PREFACE The idea of a volume on Inklings’ notions on Art, Literature, and Language — its necessity— came to me as the result of the cold, distant valuation my doctoral dissertation received by the staff of the ‘Academia’ who judged it, back in 2001. It was sad checking how those professors —all of them holding PhD’s in Philology— seemed to be unable to understand a word of the core of my argument, where I tried to explain the relation between linguistic creation, and sub-creation from the ground of Aesthetics. I honestly think it was not my fault. Their rationale, as well as the intellectual pit that Tolkien himself tried to save with his proposal of an Oxford English School, have been perfectly depicted by Tom Shippey in the first chapter of The Road to Middle-earth, “Lit. and Lang.”, and also in his paper “Fighting the Long Defeat: Philology in Tolkien’s Life and Fiction”, included as a chapter in his recent book Roots and Branches, published as the number 11 of this Cormarë Series. The only exception to that hostile approach to Tolkien was Professor Andrew Breeze, a good friend of Tom Shippey, and one of the last representatives of the ‘old school’ in Philology —that of Tolkien— who hailed some of my contributions with relief, appreciation, and respect. After that sad experience, Professor Breeze and I became good friends too. I can still remember his deeply moved farewell before I went back to my hometown, when he read for me (Tolkien would have been delighted) Elrond’s words to the Fellowship at the hour of their departure from Rivendell into the shadows —but also into hope. Over the last six years I have frequently revisited that feeling of perplexity: Why that animosity against Tolkien? My doctoral dissertation was just a trial to show the process of the literary genesis of The Lord of the Rings, its deep co-relation with The Book of Lost Tales, lato sensu, and the way an analysis of Frodo’s quest from the ground of Narratology shed a brilliant light on the question of how Philology, the invention of languages, and Literature were interlaced in Tolkien’s vision of what literary creation is, i. e., sub-creation. This was the key to the understanding of the whole: What was sub-creation to Tolkien? Was it just a means to invent another Neverland called Middle-earth, some kind of a Faërie of his own? I didn’t think so. I thought then, I am sure now, that Tolkien was deeply aware the relation between words and possible worlds, between what Aristotle called mímesis práxeos, and Art, was deeper, richer, than a simple trial to ‘escape’ through the invention of imagined, alternative worlds. He knew sub-creation was the natural consequence of human condition: that of being a creature prone to create, to imitate God, and mainly to serve others. Inspired by this conviction, in 2005 I began gathering as many efforts as I could in order to prepare a book that could be of some help to a profound understanding of what the Inklings deemed as the key of literary creation, and of Art. The election of the scholars was made not only according to their evident merits, but also —and I write this with pleasure, humility, and pride (with no prejudice)— after the friendship that we share. Their expertise was plainly obvious, and so I had only to ask them for an effort to focus their attention on the general topic from a wide
perspective. It was then that Professor Thomas Honegger came to me as kind of a Gandalf —in the sense of an angélos, as Tolkien explained the role of the character—, to save me from my radical inability to prepare the book for edition, and most importantly, he offered Walking Tree as the publisher of the volume. So, the book you have in your hands is the result of many efforts, care, and watchfulness, like Niggle’s Tree. At the same time, I was deeply concerned about the fact that English has no doubt become the koiné in Tolkien studies —some sort of Middle-earth Common Speech. Therefore, I also wanted to offer the few Spanish Tolkien scholars a nice opportunity to present their work to a wider audience, so that the range of tolkieniana could be enriched beyond nationalities, or language in this volume. Again, a decision Tolkien would have approved —no matter this is pure ‘literary criticism’, or ‘books on books’. The chapters have been distributed in no special order, so that they can be read and revised as independent parts of the whole. We have tried to look at the central elements of our reflection —Myth, Art, Magic— from a multiple outlook, so that the reader may get his or her own conclusions. A deep study on Charles Williams’ works is still to be made. I wish we can prepare a future volume on this almost unknown Inkling, and his allegorical novels. The aim of this volume is to become a milestone in the process of reconstructing those conversations where the Inklings discussed, argued, and thoughtfully debated on Myth, and Language, provided that we could not attend the meetings, and also the sad fact that Tollers and Jack did never accomplish the challenge of writing that promised book on the origins of language. The echo of Barfield’s ideas is, no doubt, a privileged path to a deeper, richer understanding of what Tolkien, Lewis and their fellow Inklings achieved. Eduardo Segura & Thomas Honegger Granada – Jena, Fall 2007