In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Faery, Faith, and Self-Portrayal:An Allegorical Interpretation of Smith of Wootton Major
  • Josh B. Long

It is not often realized that all commentary is allegorical interpretation, an attaching of ideas to the structure of poetic imagery. The instant that any critic permits himself to make a genuine comment about a poem… he has begun to allegorize.

—Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (89)

At the height of Tolkien's popularity in 1966, he agreed to give a talk as part of a series on "Faith and Literature" at Blackfriars, the Dominican house of studies in Oxford. But when he arrived at the event, he read from one of his stories instead, the then unpublished Smith of Wootton Major. In his opening remarks, he apologized for not speaking on poetry, briefly introduced Smith, and explained that "it is not an allegory—properly so-called" (qtd. at C&G 3: 1217).1 If this is all he had ever said about this short tale, fewer critics would have been inclined to read it allegorically.2

Of course, this wasn't all he said. Shortly after composing Smith, Tolkien wrote a fourteen-page typescript analyzing the story's meaning and exploring its backstory. He begins the essay by asserting that Smith is not an allegory but qualifies this by noting that "it is capable of course of allegorical interpretations at certain points" (Smith 84). That is, Smith is a fairy tale, but it can be read allegorically—as Tolkien himself did.

For Tolkien, the terms allegory and allegorical interpretations are not the same; in his now-famous Milton Waldman letter, he makes this perfectly clear: "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" (Letters 145). In other words, allegorical interpretations grow from the interaction between a reader and a text, regardless of authorial intentions; while an allegory arises from an author's deliberate attempt to impose a single meaning on a narrative, leaving little freedom for the reader to interpret the story. As Tolkien succinctly states in a 1960s [End Page 93] Swedish interview, "If an allegory is to exist at all, the author from the beginning and throughout must be aiming at creating one" ("Two Swedish Interviews" 159). This assertion relates directly to his notion that applicability "resides in the freedom of the reader" while allegory derives from "the purposed domination of the author" (FR, Foreword, 7).3 That is, "allegorical interpretations" are a type of "applicability." This explains how Smith can be read allegorically even though it is not an allegory, or as Tolkien posits, "Any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language" (Letters 145). Some readers might prefer the word symbolism to allegorical interpretation, but I am not sure there is much of a difference between these terms—except that symbolism sometimes refers to a single object while an allegorical interpretation does not. What I wish to show is this: Smith of Wootton Major is a rich tapestry interwoven from the dual strands of Tolkien's religious faith and his personal experiences. My article is divided into four general sections: a survey of Smith criticism centered on religion, a religious interpretation, an autobiographical interpretation, and then finally, concluding remarks.

Although my reading is built on Tolkien's allegorical interpretation, it is not meant to be definitive or the final word on Smith. Nor am I suggesting that Tolkien consciously intended all of these symbols. The truth is that allegorical interpretation has very little to do with authorial intent (as noted above, "the more 'life' a story has the more readily will it be susceptible of allegorical interpretations"). Even so, I do try to establish connections between Smith and other writings, concepts, and images to show possible influences. In this way, my allegorical interpretation is a combination of source-study and intertextuality. Additionally, because of the duality of my religious and autobiographical reading, my allegorical correspondences remain rather fluid—thus, Smith can be interpreted as a Christian-figure as well as a Tolkien-figure (as well as other...

pdf