Four Favorite Quotes from Lutz/Kendall/Carey
“To put this another way, Eric Voegelin has taught us that what we are in the habit of calling the political tradition of a people is above all a matter of its self-interpretation (from moment to moment, from decade to decade, from century to century) from the beginning to the end of its existence as a people. It is a matter, therefore, of a people’s own understanding of its place in the constitution of being and of its role in history, of what it calls upon itself to be and do as it lives its life as a political society–a matter, in short, of the symbols by which it represents or interprets itself to itself”–Kendall/Carey, Basic Symbols, 1970.
“Regimes that are merely external relations of command and obedience are, we perceive, inherently unstable and short-lived; thus, a moment inevitably comes in the life of any emergent society when it begins to think of itself as what Voegelin terms a little world of meaning all its own, with such and such a relation to the other little worlds of meaning around it, and to a great world of meaning, the meaning for it becomes, to use Voegelin’s vocabulary, the ‘mode and condition’ of their self-realization as human beings; or, as another great political philosopher [Leo Strauss] of our day would put it, it becomes their regime, their way of life, illuminated for them in due course by rites and myths, symbolic in character, that express their relation as human beings first to each other, then to the political authority whose commands they obey, and then, finally, to that, be it God or higher law or the music of the spheres, which is above and beyond all human beings.”–Kendell/Carey, Basic Symbols, 1970.
“Political analysis should start with a people’s attempt at self-definition or self-interpretation, and this is most likely to be found in their political documents and political writing. At some point, if a political system is to endure, a people must constitute themselves as a people by achieving a shared psychological state in which they recognize themselves as engaged in a common enterprise and as bound together by widely held values, interests, and goals. It is this sharing, this basis for their being a people rather than an aggregate of individuals, that constitutes the beginning point for political analysis. Essentially a people share symbols and myths that provide meaning to their existence together and link them to some transcendent order.”–Don Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 1988.
“Far from being the repository of irrationality, these shared symbols and myths are the basis upon which collective rational action is possible. Since these myths and symbols are frequently expressed in political documents, they tend to structure the form, determine the content, and define the meaning of the words in these documents.”–Don Lutz, Origins of American Constitutionalism, 1988
University Bookman, Winter 1975 (Full Issue)
A seminal issue of the Bookman. Every article deals with a book Kirk considered to be one of the most important of the 1970s: William T. Couch’s THE HUMAN POTENTIAL.
Lester del Rey, “A Report About J.R.R. Tolkien,” Worlds of Fantasy (1968).
Source: Lester del Ray, “A Report on J.R.R. Tolkien,” Worlds of Fantasy 1 (1968): 84-85.
Nothing could seem less revolutionary than being a Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, with a chief interest in such works as Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the original. Yet Professor J. R.R. Tolkien is well on the way toward creating the major literary revolution of our generation.
The man not only writes about magic, but he seems capable of working spells in real life. No dictum of publishing or tradition of literature can withstand his quiet assault, as a simple listing of his achievements demonstrates.
The modern tradition is against fairy stories, even for children. But The Hobbit by Professor Tolkien had become a classic, and the publishers wanted a sequel. They got one — one based on the same characters, background and magic as the original, but for adults! Not only that, but it was to be in three volumes, with no false endings to make each volume stand as a complete book. The reader would have to get it like a serial. And where long novels were selling for a few dollars, this one would come to fifteen dollars! No sane publisher should have risked such a venture, but George Allen & Unwin couldn’t resist the book.
Nobody expected it to do well, and the American copyright on The Lord of the Rings was not protected, with the result that the work became public domain. It did quite well, however, with little but word-of-mouth advertising; my 1963 copy of the first book lists thirteen hardcover printings. The work refused to die.
Everyone knows that a copyright is the author’s only protection. But when the soft-cover volumes were issued, Tolkien was able to exercise control, even without legal protection. His simple request that only the authorized Ballantine edition be purchased was enough to make readers pay the extra twenty cents per volume and to force the other publisher to come to terms with him. This created a major furor in publishing circles and established a tradition for which every writer must give perpetual and incredulous thanks.
Soft-cover books don’t get serious reviews, normally. The Lord of the Rings received unusually full reviews. And for over a year, the books led the soft-cover bestseller list. They are still selling excellently, though there isn’t a hint of “daring” words or events in them.
The new editions were published during the great youth revolt, when the young were supposed to be cynical about all values and turning to the literature of protest. Yet millions turned at once to these books, filled with such things as the love of beauty, the dignity of ordinary people, and the conflict of good and evil. They bore no resemblance to anything being read before — but they outsold everything else.
The Tale of Wonder passed from 1 the literary scene about three hundred years ago. Its demise was ‘noted by many and seemingly mourned by few. Yet today, as the result of one man’s work, it is back with us. And it is causing excitement in the most serious academic circles, under the new name of mythopoetic literature.
This year Belknap College, in ‘Center Harbor, N. H., will hold a serious conference on the works of J. R. R. Tolkien over the weekend of October 18-20, with joint sponsorship by the Tolkien Society of America. Many of the papers, to be published later, will deal with scholarly aspects of mythopoetic literature. It took science fiction forty years to accomplish what Tolkien has achieved in three.
The revolution has had a major impact on all fantasy publishing. Five years ago, there was little market for fantasy; today, a great many publishers are actively seeking such fiction. Fantasy has suddenly become a “hot” item in soft-cover publishing.
Meantime, Professor Tolkien is working on another project that violates all normal publishing sense. Despite the fact that even serious books shouldn’t have too many pages of notes and references, Tolkien finished his work of fiction with over a hundred pages of appendices and the world developed there has been so fascinating that readers have insisted he give them still more.
He is now doing so — as he probably intended all along. He is working on what may be another three-volume novel about the age before that of the first novel — to be called The Silmarillion. After that, there is still an earlier age to provide a work now known as The Akallabeth.
Sometimes his publishers despair of ever having the final manuscripts, already long delayed by Professor Tolkien’s tendency toward perfectionism. He is now 76, and the work of correlating all his notes and making countless revisions is seemingly endless.
But when a man consistently works miracles, nothing should be considered impossible.
— Lester del Rey
Harvey Breit interviews J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955 (Short!)
Source: Harvey Breit, “Oxford Calling,” New York Times Book Review (June 5, 1955), pg. 8.
“How does it happen that a writer of children’s books (who began that way, if we may believe his critics) can end by producing a somber and brilliantly bizarre trilogy like ‘The Lord of the Rings’—part two of which (‘The Two Towers’) was reviewed here recently and labeled definitely for adults? The author of that Gothic masterpiece, J.R.R. Tolkien, was asked how it all came about. What, we asked Dr. Tolkien makes you tick? Dr. T., who teaches at Oxford when he isn’t writing novels, has this brisk reply: “I don’t tick. I am not a machine. (If I did tick, I should have no views on it, and you had better ask the winder.)
“My work did not ‘evolve’ into a serious work. It started like that. The so-called ‘children’s story’ was a fragment, torn out of an already existing mythology. In so far as it was dressed up ‘for children, in style or manner,’ I regret it. So do the children.
“I am a philologist, and all my work is philological. I avoid hobbies because I am a very serious person and cannot distinguish between private amusement and duty. I am affable, but unsociable. I only work for private amusement, since I find my duties privately amusing.”
Hobbits in Kentucky?
Excerpts from Davenport, Guy. “Hobbits in Kentucky.” New York Times (February 23 1979), A27.
“The first professor [Tolkien] to harrow me with the syntax and morphology of Old English had a speech impediment, wandered in his remarks, and seemed to think that we, his baffled scholars, were well up in Gothic, Erse and Welsh, the grammar of which he freely alluded to.”
“Even when I came to read ‘The Lord of the Rings’ I had trouble, as I still do, realizing it was written by the mumbling and pedantic Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien”
“Nor have I had much luck in blending the professor and the author in my mind. I’ve spent a delicious afternoon in Tolkien’s rose garden talking with his son, and from this conversation there kept emerging a fond father who never quite noticed that his children had grown up, and who, as I gathered, came and went between the real world and a world of his own invention. I remembered that Sir Walter Scott’s son grew up in ignorance that his father was a novelist, and remarked as a lad in his teens when he was among men discussing Scott’s genius, ‘Aye, it’s commonly him is first to see the hare.’”
“Nor, talking with his bosom friend, H.V.G. (“Hugo”) Dyson, could I get any sense of the Tolkien who invented Hobbits and the most wonderful adventures since Ariosto and [ ]. ‘Dear Ronald,’ Dyson said, ‘writing all those silly books with three introductions and 10 appendixes. His was not a true imagination, you know: He made it all up.’”
Allen Barnett, an American Oxford classmate of Tolkien’s: “‘Imagine that! You know, he used to have the most extraordinary interest in the people here in Kentucky. He could never get enough of my tales of Kentucky folk. He used to make me repeat family names like Barefoot and Boffin and Baggins and good country names like that.’”
Stormfields 