Tolkien’s Prose in Similarity to Shakespeare’s King Lear
Author J.R.R. Tolkien’s prose in The Lord of the Rings has been the center of many literary debates; although Tolkien’s inclusion of Shakespeare in his works has been downplayed by Tolkien himself and a lack of analysis. The gap in criticism of Tolkien’s prose arises from the consequent defense of Tolkien’s work as a serious literary collection. (Drout 137) Critics have devoted their efforts primarily to defending or attacking Tolkien’s work in attempts to establish Tolkien’s literary credibility. (Drout and Wynne) The analytical abandon of Tolkien’s prose style has undesirably aided Tolkien’s attackers who misuse unanalyzed passages and determine the work does not command literary respect. (Rosebury) It is impossible to justify Tolkien’s style similarities to Shakespeare in one effort, however I aim to combat criticism of some passages that strongly break from modern literature: the battle of Éowyn and the Lord of the Nazgûl, as well as Denethor’s self-immolation. The style of these two passages from The Return of the King is not archaic as many critics claim, but Tolkien in fact, strongly introduces literary references— specific-ally to William Shakespeare’s King Lear. The stylistic and thematic similarities between the two works show Tolkien’s interest in themes (pride and despair among the powerful) common to English literature.
The following passage establishes a basis of comparison between Tolkien’s The Return of the King and Shakespeare’s King Lear. The battle between Éowyn and the Lord of the Nazgûl is as follows: But lo! suddenly in the midst of the glory of the king his golden shield was dimmed. The new morning was blotted from the sky. Dark fell about him. Horses reared and screamed. Men cast from the saddle lay groveling on the ground…. The great shadow descended like a falling cloud. And behold! It was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. . . . Upon it sat a shape, black-mantled, huge and threatening. A crown of steel he bore, but between rim and robe naught was there to see, save only a deadly gleam of eyes: the Lord of the Nazgûl. To the air he had returned, summoning his steed ere the darkness failed, and now he was come again, bringing ruin, turning hope to despair, and victory to death. A great black mace he wielded. But Théoden was not utterly forsaken . . . one stood there still: Dernhelm the young, faithful beyond fear; and he wept, for he had loved his lord as a father. Right through the charge Merry had been borne unharmed behind him, until the Shadow came; and then Windfola had thrown them in his terror, and now ran wild upon the plain. Merry crawled on all fours like a dazed beast. . . . Then out of the blackness in his mind he thought that he heard Dernhelm speaking. . . . “Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!” A cold voice answered: “Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.” A sword rang as it was drawn. “Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.” “Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!” Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. “But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Éowyn I am, Éomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.” (Tolkien V, 6)
The Lord of the Nazgûl’s threat, “Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey,” reflects King Lear’s “Come not between the dragon and his wrath.” (Shakespeare) The two passages are syntactically identical while Tolkien refers to something physical and King Lear is speaking metaphorically. The separate meanings can be interchanged with the substitution of one monster for another (Nazgûl for dragon). This reference connects the Lord of the Nazgûl to King Lear and allows the reader to better understand the characters than is explicit in the narrative. (Foley) The style of the passage in The Return of the King is linked to the passage in Lear through what is called a “figure of grammar,” the unusual sentence structure used by both Tolkien and Shakespeare. Without Shakespeare however, Tolkien’s use would seem juxtaposed in a modern context. The style of the passage would struggle to be effective in achieving Tolkien’s aesthetic purpose. Rosebury criticizes the battle of Éowyn and the Lord of the Nazgûl as “highly-wrought” (Rosebury 67–68), however this criticism fails to entertain the idea of Tolkien as a failed writer so much as a non-modernist. To further relate Tolkien to Shakespeare, the similarities and shared themes connect King Lear not only to the Nazgül but also to Denethor. The description of Denethor’s suicide suggests a connection to King Lear as seen in the Éowyn passage. What was allegedly a singular reference to King Lear, resulted in several characters being shaped by King Lear. (History) Denethor—driven mad by power and grief— attempting to burn himself and his son Faramir alive, orders his servants to bring him a torch: “‘Come hither!’ he cried to his servants. ‘Come, if you are not all recreant!’”(Tolkien V, 7) Similarly, King Lear calls Kent “recreant” after Kent criticizes Lear’s harsh treatment of his daughter Cordelia. The rare use of the word recreant strikes a small similarity to Lear that is not contradicted by other parallels. Denethor is driven mad at the apparent loss of both of his sons while the rejection by his daughters leads King Lear into insanity. (Smith) To further their respective madness, both Denethor and Lear are grief stricken by their rejection of a child. Denethor is cruel and harsh to his son Faramir, rejecting his worth, while Lear disowns his one truthful daughter on account she did not flatter him like the others. Another scene in The Return of the King links Tolkien to Shakespeare’s King Lear as Imrahil shows Éowyn to be living through the faint breath that appears on his polished armor:
She is hurt to the death maybe, but I deem that she yet lives.” And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm before her cold lips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly to be seen. (Tolkien V, 6)
Compared to the similar scene in King Lear: “Lend me a looking glass; / If that her breath will mist or stain the stone, / Why, then she lives.” (Shakespeare V, iii) The brutal rage and fury of Éomer upon finding the seemingly lifeless body of Éowyn strikes a resemblance to King Lear’s rage at the death of his daughter Cordelia.: “Éowyn, Éowyn!” he cried at last: “Éowyn, how come you here? What madness or devilry is this? Death, death, death! Death take us all!” Then without taking counsel or waiting for the approach of the men of the City, he spurred headlong back to the front of the great host, and blew a horn, and cried aloud for the onset. Over the field rang his clear voice calling: “Death! Ride, ride to ruin and the world’s ending!” (Tolkien V, 6)
Compared to King Lear:
”And my poor fool is hanged! No, no, no life?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life, And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more Never, never, never, never, never!” (Shakespeare V, iii)
The lines are not as identical as the Lord of the Nazgûl’s speech and Lear’s talk of dragons, however the repetition is similar. “Death, death, death! Death take us all!” parallels “No, no, no life?” The repetitions of “never” and “death” reflects Tolkien’s and Shakespeare’s similarities while the consequent situations are similar: the death of a beloved female relative. The loss then throws both males into a fit of madness in which King Lear dies of insanity and Éomer rides off “to ruin and the world’s ending.” (Tolkien V, 6) Éomer, Denethor and King Lear all experience the same grief driven madness that mirror each other and differentiate through the three’s actions.
The Fool in King Lear mentions seven stars (Shakespeare I, v), as does the rhyme that Gandalf recites to Pippin: “Seven stars and seven stones / And one white tree,” (Tolkien III, 11) The passage when the Doctor in King Lear offers consolation to Cordelia: “Be comforted, good madam. The great rage / You see, is killed in him” is similar to the Houses of Healing at the conclusion of which Aragorn says, “The worst is now over. Stay and be comforted” (Tolkien V, 8). While none of these similarities provides conclusive evidence, Tolkien himself offers evidence that he had extensive knowledge about King Lear, its literary worth and its position amongst English literature as shown in passages from Beowulf and the Critics:
On page xxvi, when everything seems going right, we hear once again that “the main story of Beowulf is a wild folk-tale.” Quite true of course, as it is of King Lear except that silly would in the latter case be a better adjective.” (Beowulf and the Critics 40)
Are we to refuse “King Lear” either because it is founded on a silly folk-tale (the old naif details of which still peep through as they do in Beowulf) or because it is not “Macbeth”? Need we even debate which is more valuable? (Beowulf and the Critics 55)
Yet it is not—for it is a “folk-tale” used by a considerable poet for the plot of a great poem, and that is quite a different thing. As different as the Lear of Shakespeare from the same tale recounted in the chronicle of Layamon—indeed the difference is greater, for already in Layamon we have a tale told with art, not a mere example of “story-motives.” (Beowulf and the Critics 97)
And that plot is not perfect as the vehicle of the theme or themes that come to hidden life in the poet’s mind as he makes his poem of the old material. As is true enough of Shakespeare’s use of old material. King Lear is a specially clear example. (Beowulf and the Critics 140)
Tolkien’s quotations on disliking Shakespeare have often been quoted, however Shippey has shown the influence of Macbeth and A Midsummer Night’s Dream on The Lord of the Rings (Road 133–44). It is easily ascertained that Tolkien, in dealing with issues of kingship, madness, and succession in The Lord of the Rings, Shakespeare’s King Lear appeared as a source of reference for Tolkien to draw upon. The evolution of the battle between Éwoyn and the lord of the Nazgûl supports the claim mentioned above. The first appearance of the idea that Éowyn will slay the Lord of the Nazgûl appears in one of the outline mentioned in The War of the Ring: “Théoden slain and Éowyn slays the King of the Nazgûl and is mortally wounded. They lie in state in the white tower” (War 255–56). The passage then revised appeared as: “Charge of the Riders of Rohan breaks the siege. Death of Théoden and Éowyn in killing the Nazgûl King,” and again revised to: “Final assault on Minas Tirith. Nazgûl appear. Pelennor wall is taken. Sudden charge of Rohan breaks siege. Théoden and Éowyn destroy Nazgûl and Théoden falls [struck out: Feb 12]” (War 260). A later revision describes the charge of Rohan and Théoden’s death, but makes no mention Éowyn. Christopher Tolkien notes that “in outlines I, II and III it is said that Théoden and Éowyn (who is not mentioned here) ‘slew’ or ‘killed’ or ‘destroyed’ the King of the Nazgûl” (War 267). Another outline of Tolkien’s offers another version that brings Éowyn into the battle: Go back to Merry. Charge of Rohan. Orcs and Black Riders driven from the gate. Fall of Théoden wounded, but he is saved by a warrior of his household who falls on his body. Merry sits by them. Sortie saves King who is gravely wounded. Warrior found to be Éowyn. The Hosts of Morghul reform and drive them back to the gate. At that moment a wind rises, dark is rolled back. Black ships seen. Despair. Standard of Aragorn (and Elendil). Éomer’s wrath. Morghul taken between 2 forces and defeated. Éomer and Aragorn meet. (War 275)
Tolkien’s outlines demonstrate how he was struggling with the narrative of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. At this point in the composition of The Return of the King he had not yet developed the secondary plot of Denethor’s despair and madness. But now note the first well-realized draft of the scene: But Théoden was not alone. One had followed him: Éowyn daughter of Éomund, and all had feared the light of her face, shunning her as night fowl turn from the day. Now she leapt from her horse and stood before the shadow; her sword was in her hand. “Come not between the Nazgûl and his prey,” said a cold voice, “or he will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness where thy flesh shall be devoured and thy shrivelled mind be left naked.” She stood still and did not blench. “I do not fear thee, Shadow,” she said. “Nor him that devoured thee. Go back to him and report that his shadows and dwimor-lakes are powerless even to frighten women.” (War 365–66)
Christopher Tolkien writes:
I think that my father wrote this well before the period of composition we have now reached, and I would be inclined to associate it (very tentatively) with the outline sketches for Book V, where the event described here is several times referred to, and especially with the Outlines III and V. In these, in contrast to what is said in I and II (p. 256) there is no mention of Éowyn’s wounding or death: “Théoden and Éowyn destroy the Nazgûl and Théoden falls” (III, p. 260); “Théoden is slain by Nazgûl; but he is unhorsed and the enemy is routed”. (History 263)
Whatever its relative dating, the piece certainly gives an impression of having been composed in isolation, a draft for a scene that my father saw vividly before he reached this point in the actual writing of the story. When he did so, he evidently had it before him, as is suggested by the words of the Lord of the Nazgûl. (War 365–66)
It is then possible to understand how the role of Shakespeare’s King Lear plays into Tolkien’s narrative. By including King Lear into the battle against the lord of the Nazgûl, Tolkien potentially realized Lear’s aid to the character of Denethor. As the Lord of the Nazgûl can be compared to King Lear through language and madness caused by power, and Denethor can be compared to King Lear due to madness spurred from grief, then it is possible to compare Denethor to the Nazgûl. This syllogism is strongly enforced by the fact that Denethor would undoubtedly join the Nazgûl had he obtained the One Ring: a powerful man twisted into evil. King Lear is the dragon, as the dragon is the Nazgûl, the Nazgûl would claim Denethor and thus Denethor is King Lear and we have woven a tight triangle of character resemblances. When we compare King Lear to both Denethor and the Lord of the Nazgûl, the resultant relationship brings forth several themes that Tolkien juggles throughout The Lord of the Rings, but are evident in The Return of the King, most significantly the problem of, as Gandalf puts it, “pride and despair” among the great (Tolkien V, 7) Pride and grief is essentially what drives King Lear into madness. Lord Denethor, succumbing to his pride and despair, causes others to suffer as his actions are amplified through his power. The madness of rulers in not the madness of ordinary people as power and authority enter the picture. The madness of Denethor causes others like Théoden and the slain porter to suffer, linking to Lear, where others like Cordelia and Kent suffer due to the King’s faults. The Witch King and Lord of the Nazgûl enact another level of madness as the Nazgûl introduces pure evil into the equation. It is of course speculation to try to determine how the Black Captain fell to Sauron, but it seems to me that Tolkien, with the triangular connection of Denethor, Lear, and the Lord of the Nazgûl, suggests that it is through the despair of not being able to accomplish one’s sworn and beloved duty to country that a man may be ensnared. In this understanding, Tolkien’s characters are neither good nor evil, as all of the characters have a level of depth and confliction. (Shippey 147–48) The theme of the corruption of power is inherit in Shakespeare’s King Lear, Tolkien however, adds not only the negative examples of Denethor and the Lord of the Nazgûl, but the positive examples of Éomer, Théoden, and, of course, Aragorn. Sections of The Return of the King may serve as a commentary on the themes brought forth by Shakespeare in King Lear. Lear might have avoided his madness, if from the beginning he, like Aragorn, had been focused upon his duty to mankind rather than the privileges of power. Lear might have returned from insanity like Éomer, if he were able to see that his people at that moment desperately needed leadership. King Lear and The Return of the King reflect links of both style and theme. However, such links do not fully prove the aesthetic quality of Tolkien’s work, they do show that The Lord of the Rings is not, as many have claimed. completely separate from major trends in literary style although Tolkien was of course deliberately outside the modern trends of his time. (Shippey 305) Furthermore, the literary style Tolkien employed is not the assumed literature style of the early Middle Ages, but that of Shakespeare. In pointing out this linkage of The Return of the King to King Lear, it is clear how Tolkien was continuing an evaluation and elaboration of some of the great themes of English literature. The Lord of the Rings’ assessment of the dangers, virtues, and duties of kingship, Tolkien has advanced Shakespeare’s discussion and raised issues as important in the twenty-first century as they were in the seventeenth. We cannot dismiss King Lear because its source is seen as a silly folktale, similarly to how we cannot dismiss The Return of the King, despite it’s classification as a fantasy novel.
Drout, Michael. “Tolkien’s Prose Style and its Literary and Rhetorical Effects.” Tolkien Studies 1 (2004): 137–63.
Drout, Michael D. C. and Hilary Wynne. “Tom Shippey’s J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century and a look back at Tolkien criticism since 1982.” Envoi 9, no. 2 (2000): 101–34.
Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Rosebury, Brian. Tolkien: A Critical Assessment. London: St. Martin’s, 1992.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New York: Washington Square P, 2003.
Shippey, Tom. J. R. R. Tolkien : Author of the Century. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Trade & Reference Division, 2002.
Shippey, Tom. The Road to Middle-Earth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Trade & Reference Division, 2003.
Smith, Leigh. “”The Rack of this Tough World:” The Influence of King Lear on the Lord of the Rings.” Tolkien and Shakespeare: Essays on Shared Themes and Language (2007): 137–57.
Tolkien, J. R. Beowulf and the Critics. Ed. Michael D. Drout. New York: Arizona State University, Arizona Center for Medieval & Renaissance Studies, 2002.
Tolkien, J. R. The History of the Lord of the Rings. Ed. Christopher Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Trade & Reference Division, 2000.
Tolkien, J. R. The Return of the King. Ballantine Books, 1973.
Tolkien, J. R. The War of the Ring Part Three : The History of the Lord of the Rings. Ed. Christopher Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Trade & Reference Division, 2000.
