“How do we know that philology was Tolkien's ‘ruling passion,’ and not just his
day job?” Well, for one thing, Tolkien himself says so:
Letter 165:
“...the remark about ‘philology’ was intended to allude to what is I think a
primary ‘fact’ about my work, that it is all of a piece, and fundamentally
linguistic in inspiration. The authorities of the university might
well consider it an aberration of an elderly professor of philology to write
and publish fairy stories and romances, and call it a ‘hobby’, pardonable
because it has been (surprisingly to me as much as to anyone) successful.
But it is not a ‘hobby’, in the sense of something quite different from one’s
work, taken up as a relief-outlet. The invention of languages is the
foundation. The ‘stories’ were made rather to provide a world for the
languages than the reverse.”
To me, Shippey’s books just provide more evidence to corroborate what Tolkien
himself says about the nature of his work. You don’t have to be a
philologist to enjoy Tolkien’s stories, but, for me, knowing how Tolkien worked
with languages in his writing does add another dimension to the understanding
of his work. It’s Shippey’s special emphasis because that’s what he’s
particularly qualified to tell us about. I don’t expect to learn as much
about philology from someone like John Garth, for example. I do learn about
World War One and its influence on Tolkien when I read Garth’s book, but I
wouldn’t say that Garth overemphasizes the war in his reading of Tolkien; it
just happens to be his speciality.
Many of Tolkien’s other ruling passions that you list – history, Catholicism,
his love of his mother, his love of fairy-stories – could be seen as
inextricably tied to his understanding of language and truth. I see
Tolkien’s love of language as the foundation for these interests, and I think
that this interest in language goes beyond just being the decorative ability to
invent names and write archaic speeches here and there.
I do agree with you, though, when you point out that Tolkien was not a
narrow-minded philologist who ignored the literary side of things. Yes,
he pushed medievalists into thinking about Beowulf as a work of
literature rather than a historical linguistic document, and he could make fun
of philologists – a healthy attitude, it seems to me. He also worked at
Oxford to bring the language and literature sides of the curriculum closer
together. So he wasn’t a boring, narrow-minded philologist only digging
up roots – but, in my opinion, that doesn’t mean that philology wasn’t at the
root of just about everything he
wrote.
