So, last month I mused over some comments C. S. Lewis made about THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS in a 1958 letter, during the course of which he said
[CSL:] "THE HOBBIT is merely a fragment of his myth, detached, and adapted for children, and losing much by the adaptation."
The significance of this, I argued, was its revealing that CSL felt that
[JDR:] "THE HOBBIT originated as part of the legendarium, not as an independent work later incorporated within it. And this from the point of view of someone who read Silmarillion texts before reading THE HOBBIT as well as the first person outside the immediate family to read THE HOBBIT as soon as Tolkien finished it. A good witness to have on the side of those of us who emphasize THE HOBBIT's connections to the legendarium versus those who stress the stand-alone nature of the work."
The next day, I got a comment which asked
['Ardamir':] "Of course THE HOBBIT, as it stands today, is 'merely a fragment of his myth, detached'. But I am not sure if the statement tells us anything about the thoughts C. S. Lewis would have had about it when it was in the early stages of composition. Would you care to elaborate a bit why you think this is a comment 'that THE HOBBIT originated as part of the legendarium, not as an independent work later incorporated within it?"
In the hurry of getting ready for my Wheaton trip, I didn't have time to revisit this, but would like to do so now.
It essentially comes down to Lewis's word choice. A 'fragment' might just be an unfinished work, like Tolkien's LOST ROAD or Lewis's own DARK TOWER. But a work would only be described as 'detached' if it was once part of a whole and has now been removed from its original context, like a leaf torn out of a book. Taken together with 'adapted . . . and losing much by the adaptation', it's clear that Lewis felt THE HOBBIT was essentially part of the legendarium in inception, rather than an add-on or later addition.
This is borne out by another piece by Lewis, the TIMES obituary,* one passage from which reads
"Thus the private language and its offshoot, the private mythology, were directly connected with some of the most highly practical results he achieved [in scholarship and in academia], while they continued in private to burgeon into tales and poems which seldom reached print, though they might have won him fame in almost any period but the twentieth century.
"THE HOBBIT (1937) was in origin a fragment from this cycle adapted for juvenile tastes but with one all important novelty, the Hobbits themselves . . .
"They soon demanded to be united with his heroic myth on a far deeper level than THE HOBBIT had allowed, and by 1936 he was at work on his great romance THE LORD OF THE RINGS, published in three volumes . . . "
If anything, the use of 'from' rather than 'of' strengthens the case. So, from both these statements, I put Lewis down firmly in the Hobbit-originated-as-part-of-the-legendarium school. A well-informed witness to help bolster that case, though of course not the last word.
--John R.
*I have taken my text here from that reprinted as the first item in Salu & Farrell's memorial festschrift, TOLKIEN: SCHOLAR AND STORYTELLER [1979], page 14; emphasis mine.
Thanks for your clarification, John. I agree that it seems that CS Lewis felt that The Hobbit originated as part of the legendarium, especially given his statement in the Times obituary.
ReplyDeleteWalter Hooper long ago removed the Times obituary of Tolkien from his bibliography of Lewis's works. It's now thought that if Lewis drafted one at all, it was subject to so much editorial rewriting that nothing in it can be assuredly counted as his work. (And considering Hooper's opinions on doubted Lewis works, his removal of this one should be taken seriously.) Possibly this line does stem from Lewis, but it shouldn't be counted on. I would not flatly describe the obituary as a work of Lewis's, in our present state of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing that out, David.
ReplyDeleteDavid: I'm aware that Lindskoog challenged Lewis's authorship of the Tolkien obituary, along with many other pieces, but not that any evidence exists to back up that claim. Can you point me to any non-Lindskoog source where Hooper disavows the piece?
ReplyDeleteObviously someone else added to this obit, which from other evidence had probably been on file since the mid/late 1950s (i.e., in adding his date of death and age at the time). But this does not mean it was substantially CSL's work.
Frankly, that some anonymous obit writer should have used almost identical phrasing that CSL had employed in an unpublished letter fifteen years before staggers probability. So, until I see evidence otherwise, I'll continue to agree with Carpenter on this one.
--John R.
"Can you point me to any non-Lindskoog source where Hooper disavows the piece?"
ReplyDeleteI told you - Hooper removed it from the bibliography. According to Lindskoog, it was sometime around 1993 that Hooper wrote to Stephen Schofield saying that he didn't think Lewis wrote the obituary (Sleuthing CS Lewis, p. 118). It's included in the 1992 edition of Hooper's bibliography of Lewis writings, but omitted from the 1996 and later editions.
That speaks volumes, considering Hooper's acquisitiveness towards Lewis's bibliography.
What Carpenter says is that the obit was "undoubtably written" by CSL (Bio p. 133). That's a surmise on his part, not a solid conclusion nor evidence.
The phrase you mention is highly suggestive, and implies that there is Lewis material buried in the piece. But it was reading it over that convinced Hooper and other Lewisians that it is not, taken as a whole, a work by Lewis, and it contains some strikingly un-Lewisian phrasing as well. The description of the tone of the Inklings as in part "Bohemian" is cited by Hooper, again according to Lindskoog.
As I wrote, Possibly this line does stem from Lewis, but it shouldn't be counted on. I would not flatly describe the obituary as a work of Lewis's, in our present state of knowledge.
"But this does not mean it was substantially CSL's work."
ReplyDeleteSorry: this shd have read '. . . this does not mean it was not substantially CSL's work'. Dang dem-dar double negatives.
David: you still haven't given me any non-Lindskoog source. Given the massive slander and libel campaign he was the target of, Hooper might easily have decided to remove one or two items he believed were by Lewis but cdn't prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Citing Lindskoog regarding anything to do with Hooper is like citing WorldNetDaily as an authority on Obama biography. In a sense it's true, but not in a v. good sense.
I recognize your right to exclude this item from being among CSL's authenticated works so far as your own work in concerned, and ask that you recognize my right to judge the evidence for myself and continue to consider it authentic until I see any evidence that satisfies me otherwise.
--JDR
"you still haven't given me any non-Lindskoog source"
ReplyDeleteBut I have. Lindskoog did not compile Hooper's bibliographies. Do you need the exact page references of these?
I only cited Lindskoog to fill out details of the story. The dumping of the obituary was not on her authority.
You are free to continue to believe that the obituary is (substantially) Lewis's work. But it would be scholastically negligent to write as if this were an established or unquestioned fact.
Both Lindskoog AND Hooper dismiss the obituary, each in their own words. Such critical unanimity between those two is rare indeed.
Further: It would be a grave slander on Hooper's integrity, which you've been a stout defender of, to claim that he removed doubtful items from the Lewis bibliography because of Lindskoog's attacks.
ReplyDeleteFurther: Even if he had, the obituary's provenance is doubtful, and that should be noted in discussions of it.
Further: There was no attack by Lindskoog about the obituary. Her attacks were all on other works which Hooper has continued to claim are authentic. All Lindskoog says in Sleuthing on the subject is to report on an exchange between Hooper and Stephen Schofield. She doesn't even really give any independent opinion of her own on the subject.
Further: Lindskoog did not attack Hooper in the passage I quoted. She was merely reporting facts. I was not citing nor endorsing her attacks on Hooper, so the comparison with attacks on Obama is ill-judged. It is the difference between quoting a newspaper reporting that Obama went to Copenhagen and quoting that same newspaper criticizing Obama for going to Copenhagen. The one is more factually neutral and reliable than the other.
Nevertheless, the source is questionable, so everything I got from Lindskoog, I said, "according to Lindskoog." But that material just fills in the story, it's not the substantive fact. I'd assume you are an attentive enough reader to notice the difference.
David writes "All Lindskoog [does] is to report on an exchange between Hooper and Stephen Schofield . . . She was merely reporting facts."
ReplyDeleteGiven that Schofield was the target of Lindskoog's forgeries, in which she generated documents in support of her own theories, until I see independent confirmation I have no way of knowing whether this exchange between Hooper & Schofield ever actually took place.
I had written: "I recognize your right to exclude this item from being among CSL's authenticated works so far as your own work in concerned, and ask that you recognize my right to judge the evidence for myself and continue to consider it authentic until I see any evidence that satisfies me otherwise."
Since you have now accused me of being "scholastically negligent", I hereby withdraw that recognition.
And with this, I declare this thread closed. If I do find any more evidence one way or the other, I'll make a new post.
--JDR