z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Unique Representation of Trees in The Lord of the Rings
Author(s) -
Cynthia M. Cohen
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
tolkien studies
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1547-3163
pISSN - 1547-3155
DOI - 10.1353/tks.0.0041
Subject(s) - creatures , nothing , representation (politics) , tree (set theory) , philosophy , history , mathematics , combinatorics , epistemology , law , archaeology , natural (archaeology) , political science , politics
W The Lord of the Rings was originally published (in 1954 and 1955), it became the first literary work to portray tree-like beings as ontologically distinct from regular trees. Before The Lord of the Rings and during Tolkien’s lifetime, other authors who had imagined trees that did not behave or appear like trees of the Primary World had conceived of these creatures simply as trees—strange, extraordinary, malicious, or friendly trees—and they perceived no need to further distinguish them. For the purposes of this article, literary trees are divided into four categories: (1) trees that do nothing unusual, appearing essentially as Primary World trees; (2) trees that remain rooted in the ground but are able to talk, think, and/or feel; (3) trees that remain rooted but can move their branches or trunks as trees of the Primary World cannot; and (4) trees that can uproot themselves, physically moving from one place to another. These categories are augmentations: trees in all categories but the first can talk, think, and/or feel; and trees in the fourth category can move their branches or trunks as well as relocate themselves. When these categories are applied to The Lord of the Rings, Ents and Huorns fall into the fourth category, Old Man Willow belongs in the third, trees of the Old Forest and Fangorn Forest fall into the second or first categories (although most readers assume they belong in the third or fourth), and the remainder of trees in the text belong in the first. As this article will demonstrate, Tolkien distinguishes trees of the fourth category from all others; he implies but does not confirm that trees of the third category are something other than trees; and he seems to accept that trees of the second category can convincingly be called “trees.” The following survey of texts written before or contemporaneously with The Lord of the Rings—texts that contain trees of the third and fourth categories—reveals the originality of Tolkien’s consideration of such trees as ontologically distinct.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom