One of the most controversial aspects of The Lord of the Rings, at least in some Christian circles, is the presence of “magic” in the story. For some Christians, such “magic” makes Tolkien’s work forbidden territory. The whole issue has been complicated by the phenomenal success of the Harry Potter books and by the legion of fantasy books and products with which the market is seemingly saturated. There is no doubt that much modern fantasy is poisonous and pernicious but it is a serious error to judge the work of Tolkien or Lewis in the light or darkness of the orc-oriented imitations and gollumized parodies that have followed in their wake.
In order to understand the manner in which “magic” is treated in The Lord of the Rings it is necessary to understand the hierarchy of creative value at the heart of Tolkien’s philosophy of myth which animates all of his creative work. This hierarchy is evident in Tolkien’s famous lecture and essay “On Fairy-Stories”, in his allegorical short-story “Leaf by Niggle”, and in his superb poem, “Mythopoeia”. It is also to be found throughout his letters and is implicit in his work.
At the top of the hierarchy is the Creator, the Source of all that is; below the Creator is Creation (the things of Nature made directly by the Creator ex nihilo, out of nothing); and below Creation is sub-creation (those things made from the pre-existing things of Nature by rational beings using the creative gifts bestowed upon them by the Creator). Sub-creation can itself be sub-divided into those things made for the sole purpose of reflecting the goodness, truth and beauty of reality (what might be called good art) and those things made for some practical utilitarian purpose (what might be called technology). Sub-creation can also be sub-divided between those things sub-created virtuously and those sub-created viciously.
An example of virtuous sub-creation would be the beautiful cloaks which the elves of Lothlórien bestowed as gifts upon the Fellowship: “grey with the hue of twilight under the trees they seemed to be; and yet if they were moved, or set in another light, they were green as shadowed leaves, or brown as fallow fields by night, dusk-silver as water under the stars”.
“Are these magic cloaks?” asks Pippin, beguiled by their astonishing beauty and the way their colour seemed to shimmer and change.
“I do not know what you mean by that,” the leader of the elves answers. “They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean. Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lórien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make.”
The beauty of those things sub-created by the elves is so marvelous to the eyes of those who do not possess their sub-creative gifts that there appears to be a magic in them. And yet, as the leader of the elves makes clear, their beauty is simply a reflection of the beauty of nature transfigured by the love with which the elves make things from it. Elves possess gifts of sub-creation that are superior to those possessed by men or hobbits but the gift is nonetheless natural to them and therefore not magical.
Compare this natural gift of elves with the natural gifts of hobbits as described by Tolkien on the very opening page of the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings:
They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical. But Hobbits have never, in fact, studied magic of any kind, and their elusiveness is due solely to a professional skill that heredity and practice, and a close friendship with the earth, have rendered inimitable by bigger and clumsier races.
Clearly the gift of disappearing swiftly and silently is as natural to the hobbits as are the sub-creative gifts of the elves. A good analogy would be to compare the art of disappearing swiftly and silently that the hobbits possess with the similar gifts possessed by wild animals. The superior sense of hearing, eyesight or smell that these creatures possess would indeed appear magical if we were to possess them, as would the power of flight possessed by the birds, but they are purely natural gifts that other creatures possess but which “bigger and clumsier” creatures do not. Similarly the superior sub-creative gifts possessed by Michelangelo, Mozart or indeed Tolkien appear magical to those of us who do not possess such gifts. In the same way, although those things which are elven are superior to those made by men, the making of them is purely natural to the elves and not in the least magical, unless we are going to use the word “magical” in a very broad and loose sense applicable to wild animals and artistic geniuses, as well as to elves.
Compare the virtuous sub-creation of the elven cloaks with the vicious motives of Saruman in the weaving of his shimmering coat of many colours. Like the elven cloaks, Saruman’s robes also change hue with the change of light upon them but the effect is not one of beauty but one which “bewildered” the eye of the beholder. The simplicity of goodness, of virtue, which was present in the white robes that he had formally worn is broken into fragments, signifying his desire to break from virtue in the pursuit of the relativism that claims to possess a knowledge and power beyond good and evil.
Are Saruman’s robes any more magical than the elven cloaks? Certainly, in one important and crucial sense they are different in kind to anything sub-created by the elves. Saruman is, like Gandalf, one of the Maiar, angelic beings who are called Istari by the elves, which means “Wise Ones”, but who men call wizards. His power is, therefore, preternatural and, to be more precise, demonic. Can such power be called magical? And what of the power that Gandalf possesses, which we are told is “beyond the strength of kings”? Can Gandalf’s power be called magical? Like Saruman’s, his power is preternatural but, unlike Saruman’s, it is angelic and not demonic. Strictly speaking, and to ensure the necessary precision in our definitions and distinctions, Saruman’s demonic power is also angelic because demons are fallen angels. What differentiates Gandalf’s power from Saruman’s is that he serves the Creator and the hierarchy of creative value, whereas Saruman defies the Creator, seeking to usurp the Creator’s powers for prideful purposes. This is why Tolkien asserted that The Lord of the Rings is “an allegory … of Power (exerted for Domination)”.
If the power of the elves is really natural, not magical, and the power of Gandalf, Sauron and Saruman is preternatural, not magical, where, if anywhere, is magic to be found in The Lord of the Rings? Not surprisingly, considering Tolkien’s Catholicism and his academic grounding as a mediaevalist, it is to be found in the same sense in which it was understood and condemned by the mediaeval Church. Magic in Middle-earth is similar to the magic of the Middle Ages as practiced by the alchemists who sought the power to turn base metal into gold in their pursuit of the philosopher’s stone or who sought immortality in their pursuit of the elixir of life. The modern word for such alchemy is scientism, which can be defined as the worship of science for its power of dominance over nature. Unlike genuine science, which is an authentic path of knowledge, scientism is “power exerted for domination”. Today, as in the Middle Ages, scientism is obsessed with the discovery of ways in which man can dominate, cheat and defeat nature. The vast bulk of scientific research is funded by global corporations seeking ways of increasing their power through increased profits (the philosopher’s stone), and the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry remains obsessed with its pursuit of the secrets of aging (the elixir of life). Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose. The more things change, the more they remain the same! In this light, Tolkien’s assertion that The Lord of the Rings is “an allegory of power (exerted for Domination)” can be seen as a reference to the magic of alchemy and scientism and their evil consequences. It is in the same light that we must also view Tolkien’s additional assertion that he did not think that “even Power or Domination [were] the real centre” of the story but that the “real theme [was] about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality.” Whereas, on the theological level, this theme serves as a memento mori reminding us of death, judgment, heaven and hell, and serves to accentuate the essential distinction between eternity and temporal longevity, it refers on what might be termed the political level to the quest to defeat mortality in the manner in which the alchemists and the pharmacologists are seeking the elixir of life and the power over death that it brings. Such magic is against nature. It is unnatural and anti-natural. It is a war on nature. It defiles nature in its defiance of nature’s laws, polluting and poisoning in its pursuit of Power.
In essence, therefore, it can be said that the path of virtue in Middle-earth is to live in obedience and deference to the hierarchy of creative value, reflecting it by respecting its inherent order of precedence:
Creator (God)
Creation (Nature)
Virtuous Sub-Creation (Art and Technology that reflects and respects the preceding claims of the Creator and His Creation)
In contrast, the path of evil is to live in rebellion, defying the hierarchy of creative value, seeking to usurp and invert the hierarchy’s rightful order for purposes of prideful domination:
Vicious Sub-Creation (Magic)
Creation (Destroyed and polluted to serve the needs of Magic)
Creator (Defied, hated and his power replaced by that of Magic)
In conclusion, we can see that the way that magic is presented in Middle-earth is further evidence that The Lord of the Rings is “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work”, as Tolkien explicitly insisted.
__________
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image, uploaded and drawn by HoremWeb, is “Orthanc, tower of Isengard form J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (illustration),” and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
