I enjoy the opinions and insights of a philologist like Shippey. I can't
help noting, however, that Tolkien himself admitted the "authorities at the
university" were less convinced of the philological nature of LotR than
he. And squire will tell you his philological grandfather agreed. I
am not a philologist, and therefore am in no position to judge. But could
it be that Tolkien protests too much?
Also note that when corresponding with a Catholic, Tolkien called LotR a
"fundamentally Catholic" work. Well, which is it, philology or
Catholicism? I suggest neither. While a knowledge of philology and
Catholicism and World War I and the English countryside and other of Tolkien's
interests can inform a reading of LotR, the work stands on its own. None
of that other knowledge is necessary, all though it is all of
interest.
“I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language. (And, of course, the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations: while the better a deliberate allegory is made the more nearly will it be acceptable just as a story.)” (From Tolkien Letter # 131.)
Tips for posting in the Reading Room.
