, however, we enter the timeless world of baptized Myth (that which always was, is, and is to come), we may suspect that there is "more".
Tolkien himself called this penetrating and fermenting higher influence, "the true Myth". The "true Myth" is the means, whereby the invisible world exercises its proper function in and towards the visible one. The happening of the Myth is not restricted to the unknown, invisible world, nor does it merely pass into "our world" in fleeting ways, but is consummated in Revelation and History, not allegorically, but spiritually, and not just spiritually, but in "fact", finally. It has to work all the way through Creation, and then be returned to God, in a mutual interchange. There is some question as to whether this process itself, indeed, becomes eternal. Is this the Kingdom of God?
It's well known that Tolkien had a distaste for what he called allegory. Allegory presupposes that there will always be a gulf between something higher and something lower, a gulf fundamentally primal and eternal, without remediation. Tolkien's belief was that the "Spiritual" presupposes that the destiny of Matter is precisely its opposite, Spirit, and that the gulf between them will be remedied. The spiritual reveals itself as that which makes the physical real, and which merges with the physical and transforms it. To say that Archetypes never were, but always are, is to say that the revelation is on-going, though it is not obvious to eyes that are not transformed. Its mysteries defy human analysis, which cannot be accepted by those to whom analysis is the sole and only arbiter of Truth. Analysis alone will frustrate spiritual aspiration, whereas something supra-rational confirms both Reason, and spiritual aspiration. As Christians, we might add to the Classical definition of myth, going on to say, That which was, is, and is to come, or as CS Lewis suggested, "Time working backwards".
“That is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, ‘No future bliss can make up for it’ not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory.” –C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: HarpersCollins, 1946), 69.
That which always both is, and is not, was, and was not, but shall be, unreservedly, as Time flows backwards, to unify that which is (God) with that which is not, but is called to be (Creation). It is this metaphysic subtlety which Tolkien shares with the other Inklings, which allows him to handle the mystery of the Secret Fire in a creative manner. This type of subtlety is hard to spot in Western thinkers, who generally emphasis Unity and avoid unorthodox wrinkles that run afoul of dogmatists. Here, for example, is Nagarjuna.
All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation.
Substitute the kataphatic and the apophatic modes of knowing God in the above, and you realize that the movement is towards a reconciliation of them both, simultaneously, without confusion or mingling, and yet without separation in the distinction. This mystery is related to the two natures and the two wills of Christ, who of course unites them ("without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation"). The orthodox of "rule and line" will say that this is idolatrous; the perspective of the greatest saints and mystics (and the Inklings, for that matter) is that precisely because the Logos, or Christ, is the basis of all Nature and Super-Nature, that all paradoxes and existence patterns in the very same way.
Saint Maximos the Confessor, John Scotus Erigena, John Meister Eckhart, and many other great mystics, theologians, and saints could be cited upon precisely this issue. Creation is not only not Evil, but is actually the Form for the manifestation of that which cannot otherwise be manifested. Creation participates, both in its initial Creation out of God and His nothingness which He made out of Himself, and through a confirmation in Super Nature, in the revealing of that which always was-is-and-is-to-come.
Tolkien does not shy away from Creation & Matter - his sacramental theology precisely fits the vision of a Universe that is transformed and transforming, a dress rehearsal for Eternity, a participant in the Great Dance of Being, drawing ever near the Galactic Center and Pole, which is the Lord Christ. Archetypes and myths, in short, give Tolkien a seemingly innocent secular way of expressing the very truths which he already believes, and in making himself and that Truth understood to the modern reader.
"In art, there are no other words." - History Boys
Archetypes, like Art itself, has no other words. This is what constitutes its archetypal, or mythical, nature. To take another stab at Tolkien's project, let us try a less developed or formal homespun definition: Tolkien developed Sallustius' definition of "that which never was, but always is", into "what was, is, and is to come" that unites the "never was" and the "always is". So Myth, for Tolkien, can simultaneously be "not true" and yet serious or even deadly serious, much more "true" than "a lie breathed through silver", since the Was-Is-and-is-to-Come is what mediates between the world of Myth, and the world of Dreams (our world). This higher principle is the Logos, or the Secret Fire, an actual person who goes beyond human person. Thus, one can simultaneously possess true Creation in the mythical mode, the mode of present time and space, through the knowledge of the Lord, Who gives Himself to unite the two. This supra-person is the origin, the presence, and the future of all Being, uniting them in His person.
The Kalevala - it never was, but always is
Tolkien explained his view, to CS Lewis, in a poem, while Lewis was still wrestling with God.
The heart of man is not compound of lies, but draws some wisdom from the only Wise, and still recalls him. Though now long estranged, man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed. Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship one he owned, his world-dominion by creative act: not his to worship the great Artefact. man, sub-creator, the refracted light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all the crannies of the world we filled with elves and goblins, though we dared to build gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sow the seed of dragons, 'twas our right (used or misused). The right has not decayed. We make still by the law in which were made...In Paradise perchance the eye may stray from gazing upon everlasting Day to see the day-illumined, and renew from mirrored truth the likeness of the True Then looking on the Blessed Land 'twill see that all is as it is, and yet made free: Salvation changes not, nor yet destroys, garden nor gardener, children nor their toys. Evil it will not see, for evil lies not in God's picture but in crooked eyes, not in the source but in malicious choice, and not in sound but in the tuneless voice. - Mythopoeia
Here we are given the distinction between the Image and the Likeness, as well as the doctrine of the goodness of Creation. For Tolkien, these are not mere "doctrinal distinctives", although they are certainly at least that: they flow from a vision of God who is (one might almost be tempted to go quite far with this) in love with His Creation, but Who is wooing Creation on Creation's terms. As it turns out, there is no violence done to God's will or sovereignty, since Creation's inner essence or true nature, is actually created, out of nothing, out of God. God is already the inner essence of Creation, prior to the Redemption. Good, is deeper than Evil, and an older Law.
Tolkien single-handedly destroys the Gnostic pretension that matter and Creation are inherently evil, while also destroying the modern pretension (a kind of Gnosticism in reverse) that matter is all that there is, and that it is neutral. His was the older idea - that Grace perfects, rather than destroying, Nature.
Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit.
Thus, the most perfect form of apprehending God, is not dogmatic or even theological, but rather, participatory. It is an art, as much as a science. If dogmatists appeal to shame and belief as the path to knowing God, and theologians appeal to speculation and a journey, then the participatory mode can be likened to a meditation.
The old Gnostics are like our old time dogmatists in Faith, and the modern sceptics are like our modern "faith pilgrims" in Hope. But God has always made Himself available, to those who seek Him, in the participatory process of meditation, which is done through Love. And the archetypes are the earth, water, air and fire of the Spirit, taking Form as they move through Creation. For this meditation is not just available to the individual, but can be discerned by those individuals, in the collective awareness as it experiences History. Someone who moves far enough along this path, like JRR Tolkien, can write "true myths", or at least sing of them in a way that "re-presents" them to the mind, heart, soul and strength, all in a single Unity.
The hostile critic demands to know, why would someone have to talk about God, or Man for that matter, in terms of "magic"? On this point, fundamentalist Scientism and typical evangelical American Christians, are in complete concord, as (we can also note), the ancient Gnostic. All of them agree to deny God the right to move through His Creation in active Love. The ultimate refutation of this is not an argument, but an artifact of Art, new sprung from Zeus' head like the goddess Athena.
The Genesis of Athena
Tolkien was not alone in asserting the right of the Christian artist to reveal God's truth, thus arguing for a kind of natural revelation through the art of poetry. Flannery O'Connor also wrote of "marvels", although in a different way:
When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock -- to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures. - Flannery O'Connor
O'Connor was actually even more explicit than this. Jonathan McIntosh cites her in his magnificent opus on Tolkien, The Flame Imperishable:
"Strangle that word dreams. You don't dream up a form and put the truth in it. The Truth creates its own form. Form is necessity in the work of art." (McIntosh, p148, citing O'Connor, The Habit of Being, page 218, ed. Sally Fitzgerald. NY: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux, 1979.)
Here, O'Connor sides with Tolkien as to allegory, "dream", and purely psychological interpretations, against all Modernism. Both O'Connor and Tolkien defend Matter, Creation, Form and the classical vision of Christian art, but go further than that, to capture even more image and likeness of the natural and created order. In doing this, they help bring it into manifestation. They avoided allegory because, treated as a terminus or end-in-and-of-itself, it implies that there is not an actual participation, but only a vague or dim reflection, which is subject to being interpreted away, misinterpreted, or twisted into its opposite. Allegory can exist in the presence of the true Myth. But the living Myth has to supersede it, otherwise, Allegory can become a discussion of propositions and intimations, only. Living Myth will shrivel if it is decapitated in favor of the allegory, in the mind of the men who worship propositions, "A God Without Thunder". The triumph of the living Myth, confirms the richness of allegory, and allows it to flourish.
Since it is explicitly Christian and simultaneously imaginative, in an active manner, it represents a development and furtherance of the classical form. It is not merely a rediscovery of archetypes, but a creative re-animation, addition, and creation with them. Tolkien's term for this was sub-Creation. Likewise, Tolkien is not merely a revival of the Classical Ideal, but most emphatically a surpassing of it. This is the basis for his criticism of allegory. It is not "as if" Zeus was already on Olympus, but a discovery of the Mount Olympus (and Zeus) in the human heart, through the imagination.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." - JRR Tolkien
When it comes to the Secret Fire and the True Myth, the author cannot "dominate" it: it speaks its own language. Edmund Spencer could make The Fairie Queen an allegory (in part) for the Protestant struggle against Rome, but he could not on that basis alone reach up high enough for the True Myth. The Archetypes are an intermediate zone of the formation and work of the Holy Spirit, which Tolkien explicitly names as the "Secret Fire" (see The Flame Imperishable). Their destiny is to lead us to a union with Eru, "the One". The Creator became Creation, in order that Creation might be joined to the Creator.
To Be Continued...
Also posted at Cassiodorus Quadrivium