Riddles Part 3: a History of Riddles (and Happy Advent)

Well, given the time I have dedicated here to the concept of riddles in explaining Tom Riddle's name, I have decided to give a short history of riddles - and really I mean SHORT history - only 2-3 instances really, but they're good ones. First, though, if you're just tuning in or even if you read the stuff originally but are daunted by the task of sifting back through the piles of my posts to find the other places I have written on riddles - here are the two main posts I have written on riddles thus far: Riddles in Dark Chambers and Riddles and Imagination A Riddle of Two Trees: Many have noted that the two trees in the Garden of Eden are what is known as a Mashal, an established form in the "wisdom" tradition of ancient Israel, a form that is most like an "analogy" or a "parable" (cf "The Shady Side of Wisdom" by George Mendenhall, from A Light Unto My Path, Philadelphia, Temple U. Press, 1974) This is, to the best of my understanding, a riddle of sorts. It is what is used when the author does not wish to speak directly of a thing, either out of "respect for the dead," or out of fear. The two trees are used to speak of a fundamental thing that cannot be directly spoken of. To "name," even mentally, that first sin is dangerously close to sacrilege, and so a Mashal, or riddle, is used. The comparison with "parables" is a very apt one, for who was the master of parables? Christ. He spoke in parables so that the hard of hearing and heart would not understand (Matthew 13:10-17), i.e., they would not "get the riddle." He also spoke in established Mashals from Judaic tradition, particularly the Mashal of the Tree of Life. Father Raymond Brown, whose commentary on the Gospel of John is a standard in scholarly research, notes in that commentary that the discourse on the "Vine and the Branches" in John 15 is an adaptation of the "Tree of Life" Mashal, and he even hazards a notion that this Mashal may be part of the background of the "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6 (R. Drown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible Series, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 671-672). Tolkien and Shakespeare Perhaps a better example of the connection between the "parable" and the "riddle," or at least one that we moderns can grasp a little more readily, is one of the beefs Tolkien had with Shakespeare. David Day relates this in the Introduction to his book Tolkien's Ring. As in ancient Hebraic literature, so in all mythic literature, riddles are a kind of plot device. In Macbeth, Macduff cannot be killed by "one of woman born," and so he is killed by one who was born c-section. Tolkien rightly criticized this as a hackish "answer" to the riddle. The riddle is "how does you kill a man who cannot be killed by one of woman born," and c-section is a mere technicality. The etymology of the word "born" is from the word "to bear" or to carry, and being "born of woman" really means being carried by a woman for 9 months in her body as a child, not just the particular method of exit. Day's point in bringing this up is as an example of standard folklore devices and plots Tolkien used (Day's book being specifically on ring-lore), and this is a "stock plot." Tolkien had an answer of his own to Shakespeare's bad use of the plot device. This particular riddle plot device might be called the "Charmed Captain of Evil" riddle. In it there is a captain of evil who has some magical charm on him protecting him as he commits his villainy. The thing is, all such charms have to use specific language and this is how they are undone, by something not covered in the language. The difference between Tolkien's and Shakespeare's use of this particular one is that Tolkien understood that there had to be some connection between how you worked the language and the "inner meaning" or "moral" to the story. He understood that is what the whole thing is all about, not some smoke and mirrors of language TECHNICALITIES. Here is Tolkien's version: The Witch-King of Angmar (leader of the 9 Nazgul). The core of this particular riddle is the problem arrogance, and the answer is humility. Indeed the very act of sorcery is arrogant. It is gaining "supernatural" aid, but in a very different way from a prayer to a god. Thus, the Witch-king "cannot be hindered by a living man," and those such as Blondie, who might be reading this and thinking "how arrogant!!! Apparently he thinks there is no worry about being killed by a woman!" are completely justified, and Tolkien thought so too. Indeed, it is the very way he solves the riddle and shows the value of humility. The Witch-king is killed by those who his mentality considers weak and too lowly to worry about: a woman disguised as a warrior, helped by a halfling. Tolkien also had a problem with the "march of the woods" in Macbeth, and his answer was the Ents herding the trees to kill the orcs at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. The meaning of that plot device should be that nature itself takes on somewhat of a persona contributes to the battle, not that some soldiers got spooked out by a little fog and a spooky feeling and thought the trees were walking when really it was just some guys with branches sticking out of their butts. Note: Ok, that last was slightly hyperbolic - just saying that that really is not "nature helping fight evil men", it's more just kind of "freak factor." I actually do think Shakespeare had some good points ... but these are not good examples. Riddles and the Incarnation The answer to the riddle is the meaning of the riddle, and I think that is what all riddles at this level of literature are. This is what is at the heart of the mythopoeic, the same as it is at the heart of the Incarnation. The great big meaning is hidden in and then revealed in the small mundane details of language and human communication. The God who created the universe, carried inside a humble poor woman's sacred body (a woman who humbly bore the scorn of appearing to be pregnant out of wedlock) and then wrapped in cloth in a stable; and eventually unjustly hung up to die like a common criminal (the matching bookend to His conception, in which his mother bore unjust scorn for a sin she did not commit, fornication/adultery) - hidden in human meekness and revealed in human meekness. I really didn't plan this when I started writing it (I added that to the title after I got this far) but I guess it is an appropriate post to be writing at the beginning of the Advent season. So, a Blessed Advent to all.