That good night: gift or punishment?

[Bêthberry]

I'm not really enamoured of starting threads, but Lalwendë has suggested this topic might make a good Books discussion, so I shall offer it in the hopes that I don't have to nurture the thread along. ;)

The idea derived on Kath's Movies thread, "Death Portrayal" (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=393498#post393498). Most of us are aware that within Tolkien's Legendarium, death is said to be the gift of Illuvatar to man. This is a very different attitude towards death than that in Tolkien's own faith, where death is viewed as punishment for the sin of disobedience (or as a consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and thus something to be feared. I'm not sure how far a discussion would go into some of the implications for this difference, but I will copy some of the initial posts which got me thinking and then I'll just let everyone jump in--or not, as you all choose! The posts discussing the movies I won't copy here, as they belong to the topic in Movies.



The perception of death as a gift by Illuvatar to the mortal kinds is lost during the dark years of Melkor/Morgoth's reign in middle earth. Morgoth's creates a fear of death throught the slaying of the three kins and using death as tool to punish them. This twisted the perception of death for them. Men become fearful of death (ie Numenor invades Valinor to take immortality, because their king (my username) fears his impending death).




Well, I'm going to ask a question which is in part inspired by Ar-Pharazon's post.

One of the aspects of the Legendarium's ethos which has always intrigued me is this idea that death is a gift. In pagan belief, death appears to have been represented as a part of the cycle of life, with the goddess of three aspects representing both fertility and death. (I say 'appears' as there are many forms of belief in the pagan, pre-Christian world and likely this is an overgeneralisation.)

Death certainly was not a gift in the Christian ethos which Tolkien believed in; it was/is punishment for the sin of disobedience (if I am understanding this correctly) or was a consequence of learning, of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If death is a punishment, then it becomes something to be feared, especially with dark predictions about torment in hell for people who have not behaved according to the required mythology.

What might Tolkien have been trying to suggest in calling death a gift? Is Ar-Pharazon correct in attributing to Melkor this twisted fear of death? Was Tolkien just writing a good story or was there something profound in what he wanted to say about attitudes towards death?


This is a nice poser, Bethberry!

I think that this belief has much to do with the idea that the body itself returns to the Earth, returns the nourishment and energy it has gained whilst alive. Much pagan belief also places great importance in the sense of the earth as our Mother, so in effect we are born from her and then return to her. This is possibly why so many barrows and other tombs have small entrances and bear a resemblance to female anatomy; and linked to this are landscape features with names that hint at past reverence as 'mother' figures, such as Mam Tor, or the Paps of Jura.

In Tolkien's world, the spirit of Men leaves Arda at death, which is different to what we know of Pagan or ancient beliefs. Although, I cannot be sure of all the older beliefs, as I have the feeling that the Egyptians may have had something similar in that souls went into the stars?

Anyway, broadly generalising it seems that pagan beliefs see souls as part of the earth while Christian beliefs see souls as apart from the earth. The latter is akin to what happens to Men in/from Arda, but the former is akin to what happens to the Elves.

This has got far away from the original question though, but it would make a great new thread perhaps? ;)


And now, over to you, Downers...

[alatar]

Great thread - was actually considering creating the same thread, yet haven't had the time nor sure...hmmm...exactly how to tell why I've considered the same.

But here goes anyway.

I'm losing my father to terminal cancer (we need not address this further). Each day that we get to talk, or that I get the chance to sit with him is a gift as we don't know how much longer we will have together. After sitting with him on one 'less than good' morning I started thinking about death being a gift. There have been times that he's wanted to just say "enough," and be done with it, but he is doomed to ride it out to the end. What a gift indeed if you could just lie down and fall asleep for one last time?

Anyway, Aragorn's death was not only a gift, as he bought extra active years by surrendering his last few (possibly) enfeebled years, it was also his last test of faith. He now had all that he ever wanted, but could either stay around until each day was misery (and who knows what effect that this would have had on the Fourth Age - something akin to leaving the One Ring unmade in the Third?), or trust in Iluvatar and let it all go - Arwen, his children, Middle Earth, all - and see if Melkor or Iluvatar told the truth.

Surely there had to be some formula or rules regarding the 'gift.' To lighten up a bit, what if, when Aragorn was a young man, when appearing in front of the elven court his tunic dropped and he was left standing in his undergarments? Surely he would just want to die! but obviously he wouldn't (one would hope).

Did this same gift protect those captured by the enemy, as then they could say "enough" and be done with whatever torture they no longer wished to endure. Somehow I don't think that it worked that way either.

[obloquy]

I'm having a hell (HAHAHA) of a time putting my thoughts on this into words, so if this comes out curt and more like an outline, cut me some slack. It's also been a while since I've read the material I reference.

According to Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, it was held by some Men that their original nature was as immortals, like the Elves. Andreth related to Finrod that Melkor had tempted the early Men and they "fell from grace" and thus inherited death. Sound familiar? They misunderstood this "gift" of death, or feared the mystery it contained, and one might take this as Tolkien's own commentary on death and the attitude of humans toward it. Really, death granted Men a destiny that was unique from that of the Elves, but it was also a mystery that they had grown to fear, probably due to an unfamiliarity with--or mistrust of--their creator and origin.

This piece reconciles Tolkien's mythos with the Christian "mythology" of Adam, Eve, Satan, and death-through-sin by attributing it to a secret tradition of Men born from envy of the Elven lifespan. By doing this, he also critiques those who fear and resent death (by wishing for immortality) by saying, in effect, that they feel that way only because they do not understand death. Tolkien calls it a gift because he believed in a resurrection to life in Heaven, with God. Many readers equate Aman with heaven, but that is not where God (Eru) dwells. We can surmise, I think, that since Middle-earth is intended as an ancient mythology of our own world, the fate of Men was to be with Eru himself, although Tolkien presents it in his mythos as a mystery that Men considered "less" than immortality.

On a side note, what Andreth didn't consider was that without these unique fates, Men and Elves would simply be the same race. The connection to nature and the magical qualities of Elves come from their enormous lifespans and the nature of their fear.

[obloquy]

alatar: I can't rep your post until I dole out some more to other peeps, but unfortunately there aren't many good posts in the forums I read. Nice post, anyway.

You're right. The death of Men was a gift in that it was a release from Arda. They weren't doomed to persist as long as Arda did, as the Elves were. The Elves would "die," spend time in purgatory, and be reincarnated--endlessly, until the end of Arda.

[Formendacil]

Is the Gift of Men actually death?

Personally, I should say that the Gift of Men isn't so much "death" as it is "release" and "freedom".

Completely tied up with the mortality of Men is their freedom from the fate of the Music of the Ainur. As Tolkien says, as time wears on, even the Powers shall envy it.

Is death the gift itself, or is it the manifestation of the gift, the way in which the gift is made possible?

[HerenIstarion]

To quote myself from elsewhere (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=314959):

The brevity of their lifespan in later works is associated with the Fall (as a race), for "wise among men" hold that in the original design Men were meant for life indestructible - union of fëa (of Eru) and hröa (of the matter of Arda) so unbreakable that it would be able to lift, bring up the matter, i.e. thing temporal, to the eternal world of flame imperishable. (elves in this scheme are supposed to function as a kind of memory cells - to remember and remind others of the first world, when the Arda Remade is brought into being) But men are so weakened by their fall that death is given to them as a release (thus Tolkien's conception of Fall and Death as a consequence both differs and calls up at the same time to Christian myth, were death is a punishment, and at the same time, a release)

Why release? (To nitpick a bit from posts previous- not a total release from Arda as such, release from this particular form the Arda is in now) Because, falling into the same driving pattern of all legendarium, and namely:

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined

The death of Men is a means through which Arda Remade will be achieved, thing other (and better) than Arda Unmarred would have been.

[Lhunardawen]

This is a very different attitude towards death than that in Tolkien's own faith, where death is viewed as punishment for the sin of disobedience (or as a consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and thus something to be feared.
Is death the gift itself, or is it the manifestation of the gift, the way in which the gift is made possible?
At first, death was seen as a punishment, yes. But as obloquy pointed out, this is not how we (I having the same faith that Tolkien had) view death anymore. Now death is actually something to be looked forward to, but not necessarily grabbed at an inopportune time (i.e., suicide). Because of what Someone did around 2000 years ago, death can be seen as the precursor of the reward for a life "lived well" on earth, an escape from the less-than-perfect existence here on earth. Death is also considered as the end of life's "first phase," and the rite of passage from life on earth to an eternal life in heaven, which is the actual reward - similar to how childbirth is an infant's exit from life inside his mother's womb to his life independent from his mother. The case in Middle Earth is the same, I believe. The gift of Men, I think, is a perfect, eternal life with Eru, and the fact that they are not bound to the Music.

Anyway, Aragorn's death was not only a gift, as he bought extra active years by surrendering his last few (possibly) enfeebled years, it was also his last test of faith. He now had all that he ever wanted, but could either stay around until each day was misery (and who knows what effect that this would have had on the Fourth Age - something akin to leaving the One Ring unmade in the Third?), or trust in Iluvatar and let it all go - Arwen, his children, Middle Earth, all - and see if Melkor or Iluvatar told the truth. This reminds me of how the kings of Numenor who rebelled against the Valar refused to lay down their lives while they were still strong and relinquish the throne to their heirs. I can't exactly remember who and what, but I think in The Unfinished Tales there are quite detailed accounts of what happened to them. One thing I can remember, though, is that some "misfortune" entered their lives, or the lives of the people around them, as a result...as if the Valar (or Eru himself) tried to show them that it is wrong to hold on to your life when it is time to let go of it. But I wonder, would they still receive the full extent of Eru's gift?

And how come Morgoth seemed to have some hold on the lives of Men? If I remember right, he forbade death to claim Hurin's life while he (and his family) was under the Dark Lord's curse. Any thoughts?

EDIT: In view of HI's quote (the last one), is this the answer to my question above? That because Morgoth can in no way alter the Music, and the Men are not bound to it, he is given some control over their lives? Somehow I don't think so...

[HerenIstarion]

That because Morgoth can in no way alter the Music, and the Men are not bound to it, he is given some control over their lives? Somehow I don't think so

And rightly so!

For I have an answer to that ready too :) Strike the lights on:

Melkor did pollute Arda two times - first when he put part of himself into its matter, and secondly, when he tempted human kind into its Fall

Even without the Fall, it is arguable that men came out lesser than their fate would be without Morgoth's Ring (term used to mark his taint in all matter). Such a taint is considered the main reason for Elves' fading, for their fëar and hröar, originally designed to coexist in harmony from start to end of Arda, grew in disaccord with each other, fëa, being the stronger of the two, burning out the hröa. But whatever the individual cases, the Elves were not fallen as a race.

Now men, having Melkor's taint in the very matter of hröar of theirs (same as elves), and assuming that fëar and hröar affect each other, made a second breach in their defence (it is arguable that they were more gullible to Melkor exactly because of original taint he put into matter) by actually denying Eru in Melkor's favour.

Mark who grants death at the exact moment of the Fall. It is a Voice (of Eru)!

The logical conclusion: having hröar under partial control by Melkor, Men willingly put their other half, up to that moment free of him - their fëar under same control. Death in this respect comes in indeed as a Gift (though it may seem a punishment for those who deemed themselves (and probably were) eternal, but is, in fact, a release - denying Melkor his prey, letting it slip to where he would not be able to get it, at the very moment he thought himself victorious, and, at the same time, providing other means to achieve the same goal - eternety in union of matter and spirit, granting also that final result would be better than original design. (Another probable point is that, since this double fall, men were so weakened, have they had longer lifespan, most of them would inevitably turn to Melkor.)

Release from Bondage (very pointedly chosen to be an undertitle for Beren and Luthien story) is one of the right terms to apply here.

[Evisse the Blue]

Good point. Very interesting.

When I saw this thread, I thought of how certain individuals approached death. To some, it's a gift, to others it's a curse.

What I find most realistic in Tolkien's approach of death is that he does not exagerate its 'benefits': yes, it is a 'gift', but some openly call it 'bitter', or find some sarcasm in that term. Remember, I am talking about how characters perceive death, not how death is supposed to be viewed (as explained by H-I). So it's not exactly all songs and joy, like in some pagan beliefs, nor mournfully Gothic. The 'model' characters have a very 'healthy' attitude towards death, that I think (okay, stretching a bit here) mirrors Tolkien's own, as a good Christian and a man at peace with himself and the world. For instance, take Aragorn's dying words that sum this attitude perfectly:
In sorrow we must go, but not in despair.
This seems to suggest: we are plunging into unknown; we aren't exactly heading into the Elysian Fields, but we're confident enough about the quality of the life we led so as not to wake up in 'hell' either.

Sorry I don't have time to expand right now, maybe others will continue on these scattered ideas.

[alatar]

I think that one's perspective regarding death being a gift or a curse might have to do with the person's (both observer and the one who passes) age/maturity. A life cut short, like that of a child, is harder to bear than that of one who had lived a full life.

As a child and young adult, one might wish for a deathless life. As we age, this view may change as one starts to fit less into the ever emerging new world. And as age, gravity and disease begin to take its toll on the body, one might want to just let go and be free.

Aragorn, like the rest of us, really had no way of knowing what happens afterwards, even though he had evidence (from the Elves). It was his last and bravest act when he placed that first foot into the unknown - was he throwing away years of his life, as nothing awaited him, or was his act of obedience not only an example to others but also assuring him the gift?

[Formendacil]

If death, as we know it, is the consequence of the Fall, in Catholic and/or Athrabeth terms, how can is also be seen as the Gift of Men?

I was sort of wondering that as I read Lhuna's post, and this stood out for me:

Death is also considered as the end of life's "first phase," and the rite of passage from life on earth to an eternal life in heaven, which is the actual reward - similar to how childbirth is an infant's exit from life inside his mother's womb to his life independent from his mother. The case in Middle Earth is the same, I believe. The gift of Men, I think, is a perfect, eternal life with Eru, and the fact that they are not bound to the Music.

If the Gift of Man is an early departure from this world (compared with the Elves or Ainur), then perhaps the consequence of the Fall wasn't so much the fact that Men must now depart from this world, but that Men must die to do so.

Thinking about Eden (if I may use this Christian term to refer to pre-Fall Man), I have to wonder if Eru intended Man to be immortal therein. After all, Eden was apparently here on this earth, and yet the Gift of Man (present from the Musis itself) is to release Man from this world. Perhaps there was to be, in Eden, a transition at some point from the earthly paradise of worship to the heavenly paradise of worship.

In this perfect world, Arda Unmarred, perhaps the intention was that Man would naturally, after time in this world, pass on as easily as a traveller, without the pain and agony associated with death. Perhaps in pre-Fall forms, the entire Man, body and spirit, would leave the Circles of the World at the time of release, instead of the painful sundering of body and spirit that we now call death.

Remember, with the Elves the sundering of body and spirit in death is unnatural, and ultimately (either in this world or in Arda Remade) the Elves are to be rehoused. The same would appear to be true for Man, once he dwells in Arda Remade. Perhaps the original intention was for Man to journey from this world to the world beyond body and spirit, like the Elves, the Gift of Man being, of course, a much earlier transition.

[alatar]

Is it general knowledge, and for some reason I just can't find the same (laziness, perhaps ;) ), but do all humans receive the Gift, meaning the escape from the confines of Arda or to be with Eru? Or is this limited to the virtuous and obedient? Would Denethor, Bill Ferny, the Mouth of Sauron etc all escape?

And, personally, I prefer the death as a Gift idea over the death as a result of the Fall concept (or whatever the right word should be). One shows that there may be light at the end (even nonexistance might be preferable to dying by a thousand slices), was put in place for me, while the other has a chance of eternal damnation and was due to another's poor judgment.

[davem]

I started a thread on Death (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=5898) in Tolkien's works a long time ago, which ended up focussing mainly on the Elves attitude to Death, but I think some interesting ideas came up along the way.

[littlemanpoet]

Death, as defined by Christian theology, is separation from God.

When Adam and Eve fell to temptation, according to the mythology (true myth for those who wish to see it that way), they became "dead in sin". That is to say, they had begun to suffer separation from God because they had done what God said they must not do.

The cessation of physical function in a human is the physical manifestation of Death. The non-physical manifestation (if one may call it that) is the soul's/spirit's experience of reality as apart-from-God. To any who hunger for God, this is tantamount to eternal starvation rather than salvation.

The Death as described above, is what the Someone changed about 2000 years ago.

So Death is no gift, understood in this way, could never be, and is not, I think, what Tolkien is talking about. I don't think he meant the cessation of physical function as the Gift of Death to Men. Nor do I think it's mere release from the trammels of this life.

The Christian view looks forward to a New Heaven and a New Earth, in which human bodies and spirits have been re-created to live, in-God, for eternity. Perhaps the gift Tolkien writes of is nothing more, nothing less, than the hope for something more beyond the circles of Arda.

[davem]

This will again seem like I'm on my hobby horse, but I think we have to restrict ourselves to the way in which death can be seen as a 'gift' within the context of Middle earth. In Middle earth there is no account of what happens to men after death. They die & leave the circles of the world. That's it. No-one knows what happens to them - or even if anything does. It is implied that there is a continuation in some form, but of what kind is an open question.

So, how can death be seen as a gift within Middle earth? Men are not bound by the Music, so can change the world, in a way that other races/beings cannot, they can therefore 'think outside the box'. Yet they have a love of Arda - different from the love of Arda of the Elves. They have a desire to remain within the world, yet a curiosity about what may lie outside it. Men are called the 'Guests' by the Elves, because they only spend a little time in the world. In a sense they don't belong in the world & for all their love of it, they know that. Men know they have a different destiny - they are created with a desire for other things, for reasons only known to Eru. They have a central part to play because of that destiny.

Maybe that is the reason death is called a 'gift' - not death itself but the role they have within Arda of which death is a part - a central, essential, part, but a part nonetheless. Death is the means by which they fulfil their role.

Whatever we may say about Men within Middle earth they were not Christians, because they couldn't be. So, whatever hope Christianity offers Christians it is not relevant to Men in Middle earth. Their role & purpose, their 'gift', has nothing to do with Christianity. Aragorn accepts his 'gift' & leaves the world when it is his time, not because he is a Christian, but because he is a man in Middle earth.

In short, I don't think Christianity can offer an explanation of Death as a 'gift' to Men in Middle earth. If the secondary world is to stand alone & not require a primary world explanation for it to make sense - in which case applicability will cease to work & allegory be the only viable alternative - the answer to this question will have to be found within Middle earth, not outside it.

Or to put it another way, in this context (alone) the Christian understanding & explanation, is a cop out...

[littlemanpoet]

In short, I don't think Christianity can offer an explanation of Death as a 'gift' to Men in Middle earth.

I do believe that you and I are saying the same thing in our own way. Nice to agree with you finally again. ;)

[Formendacil]

Is it general knowledge, and for some reason I just can't find the same (laziness, perhaps ;) ), but do all humans receive the Gift, meaning the escape from the confines of Arda or to be with Eru? Or is this limited to the virtuous and obedient? Would Denethor, Bill Ferny, the Mouth of Sauron etc all escape?

All humans receive the Gift of Death (although it seems to be much delayed in some more than others), but what happens to the spirits of Men after the departure from Arda... who knows?

Tolkien indicates that release from Arda is a welcome thing for those who have lived good lives: Beren, Luthien, Elros, Aragorn... But I don't recall any statements about those who weren't so good. Certainly the Mouth of Sauron dies (and so receives the Gift of Men), but we are not told if his lot in the afterlife is comparable to that of Beren or Luthien, say.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

"To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure."

What better gift than the adventure of a lifetime?

[HerenIstarion]

This will again seem like I'm on my hobby horse, but I think we have to restrict ourselves to the way in which death can be seen as a 'gift' within the context of Middle earth. In Middle earth there is no account of what happens to men after death

Ah, davem, it seems like a high time to bring my own mount of choice to race you in this Derby. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with discussing inside the ME bounds, I have several bones to pick, and maybe even gnaw at with you ;)

Per instance, why should not we see Death as a punishment and a gift at the same time? Even not drawing in Primary World references, Atrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth hints at possibilities of viewing it thus, as, you no doubt, remember, as seen here ( http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=314759)

Indeed, it is a Punishment – severance of the body and soul, which was not originally designed, is a pain in itself. It is a gift, gift of freedom, for unless the soul should be let go, the whole combination goes under Morgoth. Whatever lies beyond (and is unknown or unkown fully), is an option better to becoming thrall to him. Besides, whatever comes from Eru, is considered to be for the good of his Children (stated as such by Finrod, so far for textual evidence):


If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy


Indeed, the whole existence is His gift, as Eru is free and has no need to give:

Note 1 to AFaA

The Eldar held that Eru was and is free at all stages

Brief aside concerning the kind of freedom Men have:

Men are not bound by the Music, so can change the world, in a way that other races/beings cannot, they can therefore 'think outside the box'

Last time (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=314959) we’ve been through this, I have had another option. I stand by it still: the freedom (of will) of all rational beings lies in the choice they are given, as the ultimate Freedom is with Eru:

'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'


Therein lies the story: given the same ruler of Good and Evil, all Children should measure with it their actions in similar way, and the freedom is in the process of measurement, not in different ruler. But one can not measure the same length with same ruler and come out with differing numbers? There is nothing special about humans in this respect apart from the mode of their death. But death is not their freedom per se, it is their fate! And according to Finrod’s guess (and that being only textual evidence withing ME so only reliable source) it is through their death that they bring change. Add to that vague references to probable Incarnation of Eru made in the same conversation, and you get another option for a Death to be a gift: it is a gift of Freedom (from Morgoth) right now, but in the future, it may become the gift of Creation (of the new world – Arda Remade). So it is gift now and greater gift potentially. (hum, 2gifts-1punishment=1gift? but that’s just a prank, do not heed ;))

Let's draw some logical chains:

1. According to Andreth, Men were designed to be immortal eternally, not bound by Arda’s fate.
2. Since separation of fëa and hröa is thought to be unnatural, in back reasoning, they were meant to lift the matter along with their spirit to some new level of existence
3. They fell. Death came as a release for them from Morgoth (so is the Gift in itself), but as it brought [unnatural] separation of fëa and hröa, it is at the same time a punishement. But the ‘gift part’ of it is greater – it a) grants them freedom from Morgoth b) makes their fate ‘fulfillable’, though modifies the mode of its achievement c) promises ‘third thing and greater’ – Eru Himself entering His own creation (Incarnation) and remaking of Arda

Even if Morgoth hoped for the outcome of the Man’s Fall when he contrived it to benefit him, and even if it was Morgoth’s design to have human fëar separated from their hröar (assuming he was aware of their fate and thus was planning to disrupt the Plan), he was defeated by the general principle (And thou, Melkor, shalt see...). That gives Finrod ground for joy, as he exclaims:

This then, I propound, was the errand of Men, not the followers, but the heirs and fulfillers of all: to heal the Marring of Arda, already foreshadowed before their devising; and to do more, as agents of the magnificence of Eru: to enlarge the Music and surpass the Vision of the World!
For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and a greater, and yet the same.


And, since Men, despite they did fall, are still set on the task, and if the means of fullfilling it is their death as opposed to whatever the original design planned, than Death is a Gift! Is not it enough for the death stand of its own (as a gift) withing the secondary world?

Analogy (warning: quite a crude one) I’m nearsighted. Spectacles I wear are my punishment, as they rub the bridge of my nose red at times, I keep on forgetting them in the bathroom, my sporting activities are restricted to jogging or swimming, as the playing of football or tennis bears certain risks of getting them shattered right on my face. But, and grave ‘but’ at that, they are more Gift and blessing for me than a suffering, as with these on, I can see, thus fullfilling the destiny my eyes were devised for, unless the Fall in the face of my crystalline lens’ bad behaviour came about!

Maybe that is the reason death is called a 'gift' - not death itself but the role they have within Arda of which death is a part - a central, essential, part, but a part nonetheless. Death is the means by which they fulfil their role.

Yes, yes and yes! Your ‘maybe’ caused the whole previous paragraph, all in all :D

[Lhunardawen]

(hum, 2gifts-1punishment=1gift? but that's just a prank, do not heed ) I think there's actually a point there...somewhere. :p

Even if Morgoth hoped for the outcome of the Man's Fall when he contrived it to benefit him, and even if it was Morgoth's design to have human fëar separated from their hröar (assuming he was aware of their fate and thus was planning to disrupt the Plan), he was defeated by the general principle (And thou, Melkor, shalt see...). Now here's the contradiction on Morgoth's part. I see that as long as Men would stay alive, there is a chance for him to sway them over to his side and keep them from Eru. But why in Arda did he resort to killing Men during the Battles of Beleriand? Seems to me Sauron knew better - he urged the kings of Numenor to sail West to pursue immortality.

[alatar]

Did I miss something in the Silmarillion in regards to the 'Fall' of mankind?

And, to be a bit silly, Eru allows humans to escape the confines of Arda in order that they might escape the fate of being the subject of a movie sequel by Peter Jackson and company; something that in time even the Powers may envy ("Hmmm, just how can we make this Silmarillion story more exciting...let's make it 10 jewels, add a back story of a romance triangle between Manwë, Varda and Melkor, leave out that Eru guy as he's not really important to Tolkien's main theme, add a few belching Dwarves and we might just have a hit! "). ;)

And now back to the serious discourse.

[obloquy]

What you may have missed, alatar, is called Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, and it is found in HoMe X.

H-I: When reading the Athrabeth, did you not get the impression that Andreth was reporting a belief that was not necessarily true? It seemed to me that she was relating a myth that was held by Men out of envy of the Elves. It has been a while since I've read it, now; however, as I recall, Finrod did not swallow her revelations on Man's fall whole.

[Lalwendë]

Thinking around the issue of whether death is punishment or gift, what happens to Men who do not die? Who are these Men? There is Earendil, but he is fated to ride in his ship for ever - and he is half-Elven. The Ring Bearers are permitted to travel to the Undying Lands but we do not know what their fate might be. Tuor is the only known figure who does become immortal as the Elves are immortal, and this is speculative.

Who else gives up the gift of Death? The Nazgul. These were once mortals, but now they are fea without a hroa, they are houseless spirits. This is a reversal of what happens when a mortal dies, that their fea leaves the earth; instead, the Nazgul remain, but without their bodies.

In the following words, spoken to Eowyn, it seems that the WK is talking of a choice she can have, a choice between simple death, or something else:

A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul 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.'

What is interesting also in these lines is that the WK makes mention of 'the houses of lamentation'. Is this some kind of alternative Halls of Mandos? A place where, instead of fea and hroa being brought together again, they are permanently separated? If death is Eru's gift, then it might logically follow that Morgoth/Sauron might seek to take that gift away. For them to simply kill Men is no punishment at all, they must keep Men alive in some way.

So in this sense, Eowyn is either extremely brave or utterly foolish to stand in his way. In a very real sense, she could face a fate worse than death.

I remember Eomer of the Rohirrim saying many months ago that these lines were chilling, and they are! If we think of what the Nazgul are, and of what happens to the Ringbearers (at first living hale lives like Bilbo but then declining into wretched figures like Gollum), their fate is horrible enough, but from what the WK says, this can be done by other means. Whether done slowly or quickly, it still seems disturbing. It does bring to mind the horror of the Oblation Board in His Dark Materials and what they do to the children and their daemons.

So, apart from the odd example of Earendel, and the possibility that Tuor escaped 'Death', the only mortals we know about who escape death are the Nazgul and anyone they might send to 'the halls of lamentation'. It seems that death is indeed a gift from Eru looked at in these terms.

[obloquy]

The Ringwraiths were not houseless fear. They could still interact with physical objects, and their physical garments still found a surface to drape over, so there's no reason to believe they were truly immaterial. I think they simply had badly perverted hroar made invisible by the same magic that allowed The One Ring to confer invisibility.

[HerenIstarion]

H-I: When reading the Athrabeth, did you not get the impression that Andreth was reporting a belief that was not necessarily true? It seemed to me that she was relating a myth that was held by Men out of envy of the Elves. It has been a while since I've read it, now; however, as I recall, Finrod did not swallow her revelations on Man's fall whole

It did. But the reasoning is simple: the only text discussing the matter presents certain theory. Even if it is doubted by one of the participants, we have no other textually backed theory to lean on. We lean on what we have.

Besides, in the part discussing the destiny of men, just before he comes out with This then, I propound, was the errand of Men... etc, Finrod's heart 'leaps with joy' - an indication of recognition of truth.

It is not that hard to elaborate thence and get the essence of my posts above :)

The Ringwraiths were not houseless fear. They could still interact with physical objects, and their physical garments still found a surface to drape over, so there's no reason to believe they were truly immaterial. I think they simply had badly perverted hroar made invisible by the same magic that allowed The One Ring to confer invisibility.

Nail hit on the head, I daresay :)

[Lhunardawen]

A bit silly, but when I first read that conversation between Eowyn and WK, I thought WK was merely scaring the daylights out of Eowyn with no intention (nor capability, possibly) to make good his threat.

[davem]

The Ringwraiths were not houseless fear. They could still interact with physical objects, and their physical garments still found a surface to drape over, so there's no reason to believe they were truly immaterial. I think they simply had badly perverted hroar made invisible by the same magic that allowed The One Ring to confer invisibility.

Except Tolkien calls them Ringwraiths, & a wraith is defined by Dictionary.com as:

1:An apparition of a living person that appears as a portent just before that person's death.
2:The ghost of a dead person.
3:Something shadowy and insubstantial.

Definition 3 is the problem. Tolkien knew very well what the word wraith meant. As to their ability to impact the physical, that is a problem, but not beyond another, 'magical' explanation.

[obloquy]

Except Tolkien calls them Ringwraiths, & a wraith is defined by Dictionary.com as:



Definition 3 is the problem. Tolkien knew very well what the word wraith meant. As to their ability to impact the physical, that is a problem, but not beyond another, 'magical' explanation.


I don't see any reason to quibble with Tolkien over a definition. It's true that he did not fully flesh out the details of his Nazgul, but I don't think they fall too far outside that definition for us to take issue with him. After all, many people would equate invisibility with insubstance anyway. That said, the fact is that the Ringwraiths were not wraiths in the strictest sense of the word. They could not pass through walls and they could wear clothing. Additionally, they had to rely on physical locomotion and were hampered by those same factors and forces that affect any physical Man or Elf. Although I've never seen it discussed, it seems to me that a true spirit's method of locomotion would be instantaneous, since I can't imagine what speed restrictions could be placed upon a disembodied consciousness.

Of course, I haven't spent much time in the spiritual realm, ROLF!!!!!!!

[Lhunardawen]

It's also inconceivable how mere spirits could fear water or even drown in it, if mere spirits are what the Nazgul are.

[alatar]

Been putting this one off for a while; been busy, been distracted, but anyway...here goes. And I'm hoping that this ties into the thread somehow.

My father, as stated earlier in this thread, lost his fight with cancer this summer. He remained at home to the end, and so I was able to be with him some of those last months and days. His body got progressively worse, but his mind stayed as sharp as ever. He realized that the tube that was feeding him was only feeding the cancer, and it gave him no comfort, and so one day he made a similar decision to that of King Elessar - to let go instead of trying to hold on to each drop of life.

That was a hard day, as I knew that at that point the clock was ticking, and it was only a matter of time - sometimes knowing biology isn't that fun. I think that he was concerned that if he didn't make that choice while he was still cognizant that he might get so debilitated that he would not be able to make his wishes known. Can you imagine that? It's like pulling the trigger on a gun where the bullet doesn't hit you until a week later. Also running through his head, besides being tired of his life, was that he was a burden to the family - more and more each day - and I think that he wanted to end that too.

Surely I wanted him to stay as long as he could, but also I respected his decision to leave. We never had one of those 'good bye' scenes like you see in movies, but we each knew what was happening. Maybe like Arwen, up to then I was like, "yes, it's terminal, but this is my father, whose family is long-lived, and we have many days/months/years ahead of us." It's like I knew, but was disconnected from the truth. He was dying, and soon would be dead. Gone. No more a voice on the phone or even a man lying in bed.

Reality showed up.

He let go, and less than a week later was gone. Like Aragorn, he made sure that his kingdom was in order before going. Unlike Aragorn, my father was leaving pain for either somewhere better or at least somewhere were pain did not exist.

I miss him now and then, but what makes me sad is knowing how much my children miss their 'pap.'

Sorry, but just had to go there as I can't help but sometimes relating this to Aragorn's decision.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I am sorry for your loss, Alatar.



You may not want to read my post, since it will offend some of you.



On the subject of death, I can't believe it to be a gift. Look at the world today. Is death something we look forward to? Do we hold celebrations for those who have died?(Not like the Day of the Dead, mind you.) Death is not something great, death is a malefactor.

If a man murdered my neighbor, would there be celebration? Would my neighbor still go around happily? No. He would no longer be able to do what he once did, to be with who he loved. His family would be distraught for all time and suffer from it. Death is more of a curse than anything. Even in Middle-Earth death was a malefactor. Take Aragorn's death. Though he passed on in peace and of old age his death still had a damaging effect on those around him; we all know the tale of Arwen. Theoden's death may have held honor and was prideful, but most of Rohan and Gondor felt only sadness. I believe Eru's gift had changed very much by the time men had entered the world.

Like I mentioned before, if my neighbor was killed there would be no celebration or happiness among the family, nor would his murderer feel bad. The man who murdered him would most likely be happy that he was dead. The man would not fear a higher presence. He would believe his victim to be gone forever and incapable of gaining revenge. To be honest, he would be right.

If a man was defending one that he loved and was killed, he would not be happy. He would be nothing more than a whisper on the wind who had failed to do what he had tried to accomplish. His loved one would die and their killer would most likely be joyful that they were no longer in the world.

I just can't see death as a gift. Sorry.

[alatar]

I just can't see death as a gift. Sorry.

I understand what you are saying, but see it in this context: Assume that the Middle Earth world as created by Eru exists. In this world Death is given as a gift to man by God as a release from the confines of the world, and somewhere it is stated that even the Powers will envy this freedom. Aragorn, in this world, lived his entire life by the dictates of Eru, unlike many of his Númenóreans ancestors. And at the end of his road he had the choice to continue the path that so long ago he had chosen, or to fall aside like Isildur and Ar-Pharazôn. Aragorn faced many trials, and this one was the the biggest and the last. By his decision to lay down his life, even though he was giving up some days, weeks, years, he validated his life and hopefully that of his offspring. Aragorn set an example as king, that even though he had everything to lose and nothing to gain, that in faith he would do the right thing. If he were truly going on to something better, why not 'sacrifice' the material for the spiritual (or whatever Eru had waiting)? Eru didn't make man to stay; we are to travel on. Aragorn took that last trip freely.

Somewhere in all of that I see Aragorn yet again denying the Ring - control, dominion and possession of people and things - for true freedom.

In the case of my father, each day was worse than the day before. It was a death by slices. Even the smallest sip from a cup of coffee, something that he probably drank for 60+ years, caused pain. Now, I'm not exactly sure as to his beliefs, but to him death was a release from all of the suffering, so in that context too it was a gift. And like Aragorn, he actively chose to lie down and let go.

[littlemanpoet]

Thank you for sharing your experience, Alatar. Your father was a man of true nobility, someone worthy of the respect and love that your words on this thread bear out. It seems to me that his son is not different than the father.

[Gurthang]

Well, I've read through the thread, and there is so much that I would love to agree or disagree with that I don't know where to begin.

First off, people have said that 'death' is either a gift or a curse. Well, that's a matter of view, and that view not of only death, but also how life is looked at.

Life is a gift. That cannot be taken for granted. But since there is an afterlife, death is also a gift. You could almost see it as a move. You pick up, take all important things with you, leave some things behind, and go to a new place. Some people hate moving, and are even afraid to replant themselves. They would see it as a curse. Others see that it's like a fresh start, a new experience that can be fun.

But the people who think of death as a curse are like that because they believe that here(life) is better than there(afterlife). They value their current life over whatever may be after death. People who are unafraid of death usually believe that there is something better beyond the passing. Some even look forward to when they will die, because of anticipation of what comes next.

This is where the line is drawn between those who believe death is a curse and those who believe it is a gift. In Middle-Earth, death brings a man closer to Eru. This is probably a better place than Middle-Earth is, so it should be looked forward to, because it is an escape from bad to good. But the people who are attached to their life in Middle-Earth will scorn death because they think they are already in the better place.

[Bêthberry]

Let me offer my condolences also to Alatar, even though late. As the psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross has shown, there are stages to the process of dying.

In Middle-Earth, death brings a man closer to Eru. This is probably a better place than Middle-Earth is, so it should be looked forward to, because it is an escape from bad to good. But the people who are attached to their life in Middle-Earth will scorn death because they think they are already in the better place.

I wonder if we can look more closely at how this topic is presented in Tolkien. For instance, where in Tolkien's books is it stated that "death brings a man closer to Eru"? Eru is not named in LotR, so where is this idea developed? I had thought that Tolkien does not explicitly establish in his Legendarium where men go after death.

.

[alatar]

I wonder if we can look more closely at how this topic is presented in Tolkien. For instance, where in Tolkien's books is it stated that "death brings a man closer to Eru"? Eru is not named in LotR, so where is this idea developed? I had thought that Tolkien does not explicitly establish in his Legendarium where men go after death.

To my knowledge, there is no mention of Eru in Aragorn's death scene. In the Silmarillion (Of the Beginning of Days ?), I know that it's spelled out that Eru gives the Gift of Death to Men and that Melkor perverts this knowledge so that instead of accepting this gift, men fear it. Can't remember any text regarding death drawing men closer to Eru, and think that this is Christian theology bleeding into the text.

And I like the mystery as presented by Tolkien regarding the location of men after they depart the confines of Arda. As it's stated that "even the Powers" will envy the Gift, it seems like a great gift indeed. Unlike all others, we are free, truly free agents bound for elsewhere. Also, this sets up the life of Man, as we are the travelers, the strangers, and we live our lives not content with the status quo. Think that this is a common theme regarding the nature of Man. There's just something in us that wants to know 'what's over there.' Not that that's always a good thing, but we definitely (as a whole) are not embalmers like the elves.

So, in short, with a few statements Tolkien not only sets up the death of Man, but also Life.

[mark12_30]

...where in Tolkien's books is it stated that "death brings a man closer to Eru"? Eru is not named in LotR, so where is this idea developed? I had thought that Tolkien does not explicitly establish in his Legendarium where men go after death.

Aragorn states that beyond the circles of the world is more than memory. (appendix, Aragorn & Arwen)
Also, somewhere, Tolkien says that men will join with the Valar in the second music of the Ainur. Can't remember where I saw it, but that sounds to me like "closer to Eru". I admit it's an extrapolation.

(Edit) on googling, it's in the Sil; end of ch 1 of Quenta Silmarillion.

[Bêthberry]

Aragorn states that beyond the circles of the world is more than memory. (appendix, Aragorn & Arwen)
Also, somewhere, Tolkien says that men will join with the Valar in the second music of the Ainur. Can't remember where I saw it, but that sounds to me like "closer to Eru". I admit it's an extrapolation.

(Edit) on googling, it's in the Sil; end of ch 1 of Quenta Silmarillion.


"more than memory" does seem to me very much an interpretation, as you say, Helen. And that Silm passage posits that greater music shall be played at something which could equally be construed as some sort of apocalypse or end of time rather than at death. Certainly "choirs of the Ainur and the Children of Illuvatar" does not suggest a personal rapproachment of the individual Child with Iluvatar after the Child's death. It's possible, of course, but such conjecture remains conjecture.

[mark12_30]

It would certainly be at the "End of Time" rather than at an individual's death. But I can hardly imagine Eru being absent as the second music of the Ainur is made. And making extrapolations which are within a normal Catholic's normal frame of reference hardly seems to me to be much of a stretch. The author was what he was.

[Gurthang]

I know that it's spelled out that Eru gives the Gift of Death to Men and that Melkor perverts this knowledge so that instead of accepting this gift, men fear it.

I suddenly find this point very interesting. Not because it's wrong, because I agree with it.

Say that Men did view death as a gift. Would it not make sense that they would then 'give' this gift to themselves at any given time. With the knowledge that they would be drawn closer to Eru, who would not want to just get on with that stage of existance? If they truly saw death as a gift, then none of them would live very long at all.

And that's where the fear comes in. Since they are afraid of death, they certainly don't want to be 'given' that gift. The fact that it is displeasing to them actually keeps them alive longer, which I assume is what Eru wants. If he did want all men to be swiftly drawn to him, would he not just bring them to him immediately? Rather, he put them in Middle-Earth for a reason, and them fearing death is what keeps them there until whenever they are supposed to leave.

[alatar]

I suddenly find this point very interesting. Not because it's wrong, because I agree with it.

Excellent thoughts, Gurthang. My thinking is that the Gift is not something one just accepts on a whim - nothing on TV today, and so...Think that humans are proteced with a failsafe device that induces a strong sense of self-preservation. However, unlike the elves, when the body does run down or is cut down, men do not just go into nothingness, into stone or into some large waiting room, but elsewhere. A free place beyond Arda.

But think about it. You're some ME guy just hanging around. Never heard of Morgoth, but have seen people 'take the trip.' Where did they go? You've seen what happens to the part that gets left behind, and that ain't none too pretty. You know what kind of bird you have in your hand, but would you trade that - fall on your sword - for what's behind Curtain #2?

Now Aragorn was more aware of what was going on. He was done, life-wise, and think that he even promised to follow a certain path. His son was on his own, the Kingdom was prospering and in good hands, most of his dear friends had departed one way or another. There's Arwen, but Aragorn didn't want her to go from beloved wife to beloved nurse maid. Plus he had to set an example. And so he laid down and gave up the ghost as it were. Not a rash decision, and even at the end, even for this man who is a living legend amongst legends (could name-drop First Age elves, Ents, Maia, etc). Aragorn almost stumbles at the end of the Road because he too feared that first step into such a big unknown. Even if the lies of Melkor were just lies, still...

And if I walked up to you, asked you to put on a blindfold, get in a box and said that I was going to have you shipped 'somewhere,' via courier, would you take my offer? There's a prize waiting at the end...:)

[Bêthberry]

And if I walked up to you, asked you to put on a blindfold, get in a box and said that I was going to have you shipped 'somewhere,' via courier, would you take my offer? There's a prize waiting at the end...:)

alatar's question here gets back to my initial quandary over Tolkien's choice of word to describe death, a gift. In part this is related to some of the issues which have arisen on Fordim's "Is Eru God?" thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12387&page=1).

Let me, for the sake of those of you who aren't Catholic, provide a link to at least a basic statement of the Catholic attitude towards death as something very much to be feared, from the online Catholic Encyclopedia.

Preparation for Death, Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04660c.htm)

A short few quotations, in case the link gets lost:


No matter how carefully conformed to the law of God and the precepts of the Church one's life may have been, no Christian will want to enter eternity without some immediate forearming against the terrors of that last passage.

. . . .
We shall deal first with the case of those to whom the dread summons comes after an illness which has not bereft them of consciousness.

. . . .

It is, as far as may be, the conscious, deliberate employment of prayer; the forming or deepening of a special temper of soul and acceptance of such sacramental help as will fit the human spirit to appear with some confidence before its Judge.

. . . .

Of these the principal one seems to be the getting rid of that spiritual torpor and weakness which are the baneful output of actual sin, and which would be such a serious handicap in this supreme moment. From the viewpoint of the Christian, the struggle to be maintained with the devil is now more formidable than ever, and a special endowment of heaven-sent strength is necessary for the soul's final victory.

. . . .
As the hour of the agony approaches, . . . .

(bolding is mine)

Now, how do these words of fear and terror suit Tolkien's concept of death as a gift, which normally is presumed to be positively connoted? Was Tolkien attempting to provide a reimagining of the concept of death, not as a fearful summons to a harsh judge, but as something more in keeping with a positive sense of life's journey? Was Tokien aware of pagan attitudes towards death sufficiently that he would integrate them into his Legendarium? Or, in fact, had Tolkien not conceived of the theological consequences of this giftedness until, as davem suggests on [b]Fordim[/b']s thread, he was questioned about the canonicity of his ideas with his faith?

[Lalwendë]

I'm starting to think that death for Men in Middle-earth was gift precisely because it took them away from the 'long defeat'. Despite any efforts that anyone could make (Man, Hobbit, Elf or Dwarf), war would still go on. This is seen in Tolkien's abandoned tale of the Fourth Age, where Men start to take an interest in the darkness again; even Tolkien realised how fundamentally depressing this was and abandoned the tale. Though I think the message is pretty clear in his published work that despite everything, evil could only be dispelled for a time. The Elves knew this better than anyone, simply due to their long lives and lengthier experience of the world, and they were doomed to stay in that world. Men on the other hand can leave the world and maybe go to a better place, that's their 'gift'.

I cannot recall any mention of death in Middle-earth as being in any way frightening, apart from to those mortals who had once been Elves, e.g. Arwen, to whom it must have been a fundamentally alien concept. She lingers on for some time after Aragorn's death, presumably until she has learned to accept her new fate. This view of death as something natural, to be welcomed is a very modern view, one shared by Christians, New Agers, and others, but it is wholly different to the terrifying notions of judgement and ideas of 'purgatory', not just in traditional Roman Catholicism but in other faiths.

[davem]

Or, in fact, had Tolkien not conceived of the theological consequences of this giftedness until, as davem suggests on Fordims thread, he was questioned about the canonicity of his ideas with his faith?

He did waver on this question when challenged - don't have the Letters to hand - but I seem to remember he said something along the lines of 'a divine punishment can also be seen as a gift if it is seen as being intended to reprove a beloved child' - something like that.

I think he always found the fact of to be something horrible, but tried to convince himself that if death existed in a universe created by a loving God there must be a 'loving' motivation behind it. This seems to have been yet another 'unorthodox' (but unquestioned by Tolkien himself till challenged on it) belief which he incorporated into his Legendarium.

It seems to me that he just wrote 'what really happened' & that stood until he was challenged on its 'orthodoxy' - only then would he attempt to justify it (mostly to himself).

Clearly, though, as he grew older he became more & more uncomortable with the differences between his Creation & the teachings of his faith, & so set out to 'iron out' the conflicts he percieved.

He never quite lets go of the idea of death as a divine Gift, but he certainly struggles to justify the idea (cf Athrabeth).

[Bergil]

I've always had a theory on what the gift of men is. Death is only part of it, I'm sure I read something in the Silmarillion about "desire to know what;s beond the world", the gift is an unquenchable thirst, and then quenching of it. I've always thought that if no-one could die, on-one could get excited, everyone would be complacent. We see , perhaps, some complacency in the later elves.

[littlemanpoet]

If by complacency you mean something close to despair, for the Elves by the end of the Third Age had come to realize that their long life was trammeled with sorrows and the death of all that they loved in Middle Earth. ... and of course the "long defeat".

[Raynor]

Mark who grants death at the exact moment of the Fall. It is a Voice (of Eru)!Well, he doesn't actually grant death, only a shortening of life:
Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him. When reading the Athrabeth, did you not get the impression that Andreth was reporting a belief that was not necessarily true?I agree; moreover, it is pretty complicated to integrate the debate into the greater tale: for three ages Melkor is a prisoner in the halls of Mandos, and after he meets Ungoliant, he remains in dark form ever after (cf. Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion) - how then could he appear to Men in a "great and beautiful" form (cf the debate)? Moreover:
[Finrod] remains, nonetheless, in the opinion that the condition of Men before the disaster (or as we might say, of unfallen Man) cannot have been the same as that of the Elves. That is, their 'immortality' cannot have been the longevity within Arda of the Elves; otherwise they would have been simply Elves, and their separate introduction later into the Drama by Eru would have no function. He thinks that the notion of Men that, unchanged, they would not have died (in the sense of leaving Arda) is due to human misrepresentation of their own tradition, and possibly to envious comparison of themselves to the Elves. For one thing, he does not think this fits, as we might say, 'the observable peculiarities of human psychology', as compared with Elvish feelings towards the visible world.
...
For Melkor could seduce individual minds and wills, but he could not make this heritable, or alter (contrary to the will and design of Eru) the relation of a whole people to Time and Arda. There is Earendil, but he is fated to ride in his ship for ever - and he is half-Elven.I know of two prophecies concerning Earendil (one in The names of Finwe's descendants, HoME XII, where Ulmo tells Tuor about his son becoming a great mariner and one in Of the severance of marriage, HoME X, where Mandos foretells the coming of Earendil to Aman) - yet nowhere is it stated that Earendil has this fate. Moreover, if, when answering Manwe, he chose to be man (instead of following his wife's choice) his rides among the stars would be rather short lived :).
If he did want all men to be swiftly drawn to him, would he not just bring them to him immediately? Rather, he put them in Middle-Earth for a reason, and them fearing death is what keeps them there until whenever they are supposed to leave.I disagree (from Of the severance of marriage, HoME X):
For Eru is Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purposes, but he doth not of his prime motion impose grief upon them.I the light of this, I couldn't see Eru as imposing fear on his Children in order to achieve His end.

[HerenIstarion]

for three ages Melkor is a prisoner in the halls of Mandos, and after he meets Ungoliant, he remains in dark form ever after (cf. Of the darkening of Valinor, Silmarillion) - how then could he appear to Men in a "great and beautiful

It is assumed that when Men appeared in Beleriand, it was many generations past their awakening. Therefore, Fall of Man happened before chaining of Melko.

[Raynor]

Therefore, Fall of Man happened before chaining of Melko.I disagree:
These things the Valar did [the making of the sun and moon, after the escape of Melkor], recalling in their twilight the darkness of the lands of Arda; and they resolved now to illumine Middle-earth and with light to hinder the deeds of Melkor. For they remembered the Avari that remained by the waters of their awakening, and they did not utterly forsake the Noldor in exile; and Manwe knew also that the hour of the coming of Men was drawn nigh
...
for the Sun was set as a sign for the awakening of Men and the waning of the Elves, but the Moon cherishes their memory.At the first rising of the Sun the Younger Children of Iluvatar awoke in the land of Hildorien

[Aiwendil]

It is assumed that when Men appeared in Beleriand, it was many generations past their awakening. Therefore, Fall of Man happened before chaining of Melko.
I disagree

This point depends upon the changing cosmology of the Legendarium.

In the earlier 'flat world' cosmology, Men awoke at the first rising of the Sun, which was after the chaining of Melkor (and indeed, after his release).

In the Myths Transformed 'round world' cosmology, the Sun and Moon existed from the beginning of the world. The awakening of Men was thus not tied to their creation, and it was moved back to before Melkor's chaining.

[Raynor]

There are some serious obstacles in accepting the version of the Sun and Moon as given in Myths Transformed. The opening salvo is: "At that point (in reconsideration of the early cosmogonic parts) I was inclined to adhere to the Flat Earth and the astronomically absurd business of the making of the Sun and Moon."

As Tolkien himself recounts, a minor loss would that of dramatic impact (no first incarnates walking in a starlit world, no unfolding of the elven banners at the first rising of the moon). More serious that this is the fact that the cosmological myth of the Silmarillion comes out as a "creative error". Moreover, in Christopher's words"

"As he stated it, this may seem to be an argument of the most doubtful nature, raising indeed the question, why is the myth of the Two Trees [as being created from the sun, not the other way around] (which so far as record goes he never showed any intention to abandon) more acceptable than that of the creation of the Sun and the Moon from the last fruit and flower of the Trees as they died? Or indeed, if this is true, how can it be acceptable that the Evening Star is the Silmaril cut by Beren from Morgoth's crown?"

The problem that seems to be at hand is that Tolkien considered the Sil. to be too "primitive" in nature; primitive, but not _absurd_. The here discarded myth cannot be excised as a "gratuitous element", since it is closely related to the two trees giving light to Valinor, while ME was in darkness - and it is in darkness that the elves had to wake, under the light of the stars (not of the sun).

Moreover, Tolkien concludes that Men should awake during the Great March - now this doesn't leave _that_ much weight to the stature of the elves as firstborn, does it?

Before the making of Utumno (and the waking of the elves) Melkor ravishes Arien - and it is thus burned and "his brightness darkened" - how then could he appear in fair form to the Men he would later corrupt? [Another problematic idea presented in M.T. is that Fionwe was son of Manwe, which is pretty much against my understaing of his Legendarium.]

To conclude with Christopher's words concerning this particular theory of Sun and Moon: "It seems to me that he was devising – from within it – a fearful weapon against his own creation".

[Aiwendil]

There are some serious obstacles in accepting the version of the Sun and Moon as given in Myths Transformed.

Perhaps. But that seems to be quite beside the point; apparently Tolkien had the Myths Transformed chronology in mind when he wrote the Athrabeth. Whether this text (and Andreth's myth) could be reconciled with the flat earth version is a quite separate (though interesting) discussion.

[Raynor]

apparently Tolkien had the Myths Transformed chronology in mind when he wrote the Athrabeth.I don't think so; Tolkien dates the debate around year 409 - which is in accordance with the chronology of the Years of the Sun (i.e. between the emergence of Glaurung (260) and the Dagor Bragollach (455)). According to the Silmarillion, in year 1 Fingolfin's host reaches Middle-Earth "at the first rising of the moon"; if the moon didn't indeed first rise then but much sooner (and if the Men didn't awake in that year), why would anyone reffer to that year as year 1?

Moreover, it is stated by Christopher in Atrabeth's notes that: "It was of course fundamental to the whole conception of the Elder Days that Men awoke in the East at the first Sunrise, and that they had existed for no more than a few hundred years when Finrod Felagund came upon Beor and his people in the foothills of the Blue Mountains" - which is in accordance with his comments on the Myth's Transformed revised astronomy.

[alatar]

I think he always found the fact of to be something horrible, but tried to convince himself that if death existed in a universe created by a loving God there must be a 'loving' motivation behind it. This seems to have been yet another 'unorthodox' (but unquestioned by Tolkien himself till challenged on it) belief which he incorporated into his Legendarium.

It seems to me that he just wrote 'what really happened' & that stood until he was challenged on its 'orthodoxy' - only then would he attempt to justify it (mostly to himself).
Been thinking about this issue again. Did Tolkien's - and all of ours - feelings about death get stamped into his brain in childhood? Is that when we learn that Death is the Enemy to be feared? What would it be like if he, or we, learned from early on that although death is something to be avoided, it is part of the natural process, unavoidable, and like the animals, to be accepted?

Is there a culture where this happens?

Or are we all tainted by the lies of Morgoth? Did Tolkien, hearing about Hell and damnation, think that if it remained a possible location for his soul for eternity, regardless of his piety, consider this, whether consciously or subconsciously when writing about how men learned to fear the Gift? Do Christians fear death (if they do) for this reason?

This got sparked by reading this article (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=758) where towards the end it states

My feeling about death is pretty straightforward: I am opposed to it. Yet there it is. And once my kids have fallen in love with reality, part of my job as a parent is to help them grasp and accept the less lovable parts along with the easier bits.

Fortunately, death is no big deal.

Let me be clear. From this side of the turnstile, death appears to be an enormous deal. But I've nursed at the teats of Epicurus and Montaigne long enough to know that the dead themselves surely aren't all that impressed with it. While I exist, Death does not. When Death exists, I will not. Why should I fear something I will never experience? That doesn't entirely feed the bulldog, but it's a Milk Bone. My life is bounded by two eternities of nonexistence. Why should I fear the nonexistence after my life if I didn't fear the one before it? Another Milk Bone. And since our reckless family conversations often intersect with death, I've had several occasions to serve up some version of each of those to all three of my kids. There's real consolation there.

[Bêthberry]

Been thinking about this issue again. Did Tolkien's - and all of ours - feelings about death get stamped into his brain in childhood? Is that when we learn that Death is the Enemy to be feared? What would it be like if he, or we, learned from early on that although death is something to be avoided, it is part of the natural process, unavoidable, and like the animals, to be accepted?

Is there a culture where this happens?

Or are we all tainted by the lies of Morgoth? Did Tolkien, hearing about Hell and damnation, think that if it remained a possible location for his soul for eternity, regardless of his piety, consider this, whether consciously or subconsciously when writing about how men learned to fear the Gift? Do Christians fear death (if they do) for this reason?



My brain must be foggy from all the smog and humidity of the heat wave, 'cause I'm not quite following this. Are you asking of we are all tainted by Original Sin or are you suggesting that the idea of Hell and damnation is one of Morgoth's lies?

My theology is a bit fuzzy, but I think in Tolkien's time even the Just did time in at least Limbo if not Purgatory before getting through the Pearly Gates, so death wasn't a one-stop destination. But the Fall definitely did close off the Pearly Gates until Christ provided the key. I'm not sure what happens to all those people between Adam and Eve and 70 AD, if they got retroactive access or if they had to wait.

Maybe this is why Tolkien omitted a Fall in his mythology?

[alatar]

My brain must be foggy from all the smog and humidity of the heat wave, 'cause I'm not quite following this.
alatar asks Manwë, Lord of Air, Heating and Cooling (See Ulmo with plumbing problems) to send Bêthberry some cool conditioned air. :cool:

Are you asking of we are all tainted by Original Sin or are you suggesting that the idea of Hell and damnation is one of Morgoth's lies?
Must have been one of those days when I got too much sleep, as today even I'm not sure what I was thinking. Anyway, think that my question is: Did Tolkien's inclusion of the Lie of Morgoth (Gift is bad; join Morgoth and stick around like the elves) come from his early childhood and tales of hell and damnation? If he were raised in a culture (should it exist) where death was not celebrated but accepted as a natural end - you die and that's it; no yelling and screaming or pushing boulders up hills for eternity - would his writings about the rejection of the Gift been different? If there were no concept of Hell in his mind, would the entire Gift and Ban been written differently, if at all?

My theology is a bit fuzzy, but I think in Tolkien's time even the Just did time in at least Limbo if not Purgatory before getting through the Pearly Gates, so death wasn't a one-stop destination.
Just like in Arda, with the Hall of Mandos.

But the Fall definitely did close off the Pearly Gates until Christ provided the key. I'm not sure what happens to all those people between Adam and Eve and 70 AD, if they got retroactive access or if they had to wait.
As I understand it, they waited in a place called 'Abraham's Bosom,' or the 'Limbo of the Fathers' until the death and resurrection of Christ (Luke 16:19-31)

Maybe this is why Tolkien omitted a Fall in his mythology?
That would be another thread.

[Formendacil]

Did I miss something in the Silmarillion in regards to the 'Fall' of mankind?

And, to be a bit silly, Eru allows humans to escape the confines of Arda in order that they might escape the fate of being the subject of a movie sequel by Peter Jackson and company; something that in time even the Powers may envy ("Hmmm, just how can we make this Silmarillion story more exciting...let's make it 10 jewels, add a back story of a romance triangle between Manwë, Varda and Melkor, leave out that Eru guy as he's not really important to Tolkien's main theme, add a few belching Dwarves and we might just have a hit! "). ;)

And now back to the serious discourse.

Dredging up a VERY old (but timeless) thread to note how 100% spot on alatar's assessment of Peter Jackson's adaptation methods were: he just didn't know it would be The Hobbit!

Since I'm here, I'll add to what Bêthberry says in the second to last prior post:

Maybe this is why Tolkien omitted a Fall in his mythology?

Namely, I'll clarify that Tolkien omits showing the Fall in his mythology. That Men have some dark, shameful past is quite clear in the Silmarillion texts showing the arrival of the Edain in Beleriand--it's just that Tolkien doesn't dwell on what that was, at least not there.

The Athrabêth does the exact opposite of that, which is why though I find it fascinating, it's a text that I'm wary of. In other words, the Athrabêth is Tolkien doing for Middle-earth's theology what the Myths Transformed texts would do for Middle-earth's cosmology: attempt to make it more consistent with the world as we know it (well, with the world as Tolkien would claim to have known it, anyway).

Given Tolkien's claim that The Lord of the Rings is "about Death and the desire for deathlessness," this is a theme likely to be ever fruitful, not least because Death and the desire for deathlessness are ever in tension in reality as in fiction. And while fiction may be a way of understanding reality, Tolkien's fiction is certainly not a simplistic way of trying to work out this particular issue.