The Lord of the Bible? [Archive] - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

mark12_30

09-04-2006, 10:02 PM

OK, Fea.

The Zechariah verses I think aren't very applicable so I'll leave them off.

Psalm 41:9 "Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

The key thought here is "who ate my bread"-- they shared meals together. Sharing a meal wassomething you did because of love and trust.

Jesus' ministry leasted 3.5 years; Judas & the rest of the apostles were wth him for at least the last two of those years (per Ryrie, anyway.) So for two years or nore. Judas and the other 11 ate with Jesus, day in, day out; they traveled together; they discussed things together. Judas was there for the multipication of the loaves; he was there for the Last Supper, which he ate; and Jesus washed his feet that same night.

From Rivendell to Amon Hen, the Fellowship shared meals together, and walked together for three months. They were together 24/7. Bonds form; trust grows.

Psalm 55:12-14 "For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, my companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, And walked to the house of God in the throng."

"Walked to the house of God" probably refers to the journey from the outlying lands into Jerusalem for the annual feasts; imagine all the folk from the twelve tribes who were healthy enough to travel, converging on the city for a week long celebration-- some from 200 miles away. Large "throng" of people; long walk. These two 'friends' walked together, talking, laughing, singing, heading for the citywide party (thrown three times a year, Passover, Pentecost, and Weeks), looking forward to feasting and celebrating together.

Clearly Frodo's Fellowship wasn't heading for a citywide block party. But they were walking, together, day after day; eating together; guarding each other as they slept; singing when they could, sharing tales when they could, silent when they needed to be. They were a team, working hard at teamwork. Even if Frodo was apprehensive about Boromir, still, teamwork produces trust. To have Boromir turn, and "lift up his heel", must have been a deep shock for Frodo *even if he saw it coming.* Of course he saw it coming; but it hit him hard nonetheless.

Deeply significant, I think, is that Boromir repented, and was able to redeem himself before he died-- and Faramir's vision of him beautifully confirms that his repentance was accepted. (Too bad Frodo never knew of it til after the quest was over.) There, I think, is the big contrast between Boromir and Judas; although Judas threw away his 30 peices of silver, he then went and hanged himself; there's no indication that his remorse was repentance, whether it was recieved, or that he was forgiven. Tolkien didn't have that in mind for Boromir, and indeed his deep remorse, his self-sacrifice, his funeral and Faramir's sighting of him is a strong statement on Tolkien's part about Boromir's redemmption.

Whether that difference is anchored in something, I haven't yet grasped or decided. Still pondering.

Afterthought-- the whole "betrayed with a kiss" theme. Boromir offered to stay with Frodo to keep him safe, and to let him unburden his heart. There was an offer of support and cameraderie; and it turned into something quite different.

davem

09-05-2006, 12:06 AM

Ok, so this pope wrote a story in which:
- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is despised in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead(Lazarus anyone?)
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.

Do you still have problems with the pope's claim? Is this Christian enough?

Yes, yes, yes, & so on & so forth...

You can pick out bits & put a particular spin on them. Except Gandalf is not 'the Saviour' of M-e or anywhere else, but rather a guide & counsellor (I don't remember Jesus making fireworks either). He is not 'despised' in Gondor & Rohan, but merely didtrusted by their leaders- & not by everyone in the leadership either - both Eomer & Faramir are saddened by news of his fall)

Yes Minas Tirith 'might be called the 'Holiest City' in M-e'. It might also be called the biggest, the noisiest, the whitest, the stupidest, the cleverest, the most annoying, the most civilised, or any number of other appelations depending on the individual who was handing out the title. I don't think it is called 'the Holiest City' anywhere in the book.

As to 'calling the humans back from the dead' Aragorn doesn't - the Dead of Dunharrow are Dead & remain dead - they just go & do a bit of haunting for him, & Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Frodo are not actually dead at any point.

Frodo & Sam climb a mountain with a Ring - all very symbolic - but why & how it is specifically Christian I can't see.

What you're doing is approaching the book from a Christian perspective & therefore seeing in it things which, as I said, are not entirely unlike Biblical things.

What I want to ask is why the Pope is writing fantasy novels anyway. He should stick to his day job.

From Rivendell to Amon Hen, the Fellowship shared meals together, and walked together for three months. They were together 24/7. Bonds form; trust grows. (etc, etc)

I notice they all also wore clothes, & had arms & legs. Close study of the Gospel texts will show that Jesus & the disiples all also wore clothes & had arms & legs. There is even a reference to Jesus walking about sometimes. This is clearly proof of an underlying Christian subtext to LotR.

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 02:02 AM

I have to warn of being wary of attaching too much to the concept of the grouping of the Fellowship travelling through Middle-earth as I think this is a simple narrative requirement. However I'm interested in this idea of Minas Tirith being the 'holiest' city in Middle-earth. What drew you to that conclusion Raynor? I would have thought if anyone was trying to identify such a place, then they would more likely be drawn to Lothlorien or Rivendell, though I myself would not as it would be just too predictable to pick up on something Elven. ;)

A thought strikes me though - it's something that it cannot possibly be intended to be, but there are echoes of Blake's concept of Jerusalem in Minas Tirith.

And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant Land.

Let me qualify that. One of the interpretations of the preface to Milton is that it talks of creating a place of beauty and freedom, Jerusalem being more than a place in Israel/Palestine, but a concept of a 'chosen place'. Looking at the history of the Numenoreans, the city was founded by the faithful who came from the Island and it was founded in a spirit of hope, and with great intentions. Hmm, perhaps the history of the place is far too jumbled and in the time of the War of the Ring, now also crumbled from its former power to call it a holy place at that time, but I think the way it was founded was certainly with high minded intention.

Two more points I just want to discuss here. Firstly Aragorn's healing skills. Of course there are parallels to be drawn with Jesus here, but let's also think about Kingship - the ability to heal is usually associated with Monarchs, possibly drawn from Divine Right. Relics of English Kings and Queens were commonly sought out for their healing powers, and of course Tolkien puts in the reference to Kingsfoil which signposts us to that idea. Its not entirely separate from Jesus though, as I think the writers of the Gospels were themselves using this metaphor for Kingship, hoping to show readers that Jesus's healing powers proved his right to Kingship. So, I'd say, not drawn from, but the same metaphor.

And then Gandalf. if I had to draw a parallel with any Biblical figure I would certainly not place him as Jesus as Gandalf is not divine, but sent as a guide. He cannot instruct, only suggest. If I had to choose one figure it would be Moses or maybe another prophet. However the figure most like Gandalf from all of mythology is Merlin. Predictable, being a wizard an' all, but he fits this model most strongly. Solitary with mysterious powers over fire, he is shamanic. He also strikes fear into many, and what's more, is responsible for the growing up of a King in waiting - as we saw Merlin/Arthur, so we see Gandalf/Aragorn.

mark12_30

09-05-2006, 03:42 AM

... but why & how it is specifically Christian I can't see..

No surprise there. You've said this before.

mark12_30

09-05-2006, 03:53 AM

... Hmm, perhaps the history of the place is far too jumbled and in the time of the War of the Ring, now also crumbled from its former power to call it a holy place at that time....

Some might come to the same conclusion regarding modern Jerusalem. Yet the city retains its significance.

Two more points I just want to discuss here. Firstly Aragorn's healing skills. Of course there are parallels to be drawn with Jesus here, but let's also think about Kingship - the ability to heal is usually associated with Monarchs, possibly drawn from Divine Right. Relics of English Kings and Queens were commonly sought out for their healing powers, and of course Tolkien puts in the reference to Kingsfoil which signposts us to that idea. Its not entirely separate from Jesus though, as I think the writers of the Gospels were themselves using this metaphor for Kingship, hoping to show readers that Jesus's healing powers proved his right to Kingship. So, I'd say, not drawn from, but the same metaphor.

Interesting, Lal. Where did the (western concept of) Divine Right come from?

And then Gandalf. if I had to draw a parallel with any Biblical figure I would certainly not place him as Jesus as Gandalf is not divine, but sent as a guide. He cannot instruct, only suggest. If I had to choose one figure it would be Moses or maybe another prophet. However the figure most like Gandalf from all of mythology is Merlin. Predictable, being a wizard an' all, but he fits this model most strongly. Solitary with mysterious powers over fire, he is shamanic. He also strikes fear into many, and what's more, is responsible for the growing up of a King in waiting - as we saw Merlin/Arthur, so we see Gandalf/Aragorn.

More good observations. Moses certainly; don't forget Samuel; and yes, there are others. More on that later I suspect.

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 05:26 AM

Divine Right in the modern context is the power to rule given by God, however the concept of Monarchs who had been 'chosen' and with amazing powers existed before Christianity came to Europe - Celtic Kings (and Queens) were regarded as divine, and the concept also existed in Egypt, China and Japan - in China this was taken to the extreme degree that King actually was a God, not just that he had been given the gift of rulership. The concept was pretty much thrown out in the UK after the Civil War and the growing authority of Parliament, however you can still see echoes of that concept even today - see the Princess Di effect for proof!

And again you only have to look at the Princess Di effect/phenomenon to see how people even now have folk belief that Kings (or Princesses) can 'heal' them.

EDIT (now I've got some dinner ;)) : It's also worth considering how Tolkien uses the concept. Aragorn indeed has the right to be King, but he does not exercise this right with force. The idea of Divine Right has some very negative connotations, including the arrognace displayed by Charles I, and by some of the French Bourbon kings (resulting in the bloody Revolution). Note that Aragorn (interestingly with that name which is so close to the word arrogant) does not abuse this right. He almost does, at Meduseld, but Gandalf holds him back and makes him consider his actions. Instead, Aragorn very much earns his Kingship through example and leadership, and displays humility when his 'secret' is discovered via Ioreth's knowledge of folklore.

Contrast this with Denethor who thinks he has some kind of 'divine right of Stewardship'. I think Tolkien very much shows that though Kings may indeed have been bestowed with this 'gift', they still must earn the moral right to put it into practice, much as a democratically elected leader might.

davem

09-05-2006, 05:49 AM

More good observations. Moses certainly; don't forget Samuel; and yes, there are others. More on that later I suspect.

This is based on the rejected passage in HoM-e 7 where the baby Gandalf was found by Tom Bombadil floating in a basket on the Withywindle presumably?

Interesting, Lal. Where did the (western concept of) Divine Right come from?

Maybe Rome & the whole deification of the Emperor thing? Or from the fact that the Anglo-Saxon kings claimed descent from Woden, or the Egyptian tradition that the King was the incarnation of Osiris, or just the fact that it was fairly common for ancient peoples to see their rulers in that way.

And this is the whole problem here. You're taking universals & claiming they are uniquely 'Christian' in order to prove some kind of point, or worse consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting incidents & characters in order to make them 'fit' your theory.

If Tolkien had wanted to write a book of theology I'm quite certain he could have done that. If he wanted to write an allegory on the lines of Narnia I'm sure he could have done that too. What he actually wrote was a story. Whatever got taken up into his secondary world became absorbed into it. I can think of no Biblical figure or event that was taken up wholesale. There may be bits of Moses, & Jesus, & Satan & the Heavenly Jerusalem & other stuff in there, but they're all mixed in with bits of Odin, Merlin, Beowulf, & lots of other stuff. This whole 'Gollum-like' scrabbling around among the roots & in holes to find out 'secrets' is vaguely insulting to Tolkien's genius as a creator.

EDIT Cross-posted with Lalwende

Macalaure

09-05-2006, 06:11 AM

- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is despised in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead(Lazarus anyone?)
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.Could you provide a little more detail for the lowly heathens? ;)

Calling Gandalf the saviour needs more arguments, I think. Godly being, yes, but there's quite a difference between a low Ainu and the Son of God. Both sacrifice themselves, but one to save his companions from becoming balrog-barbeque, and one to redeem men from their sins. If "returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil" refers to the resurrection, then I don't see this. If it refers to Jesus' return on Judgement Day then... well... no, I don't see it then either.
I'm waiting for Helen (mark12_30=Helen, if I understand this right? Sigh, I'm still too new... :rolleyes: ) to post more about the Gandalf+Aragorn+Frodo ⊇ Jesus.

Of course Minas Tirith is the holiest city, there just isn't any other city left that is intact, unconquered and equal in age. Originally, I would think Osgiliath is a little holier (original capital of Gondor, connects two shores of a river, has the nicest Palantir), but Tolkien decided to destroy the great worldly city in favor of a mere citadel.

On the Borimir-Judas issue.
Judas betrayed Jesus because he was looking for a different kind of messiah. He thought that Jesus would use his 'messiahness' to obtain power and destroy the enemy (drive out the Romans). By betraying Jesus, he wanted to force him on this path.
Here I see a similarity with Boromir's situation, who thought that the Ring should be used to destroy the enemy with its power.
Difference: Judas planned his betrayal whereas Boromir was taken by madness. Both repented, but only Boromir was given a chance to redeem himself. The source of potential power was in one case entirely good, in the other entirely evil.
But we're not expecting one-to-one correspondency anyway.

On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

mark12_30

09-05-2006, 06:17 AM

....lots of good stuff....

...indeed. Very perceptive, and good food for thought.

....

Haven't I heard you saying this before?

Macalaure-- much interesting food for thought. Thanks.

Roompty toom, Burarum.

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 06:29 AM

On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

Neither are as both are incredibly old ideas. The term Divine Right comes from, I think, St Paul, but the concepts of both are old as the hills. The 'proof' in Celtic times and back beyond would probably have come from performing some act of bravery or seeming magic (e.g. the Arthurian Sword in the stone story possibly originates from the seeming magic powers of smiths, turning rock into metal, which must've seemed incredible).

davem

09-05-2006, 06:34 AM

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/left_behind.com_potter_and_rings.html

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm

http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract11.html

http://biblia.com/ring/

http://www.tldm.org/News8/JRRTolkien.LordOfTheRings.HarryPotter.CSLewis.Narn ia.htm

http://www.cuttingedge.org/newsletters/030504.html Quote below

But, even more damning is the book we have on our bookshelf, written by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware of Focus On The Family, entitled, "Finding God In The Lord of the Rings"! The demonism I felt pouring through the horrible first movie was so strong, I had to leave the theater. The Abyss spirit powering this movie was much greater than in Harry Potter. Former Satanists have also testified their conviction that this movie is demonic through and through. This movie depicts a battle between a White Magic Wizard versus a Black Magick Wizard, both wielding powers and abilities that are well known to a former Satanist. This series of movies by Tolkien is pure Witchcraft through and through.

mark12_30

09-05-2006, 06:39 AM

Gee, davem, how many of those were written by Barrow-Downers participating in this discussion? Or more astounding still, written by Tolkien himself?

Anguirel

09-05-2006, 06:39 AM

It should also be noted that Divine Right and Touching for the King's Evil did come to be interwoven. After the Hanoverians succeeded the Stuarts with a much more constitutional style of monarchy in Britain, the exiled Stuarts continued to claim both prerogatives and asserted their rights by frequently touching the scrofulous with some success.

There's even a story that the Hanoverian so-called George II was approached by a little boy who was dying of scrofula. The lad begged him to touch him with the magical Royal effect, but the unimaginative, tedious, constitutional George laughed in his face and told him to go and seek out the Stuart claimants to the throne if he really believed in the absurd superstition. The boy promptly went to James VIII and III, "The Old Pretender", in Rome, was touched by him and recovered from the disease...

Macalaure

09-05-2006, 06:46 AM

davem, your links only show that:
Well, of course one is free to do whatever one wants to. Still, if his meaning is not coherent and conclusive, then it is invalid and of no substance. Of course, nobody can be punished for having an invalid opinion. (at least not where you and I live)

The Saucepan Man

09-05-2006, 07:13 AM

The idea of Divine Right has some very negative connotations, including the arrognace displayed by Charles I ...If I recall my rusty history correctly, Charles I was raised to believe that he had a divine right to rule and genuinely believed this to be the case. He simply could not conceive of things any differently. The whole basis of his defence at his trial was that Parliament had no right to challenge his authority, deriving as it did from God. Indeed, it probably sealed his fate - I seem to recall that it would have been possible for him to avoid the executioner's axe had he renounced his right to the throne. His arrogance therefore (if it may be called that) was driven by an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule.

But didn't Aragorn too have an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule? Admittedly, he saw it as important to assume the throne with the will of the people. But what if he had not had popular support? What if Denethor (or even Boromir) had survived and opposed his coronation? It has, I think, been mooted in the past that civil war within Gondor might have been the outcome (as had happened in the past).

There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). In England at least, the belief in the monarch's power to heal scrofula (the 'King's Disease'), which lasted from the time of Edward Confessor (11th Century) through to the 18th Century was, I think, connected to the concept of divine right.

It goes without saying that Tolkien would have been aware of this tradition.

Of course Minas Tirith is the holiest city, there just isn't any other city left that is intact, unconquered and equal in age.Is there a parallel, I wonder, in the Bible (or in any other tradition) with Minas Ithil/Morgul - the "twin" city which falls to evil? Babylon? Gomorrah?

Judas betrayed Jesus because he was looking for a different kind of messiah. He thought that Jesus would use his 'messiahness' to obtain power and destroy the enemy (drive out the Romans). By betraying Jesus, he wanted to force him on this path.Wasn't that the motivation of Simon and the Zealots? My Bible is even more rusty than my English history, but I thought that Judas' motivations were different. Or am I just basing that on Jesus Christ Superstar? :rolleyes: :D

And this is the whole problem here. You're taking universals & claiming they are uniquely 'Christian' in order to prove some kind of point, or worse consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting incidents & characters in order to make them 'fit' your theory ... This whole 'Gollum-like' scrabbling around among the roots & in holes to find out 'secrets' is vaguely insulting to Tolkien's genius as a creator.

Davem, why is this a problem? A cursory glance at this thread will make your position quite apparent to any reader. I rather agree with your point that LotR is not uniquely Christian. I am one of those who did not pick up any parallel with Christianity when I frst read the book - certainly not until I started to read the Silmarillion some years later (indeed, the "Biblical" tone of the Silm's opening chapters put me off reading it back then).

But I can't for the life of me see why you should have any objection to those who are interested in discussing possible Bilbical parallels (whether intended by the author or not) doing so. What skin is it iff your nose? I acknowledge your point about detailed analysis perhaps risking breaking the "enchantment" (and that is one of the reasons that I too stopped contributing to the C-b-C thread). But that is a matter for the individual. You do not have to participate if you do not wish, but why seek (continually and repetitively) to admonish others for discussing these matters if they wish to do so? I just don't see the point.

Certainly, I don't think it is something that should be thought of as insulting to Tolkien, given that it was something in which he himself (when, post-publication, was effectively in the position of a "detached reader" of his own work) engaged in correspondence with his readers.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-05-2006, 07:18 AM

I am hesitant about this post, but consider it to be thinking aloud.

I attended a presentation third term last year on communication as an art form and much to my fascination, this (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com) ended up on the overhead. I'm working from memory here... call me on things I'm forgetting or screw up.

Jesus knew that he was going to die, quite in advance of his death.
Then Jesus began to tell them that he, the Son of Man, would suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the leaders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, and three days later he would rise again.
But in the Gospel of Judas it is claimed that Jesus asked that this public betrayal be done by a friend as opposed to an enemy. The man leading the discussion (ugh... wish I could remember the whole thing) mentioned that suicide is bad and that in order to die for the people, Jesus had to die by the people. But Jesus also said

Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

Jesus had to die and come back, pretty much, and he could. But in order to make that sacrifice, he needed somebody to betray him.

I think the same holds for Frodo. He wanted to go to Mount Doom (the meaning of 'doom' has never seemed more applicable than when I ponder these events and how they occur to be somewhat fated) alone so that he could save those he loved from sharing his fate.

I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.
He tried to leave the Shire alone in the very beginning. When he found himself with more companions, he had to cut himself off from them. I don't think he could have made that cut without the aid of Boromir's 'treachery'. And that Galadriel could forsee Boromir's inner struggle suggests that it may have been somewhat of a 'Planned' event, required for further events to properly unfold.

Ignore my ramblings if you want. I need coffee.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-05-2006, 07:19 AM

What you're doing is approaching the book from a Christian perspective & therefore seeing in it things which, as I said, are not entirely unlike Biblical things.
He gets it!

narfforc

09-05-2006, 07:39 AM

I would like to concentrate on just one character, Gandalf. He is called by some an angelic power, so what is an angel. There seems to be a whole host of them, so here we go.

First Hierarchy (Choir)
Seraphim:They are with God
Cherubim:They hold the knowledge of God and are sent to Earth with the greatest tasks.
Thrones.

Second Hierachy (Choir)
Dominions.
Virtues.
Powers: Spirits of Form, a sort of elite guard against the demonic attack of heaven

Third Hierarchy (Choir)
Principalities:Watch over the mortal world, guiding and protecting. They are responsible for carrying out divine acts concerning their area of jurisdiction.
Archangels.
Angels:Those that intermediate between God and Man, they are carriers of Gods word to mankind, acting as messengers and couriers to both God and the upper ranks of Angelkind.

Now I have chosen the bits that fit the descriptions of The Ainur, The Valar and Maiar, the last one being very descriptive of Gandalf and The Istari. I do not believe in angels anymore than I believe in fairies, yet Tolkien may well have done. He seems to have merged these Judeo/Christian myths with the Pagan myths of the Norse and Celts.

A very good book to read is From The Ashes Of Angels by Andrew Collins.
This book tells another interpretation of these winged men and their offspring The Nephilim.

So what else is Gandalf/Olorin other than an Angel?, here is a different possibility, Mercury. This God is:

1. The Messenger of the Gods

2. He carries the dreams of Morpheus from Somnus to sleeping humans.

3. He is the son of Maia Maiestas

4. In occult circles he is given rulership over all things magical.

5. He is identified with the Celtic God Lugus, and he is sometimes asscotiated with Light/Sun
6. Lugus as The Irish God Lugh defeated the monstrous Balor One Eye.

So you see when looking at certain characteristics you can fit almost anything you want into LotR, the problem is that the world is full of stories and religions and some are very similar. Take Mithras the saviour god for instance, Born on Dec 25th in a cave of Virgin Birth, died and was reborn. Early christian tradition said that Jesus was born in a cave, the word in the Gospels is katalemna which literally means a temporary shelter or cave. Another story is that of Tammuz, born of Virgin Birth, died with a wound to his side, arose from his tomb after three days leaving it vacant, with a rock at its entrance rooled aside. There are 12 different instances I know of where death by crucifixion occurs and the person is ressurected. Tolkien was a clever man, he would have known of these similarities, this is possibily why he used universal myths to add weight to his sub-creation.

ninja91

09-05-2006, 08:35 AM

Now, I am (annoyingly) :eek: interrupting a thread again. It is what ninjas do... :rolleyes:
Anyway, I have not read through the whole thread because it is very, very long now. Boromir88, please, do not get mad at me!
Anyway, I would like to compare Frodo to Jesus.
Frodo had to carry a burden, the ring, up mount doom. He was helped by Sam. Jesus had to carry the cross up to Mount Golgotha, with some help from Simon.
Frodo was deceived by Gollum. Jesus was deceived by Judas.
Frodo suffers at the cracks of doom. Jesus suffers on the cross.
Frodo went to the Grey Havens. Jesus ascended into heaven.
Along the way, they are both tempted. Once I remember more, I'll probably edit the post or something... :smokin:

davem

09-05-2006, 08:43 AM

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 08:56 AM

If I recall my rusty history correctly, Charles I was raised to believe that he had a divine right to rule and genuinely believed this to be the case. He simply could not conceive of things any differently. The whole basis of his defence at his trial was that Parliament had no right to challenge his authority, deriving as it did from God. Indeed, it probably sealed his fate - I seem to recall that it would have been possible for him to avoid the executioner's axe had he renounced his right to the throne. His arrogance therefore (if it may be called that) was driven by an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule.

But didn't Aragorn too have an unshakeable conviction in his right to rule? Admittedly, he saw it as important to assume the throne with the will of the people. But what if he had not had popular support? What if Denethor (or even Boromir) had survived and opposed his coronation? It has, I think, been mooted in the past that civil war within Gondor might have been the outcome (as had happened in the past).

You're far more sympathetic to Charles I than I am. ;) There is of course a long history of Kings taking that kind of line and meeting their makers as a result. I think we can still call it arrogance taken from our modern perspective, as we don't necessarily excuse slave traders in the past of ignorance.

And you're more harsh on Aragorn than I am! I think Aragorn did indeed have a conviction that he had the right to rule, but certainly after the near miss 'diplomatic incident' (as it might be called today) at Meduseld he knew about holding back. If he had still got poular support and one of the brothers had held onto Gondor he would have used diplomatic means to win them over, but even had he not had popular support, I doubt he would have gone 'steaming in'.

Mister Underhill

09-05-2006, 09:59 AM

To qualify as Downs discussion, posts are also required to be civil and respectful, particularly when it comes to a hot-button topic like religion. I've only skimmed the last couple of pages of this thread, but I don't like the tone I see.

This is Downs 101 -- and veteran members should know it best of all. Attacking, dismissive, insulting, and drippingly sarcastic posts have no place on the BD. Maybe it's time for everyone to refresh themselves on Esty's Guidelines for Forum Posting (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11805).

There have already been a couple of moderator warnings in this thread. I trust that this last one pays for all, and that no one here will force us into more drastic action like thread closures or temporary bans.

The Saucepan Man

09-05-2006, 10:08 AM

I haven't been admonishing anybody. I was asking for someone to put forward these Christian elements - & I asked repeatedly because for a very long time people were demanding the 'right' to do that & not actually doing it. The point is, davem, that you persist in stating your personal objection to the basis of the discussion when I think that all involved acknowledge and accept that objection. Regardless of that personal objection of yours, there are people who still wish to discuss possible parallels with the Bible. It is perfectly possible to do so without accepting that LotR is a uniquely Christian book or that it reflects the "One True (Christian) Myth" or that Tolkien intended such parallels. Equally, it is perfectly possible to do so without sermonising (as I am sure that those here who might otherwise be inclined to do so will appreciate).

To qualify as a Books thread surely there needs to be serious debate, with evidence cited, quotes provided, justification offered for points made & an absence of whining about being criticised. The fact that it involves Christianity & the Bible doesn't grant it special treatment in a forum dedicated to serious analysis of Tolkien's works.As I see it, the thread is now starting to move towards more serious debate of the issues raised and hopefully will continue to do so, if you will let it. Debate does not become serious only when davem considers it to be so. A discussion does not become worthy of the Book forum only when davem deems it to be so. A parallel does not become a parallel only when davem accepts it (and nor, in my opinion, does it require an exact identity of features for it to be validly drawn).

As for "whining about being criticised", there is a difference between debating points of disagreement and ridiculing the views and opinions of others. You, in my assessment, have over-stepped the mark on a number of occasions (and unfortunately continue to do so).

Your objection is noted. Let's move on. :rolleyes:

If he had still got poular support and one of the brothers had held onto Gondor he would have used diplomatic means to win them over, but even had he not had popular support, I doubt he would have gone 'steaming in'.And if a diplomatic resolution had not been possible? ;)

Of course, the point does not arise because, within the context of the story, Aragorn does have a divine right to rule (as evidenced by his "hands of a healer") and this is readily recognised and accepted by his putative subjects. (There was also the small matter of having saved their City from almost certain doom. :D )

EDIT: Cross-posted with Mister Underhill, whose final warning will, I hope, be heeded by all concerned.

Macalaure

09-05-2006, 10:41 AM

Wasn't that the motivation of Simon and the Zealots? My Bible is even more rusty than my English history, but I thought that Judas' motivations were different.My Bible is as rusty as yours, probably rustier. And my English history... well :D
However, I believe this was his motivation. I think he even was a zealot before he followed Jesus.

I am one of those who did not pick up any parallel with Christianity when I frst read the book - certainly not until I started to read the Silmarillion some years later (indeed, the "Biblical" tone of the Silm's opening chapters put me off reading it back then). Same holds for me. That is why I'm interested in the perspective.

Anyway, I would like to compare Frodo to Jesus.
Frodo had to carry a burden, the ring, up mount doom. He was helped by Sam. Jesus had to carry the cross up to Mount Golgotha, with some help from Simon.
Frodo was deceived by Gollum. Jesus was deceived by Judas.
Frodo suffers at the cracks of doom. Jesus suffers on the cross.
Frodo went to the Grey Havens. Jesus ascended into heaven.
I see your points. But one-to-one comparisons like these are a little too simple.
Frodo's burden was the reason for his whole quest. For Jesus it was just the last step. The help they get is different. If I don't mix things up, then Simons carries Jesus' cross for a while. Sam carries the Ring, too, but earlier and only when he had no other choice. He's not allowed to carry it at Mount Doom.
Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans. Gollum betrayed Frodo for his own good.
Valinor has of course a parallel with Heaven/Eden, but then, it has a parallel with pretty much every otherworld in any myth.

The Saucepan Man

09-05-2006, 10:51 AM

Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans. Gollum betrayed Frodo for his own good.To pick up on this point, isn't there a line of thought that Judas was a vital and necessary part of God's plan - that it was his betrayal which enabled Jesus to fulfil his mission on earth? Similarly, it might be said that Gollum's betrayal was a necessary ingredient in the fulfillment of Frodo's mission and that it was, in effect willed by Eru. Certainly it is held by many (the author included, I believe) that Eru had a "hand" in Gollum's "accidental" over-balancing at the Crack of Doom.

Raynor

09-05-2006, 10:58 AM

Davem, I will propose this: I will keep pointing to Bible similarities (something you specifically requested several times in this thread, but when it is done you seem, though I might be wrong, to dislike it), while you will try to identify the same events/themes in all those religious systems you refferred to (judaism, hinduism, islamism, etc), since you claimed that LoR's themes are universal. Whatever the case, I will find your such posts esspecially instructive.
Except Gandalf is not 'the Saviour' of M-e or anywhere else, but rather a guide & counsellor Yet he is called the chief mover of the resistance, isn't he?
Elsewhere is told how it was that when Sauron rose again, he also arose and partly revealed his power, and becoming the chief mover of the resistance to Sauron was at last victorious, and brought all by vigilance and labour to that end which the Valar under the One that is above them had designed. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: 'I was the enemy of Sauron'.He might have added: 'for that purpose I was sent to Middle-earth'. But by that he would at the end have meant more than at the beginning. You have proved mightiest, and all your labours have gone well Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Frodo are not actually dead at any pointIndeed, the two events are not identical, which doesn't negate the parallel however:
And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. Suddenly Faramir stirred, and he opened his eyes, and he looked on Aragorn who bent over him; and a light of knowledge and love was kindled in his eyes, and he spoke softly.

- My lord, you called me. I come. What does the king command?

- Walk no more in the shadows, but awake! said Aragorn
...
- Eowyn Eomund's daughter, awake! For your enemy has passed away! What I want to ask is why the Pope is writing fantasy novels anyway. He should stick to his day job. You would wonder why the Pope is writing a religious work? You didn't seem to have any problem with a car builder making a Christian car :).

One other thought I will share with you is the council of Elrond; in the Bible, we have the wise men coming to greet Christianity's greatest hero, following certain signs. At the council of Elrond, emissaries from far off, following various "signs", arrive to a meeting which is, figuratively, the birth of Frodo as a hero
But it is a heavy burden. So heavy that none could lay it on another. I do not lay it on you. But if you take it freely, I will say that your choice is right; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together your seat should be among them.And, as Tolkien noted about Frodo's journey, "few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far".

Looking forward to your parallels in the other religions :).
EDIT:
Certainly it is held by many (the author included, I believe) that Eru had a "hand" in Gollum's "accidental" over-balancing at the Crack of Doom.Indeed:
Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said).

davem

09-05-2006, 11:16 AM

I have been asked to take a break from this thread for a while due to my posts being increasingly 'aggressive'. This accusation has been levelled at me by number of posters here.

I find it a little sad that people are unable to distinguish between aggression & satire (or even sarcasm).

One similarity has so far failed to be pointed up, & I feel a bit uncertain about handing such ammunition to my opponents:

Both works exist in book form. Further, both are printed in ink, on paper!

Proof if proof were needed that there is absolutely no difference between them.

Macalaure

09-05-2006, 11:27 AM

To pick up on this point, isn't there a line of thought that Judas was a vital and necessary part of God's plan - that it was his betrayal which enabled Jesus to fulfil his mission on earth? Similarly, it might be said that Gollum's betrayal was a necessary ingredient in the fulfillment of Frodo's mission and that it was, in effect willed by Eru. Certainly it is held by many (the author included, I believe) that Eru had a "hand" in Gollum's "accidental" over-balancing at the Crack of Doom.Yes, I see your point. Gollum and Judas were different kinds of betrayers, yet their betrayals achieved a similar end.
I take it that you don't like the idea of Eru giving Gollum a nudge. Me neither. Frodo's and Sam's pity with Gollum (very late though, in Sam's case) to me is one of the most important ingredients and messages of the book. Eru's nudge doesn't mix very good with this...

edit: Then, of course, we don't know what Eru did with him after his death. And dying with the Ring in his hands maybe wasn't the worst thing to Gollum. And didn't Eru sweep away a whole island, some time back?
Ah, well...

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 11:40 AM

And if a diplomatic resolution had not been possible?

Of course, the point does not arise because, within the context of the story, Aragorn does have a divine right to rule (as evidenced by his "hands of a healer") and this is readily recognised and accepted by his putative subjects. (There was also the small matter of having saved their City from almost certain doom. )

Well, there were a lot of client Kings and princes (Eomer, Imrahil etc) on the side of Aragorn, so if he had needed to kick up an uprising then he'd have had the support. Then we might have had the Second Siege of Gondor (and it might've cost Peter Jackson a stack more cash in SFX). As it is, the story was nicely polished off when Ioreth told her old wives' tale.

Would Aragorn have had it in him though to resort to violent or forceful means to take his Kingship? I personally think that his experience in the Battle of the Pelennor taught him a cold hard lesson in warfare and leadership - its one thing to fight in a war, its another to lead your men into battle and take responsibility for their deaths. And I'm making that point because deep down Aragorn did have it in him to be ruthless, he was by no means perfect as shown by what almost happened at Meduseld.

One other thought I will share with you is the council of Elrond; in the Bible, we have the wise men coming to greet Christianity's greatest hero, following certain signs. At the council of Elrond, emissaries from far off, following various "signs", arrive to a meeting which is, figuratively, the birth of Frodo as a hero

But so much happens to Frodo before Rivendell. Not least two 'deaths'. There's the near fatal stabbing at Weathertop, where he's attacked by the Nazgul and even before then, his imprisonment by the Barrow-wight, where he is almost sacrificed by the being which has chosen to inhabit the Barrow. Even earlier still, he is almost drowned by Old Man Willow.

Each of the three times he undergoes a rebirth. This has a direct link to the significance of the Number Three, which has modern symbolism in the Trinity, the Triquetra and much older symbolism in the Odin Knot and Trifold nature of the Goddess (older still is the Triple Spiral found at Newgrange, current thinking is that this is a shamanic symbol). In this latter symbolism it stands for water, earth and air. The three ways in which Frodo is attacked - almost drowned, entombed alive (like a Celtic warrior entering the fogou) and finally attacked on the hilltop of Weathertop by a Sword, symbol of the element Air. He's also attacked in turns in body, mind and spirit, yet more symbolism.

Raynor

09-05-2006, 11:52 AM

Each of the three times he undergoes a rebirth. This has a direct link to the significance of the Number Three, which has modern symbolism in the Trinity, the Triquetra and much older symbolism in the Odin Knot and Trifold nature of the Goddess (older still is the Triple Spiral found at Newgrange, current thinking is that this is a shamanic symbol). In this latter symbolism it stands for water, earth and air. The three ways in which Frodo is attacked - almost drowned, entombed alive (like a Celtic warrior entering the fogou) and finally attacked on the hilltop of Weathertop by a Sword, symbol of the element Air. He's also attacked in turns in body, mind and spirit, yet more symbolism.Interesting. I will forward this question to you too: can you follow all of the other events I pointed to in these religions too?

narfforc

09-05-2006, 11:53 AM

I for one enjoyed the countering of Davem, Although I have not contributed much to this thread, I to withdraw, for a discussion with no passion or opposition is not for me.

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 12:07 PM

Interesting. I will forward this question to you too: can you follow all of the other events I pointed to in these religions too?

Maybe. Not everything will have parallels in x philosophical or religious 'system', some thing s will have no parallels at all but are only coherent within the text. But if you put some ideas out on here I might see something they have links to, and in which case I'll stick a reply on.

Anyway, one point you make where Tolkien talks of his inspiration for the 'End' of the Ring is interesting. I know exactly what Tolkien means here, and I've heard a lot of other writers talk about it too. It's the Muse. The Story Fairy. The Flash of Inspiration. For Tolkien it might have been God who gave him that flash of idea. It's different for everyone. I know when writing a tale or a poem how sometimes its as though the story totally takes you over and you find yourself writing almost subconsciously. Ever tried writing as you fall asleep? I have, and you see some truly inspired things on the page next morning. And wake up with an inky pillow, too. ;)

Macalaure

09-05-2006, 12:08 PM

One other thought I will share with you is the council of Elrond; in the Bible, we have the wise men coming to greet Christianity's greatest hero, following certain signs. At the council of Elrond, emissaries from far off, following various "signs", arrive to a meeting which is, figuratively, the birth of Frodo as a hero
I agree with Lal here. Frodo is already a hero before. His heroism changes at the Council of Elrond as it is here that he chooses to take the ring first. Until Rivendell, he had no other chance than to do what he did, he would have been killed otherwise.
Jesus still had a long way to go before he accepted his path.
All the wise men didn't come to see the birth of a hero. They came because they have been summoned to discuss some grave matter, or because they had news to tell, or because they dreamt of some freaky thing. Of course, you might say that Eru managed to assemble the bunch just in time. Where are the shepherds, by the way?
Just because there is no parallel to another religion doesn't make it a parallel in Christianity: it could be no parallel at all. Your proposed parallel doesn't strike me, at least not yet.

edit: cross-posted with Lal, of course.

Raynor

09-05-2006, 01:05 PM

But if you put some ideas out on here I might see something they have links to, and in which case I'll stick a reply on.Well, I would firstly reffer to my post #247:
- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is "despised" [or put whatever word fits you] in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest [or significant, or whatever] city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.Some refferences to the likes of the figures of Noach and Mary would also come handy, for the sake of the discussion, though I don't consider them to be "core contingency".
Just because there is no parallel to another religion doesn't make it a parallel in Christianity: I wouldn't necessarily say that the only foundation for calling it a Christian parallel is that there are no parallels to other religions; some existing Christian ones do stand trial.
it could be no parallel at all. A religious message which is entirely new, independent of any previous revelation? It would strike me as very full of "vanity", if I can so use the term. Or would you say there is no religious message at all? Either case, I am looking forward to your arguments.
Your proposed parallel doesn't strike me, at least not yet. I agree it's not the best one, to be mild ;).

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 01:35 PM

Satans, Saurons and stuff.

I read some of the parallels concerning Satan/Sauron/Melkor. I've often thought, like others, of Melkor as being a bit like the Lucifer who was cast out of Heaven for being too smart (in the bad sense). But there's a Hell (sorry ;) ) of a lot missing in this analogy.

In the Bible, Satan sends evil into the world by tempting Adam and Eve who had previously been Good and lived in Paradise. He is the cause of The Fall - or you could argue that Adam and Eve are. Either way, the world was inherently Good and then Satan brought Evil into it with The Fall. In Tolkien's cosmology however, our 'Satan' is there causing trouble before any people inhabit Arda. There is no period of Good. Melkor adds his own theme to the Music and thus the world is created complete with inherent evil. It suffuses everything, even the land itself, and the Elves! Letter 286 goes into this. So right away, Melkor is a different kettle of fish.

There are also some incredibly strong correspondences with Norse mythology. In this we find Loki the Trickster, and while Tolkien has no amoral Trickster (unless its Ungoliant), there is a strong link with what happens to Loki, who is eventually chained down, to be kept that way until the end of time and Ragnarok. As is Melkor, who is chained and cast into the Void until the end of time, at which point he will re-enter Arda and fight one last battle. Melkor will do this with his own followers. Loki will come down from the North in his ship with Hel and all her subjects. This can be found in the Eddas, which Tolkien knew backwards.

And now for the 'stuff'. The concept of Satan was taken from Zoroastrianism, when the Jews were in exile in Babylon; Zoroastrianism followed a system where there was a constant conflict between good/evil, which is why they had Satan. Interesting that Islam, which grew up in the same area as Zoroastrianism, also includes Satan as a mythical figure.

Didn't mention Sauron but I liked the sibilance. ;)

Raynor

09-05-2006, 01:55 PM

Lalwendë

09-05-2006, 02:24 PM

I am not familiar with Norse mythology; is Loki involved in any manner in the corrupting/Fall of humans, as Melkor is? From what I read online, he voluntarily helps the gods too. I am looking forward to your comments on Sauron, since he, as the last "mythological form of evil", is more relevant to our discussion

Loki indeed helps the Gods, well some of them anyway. He's the Trickster and does what he will. As I say, Melkor has corrupted the world before its even made, unlike Satan, who corrupts an inherently Good world. Arda on the other hand has Evil in-built as t'were.

You can find Sauron in Odin's bad aspects. And you might also find Gandalf in Odin's good aspects, which is interesting given that Sauron and Gandalf are supposed to be equals in terms of 'power'; so the two sides of Odin come into conflict with each other in the form of Sauron and Gandalf.

Odin is one-eyed. He is a God of war and death and destruction. He has a Ring which spawns other magical rings and can see all from his kingdom. Odin travels about dressed as an old man with a staff, grey beard, cloak and hat. He uses magic and rides the greatest of all horses.

I didn't promise any sauron, I really did put his name there just for the sound of it. But you've got some all the same. ;)

- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is "despised" [or put whatever word fits you] in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest [or significant, or whatever] city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.

Anyway, I was waiting for you to reply as I wanted to reply to this without double posting. I think we've dealt with point 2 - but yes there are some interesting parallels here; it seems that the idea of divine kings with healing powers went back way before Christ's time, but the fact that Christ was himself depicted by the writers of the Gospels as a King (think this was mostly In Matthew?) and a healer suggests that they too picked up on this powerful concept.

I like point 3 - as this also ties in with Tolkien's idea that it was the ordinary men in WWI who gave up the greatest sacrifices, so he really did see put into action that quote from the Bible (which is one I like myself). However, what about that we have three Hobbits who go to Valinor, not two? What about Bilbo?

I would venture to say that Bilbo is not all that humble, in fact he's quite a proud little Hobbit. And he is the one Hobbit who uses the Ring the most - not out of a lust for power but mostly to keep away from the pesky neighbours. Free from malice but not entirely innocent. And that also links to point 4. Note that Sam too is tempted by the Ring. Perhaps its not the bearing of the Ring itself which destroys Sam and Frodo, but where they take it, and what they do with it. Gollum is the most badly affected by it, but then he uses it to kill and steal.

mark12_30

09-05-2006, 07:58 PM

Before I forget... Regarding The White City. Is it a Holy City? Good question. What jumps out at me is that the descendants of The Silver Tree (Telperion, right? ) grew there.

Strider's song--
"The Light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in gardens of the kings of old."

"O Gondor, Gondor, shall men behold the silver tree
or west wind blow again between the mountains and the sea?"

In addition to the healing and the tactical victories-- The finding of the scion of the Silver Tree, up in the mountains, sealed/ proved/ verified Aragorn's claim. And under his reign, the white tree (A white tree) flowered in Minas Tirith again.

Now having said all that-- how can I resist?-- rewind to the age of the trees, in Valinor. Paradise-- a garden-- shining with the light of those two trees.

There was another garden, a paradise, containing two particular, peculiar trees. There was the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and there was the tree of life.

davem

09-06-2006, 03:38 AM

Having had time to consider my sins I hope I will be allowed to return to the debate

There was another garden, a paradise, containing two particular, peculiar trees. There was the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and there was the tree of life.

I think we must accept this as the origin of The White Tree of Gondor. A reading of Carpenter's Biography & the Letters will demonstrate beyond any doubt that Tolkien never actually encountered a tree anywhere else. Trees are entirely absent in England (apart from one special one that belongs to Her Majesty the Queen (Gawd Bless 'er) – but this fact has only been revealed recently under the Thirty Year Rule & its existence would not have been known to Tolkien.

There are certainly no mentions of trees in Northern mythology or folklore, so it is impossible that Tolkien could have gotten the idea there either. (Its fairly clear that Tolkien was ignorant of trees as he depicted them walking around on a number of occasions & there is no mention of trees walking around in the Biblical record)

Now, an apology. I won't be able to participate further in this thread as I am currently putting together a new one: Lord of the Trousers. The inspiration for this new thread was the realisation that Tolkien himself wore trousers (he rarely, as far as we know, left the house without them) and so did a number of his characters. This use of trousers was clearly of major significance to Tolkien, as he deliberately introduced them into his secondary world. I think an in depth exploration of how & why Tolkien used Trousers in his writings – for instance why some characters wear them & others don't - would be very interesting & shed new light on Tolkien's creative life. I hope to see the thread take off (but hopefully not the trousers). I'm sure many Downers will be able to put forward examples of trouser usage (& possible mis-usage) in Tolkien's works.

The Saucepan Man

09-06-2006, 04:33 AM

Davem

Shame about the continued mocking tone, but I think it does you a disservice more than anyone else here.

Look, we get your point. But does it matter whether Tolkien intended a particular parallel to be drawn or not? We can discuss (preferably sensibly and courteously) whether he may have intended it or not, but there is also fertile ground for serious and constructive discussion based on people’s personal reactions to the book.

Indeed, what you appear to have failed to grasp (although another member not a million miles from you clearly has) is that the Biblical parallels being drawn (whether the author intended them or not and whether you and/or I agree with them or not) are sparking some interesting (in my view, at least) discussions, including tangential discussions on other possible parallels and significances. You may not find them interesting, but others clearly do (whether from the perspective of authorial intention, personal reaction or academic interest – or a combination of those things). Accordingly, I really do not see why you feel the need to continue to pour scorn on the ongoing discussion, from the sidelines as it were.

You have been given fair warning about the tone and tenor of your contributions. If you persist, then you will have no cause to complain about the consequences.

davem

09-06-2006, 05:25 AM

A)Well, I could respond by stating that I have had a fair amount of positive rep for my contributions here - & by some of the 'bigger hitters' on the Downs – so clearly not only is it the case that not everyone is offended by my points, but many actually agree with my positions. Hence you are not only attempting to exclude me, but a whole section of Downs members who find the point of this thread eludes them.

B)First & foremost, the whole approach being taken in this thread is something Tolkien himself condemned as ignorant & silly – breaking down the story in search of its raw materials. If I am to be asked not to contribute for making that point I suspect you would exclude Tolkien too. If I have been dismissive of such analyses I feel I see no difference (apart from a more blatantly sarcastic tone) between what I have said & what Tolkien himself said in the Foreword to LotR as regards the attempt to find WWII 'allegories/analogies' in the work.

C) If you consider 'There's a tree in the Bible & a tree in LotR so the Bible must have been an inspiration for Tolkien there' to be worthy of a serious response I have to say we will have to agree to disagree.

Estelyn Telcontar

09-06-2006, 06:09 AM

Closed. Debate, argumentation, and differing opinions have always been welcome on the Downs. But mockery of others' positions is contrary to the tolerance we have always shown. While the other moderators and administrators decide with me what course of action we will take, the thread remains closed.

Mister Underhill

09-06-2006, 07:15 AM

Back open for business.

Raynor

09-06-2006, 07:43 AM

I find the Norse comparison instructive, perhaps we could expand this to other areas as well
You can find Sauron in Odin's bad aspects.I wouldn't agree; Odin is, ultimately, a good deity (right?), while Sauron is, for the most part, evil. [I mean, all supreme deities have an aspect which is destructive; but there are certain destructions which are not evil in and of themselves (such as death, which is ultimately, a blessing) while other such acts stem from nihilism, rebellion, thirst for ultimate power.]
it seems that the idea of divine kings with healing powers went back way before Christ's time,Are there similar events in the other major religions? I am a bit familiar with the Gita, but I don't remember something of the likes.
However, what about that we have three Hobbits who go to Valinor, not two?*slap* Actually, it was Sam that I forgot about in my counting - not anymore ;) ["Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel." - Letter #154]
I would venture to say that Bilbo is not all that humble, in fact he's quite a proud little Hobbit. It seems to me that Bilbo put up with a lot of dwarven scorn, quite bravely (can I say Christianly?;) ). Even more importantly, he is the first person to give up the One Ring (Isildur did consider it, never go to putting it into practice); afterwards, Sam did give up the ring too, but that was after several days, not ~ 8 decades, of possesion.

Bêthberry

09-06-2006, 08:05 AM

One of the very interesting aspects of reading is finding connections and places where the text resonates with us as readers. This happens as we read. The very process of reading is not a passive 'act upon me text as I empty my mind' but one of engagement, trying out ideas, guessing where things will go, trying to imagine what will happen to various characters, seeing parallels. It isn't an academic exercise in source hunting or breaking apart a story, but a coming together to create greater richness.

This is the pleasure of reading. Sometimes of course our own fantasy takes flight and we can learn how to step back and say, 'well, did I get that right?' Or, 'will someone else be interested in this?'

The point which interested me in Mansun's first post is that I did not see some of the parallels he did. Never in a million years would I see Elrond as he did. And so I posted why the parallel didn't work for me.

This is what I see as being valuable in a thread like this: examining under what conditions parallels apply and when not. I'm as liable as any reader to see connections that might not pertain or apply. I remember mentioning to Estelyn Telcontar the story of Orpheus placed in the heavens as recompense for his great grief over the failure of his guest and thinking this would be an interesting parallel for Frodo, sent West as recompense of his failure to heal. Estelyn said she thought the analogy worked best with Eärendil . Of course!

This is why I think it is less germane to argue authorial intention (although there are many complex reasons for suggesting that authors do not hold the final say on what a text means--philosophical reasons which have nothing to do with denying religious belief, I might add) and more interesting simply to discuss how ideas help us see a text in a fuller light.

Sometimes we actually learn from our reading by making connections even if those connections aren't "there" in the text.

I never thought of Minas Tirith as the holy city, but there is a great deal of cultural meaning ascribed to the idea of a holy city. I think it is a valuable process to consider if that applies to the White City. Maybe in the end some of us accept it and others don't, but surely we learn more about not only LotR and literary/mythological culture but also about how we read in the process.

What holy cities are there in pagan stories? And what trees? Of course there is Yggdrasil, the world tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil).

Sometimes our reading can be blinkered--if that is the best word--by our lack of knowledge of other stories and talking about other stories with a similar theme or character or event can enhance our pleasure.

Okay, pontificating over! ;) :D

Raynor

09-06-2006, 09:20 AM

It seems to me that my comparison of Minas Tirith to a holy city (I had Jerusalem in mind) proved rather hard to swallow; I still find it nice (pets it) :D. One of the things that is interesting though is that MT has seven levels (I would speculate each one has a main gate), while Jerusalem has seven hills (according to the jewish work Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, but not only) and seven gates.

One a lesser note: though not very common, the Christian church has been imagined as a boat also (Noah's ark, as according to St. Augustine of Hippo); in the description of Minas Tirith, we have this:
For partly in the primeval shaping of the hill, partly by the mighty craft and labour of old, there stood up from the rear of the wide court behind the Gate a towering bastion of stone, its edge sharp as a ship-keel facing east. Up it rose, even to the level of the topmost circle, and there was crowned by a battlement; so that those in the Citadel might, like mariners in a mountainous ship, look from its peak sheer down upon the Gate seven hundred feet below. I just thought it would be nice to bring this up too.

Lalwendë

09-06-2006, 09:54 AM

I wouldn't agree; Odin is, ultimately, a good deity (right?), while Sauron is, for the most part, evil. [I mean, all supreme deities have an aspect which is destructive; but there are certain destructions which are not evil in and of themselves (such as death, which is ultimately, a blessing) while other such acts stem from nihilism, rebellion, thirst for ultimate power.]

No, Odin is Odin. He is good and bad. The point I was making was that Tolkien took Odin's two distinct sides and gave the good aspects to Gandalf and the evil ones to Sauron. Quite 'neat' actually, if both characters are supposed to be equals in terms fo power. Maybe a bit like Odin had had a nightmare where his dual personality had been scrapping with itself? ;)

And on death, I don't think Tolkien viewed it as a blessing, but as an inevitable. He showed that those who could accept it as an inevitable and resign themselves to it could find some comfort in that when the time came (e.g. Theodens words about going to his forefathers), compared with those who resisted it and could not accept the inevitability (and even tried to stave it off!). By no means all mortals found death to be a 'blessing', some of the best even lingered, e.g. Arwen.

It seems to me that my comparison of Minas Tirith to a holy city (I had Jerusalem in mind) proved rather hard to swallow; I still find it nice (pets it) . One of the things that is interesting though is that MT has seven levels (I would speculate each one has a main gate), while Jerusalem has seven hills (according to the jewish work Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, but not only) and seven gates.

I wouldn't take the seven levels/seven hills parallel as good evidence as there are also seven hills in Sheffield (and Rome, but it aint a patch on Yorkshire). I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

Raynor

09-06-2006, 10:03 AM

He is good and bad.Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron
I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.I will have to look up what he said ;)
And on death, I don't think Tolkien viewed it as a blessing, but as an inevitable. He showed that those who could accept it as an inevitable and resign themselves to it could find some comfort in that when the time came (e.g. Theodens words about going to his forefathers), compared with those who resisted it and could not accept the inevitability (and even tried to stave it off!). By no means all mortals found death to be a 'blessing', some of the best even lingered, e.g. Arwen.I would disagree:
A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Ea) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum, and the great to a Ringwraith.And, both in the Silmarillion and in the Atrabeth, seeing death as something terrible is something attributed to the marring of Melkor.
But Melkor has cast his shadow upon it, and confounded it with darkness, and brought forth evil out of good, and fear out of hope. Nay, death is but the name that we give to something that he has tainted, and it sounds therefore evil; but untainted its name would be good. Unfortunately (for me :D), I am going away for a few days. You all take care :)

Lalwendë

09-06-2006, 10:13 AM

Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron

Fine if you think that personally, and I can see it would be a bit of an odd idea if you find evil/good clearly delineated, but remember Tolkien was one the all time experts on Norse myth, and he would have been well aware of the dual nature of many Gods, and would not have found it uncomfortable. He may, indeed, have been seeking to remake Odin to fit his own ideas. The parallels for both Gandalf and Sauron are found at their most definitive levels in Odin.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-06-2006, 10:20 AM

And what trees? Of course there is Yggdrasil, the world tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yggdrasil).
There is the tree in the Volsunga Saga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volsung) into which Odin thrusts the sword. Tolkien drew profusely from that saga as discussed on Rune's Tolkien and Norse Mythology (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12391).

Well, personally, I find the idea a bit of a stretch, that Odin would be the source of both Gandalf and Sauron
Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type?

I don't remember enough about Odin off of the top of my head to draw legitimate parallels, or I would. If nobody else beats me to it, I might try for it later tonight.

Lalwendë

09-06-2006, 11:41 AM

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-06-2006, 02:03 PM

Have a quick look up on Wikipedia about Jung and Joseph Campbell (if you don't know about them already, how dare I presume?!), and it'll give you a good overview. That stuff's a revelation, particularly for the aspiring writer or artist.
Collective unconscious and all that? Or am I misremembering?

Lalwendë

09-06-2006, 02:19 PM

Collective unconscious and all that? Or am I misremembering?

That's the stuff. Collective Unconscious. Universal truth. The search for an unknowable transcendant truth.

EDIT:

Some more stuff about Gandalf/Odin. In Letters 107, Tolkien calls Gandalf:

the Odinic wanderer that I think of.

Bêthberry

09-06-2006, 02:53 PM

I wouldn't take the seven levels/seven hills parallel as good evidence as there are also seven hills in Sheffield (and Rome, but it aint a patch on Yorkshire). I think its much better to think of Jerusalem as a metaphor for the concept of a city or a state of mind, as Blake did.

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

There's seven days too to consider. There's seven somethings in Norse mythology too as I vaguely recollect. There used to be seven planets, too.

As for Minas Tirith's ship's keel, methinks the Numenorean link might just have something to do with that design. ;)

That's the stuff. Collective Unconscious. Universal truth. The search for an unknowable transcendant truth.

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association. :eek:

On the other hand, would Tolkien have been making some kind of comment on holy cities, suggesting that ancient things decline and are not worthy of reverence? He couldn't just be puffing up Minas Tirith, could he? And if we're talking cities, we have to consider the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, don't we? But that's the richness of Tolkien. He leads out in so many directions.

Lalwendë

09-06-2006, 03:17 PM

There's the rub. I don't think Tolkien was suggesting anything special about such a state of mind. He's too much on the natural world's side to be given over to using an urban metaphor for holiness.

If there's any place 'holy' in Middle-earth it's Lothlorien, where Galadriel flexes her considerable political muscle and creates her own little Enclave; at the centre of which is Cerin Amroth, a Mother Hill where 'love' happens. And the rest. ;)

Now don't go forcing your belief in collective unconscious on me! Sometimes an association is just an association. :eek:

Don't get me started on Dark Matter and theories of Time and Light. I've been obsessed with the building blocks of the Universe for a long time (and before Pullman made it trendy, tch). I'll soon have you believing I am indeed the last Time Lord in the Universe. :D

mark12_30

09-06-2006, 07:16 PM

...part two.

And because the mind is a big old stew with us 21st century people, it was the same with the prophets and the apostles of the Bible - their minds were already full of influeneces from their predecessors from the previous generations and so on... We humans are the stories we tell about us.
Agreed.

Just a few more examples as to why I think of Elrond as a Christ-like figure. He is a master of healing, & has command of nature in his valley. One might almost say, he can perform miracles to an extent. Christ wasn't alone in performing Miracles, though. There were plenty in the OT. For instance, Moses had quite a record; so did Elijah & Elisha.
...using the examples you've used, all Elves would be seen as Christ figures, would they not? The essence of Goodness...
Well, that would take Galion the butler by surprise. ;) But I do see your point. That then begs the question whether the race of elves has a biblical parallel. There are, of course, limits to the parallels; but with Valar/ Maia/ greater and lesser elves, one might suggest Cherubim & Seraphim, Archangels, Angels. Your run-of-the-mill fallen angels would then parallel the orcs (hence generally unredeemed-- there's another old thread popping up.) But it's a thin parallel. The angels aren't children of God, but created; they don't reproduce where the Maiar may and elves certaainly do; etc. The place where it persists for me is actually Gandalf, who reminds me of Michael, especially in the heat of battle, and his general job description: encourage & counsel, and occasionally lead. There is a host of stuff about Michael which I haven't investigated-- something I've been wanting to do. Anyone else know?
And for those who disdain of talk of religious allegory, there appears to me to be no difference in taking a fictional archetype versus taking a biblical one and applying it to your story.
No rational difference.
Morning Star or Bringer of Light
Regarding the refefrence to "morning star"-- a popular OT reference for this is from Job 38:4-7, which I believe influenced both Lewis (Magician's Nephew) and Tolkien (Ainulindale.)

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Raynor (post 21) follows up on the creative process and the differences between Tolkien's creation and the biblical account.

Going down to It's perfectly reasonable to find similarities and allegories (Tolkien even chimed in with his own at times), but it's the individuality and the freedom of the reader that shouldn't be taken away, by forcing an accepted view that Elrond=Jesus, the Lord of the Rings was written as a 'Biblical book.' And considering that Tolkien and C.S. Lewis' friendship pretty much ended because Tolkien criticized Lewis for writing too much of 'his religion' in the Chronicles of Narnia...I doubt Tolkien was doing the same with LOTR. There were some other reasons that caused strain between the two, but pretty much C.S. Lewis didn't like Tolkien criticizing his books because it had too much of the religious element.
In terms of "too much of the religious element", the big hit I remember from Letters was Tolkien cringing because Lewis had included Father Christmas in Narnia. And that, indeed, is something Tolkien would never have done. However, in due time, it will be shown that Tolkien did not have any problem with religious element-- as long as it was up to the reader to find it, and not up to the author to shove it down the readers' throat. Review Tolkien's distaste for allegory (gesundheit.)
I don't see a point in making an allegory only for the case of making an allegory. I'm along the same lines with Nogrod. I dislike allegories, because if taken too literally, they flatten things.
No argument here. The A-word is verboten in Tolkien.

Davem says that the equivalent to Lucifer in Quenya would actually be Earendil.
Fortunately for many denizens of Middle-Earth, Earendil did not rebel or fall. (Ooooo, splat.)

Davem (or Wikipedia, or Sauron Defeated) can tell you that this quote comes from the poem 'Crist' by Cynewulf. "Old English Earendel appears in glosses as translating iubar "radiance, morning star". The article says that in this poem Earendel corresponds to John the Baptist; but the leading two lines.....\

éala éarendel engla beorhtast
ofer middangeard monnum sended

......haunted Tolkein til he wrote a story of his own about them. The translation from Wikipedia is:
Hail Earendel, brightest of angels,
over Midgard to men sent
In the New Testament, the one referred to as The Morning Star is Jesus.
16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

Earendil is actually my favorite (and I think the clearest and most connected) Christ-type in the whole legendarium.

Ah, I should have checked the following post. Davem clarifies. Thanks.
The problem with this kind of linking is how to distinguish which are the most likely and the most unlikely and what principles to use in making the associations. For example, Elrond is a father and official leader of the Elves. He has fought in wars.
I think that Squatter answered this further down.
Fea (post 30) and Mansun (post 31) follow; agreed...

Child of the 7th Age

09-07-2006, 10:01 AM

OK, I wasn't going to post on this thread. But there are a few things in this discussion still not tied up that are bothering me. Now that it's nice and quiet I can sneak in the back door and rant on to my heart's content! :rolleyes:

As most of the old-timers know (old in posting, not in age, you understand!), I am not a Christian but have often participated in threads which seek to understand how and why Tolkien incorporated many biblical and/or Christian elements into his storyline and characters, including the thread Imp started that looked at the "revisions" in LotR.

Having said that, I would also add that I am not much on labels. I would never call LotR a "Christian" story just as I would never call it "pagan" or paste on any one of a number of other possible labels. I can certainly find elements of both Christian and pagan world views in Middle-earth. Some of those were intentionally put into the story by the author; others undoubtedly slipped in through the Tolkien's subconscious, and he only rediscovered them in later reflection. Whether the latter represent a specific Christian or Catholic paradigm or a "more universal" myth is probably impossible to say with certainty, though that shouldn't stop us from arguing about it.

I have gone back and forth on this issue endlessly: just how Christian is Lord of the Rings.... Tolkien didn't make it easy for us. One minute he lays out tantalyzing hints within the plot or supplementary writing and the next minute he's covering up his tracks. I've read the usual stuff and have even made a point of digesting a lot of the "Christian" criticism, books by folk like Wright and Wood that have come out in the past few years. To be truthful, when I first read LotR back in the sixties, the so-called biblical/Christian elements did not stick in my head, even though I was fairly cognizant of such things as I was embarking on an academic path that would eventually lead to teaching medieval history. But the minute the letters were published and info on Tolkien's life came out, I began poking my nose deeper into the story and discovered a fair amount of biblical and Christian content--or at least allusions that could be interpreted that way. (I even have a few links to an analysis of "Jewish" themes in Middle-earth, which I find extremely interesting!), But there is one aspect of Tolkien's world so decidedly non-Christian that it gives me considerable pause in any examination of the Christian content of LotR.

Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense. Shippey has written about this--how Tolkien was examining a world before revelation when men and hobbits and Elves were essentially placed in a world where there was no logical hope. Please note that I said "logical hope", rather than "no hope at all". We'd all be dead in two minutes if there was truly no help at all.

Yes, I know about original sin and such in a Christian context, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible. According to Tolkien, we are all living in Morgoth's world, since our world is supposedly a continuation of Middle-earth. Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan (a few might--I don't think those would be in the majority). In Middle-earth, you can literally say that: Eru is barely seen and the Valar only stick their noses in occasionally. Morgoth and Sauron were a much more constant presence. By that measure, this is not a Judaeo/Christian world.

Interestingly, the one group of critics that agree with me on this are a number of Protestant ones who feel that Tolkien's depiction of evil and his fatalistic attitude are far removed from "conventional" Christian belief. A few even reject LotR on that basis, though most simply point out the difference and indicate their own view of existence is not identical.

As an aside, that's one problem with this thread relating to semantics and interpreation. "Christianity" (or theism) is not one thing; it is many. Biblical interpretations vary from scholar to scholar and denomination to denomination. The view of Jewish/Hebrew scholars, for example, on the book of Isaiah is markedly different from that of most Christians. It's just not possible to pin down one "Christian" viewpoint so easily. This dilemma is underlined by the fact that some Protestant critics object to the fatalistic northern tone that stands at the core of Arda, while other Christians have no trouble with it.

Getting back to the main issue..... Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? Maybe Tolkien felt and sensed this ambivalence and, realizing the truly pagan world he'd created despite all the biblical imports, felt compelled to write the Athrabeth in his relative old age. Unlike Davem and Imp, I love those later writings. I also love the old Northern pessimism that stood at the heart of the original writings. So call me contradictory! But I feel that two-way tug in my own heart as well---and I'm not phrasing that in terms of Christian doctrine but a general way of looking at our existence--the hopeful and the not so hopeful, the anguished response versus the refusal to give in. Any ideas?

Bêthberry

09-07-2006, 10:36 AM

. . . . Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I know about original sin and such, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible. According to Tolkien, we are all living in Morgoth's world, since our world is supposedly a continuation of Middle-earth. Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan. In Middle-earth, you can literally say that: Eru is barely seen and the Valar only stick their noses in occasionally. Morgoth and Sauron were a much more constant presence.

. . . .

Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? Maybe Tolkien felt and sensed this ambivalence and, realizing the truly pagan world he'd created despite all the biblical imports, felt compelled to write the Athrabeth in his relative old age. Unlike Davem and Imp, I love those later writings. I also love the old Northern pessimism that stood at the heart of the original writings. So call me contradictory! But I feel that two-way tug in my own heart as well---and I'm not phrasing that in terms of Christian doctrine but a general way of looking at our existence--the hopeful and the not so hopeful, the anguished response versus the refusal to give in.

Amazing! Just this morning I was chatting with Estelyn saying I had another contribution to make to this thread and you have hit on it, Child.

As you say, Norse mythology was exceptionally pessimistic. Chaos wins, in the end, with the defeat of the gods in the final battle. I wonder if it is this which drew Tolkien and the other men in the trenches at the Somme to Fairie. Does horror and death and defeat seem less terrifying if it can be placed within some kind of context, even one which is devoid of hope?

Yet at the same time, I have been thinking not so much of philosophical or theological matters but of literary ones. Tolkien's beloved Beowulf is also a work which incorporates both pagan and Christian elements, sometimes easily, sometimes not. The tension between the two is one of the powerful attractions of the poem. Perhaps Squatter can speak to this, as he likely has read the poem more recently than I and can give examples of this tension. It could well exist more in other Anglo Saxon works as well--I don't know the entire corpus. Would this tension be something that Tolkien strove to incorporate in his work at a later date? Or was it something related to his own faith?

I think it can be said that this tension exists in LotR. It is possible to read without 'seeing' or considering this tension, yet the book becomes far more compelling--to me at least--when both these aspects are held in uneasy equipose. The fascination for me in Old English poetry lies in how it incorporates the world under change--the passing of the pagan era and the arrival of Chrisitianity--and yes, Child you are so right to say that there are many versions of Christianity. sic transit gloria mundi. Perhaps it is this fascination which also draws me to LotR.

So that what we have is not an either/or situation, but a work in which the very tension between those two poles--hope and hopelessness, pagan and Christian--is part of its attraction? Some of the best stories are those which don't provide pat solutions and presentations, but which always leave something beyond the grasp of readers, so that each new reader must come to terms with this tension on his or her own and then have that grasp shaken as new readers come along with their own grappling. The tension stretches, but never is resolved.

Child of the 7th Age

09-07-2006, 11:30 AM

I think you have hit the nail on the head. You can spend hours, weeks, years searching Arda for images and symbols of Christian hope and veiled references to providence. It is definitely there. You can also view Arda in terms of its pagan themes and allusions, studying the profound pessimism and fatalism that embodied the dreams of the North. Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head.

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. When you think about this dichotomy, how these different world views somehow blend into one and form the core of Tolkien's Legendarium, it's rather astounding. Ah, if only we could ask him! Truthfully, this recognition makes me feel a bit humble. I know I wouldn't have the brain or the heart to keep two different world views in balance while carrying through with the mundane things in life but he apparently managed it. Yes, this whole balancing act is certainly beyond my ken, and I suspect that it is one reason the Legendarium so appeals to me. I have always been suspicious of "packaged answers", whether secular or religious in origin. My head leans at least vaguely in the direction of hope and the Judeao-Christian heritage, but my experiences in life stubbornly whisper to my heart that fate and doom and pessimism seem all too commonplace.

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien. The Somme is certainly a factor, but I personally suspect it goes back much earlier than that. Tolkien has talked about some of the problems he and his brother encountered when their mother died. Yet on another level we know absolutely nothing about what this young man was actually feeling when the two of them were left on their own. Tolkien's commitment to Catholicism as well as his personal view of the world as a very frightening place, a place where every man and woman faced an implacable Doom, surely stemmed from this youthful period. His later experience in war would only confirm what he'd already learned as a child about the nature of life and fate.

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

littlemanpoet

09-07-2006, 02:29 PM

Child of the 7th Age

09-07-2006, 03:32 PM

Yes, Littlemanpoet. That is certainly a big piece of the equation. And in that sense the difference between the two world views is smaller than what they first appear to be.

I guess where I see a greater difference is in the sense of Doom and fate that seems to hang over all the northern epics, including LotR to some decree. You have very little sense of choice or free will, which is an important part of Christianity. There is an inherent pessimism here which, at least to me, seems a heavier burder than what will be possible later in human history when divine revelation rears its head.

The interesting thing, of course, is that LotR gives the reader a hint of both sides of that equation. Frodo is free to accept or reject the task, yet we know even from the beginning that he is "doomed". His inability to throw the Ring into the firepit is a confirmation of that. Somehow, Tolkien manages to put the two pieces together in one story and so we argue and question where free will comes in and where providence (or fate) takes over.

Bêthberry

09-07-2006, 06:08 PM

The two world views are not as difficult to keep in balance as one might think. Those who call themselves disciples of Christ (I include myself) are, they (and I) believe, rightfully pessimistic about what good can be achieved by my fellow humans; there's just too much orc in all of us. The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

I guess where I see a greater difference is in the sense of Doom and fate that seems to hang over all the northern epics, including LotR to some decree.

I think I agree with Child that the subtle differences are important. That "what happens after that" is profoundly different, is it not? In Christian eschatology, the righteous will be glorified--although I think that various Christian churches treat Revelation differently--Anglicans don't have any liturgical references to it, but many Protestant sects do. I haven't by any means read all of Norse mythology, but I don't have any sense that the few who will survive Ragnarok will merit that survival. In other words, is there any sense in Norse mythology that the Good will ultimately be rewarded? The Norse gods know what their fate is. They know who will win and who will lose and their glory is to persist nevertheless in that final battle. It is, to be true to themselves.

This encroaches upon the warrior ethic of the Norse mythologies. Perhaps what is called for is a rereading of Tolkien's thoughts on chivalry in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth.

littlemanpoet

09-07-2006, 07:01 PM

I am not on strong ground with the following, so I'll offer it as a perhaps.

The free will that is - er - glorified in many popular modes of Christianity is misunderstood and perhaps overrated. Christian teaching from the New Testament has a very strong piece that speaks of election and predestination, with which the libertarian minded West has great difficulties. Especially in democratically minded countries such as those of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Read the Revelation of John, the last 3 chapters sometime: while there is hope of glory for the saints, the doom awaiting cowards, the licentious, the rebellious, etc., is quite scary.

.....which I find interesting (and have for a while) that perhaps there is more reality to Ragnarok from the perspective of the gods who, in Christian teaching, would be denizens of the enemy; knowing themselves to be condemned, they do the best then can and are true to themselves out of a kind of self-respect/pride of heart. Just a notion. ;)

mark12_30

09-07-2006, 08:03 PM

While I thought I had made my intent not to offend rather clear, I will try still harder. This post was geared toward a particular member of the Downs-- who has been a mentor to me for most of my time here, and for whom I was gearing the answer in a paradigm I thought most effective (knowing her background.) I have done some extreme editing on this post. For those interested in seeing the original (which is hardly complete even as it stands) it may be found here (http://www.xanga.com/bolco). It is thoroughly steeped in the Old Testament, because of the background of the one who asked the original question (regarding whom, there are few if any on this board I hold more dear, and there are few if any on this board for whom I would go further, to avoid offending. )

.....
Middle-earth seems to be profoundly pagan and fatalistic at the core. (There, I've said it!) The overwhelming sense of evil that hangs at the center of the universe goes beyond the depiction of evil in mainline Christian theology. There is simply no escaping it. If evil doesn't get you today, it's going to get you tomorrow! In that sense, Frodo's fate was a given, and the Sea Bell makes a lot of sense. Shippey has written about this--how Tolkien was examining a world before revelation when men and hobbits and Elves were essentially placed in a world where there was no logical hope. Please note that I said "logical hope", rather than "no hope at all". We'd all be dead in two minutes if there was truly no help at all.
...

Interestingly, the one group of critics that agree with me on this are a number of Protestant ones who feel that Tolkien's depiction of evil and his fatalistic attitude are far removed from "conventional" Christian belief. A few even reject LotR on that basis, though most simply point out the difference and indicate their own view of existence is not identical.

...

Getting back to the main issue..... Somebody out there help me! I don't care how many allusions, images, and symbols that Tolkien "stole" from the bible. How can Middle-earth and the Legendarium possibly be Christian if so much pessimism and fatalism stand at its very core? ...

LOTR takes place in a pre-Christian paradigm.

First let's tackle this line:
Yet I don't think most orthodox Christians would say that Earth belongs to Satan (a few might--I don't think those would be in the majority).

"The Prince of this world." Yes, most would say that it does. This is, actually, a core Christian doctrine, especially in evangelical, Catholic, and orthodox circles, so I'm certain Tolkien would have also held that view. For details go here (http://www.xanga.com/bolco)

The optimism and hope that is supposed to dominate Christianity can be reconciled with the pessimism and doom evident in LOTR precisely because it is set in an era that is pre-incarnation and resurrection. Hope (in a Christan worldview) literally hinges on the incarnation and resurrection. Prior to that-- grimness; after that, joy.

So back to the tone of the Legendarium. Since Tolkien wrote about a pre-Christian world-- as you say, "pre-revelation"-- it would (by definition in a Christian worldview) be a pessimistic, grim world of very little hope. Apparently Tolkien (as you say) felt the need to write about that in Athrabeth An Andreth. In a pre-Christian world, we (or the pre-Christian characters from a Christian point of view) are waiting -- like Finrod and Andreth-- in the dark with baited breath, waiting for redeemption and light.

I would love to hear from Squatter or someone else who is more knowledgable about ancient Nordic ways and thinking as well as to hear from those for whom the Christian element in the Legendarium remains especially important.

Yay! "Squa-tter, Squa-tter!" Your turn, old chap. Tell us about the Nordic stuff.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-07-2006, 10:13 PM

I have an odd idea. It's a fledgling idea, trying to fly, but falling out of the nest and hitting the ground hard. I think it needs proper feathers before it'll work properly and be worth sharing.

Somebody... Squatter? Anybody?

Is there a capitalized Importance to light/sun/brightness/[insert name for shiny] in Nordic myths?

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 03:48 AM

The Northern pessimism is different, but it still agrees with the Christian idea that this world is coming to a crash and burn some day. The difference, of course, is in regard to what happens after that.

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings. Possibly a response to the ancients' observations on the cycle of organic life and death itself; as they saw themselves and their own lives, so they reflected this in their Mythologies. Ties in with Campbell's thoughts on how each religion/mythology reflects and serves the culture and society within which it was born.

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.

littlemanpoet

09-08-2006, 04:01 AM

The Pagan view is that the 'end' is simply part of the natural cycle. There may be many ends and many beginnings.Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 04:11 AM

Physicists tell us, however, that as the universe continues to expand, there will, some time in the far distant future, be a final end. A whimper as the last bit of light fades into dust. So even in the natural cycle there is a bitter end.

I saw a fascinating documentary about this a few weeks ago (a BBC one, if you get those in the US? Possibly on Discovery? Worth looking out for anyway!). There are several ages to the Universe and to all matter (about seven). We are currently in the second of these, which will last for billions of years after humans die out. As each age progresses, the nature of matter will change, ultimately ending in ages (aeons?) where all matter will be incredibly dense, and then will one day be nothing but residual energy and then everything will just go 'pft' and 'lights out' so to speak.

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time. :)

Bêthberry

09-08-2006, 07:26 AM

. . . . Both of these exercises are fulfilling and will get you a little closer to Tolkien's head. . . .

But it's only when you realize that both these strains were somehow tangled up in the soul of a single man, that you get to the heart of what is going on. . . .

As an historian, the next thing I want to do is bang on the table and demand to know where this dichotomy comes from in Tolkien.

This is the point at which I will simply retire from commenting, as I don't think one needs to resort to biographical construction to understand how a text can reflect a cultural dilemma or dichotomy. People have a difficult enough time understanding their fellow family members, friends, and others in their community--let alone internet posts and posters--to say nothing of the difficulty in reconstructing a person from literary remains.

Of course, others are welcome to discussing it. :)

alatar

09-08-2006, 08:48 AM

Though of course my attempts at explanation of scientific theory will not be troubling Stephen Hawking for any time. :)
I think that you've stated it well enough. Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

Regardless, I doubt that I'll be around. Think that the last sound heard will be either "Is too," or "Is not." Whether from this thread, the Gandalf vs Witch King thread, or the infamous Balrog's wings thread, we'll just have to wait and see.

Learning a lot from this thread. Cheers. ;)

Mister Underhill

09-08-2006, 09:03 AM

Well, there's also the rather dramatic Big Rip theory (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html), which does have to do with dark matter and such.

littlemanpoet

09-08-2006, 09:07 AM

This theory doesn't give any kind of rebirth, though one theory does - that of the Elastic Universe.We don't get too much BBC here in the States, except for what they choose to show on Public Telly (PBS); but then I don't have cable or dish either. But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Actually, the dichotomy you speak of, Child, is not at all esoteric or psychological. Tolkien's primary areas of thought are well known to have been his faith and his area of professional expertise; the former of course providing source material for his Catholic thought, the latter by way of Germanic and Northern language, myth, and legend (and all things adhering thereto), providing source material for his pagan-rooted (that is Germanic, Celtic, and Finnish) thought.

What strikes me as so interesting is that this particular dichotomy is not at all that which normally bedevils Western civilization, which is the dichotomy between mind and matter for which we can thank the Greeks (may they boil in dichotomous mental oil for the bequest. :D ).

The Saucepan Man

09-08-2006, 10:12 AM

Now let me step aside for a moment and ask that people do not post deeply personal interpretations (sermons?) of their own faiths as 'information'. I was enjoying the debate but it so easily slides back into what has already caused trouble and I am feeling provoked (as predicted, and as such, why hit 'send' after this week's events?). One person this week was admonished for their own thundering and tendency to hit 'send' without thinking, and I can add that he is very sorry to have caused offence and knows that to step back would have been the better move. I am sorry myself to have seen this done again so soon. I could have argued against what has been said and given my own interpretation (as I spend a lot of time thinking about faith and philosophy - it's important to me), but I do not see the point, enough upset has been caused for one week.Well, mark12_30 has edited the original post, and I hope that addresses your principal concern.

But let me make clear the "official" position on this so that there can be no misunderstanding and no lingering doubts that double-standards are being applied.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and commenting unfavourably and disrespectfully on the beliefs of others. The former is perfectly acceptable, provided that it is relevant to the subject matter of the thread and otherwise in accordance with the forum rules. The latter is not acceptable as it is contrary to the principles of this site, which strives for tolerant, courteous and respectful debate. I fully accept, as a committed advocate of freedom of speech myself, that there is a slight tension here between freedom of speech and the forum rules which we apply. Anyone who has visited a less ordered site than this, and there are many where insults, cruelty and the flaming of other peoples' posts are common-place, will appreciate, I am sure, why those rules are in place and therefore the justification for the (very limited) limitations on freedom of speech which they impose.

That said, I do have some sympathy for your point Lal, and my position has always been to challenge any statement of belief which is made in such a way as to suggest that it should or must necessarily be accepted by others, either generally or as the basis for the discussion in question. There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.

Child of the 7th Age

09-08-2006, 11:36 AM

Thanks for your thoughts--- Helen, Littlemanpoet, and many others. I admit I purposely pushed hard on my previous posts to generate discussion. The line I enthusiastically drew was probably too dramatic. As a Catholic, Tolkien would have accepted and understood that evil is real…. that it is personal and possessing in a way some modern thinkers totally fail to see . Even so, the Northern pagan world view is, in my eyes, ultimately more negative, fatalistic, and pessimistic than that espoused by the Christian faith.

The best way I can address this is by stressing the Christian and pagan views of hope and hopelessness.. This contrast is one of the most poignant themes running through the Legendarium. I think it's fair to state that Hope is rarely seen in the context of the old Northern myths. In speaking of Beowulf, Tolkien himself described the pagan era as “heathen, noble, and helpless.” In several interviews and published writings, Tom Shippey has argued that one of Tolkien’s main motivations was to consider how pre-revelation men, who were placed in an utterly hopeless situation, still chose to make moral choices.

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

LotR is filled with examples of pagan hopelessness. Just a few come to mind. There is Aragorn’s grim statement after the loss of Gandalf that “We must do without hope”, the totally hopeless assault of the Free Peoples at the Black Gate, and Frodo’s grim comment to Sam, “It’s all quite useless….You are the fool, going on hoping and toiling.” These could be multiplied a hundred times. Yet there are also the other statements and examples of hope strewn throughout the book, which we have discussed a hundred times before on this board. The presence or absence of hope best sums up the Christian/pagan dichotomy for me.

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I see some of this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry--I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing dilemma of pagan hopelessness and Christian hope late in his own life. In the end, Tolkien came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

Bêthberry

09-08-2006, 12:06 PM

When I read biographical accounts of Tolkien, I also see this dichotomy in the author’s personal life. (My apologies to Bêthberry as I can't resist.) Tolkien apparently fought back against moodiness and depression much of his life. He was constantly struggling back to hope. This could also explain why he appended the Athrabeth to the Legendarium. He felt the need to resolve the vexing question of pagan hopeless and Christian hope near the end of his own life and, in the end, came down at least publicly on the side of hope and his own religious faith.

Please, Child, there's no need to apologise, as I always enjoy your historical observations. I don't by any means wish to deny the possibility of historical study. My interest is simply to suggest that a biographical/psychological motivation is not the only reason why LotR might harbour this kind of dual vision. Writers can be inspired as much by what they read as by their own lives; what I think is interesting is that one of Tolkien's favourite poems demonstrates a quality which we find--or which some find--in his work.

There are writers whose work is constantly reduced to their lives, everything explained by recourse to their personal lives and self-expression. This tack really does a disservice to the works which the authors produced and so I am leery of always going solely to the life to explain something in the work. There could well be an artistic or storytelling purpose for the text which the biographical methods misses.

All of this leads us back to the question of the world's end, something others also talked about on this thread. In Christianity, goodness remains even if it lies beyond the walls of the world and we can not reach it in our human state. In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

This reminds me of a saying in philosophy: "When the ends keep receding, the means must justify themselves." Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 12:14 PM

Yes, and I'd like to extend some genuine thanks. :)

I was just disappointed that after what's happened this week I saw information across in a deeply personal way which was admitted might provoke people. I know one person who has learned something from what's happened, I hope others have also learnt when to wave the white flag. I also know I have! And I might add that my reasons for calling it 'deeply personal' is that I saw posts peppered with exclamations and asides expressing primacy of faith, not strictly from one person either so I'm not picking on anyone. I have also noticed a few posts where Pagans have been associated with demons etc, which will be offending some Downers as I know we have Pagans here, and that faith is also a deeply held one. And they're too scared to post now.

I guess we have to accept that whatever we might think, not everyone else is going to believe it too. I know that all too well as the last Socialist in the Western World (no I don't sell those newspapers).

Anyway, back to it, as I might be a terrier at times when challenged, but I know when to drop the bone. Not least to give SpM a chance to have his tea. ;)

But I've heard of the Elastic Universe theory; it is considered the least viable of those having to do with the subject.

Some theories indicate (and I can't remember if these theories hinge on whether 'Dark Matter' is found or not) that the universe will expand to a certain point, then fall back on itself, becoming a single point...at which time it will explode blazingly once again into a completely new universe, complete with new car smell.

At least we'll all be back together for a time.

Or, as stated, the universe will expand until everything is a large homogenous soup of atoms, die a heat death, and silence (and darkness) will reign.

There's as many scientific theories on the Universe as there are religions! Which suggests that even followers of strict Reason have a few schisms, and they're not united in any way. I'm often struck by how mystical science can be, too. Ever since I read of The Walls of the Universe, I've been a little obsessed with the phrase (not just with the concept) as it's just so...poetic! Basically we're all trying to find what it all means - and therefore I'm not surprised Tolkien's own views can seem confusing and even contradictory. Hey, we were knocking Pullman not that long ago (still reading HDM and hoping to get some new conclusions because I do love the book, and Pullman is really a nice guy by the sounds of it) but is he really any more 'confused' than Tolkien?

If we do look at what he reflects of Pagans, I don't think it's pessimism or anything like that at all, partly because that's not what paganism is broadly about. He writes of characters like Eowyn who want to die gloriously, of Eomer who goes into battle full throttle, and Theoden who dies expressing the consolation that he will go to his forefathers. Paganism is not pessimistic! Death is a welcome thing as much as it can be in other religions; the warrior who dies in battle is going to feast with the other great warriors who preceeded him (or her!). Ragnarok is not bad, it is to be welcomed. It's the ultimate chance for glory, and a 'good death'. Of course, there are as many flavours of Paganism as there are of Christianity so some may disagree.

In paganism, there is no ultimate goodness that survives after the end (and perhaps not in our modern theories either where everything ends with a bang or poof).

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Other Pagan faiths don't even have an end time philosophy.

The modern scientific theories all end in lights out however. Even if we all go back to helping make up a new star, (if from stars we came) even the atoms will cop for it in the end.

Child of the 7th Age

09-08-2006, 12:34 PM

But there is. After Ragnarok, Balder will return and all the dead will live together and enjoy life everlasting.

Ah, that is interesting....

littlemanpoet

09-08-2006, 03:33 PM

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 03:58 PM

It would help us to be aware of a distinction between modern paganism and pre-Christian paganism. The modern variety has at its beck and call all the resources (of thought, technology, etc.) of the modern world, whereas the pre-Christian had only the culture and traditions thereof within each local people group. The pre-Christian is documented as having been quite pessimistic, despite the Balderic resurrection.

Depends where you get your sources from really. The Romans of course liked to depict the British Celts as a brutish race and their scribes reserved particular hatred for the druids, seeing them as animals compared to their own sophisticated Gods. Yet archaeological and mythological evidence bears out that the Celts were possibly more sophisticated than the Romans in many ways - not least in the higher status of women, who had no status in Roman society. The druids were certainly not animals as they were depicted! Of course then the monks came along and they too had to make the old religions seem dangerous and unattractive. Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.

Even going further back, the incredible amount of megalithic remains that litter the British Isles betrays that there was a highly advanced society with awareness of geometry and astronomy way before the Greeks, maybe even ways to predict eclipses. It doesn't suggest a pessimistic outlook to have societies which could spare the time and resources to build such monuments - it would have been the ancients' equivalent of having a Humber Bridge or Hoover Dam in every village.

And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

Bêthberry

09-08-2006, 04:35 PM

Some things could be absorbed whereas others had to be discredited - that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable. . . .
And that's just in my own back yard. We've not even looked at other ancient 'pagan' faiths including some biggies such as Zoroastrianism, Shinto or Buddhism.

True indeed. Those who write the history books control the representation.

Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it! I personally find Norse myths incredible.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled topic ... :)

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 04:43 PM

Just for the sake of clarification, Lal, my comments pertained to Norse mythologies only. Also to clarify my point, I don't see where the statement that a world view is pessimistic necessarily means it lacks sophistication or is uncultured. Far from it!

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

Feanor of the Peredhil

09-08-2006, 05:05 PM

This is admittedly a rough sketch of a post... I'm still hashing my way through the thoughts.

that's not just something that happens when new religions come along, but also when one nation conquers another. It's about power, and somehow inevitable.
And the literature that Tolkien loved so well and drew so heavily upon comes from a society rife with conquering.

It's fun that we're discussing this just as I start a new class that's very heavily reliant on Middle English lit. First day of class we rehashed why it is the way it is: looking at Brit history shows a pretty grim life. Small wonder there's all this talk of doom and gloom in Tolkien's work, in the period work; sure there was Christianity, the life after death, the thought of hope, but there was also the pious monk that was writing his alliterative poetry about roods and was on watch those late nights when the Vikings sailed up to the coastal monastery and started pillaging. Life was hard.

The narrator of The Wanderer (http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a3.6.html) sums it up nicely with "It will be well with him who seeks favor, comfort from the Father in heaven, where for us all stability resides."

Yep. Doom and gloom. Belief and faith, but also logical pessimism. This wouldn't necessarily mean anything to me if these lines, just a few before that translation, weren't so... um... reminiscent... of something else. ;)

Therefore the man wise in his heart considers carefully this wall-place and this dark life, remembers the multitude of deadly combats long ago, and speaks these words: 'Where has the horse gone? Where the young warrior? Where is the giver of treasure? What has become of the feasting seats? Where are the joys of the hall? Alas, the bright cup! Alas, the mailed warrior! Alas the prince's glory! How that time has gone, vanished beneath night's cover, just as if it had never been!'

Lalwendë

09-08-2006, 05:46 PM

I'm always interested in interpretations of British history from other perspectives. Remember that the Saxons had the serious advantage of having been the first to write it all down, and they did put a spin on things, much of it involving huge enthusiasm for their new religion, as you would! We also think of hard done to Saxons being raped and pillaged by Vikings, but that's not the whole truth. The Saxons were a conquering race who had not been on the island for all that long before the Vikings began raiding.

They were also not innocent, as genetic evidence proves that they practised apartheid and were quite successful at preventing Britons from breeding. When the Vikings arrived, some of the Britons pushed into unwanted corners of the island welcomed the new invaders. And of course talk to a Norwegian and they might tell you that all the Vikings only wanted to trade (I did, and that's what she was taught at school). The truth is probably that some raided, some traded.

Hmm, pessimism. I would say that a monk in those days, who would be the scribe of an epic poem, would indeed be pessimistic. Putting aside Vikings, life in the early monasteries was tough, and being a scribe was even tougher!

I wonder if we should call it pessimism. Maybe, from our nice comfy lives in the modern age these poets looked liked pessimists. Perhaps they were instead realists? They accepted that they would one day die? And that they might also die young. We on the other hand have long lives and pensions to look forards to, if nothing else on the 'other side'. Few of us, especially those of us who are young, have that acceptance of mortality. Yet speak to my father and he will sound pessimistic - he would call it resignation. :(

There's another thing - natural English nostalgia. There was an item on the news today about how people thought 1985 was better than now. Excuse me? Three million unemployed? The Miners' strike? They came to the conclusion that it was the same old nostalgia we just love to indulge in. Mustn't grumble. ;)

littlemanpoet

09-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Lal's on vacation and I can tell. :)

I'm about caught up with this page of the thread (I admit to not entirely being attentive for a good four of them, and apparently I did myself a favor :rolleyes: ).

I'm familiar, Lal, with pretty much all the history you describe, except for the Saxon penchant for rendering the Brits incapable of progeny. :eek: It wouldn't surprise me.

The Celtic outlook has, by and large, been more "upbeat" than the Nordic, as you say, Lal.

Now, how did we get here? (LMP scratches head trying to recall the order of the links in the spilled chain on the floor) Oh yeah, that dichotomy.

Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?Yes and maybe.

As for the 'yes', it seems to be based on survival necessity. As soon as a civilization has reached the point at which its members cease to be primarily concerned about survival (except for the poor of course), morality begins to alter such that it's based on things other than survival. Such as personal inclinations. People of 150 years ago would be horrified at what we just look the other way from or outright tolerate.

As for the 'maybe', what's 'admittedly' mean? LotR is a very modern story. It couldn't have been written before WW One. Its themes have much in common with the so-called Lost Generation. Speaking of which (this is just occurring to me based on having mentioned the 'LG' above), The LG had only the dry husk of a Christian faith which they more or less didn't really take seriously, they had science, and they had their classical education which had long since replaced anything remotely Germanic until perhaps the university level and then only by choice. You may recall that from Renaissance until mid-way through the last century, it was generally accepted that Roman and Greek is Good, Germanic is at best embarrassing. Then here comes J.R.R. Tolkien who has the nerve to write a book in which Roman and Greek are virtually non-existent and Germanic/Celtic/Finnish are glorious! The literati were not pleased (snicker), especially after a Mein Kampf kind of war had just been fought and won or lost depending which side you were on, in which the 'bad guys' had celebrated their German-ness. The nerve of that Tolkien.

Nogrod

09-08-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Bethberry
Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario?It depends on what you mean by the end here.

Every action one makes is based on values eg. ends. If you value bildung you go to higher education, you value social hanging around with mates with no questions asked, you go to a football match and the round in the pub required... Every thing you do is done because you have a value which you crave for. An end you see worthy, a value. As philosophers say, an axiologigal choice.

There was a time when most of the people (a majority anyhow) in western civilisation had somewhat similar views of these ends and they included scenarios of the End. People were taught that what you do is waged in the afterlife. Or that the things you do become meaningful only in the light of those last time occurences. There was a view of the common end then.

In the individualistic West today the thing is different. That is a truism, surely. But as a "non-believer" or an agnostic bent to atheism, I can't see how the "believers" could rob us of our morality? I need no compensation of being nice to others or a metaphysical story of the end to guide me acting morally towards others. I just do not see the need of an end-time scenario to act morally. I just believe being human is what it takes...

So is there a moral basis without an end-time scenario? Surely there is. Being good, whatever the consequence. That is moral.

Bêthberry

09-08-2006, 07:57 PM

What I'm trying to say is that a culture which was inherently pessimistic would not invest huge amounts of resource into making long lasting monuments, temples, scientific observatories - whatever these enigmatic remains might be. Pessimistic cultures would live for today and not look to the future generations, not assume that time invested in constructing elaborate structures would be worth it in the long run. Look at the great cathedrals of the world - built by people who felt assured of their future, just as did the peoples who built Stonehenge.

"But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them. Only I hear the stone lament them: deep they delved us,fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago."

A Geat woman too sang out in grief;
with hair bound up, she unburdened herself
of her worst fears, a wild litany
of nightmare and lament: her nation invaded,
enemies on the rampage, bodies in piles,
slavery and abasement. Heaven swallowed the smoke.
[Heofon rece swealg.]
Then the Geat people began to construct
a mound on a headland, high and imposing,
a marker that sailors could see from far away,
and in ten days they had done the work.
It was their hero's memorial
. . .
kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.

Fate swept us away,
sent my whole brave high-born clan
to their final doom. Now I must follow them.

Why does the epic poem end not with victory but with the death of the hero king and the defeat of his people, their loss?

Why does LotR end not with Frodo's recovery or Aragorn's coronation and wedding but with the inescapable consequence of Frodo's decision and the departure of the elves?

Perhaps you would prefer the word elegaic rather than pessimistic, as I see you have also suggested nostalgic. Nostalgia suggests a bit too much sentimentalism, from my way of thinking. I will respectfully submit that we are dealing here with your interpretation and mine and I will respectfully insist upon my right to call these mythologies and world visions pessimistic.

Yet beneath the Sun all things must wear to an end at last.

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with several and no time to reply further, except yeah, what Fea said. :D

Lalwendë

09-09-2006, 02:12 AM

I wasn't talking talking about Saxons nor was I talking about Elves, I was talking about ancient Britons (and Bretons, because they built these cultures too). These are the people who did not have a pessimistic view, but looked to the future as shown by their building of remarkable structures which would last down the millennia.

Yes, the Saxons may have had a sense of pessimism as they actually left us with little physical evidence - their wealth was portable (and this is reflected in the culture of the Rohirrim, who only left one substantial, optimistic cultural landmark, Helm's Deep, and possibly their barrows). But even so I would argue against the Saxons being totally pessimistic. We can only see a small proportion of what they most likely did produce in terms of literature, and its by no means all doom and gloom, they also left books of riddles. So we can't just make the sweeping statement that they were pessimistic.

And like it or not, nostalgia is a part of life in Britain. There's a whole industry based around it from selling National trust memberships to peddling 1950s CDs to producing endless TV shows which look back to what it was like in our schooldays. The word Retro excites us, and we argue about whether to save an old building or knock it down to put up new ones. Where I work they have had to create an entire division called Change, just to deal with out reluctance to let go of the past. It's real.

mark12_30

09-09-2006, 05:13 AM

Lalwendë

09-09-2006, 05:36 AM

Investing valuable resources in building complex constructions, as I've already said, suggests a culture which has a sense of permanence and optimism, whereas a culture which senses it is transient does not invest its resource in fixed objects and constructions. We see the same with the builders of the great medieval cathedrals - they felt their culture would endure for ever. Likewise the builders of the monumental waterfront in Liverpool - they felt that the sun would never set on the empire.

Funnily enough, there are more things in culture than books. Older socities may not have had literature, and there are still cultures today which do not have literature. To suggest that we can't learn anything about them because they do not hold the written word in the same way we do is cultural supremacism.

In fact, even Tolkien's work bears out what I've said. Contrast the Gondorians who have a culture existing for thousands of years, they have been shapers, builders, creators of monumental architecture which is permanent, with the Rohirrim who are newly arrived, living an uncertain existence - they are not builders, they have a sense of transience. And contrast Faramir's sense of hope when he looks to the West and thinks of Numenor and remembers a cultural memory of promise and even paradise, with Theoden's words on his death. He doesn't go to a place he simply goes to his ancestors. Even so, the Rohirrim are not strictly pessimistic, more that they simply live for the now, whereas the Gondorians live for the past and for the future, not in the now. Even Tolkien knew the significance of transient versus permanent cultures.

Look at the modern world. I would only take a mortgage if I felt assured of my permanence but if I felt insecure I would instead rent, and be transient.

littlemanpoet

09-09-2006, 10:02 AM

Lalwendë

09-09-2006, 10:35 AM

I can't help wondering if the assertion that cultures which build great monuments are essentially optimistic, and those that do not are essentially pessimistic, does not bear up against scrutiny. Bethberry's quotes are much to the point. Is it not just as plausible to reason that cultures that have little hope of long continuation, build monuments precisely because they expect that these will be all that's left to represent them some day? This seems to bear up when we listen to individuals in our own culture who intend to leave some kind of legacy to their own short lives. The concern for legacy seems to go hand in hand with a recognition of approaching death rather than with "lightness of being" or whatever you want to call it.

Bethberry, I think elegiac is perhaps the most useful word for the present turn of the discussion.

No, the quotes were not to the point of what I was saying, as I was not talking about either Saxons or Elves, but about ancient Britons (and other ancient civilisations). They only cast light on what Tolkien or the author of Beowulf thought. They don't cast any light on the anonymous architects of Avebury because they can't. To look at what they thought we must use our minds and interpret what we have got. Not assertion but archaeological theory.

The urge to be personally remembered is in fact more a product of modern secular society, or indeed a vain and self-centred society, witness the current Cult of Personality. That is also the ultimate in luxuries. We might create personal legacies today but then we are also a throw-away-live-for-today society. Also bear in mind how long both megalithic structures and great cathedrals took to build. Centuries. Cultures under threat of destruction simply do not have that luxury of time. You don't fiddle while Rome burns.

Elegiac might fit the sense of loss that Tolkien expresses very well, but Elegiac is definitely not the term to use to describe the nostalgic feelings that British people as a society feel. Why? Because we aren't just mourning, but remembering the good times. See the quote that Fea put on. He's also remembering the good laughs, the nights supping in the ale hall.

Anyway, arguing over a word is a familiar way to divert a discussion, but you won't wear me down that way. Pedantry is how people in my line of work earn their wages, and I can easily spend a two hour meeting arguing about one word in an entire document. ;)

Nogrod

09-09-2006, 06:21 PM

Making generalisations with history is always a bit dangerous...

I visited Newgrange (in Ireland) some ten years ago. It had taken the people there something like two hundred years to build it - more than four thousand years ago. They probably were not thinking that as our fleeting culture is just about to die, so let's do this in a hurry. They must have been optimists in our sense of the word used here.

The counter example.

Adolf Hitler and his visions of the eternal Germany, to be realised with the help of Mr. Speer. The eternal monumets being imagined and in some cases begun by the third Reich... Were they optimists or pessimists? Or where they more vaguely the culture that did not believe to make for any lasting mark, and thence craved for any marks to out-count the days of their makers?

The urge to be personally remembered is in fact more a product of modern secular society, or indeed a vain and self-centred society, witness the current Cult of Personality.Exactly. We must bear in mind that even the idea of "myself" as a self-centered notion is a new invention... The feeling of "me" today as the center of individuality was for the ancient Greeks and Romans the animality in us. Emotions and feelings happen to us and are not governed by us. They thought that a human was a human only when he (yes, he!) shut down the thrives and desires and was thinking things with the reason (differentia specifica of the humans).

In that world one couldn't think of being the center of all, but needed just to find his place in the order of the universe...

So there was no possibility of being optimistic or pessimistic on a grander scale then. Individual personality is a modern idea...

Lalaith

09-10-2006, 04:22 AM

Just an aside on the rebirth/hope issue.
I don't pretend to be an expert on paganism in general but I do know a bit about the Norse mythical cycle. One of the problems in trying to establish just what the Vikings believed in terms of religion is that most of what we know about it today was written down during the Christian period. Snorri Sturluson, who wrote so much of what we rely on, was a 13th century historian, and a Christian (albeit unusually for that time, a secular individual rather than a cleric).

Also, Norse paganism and Christianity co-existed for several hundred years in the Viking world. Viking society had not converted as whole until around 900-1000 AD, while allowing individuals who had turned from the "old belief" to practice their new religion.
Scholars believe that some aspects of the mythological cycle - particularly the death and rebirth of Baldr - may have been injected later, as part of a Christianising influence.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing were true for other "pagan" belief systems. (I don't even know how we are defining the word pagan anyway. "Stuff our ancestors used to believe"? It seems a bit too vague, the old Norse religion has for example not much to do with the nature-based religion many people I know practice today, often called paganism)

As for eternal monuments (v. interesting points, Noggie...) Ozymandias springs to mind...

Lalwendë

09-10-2006, 07:32 AM

Also, Norse paganism and Christianity co-existed for several hundred years in the Viking world. Viking society had not converted as whole until around 900-1000 AD, while allowing individuals who had turned from the "old belief" to practice their new religion.
Scholars believe that some aspects of the mythological cycle - particularly the death and rebirth of Baldr - may have been injected later, as part of a Christianising influence.

Good question, I was waiting for that one! ;) It's always worth bearing in mind that things may have been out in later to add some Christianity to the tales. However, that's one idea, and there are two more.

Secondly, that Christian culture built on what existed. You can see this did happen - many churches (if not all of the oldest churches) are built on pagan sites - evidence such as circular churchyards and being built on mounds betrays the original purpose of sites. A good example of this is a chapel built on a large barrow or cursus at Carnac. Glastonbury Tor is another. Quite wisely, early Christians sought to work with what already existed, by linking exisiting belief into the new one. Bit like Tolkien's idea that all myth was Christian, eh? Cultural assimilation? Missionaries even do it today - some of the Evangelical churches in Africa have bound in Animism to their faith (with some notable horrible results too, unfortunately). I'd say this was the most likely theory, as it seems to be the common way with conquerors throughout time - marry the local women, learn a bit of the language, make the natives see that their faith is an inferior version of the new one. ;)

The other idea is that Christianity in fact has many common roots with pagan faiths. There's a theory that Christianity was based on Mithraism, as the two shared so many similarities. Its a theory that's worth looking up as there is so much common detail it would take all day to list it here! And going back to Norse myths, some have said that Odin was christianised in the tale where he hangs on Yggradsil for nine nights, saying that the writers tried to link Odin to Christ's crucifixion. However archaeological evidence from the discovery of Tollund Man shows that a common form of sacrifice was to hang someone (who would be considered very privileged) from a tree in a similar fashion, and tied there by their hair. Maybe 'crucifixion' was seen by Romans in Gaul and beyond and brought to the Middle east? Maybe it was just common around the world at that time?

Adolf Hitler and his visions of the eternal Germany, to be realised with the help of Mr. Speer. The eternal monumets being imagined and in some cases begun by the third Reich... Were they optimists or pessimists? Or where they more vaguely the culture that did not believe to make for any lasting mark, and thence craved for any marks to out-count the days of their makers?

Good example there, of course the Reich was to have lasted a Thousand Years. And Speer conceived Nuremberg as the ultimate city to celebrate it. The Nazis had incredible self belief and looked a long way into the future. Of course it lasted about 12 years in the end.

The Saucepan Man

09-10-2006, 08:29 AM

Interesting though it is, the discussion is spiralling away from LotR and Tolkien at present. Please keep your posts on theme.

Raynor

09-10-2006, 10:27 AM

Not necessarily. As mentioned, Tolkien borrowed ideas, themes, even blatantly obvious situations (Glaurung and Fafnir, anyone?). Why should it be particularly harder to think he might have borrowed a character or a character type? That was my original argument in favor of Christ figures. If a writer can 'steal' a theme, why can't he 'steal' a character type? the Odinic wanderer that I think of.There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.
Yes, I know about original sin and such in a Christian context, but this is a situation where the very fabric of Arda has been contaminated by Morgoth. That didn't happen in the bible.Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically. Furthermore, the cursing of Adam ("cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" Genesis) and the marring of Men are pretty similar, esspecially in their effects on how life is perceived. There is also the fact that the fallen angel offers Christ all the riches of the world. I would also note that Eru's Creation is good at its core:
For which reason it is said that whereas there is now great evil in Arda and many things therein are at discord, so that the good of one seemeth to be the hurt of another, nonetheless the founda¬tions of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself.which is in accordance with the Atrabeth
'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.Ah, if only we could ask him! Well, he did admit in the BBC interview that Eru is God
G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

Lalwendë

09-10-2006, 11:48 AM

There are some traits of Odin which would never be reflected in Gandalf; I haven't read anything past Voluspa, but it seems to me that Gandalf would never sacrifice an eye, or a human, for the sake of wisdom. He already had it in him, he just needed to rediscover it; moreover, Gandald isn't bound to a bodily form (IIRC, Odin is slain in the final battle and that's it for him, correct me if I'm wrong), doesn't have children, and esspecially wouldn't kill one of his his child Hoth who _unwillingly_ killed Baldr.

Yes, fair enough, but Tolkien calls Gandalf "the Odinic wanderer that I think of", therefore he did indeed have Odin in mind when he wrote of Gandalf. But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron. And the fact that neither have kids (although who knows what Sauron had got up to in Numenor or Mordor?!) doesn't matter, as Tolkien originally conceived (no pun intended ;)) of Ainur who had sex and kids, so if he had continued down that line we may have seen Sauron's progeny.

Well, that is a matter of debate; we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil - therefore evil existed at least theoretically.

Or potentially? It reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.

Boromir88

09-10-2006, 02:58 PM

I am going to digress way back earlier to Lal's post here:
There is also the thorny topic of fate vs free will to consider, including whether all the actions of the characters are fated (or determined by Wryd, considering the influence on Tolkien, too, of Beowulf), which would necessarily have implications for both characterisation and on the significance of events such as Frodo's acceptance of Gollum.
Indeed it is a thorny topic, and the term 'Providence' is something Tolkien didn't wish to use. I don't think the term ever appears except in some minimal moments in Tolkien's letters. The Oxford English Dictionary defines providence as:
3. The foreknowing and beneficent care and government of God (or of nature etc); divine direction, control or guidance; 4. Hence applied to the Deity as exercising prescient power and direction.
But, what I have think to come to found through the books, is that through Free Will people can change their 'luck', and hence be rewarded by Eru. Indeed Tolkien notes he had been a lucky man:
"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."
I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':
However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’.
Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:
‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence
It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied. I'm reminded of the example with Frodo and the destruction of the Ring. Where I think it's quite clearly established through several places that it was Frodo's previous acts of free will, that gained him his salvation:
''Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest hounour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.''~Letter 246.
Here is one of the few times where Providence does appear, and I think there is a providence, or a fate, but it's to a minimum level and can be changed. Frodo was an instrument of Eru, but it was Frodo's free will and pity towards Gollum that gained himself Mercy in the way that his failure (failure to destroy the Ring) was redressed. This is also noted in Letter 181:
’'But at this point the ’salvation’ of the world and Frodo’s own ’salvation’ is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him , and could rob him in the end. To ’pity’ him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He [Gollum] did rob him and injure him in the end- but by a ’grace’ that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone could have done for frodo! By a situation created by his ’forgiveness’ , he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden.''
I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence. There is an element of fate, and Eru uses people for it. I don't think it was a coincidence that Bilbo was meant to find the ring (as Gandalf puts it) who happens to be Frodo's heir, who happens to be the only one during this time, as Tolkien tells us with the strength of will to get the ring to the cracks of doom. So in those ways Frodo was 'an instrument of Providence,' but it was his own Pity and Mercy towards Gollum, where Frodo's own 'luck' was changed, and it earned him Eru's Mercy, so Eru intervened and relieved Frodo from the burden of the Ring.

Kind of getting back onto the current discussion. I've found Tolkien talking about the TCBS in Letter #5 to be interesting. And the striking similarities to the Istari:
"the TCBS had been granted some spark - certainly as a body if not singly- that was destined to kindle a new light, or what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world".
When Cirdan gives Narya to Gandalf:
"For this is the Ring of Fire, and with it you may rekindle hearts in a world that grows chill"
And in Unfinished Tales, The Istari:
"...opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles and succours in wanhope and distress."

Lalaith

09-10-2006, 03:53 PM

People have asked about the Norse world view, optimism and hope. Not believing in a conventional afterlife does not necessarily make you a pessimist. Here's a poem from Havamal which is often quoted to demonstrate the essential Viking view of the afterlife:

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama;
en orðstírr
deyr aldregi,
hveim er sér góðan getur.

Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama.
Eg veit einn,
að aldrei deyr,
dómur um dauðan hvern.

Translation: "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; but the fair fame of him who has earned it never dies."
"Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead."

Now (look Saucie, I'm on topic!) that sounds very Rohirric to me. Kind of thing Eomer might have roared on the field of Pelennor - and he never struck me as a particularly gloomy soul. The other thing I thought about, regarding the emphasis on bravery and reputation, was that Vikings did have a heaven - Valhalla. It was for men (warriors) only, they fought all day and feasted all night. They were chosen from among the bravest of the slain by the Valkyries of Odin, and it was all in preparation for the Last Battle. Theoden "returning to the halls of my fathers", perhaps?
Turin returning to kill Morgoth at the last battle of Middle earth has always felt very Norse, although I know it's not strictly canon. As does the last stand of the Men of Hithlum. So perhaps Tolkien portrayed the Rohirrim, and the Edain of the First Age, in a similar way - a noble but "young" culture, like that of the pre-Christian Vikings.
The other example of despair that springs to mind is Galadriel's Lorien Lament, but that is very different kind of despair to that of say, the men of Hithlum or Eomer in battle, it feels like a more "Renaissance" kind of intellectual despair.

Fea, in answer to your question about the sun: in Norse (and Germanic) culture, unlike Graeco/Roman, the sun is female. She is called Sol, and will be devoured by a wolf at Ragnarok, the final battle. Some people maintain that Baldur was a sun god, and others that Frey (fertility god) was, but I'm not so sure.

Lalwendë

09-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Fea, in answer to your question about the sun: in Norse (and Germanic) culture, unlike Graeco/Roman, the sun is female. She is called Sol, and will be devoured by a wolf at Ragnarok, the final battle. Some people maintain that Baldur was a sun god, and others that Frey (fertility god) was, but I'm not so sure.

And Tolkien's Sun was female, and the Moon male, unlike the usual Sun-Male, Moon-female tradition in the West, and in the Middle east as far as I recall?

littlemanpoet

09-10-2006, 08:07 PM

I think Tolkien would be more in line with Tom Shippey's remarks in The Road to Middle-earth that 'Luck' would be a more suitable word in Tolkien's works than 'Providence' or 'chance':

Shippey goes further to say that it is perhaps better to have luck than it is to have providence:

It's the ability of individuals where they can 'change' their luck, and therefor fate can be denied. However, the old meaning of 'luck', which Tolkien no doubt knew from his Anglo-Saxon readings, was that the king's luck was from the gods. When the king became 'unlucky', it meant that the gods had 'unlucked' him, and the folk would believe themselves in need of a new king; would kill that one and raise up another one who was 'lucked' by the gods. So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 03:12 AM

I think we've definitely got both free will and fate/luck in the story. And this is one instance where its definitely up to the reader to interpret how they see it. Especially the most famous example of Gollum falling into the fires with the Ring when Frodo 'fails'; this works in a really satisfying way from both perspectives. I'm sure those who read LotR before the Sil was out (and where we find out about Eru) got as much satisfaction from the ending as we do now?

I'm wary of attributing everything down to 'fate' though - there are many instances where a character is given an outright choice and he or she makes a right or wrong one. Of course it would be easy to put down simple plot lines to 'fate' but in the main that's what they are, twists and turns of plot.

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

littlemanpoet

09-11-2006, 09:02 AM

This is one instance of what I mean by Reality shining through LotR. Both doom and choice are there, written into the very weave of the tale. Many authors fail to account for one or the other, but our human experience is confronted by both. Both are real, and our attempts to deny one or the other sends us toward illusion or delusion (very often followed by disillusionment). Tolkien's tale satisfies because he acknowledges both and refuses to say the one trumps the other.

Boromir88

09-11-2006, 09:13 AM

So 'luck' in Tolkien does not necessarily signify something other than doom or fate or providence.
I can agree with that...I just think that within LOTR someone has the ability to change their 'luck' or their 'fate' through the choices (free will) that they make. As I think is what happened to Frodo, Frodo's actions towards Gollum won him Mercy from Eru. Though admittingly, as Lal points out, it can be taken a few different ways.

Child of the 7th Age

09-11-2006, 09:34 AM

Here's an interesting question. does anyone else get the impression that in Middle-earth the Men are more attuned to Free Will and having to take on board the responsibility of making the right choces while the Elves are much more gloomy and seem to think more things are 'fated'? I get this impression, and it maybe has something to do with the nature of mortality?

Lal,

Interesting comment. There are a couple of ways to view this, I believe. One of the possibilities is to think about Elves and Men in terms of their relationship with history.

One of the things that strikes me about Middle-earth is that most Men of the Third Age actually knew so very little about the origin of the universe or the early history of Man, even when expressed in mythic terms. With the exception of characters like Faramir or Aragorn who were direct descendents of the Numenoreans, most men/hobbits had limited knowledge about the "actual" origins of their world. The names of the Valar did not even register in their heads. One wonders, for example, whether a hobbit like Sam had even uttered the name of Varda before he left the Shire. It's true that hobbits and Rohirrim and, I suspect, other men knew the recent history of their own peoples, which was then couched in terms of family genealogy or deceased ancestors gathered together in a mead hall. But that's a lot different than having a wider understanding of past ages, both the accomplishments and mistakes.

The Elves on the other hand had carefully preserved their history. They were vitally aware of every mistake they had made as well as the role of the Valar and of Morgoth in the crafting of Arda. Such history can be a heavy burden: to see mistake after mistake made, and little indication that the pattern is ever going to be broken. Surely this had something to do with the Elves' negative attitude. The fact that some of them had actually lived for thousands of years and witnessed the various atrocities didn't make this any easier.

When I finish reading parts of the Silm, I am downright depressed. It seems that nothing goes right no matter how the Elves tried; they are trapped in their past mistakes. (LotR is the one exception to this in the Legandarium in that it is at least a partial, temporary victory.)

In some ways men were "blessed" by their relative ignorance. Not knowing how many failures there'd been in the past, they were foolish enough to try again and not give in to fatalism. Certainly, one of the most optomistic of the free peoples--the hobbits--had the least knowledge of the past. This shouldn't come as a surprise. In our own world, we have seen Afro-Americans "worn down" by the memories of slavery and Jews who are still dealing with the horrors of the Holocaust. Things like this affect how people react and think; the Elves are no exception.

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 10:07 AM

Good points - I think that one of the 'gifts' of mortality was not to be burdened by the weight of the past. It also gave Men the opportunity to actually learn to do the right thing. Contrast this with the Elves who know exactly where they are going in the end, they always know their fate. I'll ask the question - what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing? Men in contrast do not know what will happen after death, so if they have that in mind, then they must try to learn what is the right thing to do. there is also the matter that althoughMen may be leaving the earth behind one day and so why should they care what happens, they will live on thorugh their descendants, and want to leave the world safe for them. Elves on the other hand will carry on no matter what. Kind of a blameless existence.

And Men are created to live 'outside' the Music anyway, i.e. outside fate. So part of the very essence of Men is that they must learn what to do, think what to do, act in the right way, as their destiny is very much in their own hands.

It is sad that the Elves feel they have to dminish and leave Middle-earth for Valinor, but I also think it was the right choice to make, to withdraw from the lives of mortals (Men, Hobbits and Dwarves alike) and to leave them the room to grow and learn, and to be Men! Note that even Faramir is suspicious of what goes on in Lorien, so the divide had grown incredibly wide.

Maybe if we had to say who was optimistic and who was pessimistic in Middle-earth, then its the Elves who are the pessimists, not Men, who are not bound by fate and basically, well, to use a cliche, the world is their oyster! Could we say that its the pessimistic Elves who are the 'Christians', as they have had the revelation of their ultimate fate and of God? And the Men are the Pagans without the 'revelation', unaware of what Eru intends for them (unaware of Eru at all in fact, except Aragorn, who himself does not 'know' as an Elf might, he only 'trusts'), yet optimists to the core? So that knowing your fate takes away your power, whereas not knowing (i.e. for Men) makes anything possible.

Raynor

09-11-2006, 11:20 AM

But I can totally see why you would question the evil (or maybe violent, as it wasn't necessarily evil to those who thought of Odin, and some still do) side of Odin, as this isn't there in Gandalf, but it is there in his counterpart Sauron.The "Odinic wanderer" expression is somewhat a tautology (seeing that one of Odin's names was The Wanderer). Sure, we also have the sacrifice of Odin's eye comparable to a certain degree to the making of the One Ring, but the consequences of each act are rather opposite, for the story and the character. And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me ;)
t reminds me of the Pandora's Box tale, another story in which evil did not exist in the world but had the potential to; in both cases it was humans who allowed it to be set free. In Arda, the people have no blame in that sense, it was there already.I disagree; Imo, evil, as a moral cathegory, existed far before the coming of humans in the greek legendarium; we have Uranus, Chronos and Zeus displaying canibalistic tendencies; many, if not most, of the gods are adulterous, incestuous, and one is bordering cleptomany. As far as Pandora's jar, I would say it contained the _evils_, as in the pains/woes/misfortunes, not the evil as a moral cathegory:
For ere this the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sickness which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men. Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds. But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them. So is there no way to escape the will of Zeus.
I agree with Shippey and feel that Luck is a better term for it, than Providence.Luck as in favorable, but random, chance? There are various refferences in the works which hint that randomness is somewhat out of the question
what incentive would an Elf actually have to learn to do the right thing?Well, the judgement of Mandos for one thing; if you are bad enough, you may never get a new body. And how many can count on not losing their current one, considering the consumation of their body by their fea (and the marring of Melkor, if there was any around). All in all, the elves are said to be very like the valar, although not as great, so, besides the mentioned "stick", they were naturally good - considering also that none ever served Melkor willingly.

alatar

09-11-2006, 01:48 PM

In the Bible, Satan sends evil into the world by tempting Adam and Eve who had previously been Good and lived in Paradise. He is the cause of The Fall - or you could argue that Adam and Eve are. Either way, the world was inherently Good and then Satan brought Evil into it with The Fall. In Tolkien's cosmology however, our 'Satan' is there causing trouble before any people inhabit Arda. There is no period of Good. Melkor adds his own theme to the Music and thus the world is created complete with inherent evil. It suffuses everything, even the land itself, and the Elves! Letter 286 goes into this. So right away, Melkor is a different kettle of fish.
I'd posted in a very similar thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=460860&postcount=16) that Middle Earth could not be a pre-Christian or more specifically a pre-Abrahamic world. Posts on this thread have made me think more about the parallels and so I've come up with a new answer. Possibly, Arda could be Earth preNoachian Flood. Previously I stated that Earth did not go 'downhill' or become ungood until Adam and Eve sinned. Up to that point, creation was good.

But what about Lucifer?

In the first book of John (Christian Bible) Satan is said to be sinning from the beginning, and so we can see him to be like Melkor in that both were rebelling against Eru's/YHWH's will before the creation of humankind. So that fits. We could posit that somewhere in the east, before the tribes of men came to the western part of Middle Earth (Beleriand?), that there existed Adam et al. Also, I think that the Sil states that Morgoth went amongst men when the children of the sun first appeared, and maybe to one he appeared as a snake (dragon perhaps?).

The remainder of the Bible, even the New Testament, could then be considered to have taken place not in Middle Earth but elsewhere, and the revelation of Christ had not yet reach the northwestern shores by LotR. For that, though, we would have to assume that Noah's flood was either local or a retelling of the fall of Numenor.

Please note that I mean not to offend or defend, but just saw that, with a little thought, one could align the Sil and the Christian Bible. Also note that one may have to interpret some of the Bible differently, and some demoninations may interpret otherwise.

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 02:06 PM

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ;)), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything. So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!

Hmm, wouldn't this be forcing it to fit though? Although there are so many interpretations of the Bible I'm sure it would fit at least one sect or faith? Come to think of it, this whole thread has proved one thing at least that The Bible and Tolkien's work have in common - both can be turned inside out and interpreted any number of imaginable ways!

And if we do agree that LotR reflects a Norse Light, what kind of Light is that, where men are sacrificed to gods? It looks more like un-light to me

Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:

It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East)

alatar

09-11-2006, 02:26 PM

Morgoth affects the very fabric of Arda before its even created, by giving his own 'tune' to the Music (I think it might be like some of that Hard House you hear banging out of barely legal modded Novas ;)), whereas yes, Satan might be bad from the beginning, but the world is created at least before he gets a chance to go and corrupt anything.
I don't know the Bible well enough to agree or disagree. Think that one might interpret Job 38:4-7 as meaning that the angels were singing while the Earth was being created, and so to me that would put their creation prior to Earth's. And maybe someone with a Sil handy could provide the Music quotes, as from memory I thought that at least the first few bars/chords weren't in discord. Anyway, maybe the argument could be made that at first Melkor/Lucifer were not ungood, then shortly after creation and during the shaping of the world started whistling their own tunes.

So in The real World under Christian thought, the world itself is a good place, it's Satan and humans who are the 'sinners'; whereas in Arda, everything has the potential to be bad. You can see examples of this where Tolkien even describes flowers and animals which are 'evil'!
I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 02:43 PM

I see the difference and admit that some extra effort may be needed with the shoehorn. Before Adam and Eve fall, there are no thorns or fangs. On the other hand, these two are driven out of Eden, which, if the whole world were affected by mankind's sin, then what would be the point of driving them from a specific place (except to keep them from the tree of life)? Did Eden stay good and, like Melian's Girdle, exclude the thorns and fangs which already roamed elsewhere?

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.

I'm not sure why we would want to force it though; there are a fair few interesting avenues to pursue with regard to Christianity such as Grace, free will vs fate etc, and in essence the good/evil fight is in accord with a Christian morality (but not just a Christian one ;)).

Raynor

09-11-2006, 02:52 PM

As I previously quoted from the Atrabeth and Myths Transformed, Tolkien's world is actually good, unless evil is stirred [after all, Eru's secret fire burns at the heart of it].

Concerning the timing of Ea and our world, he noted this in letter #211:
I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap* in time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.

*I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years : that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.
Ah, but this Light would be, as Tolkien said to Milton Waldman:I am genuinly puzzled about what you are trying to say. [If you are reffering to the dedication of his myths to Englad, he admited this was something he attempted ("once upon a time") and amusingly asks the reader not to laugh at that - and ends by calling the whole enterprise as "absurd". But we have been through this already.]

alatar

09-11-2006, 03:01 PM

But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened. Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless. Rather than resisting the evil/sin that's become inherent in human nature, they must resist the evil/sin that's in the very fabric of the world.
Note that previously I'd stated exactly your point, as that's how it would seem. But when I'd read that, from the beginning, Satan was sinning, it made me consider this again. Now I doubt that there are answers out there, but wouldn't it seem that, if from the beginning, Satan were evil and were present in whatever form in the Garden of Evil, that, basically, one could state that evil were already in the world before Adam and Eve took their first bite of the same? It almost seems a legal technicality to be argued before a jury. ;)

Now, one might counter that evil may have existed in the universe prior to Adam/Eve's sin, and that it was their willful choice of it that brought it into the world (tangent - if there is God and Free Will, sin would exist simply because one could chose 'not God.').

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

Raynor

09-11-2006, 03:03 PM

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:
But in Christianity its the actions of the first two humans which causes evil to enter the world; if they had resisted then we must presume it would not have happened.What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.
Whereas in Arda, the peoples (peoples because I'm including Elves and Dwarves) are blameless.How blameless were the Men that succumbed to Melkor's temptations? In the begining, he offered them gifts - and Eru promised them he would take care of them, should they call on to him - I really have to quote this, its an all time favorite:
Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over youWas the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

Lalwendë

09-11-2006, 04:44 PM

Sorry for double posting, things are moving at a fast pace here:
What about the snake? Was he wholly good? And isn't evil something of a moral quality? If so, how could Adam and Eve create it? How could they possibly amend God's creation in such a fundamental way? At most, they made an evil choice, possibly the first (most likely the second, considering the snake), but that is a far cry from amending God's creation.

Was the temptation higher than they could handle - such as Frodo's temptation? In fact, they knew of Eru's power and assistance, but still fail to call on Him, they didn't mind about him - I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.

I'd like to see something that proves Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other had Men called on him. It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed, and his works go on right into the 4th age and beyond. "No-one can change the music in my despite" is what Eru says, so the fate of Arda is set out in the Music and it can't be altered; Melkor is chained in the Void until the end comes, though I've no doubt he might get a whupping at that point!

Back to Genesis...the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choice. They can say no and simply obey (or trust), but they don't. Evil was only a potential possibility (as in Pandora's Box) and it was their actions alone which released it.

Anyway, I do like, as you state, that in Tolkien's world not everything is born with stain (there's a nappy joke in there somewhere), but with the choice to embrace or resist it. That may be why a 'works' theology (as opposed to grace) is popular even outside of Middle Earth - you feel like you're doing something, whether adding negative or positive chits, but that, in your beginning, you start out with a zero balance and not in debt.

That's the way i look at the world and morality anyway ;) - that everyone must work towards doing good and doing the right thing ('moral credit at hole in the wall', as Radiohead say) and people are born good. I think in the Christian sense, the world itself is not evil, but people are born right from the beginning with the 'evil stain' and it must be fought against - Original Sin. In Tolkien's world, the world itself is evil, but people are not necessarily born that way, and they must work to avoid falling into the trap that the very world itself presents. This actually fits better with the world we see in Tolkien where we can even have evil trees, whereas the Christian view focusses on people not on flora and fauna.

littlemanpoet

09-11-2006, 06:53 PM

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood. But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.

alatar

09-12-2006, 08:00 AM

I've always considered the Atlantis/Numenor sinking to be tied up with the Noachian worldwide flood.
I'm with you there, at least part way. One may think that Plato, when speaking of Atlantis, really meant Numenor. Or that the sinking of Numenor was, as the facts became blurred over the years and retellings added to the tale, Noah's flood. Surely one can find some comparisons between the two (Noah's flood and the drowning of Numenor) to make a case for a common ancestor (as you say, if we agree to play that game).

But maybe the Noachian comes later (if you want to play this game) and may be considered the last worldwide (or major) calamity.
Agreed. You either have a local flood or a global flood that happens after the beginning of the Fourth Age (prior to that, you'd think that the Elves would have recorded such an event, should they have survived it).

You don't have to have LotR happening as late as you're suggesting for the whole thing to fit.
I think that we're agreeing here. LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

Bêthberry

09-12-2006, 08:43 AM

LotR could have happened prior to Noah's building of the Ark.

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK? Did they start hiding away from the big people even before Noah was seeking his two by twos for the trip? And were orcs wiped out in the Flood? So many points to consider! ;)

EDIT: And perhaps Noah had such difficulty trying to recognise a female dwarf that he unfortunately chose two male dwarfs?

alatar

09-12-2006, 08:58 AM

Intriguing possibilities being considered here, alatar. Would this suggest that hobbits, along with unicorns, were not brought onto the ArK?
Are there unicorns in Middle Earth? Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger. You may have part of the group becoming more adept at hiding, and so eventually become completely hidden from 'human' sight - so much so that we bulldoze over their villages and wipe them out :eek:. The other part of the group becomes more and more 'man-like,' and eventually are subsumed into the race of Man. You can see today (sit for a while at any mall) and you'll see various sizes and shapes of people, which obviously demonstrates the presence of Hobbit, orc, elf, maia and other genes in the mix. ;)

Regarding Noah's Ark, (again, if we're playing that game) is entirely possible for the nearly invisible Hobbits to have stowed aboard. Or to have missed the boat completely, which would explain their absence today.

littlemanpoet

09-12-2006, 09:40 AM

I'm quite certain that there must have been Hobbits hidden aboard the Ark. ;)

And I've seen Dwarves (not talking about midgets here, two different things); they insist that they're human, and with their beards shaven, they do resemble Dwarvish looking humans. But you and I know what they really are.... ;)

Raynor

09-12-2006, 11:09 AM

Who knew of it? Men in LotR didn't know of it, it's only in the Athrabeth, in this it's stated as a kind of tradition, not as a current 'faith', there's no hint that the Men in LotR knew of it. It's up to these Men to work out what's right and wrong for themselves; and indeed part of the 'mission' of the Istari is to guide them (but not push them) towards good choices.This is a loooooong quote from letter #156:
But in a kind of Noachian situation the small party of the Faithful in Numenor, who had refused to take pan in the rebellion (though many of them had been sacrificed in the Temple by the Sauronians) escaped in Nine Ships under the leadership of Elendil and his sons, and established a kind of diminished memory of Numenor in Exile on the coasts of Middle-earth – inheriting the hatred of Sauron, the friendship of the Elves, the knowledge of the True God, and (less happily) the yearning for longevity, and the habit of embalming and the building of splendid tombs – their only 'hallows': or almost so. But the 'hallow' of God and the Mountain had perished, and there was no real substitute. Also when the 'Kings' came to an end there was no equivalent to a 'priesthood': the two being identical in Numenorean ideas. So while God (Eru) was a datum of good Numenorean philosophy, and a prime fact in their conception of history he had at the time of the War of the Ring no worship and no hallowed place. And that kind of negative truth was characteristic of the West, and all the area under Numenorean influence: the refusal to worship any 'creature', and above all no 'dark lord' or satanic demon, Sauron, or any other, was almost as far as they got. They had (I imagine) no petitionary prayers to God ; but preserved the vestige of thanksgiving. (Those under special Elvish influence might call on the angelic powers for help in immediate peril or fear of evil enemies. ) It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard. But there would be no temple of the True God while Numenorean influence lasted.It does speak for itself, doesn't it?:)
It took Eru long enough to do something about him when the Elves sought help - and then he has simply been chained in the void, not destroyed,Then again, "the indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story" (cf letter #211), so your alternative isn't appropiate.
the serpent is not evil, the serpent simply suggests to Adam and Eve another way of doing things - the point about The Fall is surely that it is all Adam and Eve's choiceThe serpent was not evil? He "beguiled" Eve, inducing rebellion against God's words. And I think it is interesting to see his words:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.Since they are so similar to Sauron's:
Alas, for the weakness of the great! For a mighty king is Gil-galad, and wise in all lore is Master Elrond, and yet they will not aid me in my labours. Can it be that they do not desire to see other lands become as blissful as their own? But wherefore should Middle-earth remain for ever desolate and dark, whereas the Elves could make it as fair as Eressea, nay even as Valinor? And since you have not returned thither, as you might, I perceive that you love this Middle-earth, as do I. Is it not then our task to labour together for its enrichment, and for the raising of all the Elven-kindreds that wander here untaught to the height of that power and knowledge which those have who are beyond the Sea?If the serpent was not evil, how come he was punished then?
Anyway, the answer regarding the Hobbits, whether there was a Flood, or whether the flood was local or happened before the Shirefolk existed is that, I think, there's a mention that in Frodo's time some of the Hobbits began getting a little bigger.There is a quote, I can't remember the source, where Tolkien states that they will slowly diminish in numbers, getting very stressed with finding food and forgetting their lore. Rather depressing.

Bêthberry

09-12-2006, 12:40 PM

Are there unicorns in Middle Earth?

Well, seeing as they aren't fell beasts, there's less need to mention them in LotR in order to maintain the gothic aura of the story. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

Although, I am sure that some of our enterprising RPGers could well come up with an explanation which would explain their absence from the story. Could it be that the steeds of the Black Riders were unicorns who were pressed to the dark side, thereby losing their horns?

In the Prologue to LotR, we are told that hobbits developed the art of disappearing swiftly and silently to such a degree that it seems a property of magic. We aren't told that they no longer exist, just that they choose to avoid us. However, the same Prologue also says that

It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves.... but what our relationship is can no longer be discovered.

So, I suppose that this does imply the hobbits did in fact survive the flood and were, as lmp suggests, hiding on the Ark. It isn't clear that there may at some time have been miscegenation between men and hobbits.

littlemanpoet

09-14-2006, 09:50 AM

That which follows is the opinion of this poster. Anything said should be understood to be prefaced with "In my opinion..." or "I think that..." ... etc.

From the sixth paragraph of the Foreword:
"As for any inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none."

From a rather famous Letter Tolkien wrote:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little;"

Is there contradiction between the two texts? Only in part: "consciously in the revision". But Tolkien qualifies the nature of that consciousness in revision: "the religious element is absorbed into the story and symbolism". Tolkien is probably right that that this was clumsily put.

Before we try to resolve this issue, another piece must be brought to our attention: In paragraph eight of the Foreword, Tolkien says,
"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one [application] resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other [allegory] in the purposed domination of the author."

I believe that we are talking about neither allegory nor application when "opining" that there is a Christian undercurrent in LotR. We are talking about something that the author did not intend, but could not help but do. Could he be unable to keep himself from it and still be conscious of it? He was not trying to keep himself from it. 'Consciously Catholic' is not a matter of intended, or unintended, meaning, but of world view. That which Tolkien believed about reality, formed the basis, the underpinnings, on which he constructed LotR. So there is no contradiction. Tolkien has not attempted to infuse LotR with Christian meaning, nor has he inserted any allegory. Nor is Christian content in LotR merely application by the reader. Rather, the Christian reader recognizes in LotR that which s/he has come to understand as deep reality precisely because the author wrote what he understood to be reality, into LotR.

One additional comment: Tolkien's work is just as infused with the content of the North, which he loved very much. I'm glad he did.

davem

09-18-2006, 02:11 AM

Ok, so I said I wasn't coming back. However, a number of other Downer's have said they missed me (one of whom is especially close to me - we actually met through this site)

Secondly, I realise that some of my earlier posts upset some people so, I wanted to explain where I was coming from.

Without a shred of sarcasm or satire (just to prove I can do it).

I want to begin with a quote from To Translate a Hero: The Hobbit as Beowulf Retold by Jonathan A. Glenn, which Drigel kindly pointed me towards. http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/hobbeow.htm (http://faculty.uca.edu/%7Ejona/second/hobbeow.htm)

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"
I think this thread has suffered from all three of the 'flaws' Glenn has listed, but we've tended to get bogged down in the latter two especially..

Profligate paralllel hunting ('There's a 'holy' city in LotR & a 'Holy City in the Bible', 'There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in LotR', etc, etc)

The Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

Now, the latter question seems to have gone by the board. Or when I asked it my point was misunderstood. From the start of this thread I've been asking ' So what?' Now, that was taken to imply that I was saying 'This thread is pointless', & many, in no uncertain terms responded 'If you think its pointless go away & let us get on with it. But that wasn't what I was saying at all.

In any analysis of a literary work, that 'So what' question must be asked when comparisons are made. What I was asking was 'So what are you getting at, what are you trying to prove?' The closest I got was 'We're not trying to prove anything at all, just making comparisons.' This is where I took a wrong turn, & I admit it.

In response to this statement I attempted to show the pointlessness of making comparisons for comparison's sake. Let's take a series of statements:

1) There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in the Bible

2) There's a 'Holy' city in LotR & a Holy City in the Bible

3) Aragorn was a king born in obscurity who coming was prophesied

4) Aragorn had arms, legs & a beard, so did Jesus

5) LotR was printed on paper in ink, so was the Bible

6) Both are long books

7) Tolkien wore trousers & so did Bilbo

Now, what can we say about all those statements - before we start judging whether some are 'serious' & some are facetious or insulting? We can say they are all true[. All those statements are literally, factually, completely true. No speculation involved. The next stage is to ask are any of them relevant to the discussion we're having? And the problem there is, until we're clear as to the point of the discussion we cannot say whether any or all of them are relevant or not. If the thread is just about making general comparisons I don't see hoow any of the above statements can be found offensive. The fact that some were found offensive implies that there is more going on.

Now, this is not simply a matter of saying 'Welll, some of the statements are 'serious' & some are 'silly' because ''serious' & 'silly' are value judgements based on what posters consider to be the point of the thread.

Now, I want to share with you two negative rep comments I recieved in regard to my post where I responded to the 'tree in LotR & tree in the Bible' (where I said 'of course Tolkien couldn't have come across a tree anywhere else but the Bible, could he?) & introduced my potential thread 'Lord of the Trousers.

Please don't post private comments. ~Mister Underhill
Now, the first was unsigned, the second wasn't, but that's not the point (not is the fact that I actually recieved more positive rep for my posts on this thread than for any other I've been on (7 or 8 lots).

So why am I giving you these? Because I think it gives us a clue to the problem. Let's say this thread was about Tolkien & Shakespeare. If someone started such a thread, saying there's a forest in A Midsummer Night's Dream & a forest in LotR, & there's a Wizard in The Tempest & a Wizard in LotR, etc, etc one would feel obliged to ask 'Yes, so what?' (ie not 'This thread is very silly, I don't see the point of it', but 'So what point are you trying to make? Are you trying to show that Tolkien had read Shakespeare? Are you trying to show that Shakespeare influenced Tolkien? Are you trying to show that Shakespeare was the first & best writer to deal with those things & that we should all forget Tolkien & move on to the Bard? ie 'Ok, so you've found all those comparisons, so what?

Now, in the case of that thread, if I had come along in my usual obnoxiuous way & said 'Well, certainly Tolkien couldn't have come across wizards & forests anywhere else, could he? Its not like there's any wizards or forests in literature other than Shakespeare, there are no forests in England that could have inspired Tolkien, are there?' No-one would have taken that as an attack on the source (ie on Shakespeare), because it clearly is not - it is an 'attack' on the way the source is being used (or misused in fact).

So why is it that my post, which drew such criticism (the first poster so insensed by it that they even forgot their own name) when I posted it in reference to such points being made in regards to the Bible?

Who knows? But one can speculate. What I noticed at Oxonmoot this year was that out of about eight different talks only one was actually about M-e. The others were either biographical (dealing with Sarehole & the places Tolkien would have known as a child, & another about the TCBS & his schooldays) or interpretations of his work from a Christian pov.

Now the latter ones were most interesting to me, because this is something I've noticed as being a bit of a current trend. There are a lot of books, essays & discussion forumsd out there which are focussing on this very thing - Tolkien the Christian writer - everything from 'Finding God in LotR' to 'The Gospel according to Tolkien'. Dozens upon dozens of the things, & in this case there is a very specific agenda.

This agenda is evangelism. The books make the most tenuous links between the contents of LotR & the Bible & play them up to ''prove' that LotR is little less than a Christian allegory. The White Tree of Gondor is the 'inspiration' for a whole chapter of quotes & interpretation of the Tree of Good & Evil in Genesis, mention of Aragorn leads in to a whole chapter on Jesus. Now, the interesting thing for me in books like this is that they do not mention any other possible influences - especially not Pagan ones. The Pagan/folklore connections & inspirations are deliberately ignored in the desire to 'prove' LotR is not only a 'Christian' work but nothing but a Christian work. The interesting thing about this approach is that while there are direct & clear comparisons to be made between Northern myth & events in LotR ( the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum & Surtr crossing Bifrost, etc) the approach of the writers of these Christian books & essays is 'this is a battle between good & evil (followed by a series of Biblical quotes & analysis on every conflict between good & evil mentioned). Now, the difference between these books & the (far fewer) ones that explore the Pagan inspirations is that the writers of the 'Pagan' ones do a lot of research & can provide specific examples of Norse or Saxon influences on Tolkien's work, rather than the general Christian ones in those books.

An interesting book in this context is Greg Wright's Tolkien in Perspective. What Wright does is to divide Tolkien's M-e writings into 'wheat' & 'chaff'. The 'wheat' is any of Tolkien's writings in which he can find Biblical analogies (he has a soft spot for the Athrabeth) & the Chaff is anything else. In other words, as far as he is concerned, if you can't relate it directly to the Bible its worthless. He sees Tolkien's work as a means to an end - show his readers that the stuff they like in LotR is the same stuff they'll find in the Bible & by that means get them to move on from Tolkien to the 'real thing'.

Now, we all have a tendency to make statements which don't actually reveal our agenda, or complete our thoughts - earlier LMP stated

....which I find interesting (and have for a while) that perhaps there is more reality to Ragnarok from the perspective of the gods who, in Christian teaching, would be denizens of the enemy; knowing themselves to be condemned, they do the best then can and are true to themselves out of a kind of self-respect/pride of heart. Just a notion.(post 315)
Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record'

Raynor has fought manfully against the idea of Gandalf being inspired by Odin because, well, he find's Odin's behaviour on the borderline between obnoxious & downright evil - which he, of course, has every right to do, but while that tells us a lot about Raynor it doesn't tell us very much about either Gandalf as a character or about the way Tolkien understood him or what inspired him. Its equivalent to me denying that the area around Moseley Bog inspired Tolkien because I went there & fell in & so have very bad memories of the place. Clearly Tolkien did not think of Odin as 'evil' - he loved Norse myth all his life (& actually spent more time lecturing on Norse myth than he did on Anglo-Saxon.

BTW in my dim & distant past I knew a few Odinists, sincere, decent people. They would have been grossly ooffended & deeply hurt by comments like the above. Its not only Christians who can be hurt by thoughtless comments.

So, there you have it. A sarcasm free post. An Apologia. A devastating comeback. A boring self-indulgent piece of self justificatory nonsense from someone who won't just go away & leave everybody alone...

Hookbill the Goomba

09-18-2006, 02:52 AM

1) There's a special tree in LotR & a special tree in the Bible

There are actually two. There is the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis) and there is the Tree of Life (Revelation).

4) Aragorn had ... a beard, so did Jesus

The Bible doesn’t actually say if he did or not. For all we know, he was bald and clean shaven... Hmmm...

6) Both are long books

That depends on how good you are at reading. :p

Yes, I agree, you can make endless and sometimes obscure observations about similarities between The Lord of the Rings and The Bible. I come, once again to the first post of this thread that suggested that Tolkien stole things from the Bible, which I do not agree with. Perhaps themes and truths inspired him and he put the ones closest to him in his book, and he admits that a writer cannot be wholly unaffected by his experiences. He does admit in the interview I mentioned earlier that God is in The Lord of the Rings and it's history ("The One" obviously). But still, (I really have no idea where I'm going with this) I do agree that some of the more obscure comparisons (Believe it or not, I actually heard someone once say that, because Bilbo sounded a little like Bible that that was strong grounds to say it was a Christian book :confused: ) do not offer any help in understanding the full intensions of a writer.

Of course, the length of a book is always an interesting thing. I've noticed (thought it is not always true and there are some notable exceptions) that longer books seem to draw more interpretations because there is so much material to work with. The Bible is a book of history, poetry, prophesy and all that, and people have studied it for years, always finding new interpretations, new ways of looking at verses and so on. The Lord of the Rings is (or, at least, will eventually be, perhaps) heading in a similar direction. Many will look at passages and phrases and draw different conclusions (possibly due to the fact that we're all different... strange that, ;) ) and some will think of new ways of looking at things all the time. Thank goodness for the Downs!

So, what I'm basically saying is... erm... Maybe.

davem

09-18-2006, 03:06 AM

There are actually two. There is the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis) and there is the Tree of Life (Revelation).

And there are Two Trees in Norse myth - Ask & Embla (Ash & Elm) from which the gods create men & women...

The Bible doesn’t actually say if he did or not. For all we know, he was bald and clean shaven... Hmmm...

He is called 'Rabbi' which inplies long hair & beard....

I don't think Tolkien used his 'sources' consciously either. The point of my 'many trees' argument is that Tolkien would have been exposed to so many trees (both real & fictional) that to pick one out of all of them & imply it was a 'specially' significant source misunderstands the way his mind works. He took in a massive amount of material & it all came out as he wrote. Trees are just very strange & awe-inspiring things. Lalwende & I visited the Botanical Gardens in Oxford last week & stood beneath Tolkien's Tree - the gigantic Pinas Nigra. It is simply awe-full. Something so huge & alive is inspiring in & of itself - whether you have any mythical/religious knowledge at all.

If we pick out Biblical or mythological paralllels to anything in Tolkien it seems to me we have a purpose for emphasising those parallels as opposed to others. All along, as I said, I've been asking 'So what?' What is the point of this thread - or rather 'What is the point you're trying to make - where are you trying to take me. If facetious parallels are not to be made, then its because people want to focus on 'serious' parallels. Hence, they are trying to go somewhere with this. I'd just like to see the map so I know where I'm likely to end up..

Hookbill the Goomba

09-18-2006, 03:16 AM

He is called 'Rabbi' which inplies long hair & beard....

I know. I was just splitting hairs. But who knows? He broke a lot of other traditions, why not that? :p Not that it matters, he probably never had time to shave anyway...

I think when all's said and done, Tolkien wanted to write a story for people to enjoy. As he said in his forward. The deeper meanings are not what are important. This is The Barrow Downs, a Tolkien appreciation site, so I'd say we all here enjoyed reading the books. And that's what counts. *Queue cheesy music and fade out*

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

09-18-2006, 03:42 AM

And there are Two Trees in Norse myth - Ask & Embla (Ash & Elm) from which the gods create men & women...

In point of fact, Ask and Embla are the names of the first man and woman, so called because they were made from driftwood: pieces of ash and elm respectively. There are also two trees in Alexander's letter to Aristotle, which was a popular text in the Anglo-Saxon period both in Latin and in the English translation. In fact the trees of Sun and Moon seem a more likely direct source for Laurelin and Telperion, although it's possible that the trees in the dubiously ascribed letter were directly based on the two trees of Genesis: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I was trying to find a decent Old English text of Alexander's letter online, but all I can find is a graphotactic version (http://faculty.washington.edu/stevickr/graphotactics/a_letter.html) that's very difficult to read. I'll try to add some quotations when I've had a chance to consult my own copy of the letter.

davem

09-18-2006, 03:54 AM

As a point of fact, Ask and Embla are the names of the first man and woman, so called because they were made from driftwood: pieces of ash and elm respectively. There are also two trees in Alexander's letter to Aristotle, which was a popular text in the Anglo-Saxon period both in Latin and in the English translation. In fact the trees of Sun and Moon seem a more likely direct source for Laurelin and Telperion, although it's possible that the trees in the dubiously ascribed letter were directly based on the two trees of Genesis: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Accepted - though the pieces of driftwood must have come from trees (I take my permission for pedantry here from Hookbill ;) ). I think we are dealing here with 'Archetypes'. Similar themes recur throughout myth, legend, folklore & many religious texts. We are not dealing with specific manifestations of the Archetypes - whether in myth or religion, but with the primal Archetypes. I don't see the Biblical trees as the Archetypes, but as manifestations of them. One can argue over the 'true' nature & origin of the Archetypes, but, according to Jung that 'origin' cannot ever be known.

The point is that the Trees in M-e are living trees, born from seedlings, mature, grow old & die. They are not mythological symbols - though they may have 'mythological' antecedents. Tolkien dies not just 'lift' things. Every tree Tolkien encountered is the source for the Two Trees.

narfforc

09-18-2006, 04:43 AM

Maybe I am missing the point here, but going back to original reason for this post, if Tolkien was such a religious man, why would he steal things from what is said to be the word of God, surely this would be sacrilege and he would be condemned by his own religious community. To my mind the easier route to writing a book would be through his other love in life Norse mythology, if things are similar along the way, that is because most religions are. You cannot put your hand on your heart and swear: This is what Tolkien was thinking of when he wrote that. Tolkien could have had a multitude of things on his mind when he was writing. The question was did Tolkien steal from the bible, I say no, because he wouldn't, if the question had been: are there similarities between the bible and LotR I say yes, but there are also with many things. People will say :Ah but Tolkien was a Catholic, so he is using that when writing a book, however he was also born in South African, this doesn't mean that there is some form of aparthied in the book, and we would all be outraged if some group came forward with the weakest of links and claimed Tolkien a neo nazi, which he clearly was not.

davem

09-18-2006, 06:50 AM

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired. the whole Tom & Goldberry/Barrow Downs 'world' for instance. If Tolkien was writing a Christian novel much of it would not be there - in other words there is, from Wright's perspective too much 'chaff' among the wheat, & that 'chaff' is in there intentionally.

Reading LotR in the light of the Bible leads one to force interpretations on it - Raynor's statement:

I have little if any doubt Eru would have kicked Melkor from one end of Ea to the other, should he have been supplicated. But no, Men failed and fell - in the end, to the glory of Eru.

cannot, as Lalwende pointed out, be supported by any textual reference in Tolkien's writings. It is a 'Biblical' reading. One may be able to claim that if Men had supplicated themselves to God He would have kicked Satan out - perfectly in line with Biblical statements. What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.

This is where the whole approach of drawing analogies falls down & requires us to ask 'So what' so often in these kinds of threads. Assumptions cannot be made & stated as facts, posters must state clearly what point they are making, why they are making it, & when they are expressing personal opinions & when they are stating facts (& preferably give quotes).

LotR is what it is. Much has gone into the 'soup' which Tolkien ladled out, but also much has been attributed to it & many of those attributions cannot be supported. A thread which is simply about noticing similarities between two works will produce both serious & ridiculous examples (& in my opinion so it should - if only to get posters to answer that 'So what' question).

We have very limited 'evidence' of what inspired Tolkien & in what way it inspired him. This makes me think of earlier statements made about 'Pagan' attitudes. These statements were based, it seemed to me, on the surviving literature. Now, in the case of Anglo-Saxon literature we have very little - a few poems, homilies, riddles & Chronicles. The idea that we can make a valid judgement on the ordinary Anglo-Saxon's attitudes & world-view on such scanty evidence (as if for centuries they just recited the same verses over & over & over every single night) is not all that sensible. If all we had from the Elizabethan/Jacobean period was Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, a handful of Dowland songs & the Authorised version of the Bible we'd have a very different view of the people who lived then. To conclude that they were a bunch of depressives who spent a lot of time in church would maybe be 'supported' by such 'evidence' but it would be far from the reality.

This search for 'specific' sources is dangerous - especially when those doing the searching have already decided what they want to find, already determined what is 'chaff' & what is 'wheat'.

Lalwendë

09-18-2006, 07:19 AM

An interesting book in this context is Greg Wright's Tolkien in Perspective. What Wright does is to divide Tolkien's M-e writings into 'wheat' & 'chaff'. The 'wheat' is any of Tolkien's writings in which he can find Biblical analogies (he has a soft spot for the Athrabeth) & the Chaff is anything else. In other words, as far as he is concerned, if you can't relate it directly to the Bible its worthless. He sees Tolkien's work as a means to an end - show his readers that the stuff they like in LotR is the same stuff they'll find in the Bible & by that means get them to move on from Tolkien to the 'real thing'.

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling. Fine, if people wish to read texts in this way, and fine if they wish to draw analogies, but not fine if they wish to then build on this and effectively tell other readers that they are wrong, and furthermore, to even dare to tell Tolkien himself that he was wrong. It's a very peculiar form of criticism to dare to tell the author that they were 'sinning' with what they wrote. He says there is too much 'long defeat'. I have to question if such readings simply stem from some form of 'guilt' - guilt that they shouldn't really be enjoying this kind of work, this fantasy literature. What they read engages them as much as anyone else but then the little intellectual/theological pixie that sits on their shoulder intrudes and tells them what was wrong with it. Why can they not simply close the book if it disturbs their worldview so much? I also question if they can really be counted as amongst us, the fans, if they cannot accept such all-encompassing ideas as the 'long defeat'.

davem

09-18-2006, 07:39 AM

He says there is too much 'long defeat'. I have to question if such readings simply stem from some form of 'guilt' - guilt that they shouldn't really be enjoying this kind of work, this fantasy literature. .

Wright is a 'fan' of Tolkien - but feels that LotR is not sufficiently 'Christian' - he'd have the Athrabeth added as an Appendix. Wright gives a very clear answer to 'So what' questions about his approach. LotR must (& is only valid if) provide a way to evangelise non-Christian readers & introduce them to the Bible. I don't mind this very much - at least he is honest.

Lest this be taken as another attack by me on Christianity I have to make it clear that I would be just as critical of Odinists, humanists, (or even my beloved Pink Elephantists) attemppting to use the book merely as a means to convert people without telling them that was their intent.

narfforc

09-18-2006, 08:07 AM

In Tree and Leaf Tolkien states the following: So with regard to fairy stories, I feel that it is more interesting, and also in its way more difficult, to consider what they are, what they have become for us, and what values the long alchemic processes of time have produced in them. In Dasent's words I would say:'We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled. Though oddly enough, Dasent by 'the soup' meant a mishmash of bogus pre-history founded on the early surmises of Comparative Philology; and by 'desire to see the bones' he meant a demand to see the workings and the proof that led to these theories. By 'the soup' I mean the story as it is served up by its author or teller, and by 'the bones' its sources or material - even when (by rare luck) those can be with certainty discovered. But I do not, of course, forbid criticism of the soup as soup.

We cannot with certainty discover the sources or material from where LotR comes from, and the story is what it is, one of Faery. Tolkien sees Story as a big pot of soup into which from time to time things savoury and unsavoury are added and things taken out, LotR rings is such a thing, a great ladle full of soup. If when tasting my soup I find something I don't like I lay it aside and carry on with the remainder. The soup of tales has become extremely mixed, and if a soup has vegetables and meat in, then it cannot be wholly called either, this is how I see LotR, and I have a suspicion that is what Tolkien wanted.

Child of the 7th Age

09-18-2006, 09:29 AM

Narfforc - Well said!

Now a general plea for complexity addressed to no one in particular....

Why does this scenario have to be "either"/"or"? Tolkien is the last author whom I would accuse of seeing things from only one perspective. That is my concern about a discussion like this. The richness of what Tolkien actually wrote sometimes gets flattened out in the process. There is so much depth and diversity within Tolkien: everything from Norse myth, Christian symbolism, and Arthurian legend to H. Rider Haggard, William Morris, and the rural traditions of Appalachia. Clyde Kilby's term "contrasistency" certainly has meaning. It's impossible to pin Tolien down! This is an author who one minute states that it is best to keep religion out of a subcreated world, and the next minute says that the book is Christian in its revision. Neither statement can be denied, though we may argue endlessly about how much weight to give to each. If we push a one-sided interpretation on the Legendarium in terms of either "Christian" or "non-Christian/pagan", we lessen the complexity of middle-earth .

While I am suspcious of any interpretation that's narrowly focused, I still find it intriguing that so many people approach Tolkien from so many different angles. Why not just accept such studies (or the statements on this thread) for what they are?: an honest expression of what particular people felt when they approached the Legendarium, given their personal background and view of the world. And if a few such people are foolhardy enough to claim they have found the "only way" of reading the Legendarium, we can smile wisely and put that down to the follies of human nature.

Davem -- I'm somewhat familiar with Greg Wright. He's essentially the most "extreme" proponent of the Christian viewpoint from among those writers who've written a "mainline" book--a popular title geared to a particular audience. It would be possible to point to many other Christian critics with a more moderate stance--Clyde Kilby, Jared Lobdell, Joseph Pearce, even Ralph Wood. (I will not bother considering the truly lunatic voices you can find scattered over the internet representing every shade of religious and political opinion.) Still, Wright is one among a large group of "Christian" critics.

From the mid sixties on, I've had a bad habit of reading Tolkien studies, academic and otherwise. I've read a ton of stuff from different perspectives: some trying to push the author into a single mold; others offering hints and connections to a particular viewpoint without claiming to be the one and only Way. I've read about Tolkien the Christian, Tolkien the Anarchist, Tolkien the Anti-Industrialist, Tolkien the Theosophist, Tolkien the Environmentalist, even Tolkien the unwitting spokesman for Jewish and Buddhist thought. Wright and other Christians are not unique in taking a single-minded approach.

Wright is an ordained minister who does judge the worth of Tolkien's writings almost solely in terms of whether or not they agree with his own Christian viewpoint. Wright makes no pretense of speaking for all Christians. He spends a chunk of his book arguing against the ideas of others who are also Christians, particularly the Catholic critic Joseph Pearce. Rather ironically, Wright's central point is very close to the one Davem has made: that other Christian/Catholic writers have gone overboard in viewing the Legendarium as a "Christian document". His stance and yours, Davem, may actually be closer than you think :eek: :

the powerful relevance of Middle-earth is not found in a distinctinctly Christian world view but a deliberately pre-Christian world view.

It's likely neither you or I would be comfortable with the term "pre-Christian" used but what's interesting here is that a Christian world view is denied. Wright would never call LotR a "Christian book". In that he is different from others on this thread who have eloquently argued that is how they personally see LotR. What all this suggest is that it is very difficult to generalize "Christian versus non-Christian". There is too much variety within both sides of that equation. We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.

davem

09-18-2006, 10:24 AM

We are all sitting at a very large table with countless other readers, each with a uniqe perspective, taking part in an endless discussion. Once anyone starts making judgments about who belongs at that table (i.e. who qualifies as a "fan"), we risk losing the richness of that interchange. My impulse is to err on the side of inclusion.

As is mine. I actually (positively) repped Mark 1230 for an early post on here because she had clearly put a lot of effort into it. My own feeling (right or wrong) is that some posters on here have been using the thread as an excuse for having a Biblical discussion - which is not the point of this thread or this board. As I said, any comparison made, any analogy pointed up, will have a reason behind it.

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.

The very fact that there are so many other analogies which can be drawn, from other myths, legends, fairy stories, historical events & characters, means that no amount of 'proof' offered by Christians, Pagans, Jews, Buddhists, Humanists or anyone else will sway many readers. And yet, it is possible that a particular interpretation of any work can become the 'accepted' one. There is clearly a 'movement' at the moment which seeks to claim Tolkien's work as 'Christian', yet all of the authors & essayists see the Legendarium mainly as a means to an end (that 'end' being conversion). The Art is put in service of the 'Church': LotR is used to get people to read the Bible by repeatedly making these analogies. To me this treats the Art with disrespect, because a work of great Art deserves more than to be treated as one of those 'clever', slightly whimsical signs one sees outside Churches.

If you think about it, it is a very 'materialist', utilitarian, approach to Art. For Wright, Tolkien's work only has value to the extent that it can be used to evangelise. Other than that it is worthless - even dangerous - if it distracts people from reading the Bible. Now that is not to imply that LotR is equal to, or better than the Bible - it is merely to say that it deserves better, being the work of a man's lifetime, than to be treated as a 'Primer' for Bible studies.

narfforc

09-18-2006, 10:47 AM

Just to add to what LMP says earlier, this is what Tolkien has to say. In the introduction of my 1979 Pearl by Tolkien and the 1970 copy of Pearl by E.V. Gordon appeared these exact same words:

A clear distinction between 'allegory' and 'symbolism' may be difficult to maintain, but it is proper, or at least useful, to limit allegory to narrative, to an account (however short) of events; and symbolism to the use of visible signs or things to represent other things or ideas. Pearls were a symbol of purity that especially appealed to the imagination of the Middle Ages (and notably of the fourteenth century); but this does not make a person who wears pearls, or even one who is called Pearl, or Margaret into a allegorical figure. To be an 'allegory' a poem must as a whole, and with fair consistency, describe in other terms some event or process: its entire narrative and all its significant details should cohere and work together to this end.

Tolkien states on more than one occasion that LotR is not an allegory. Aragorn or Gandalf are the sum total of all of Tolkiens vast knowledge of myth, legends and religion, both concious and unconcious, they are nothing of one origin only.

davem

09-18-2006, 11:01 AM

Tolkien states on more than one occasion that LotR is not an allegory. Aragorn or Gandalf are the sum total of all of Tolkiens vast knowledge of myth, legends and religion, both concious and unconcious, they are nothing of one origin only.

It seems that many people accept (because Tolkien stated it so plainly) that LotR is not an allegory. They then immediately set out out to make it into one, all the time denying that that's what they're doing. They struggle to make it into what they actually want it to be. Of course, PJ did the same thing in his own way - he wanted LotR to be an action adventure story & made it into just that.

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?

In a way the 'So what?' question comes back to haunt us. Even if one could prove that LotR was one thing & not any other thing one would still have to ask that question. Let's say it was proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that LotR was a 'Christian' work (whatever that means in practice), what would or should be done with it then? Should it be read from the pulpit? Taught in Sunday Schools? Only sold in Christian bookshops? In practical terms what would you actually have achieved?

To me it isn't, & never will be, a 'Christian' book - partly because I'm not sure what a 'Christian book' is, partly because I don't see how an inanimate object can become a 'Christian'. It is a book written by a Christian, but to go back to an earlier point, a shopping list written by a Christian is not a 'Christian' shopping list. It doesn't promote any uniquely Christian beliefs, but is, as Tolkien said 'fundamentally' (ie 'generally', 'more or less' - which is the way English people use the word 'fundamentally' btw) a Catholic work: ie its not an 'un-Catholic' work.

LotR, fortunately or unfortunately, is a 'blank slate' as far as 'inner meaning' goes - as Tolkien stated in the Foreword to LotR it has no 'inner meaning'. Any 'i.m.' you find there is one you've brought with you.

The Saucepan Man

09-18-2006, 05:47 PM

Welcome back davem. And do I detect a faint trace of humility …? :p

I think we all understand your position by now. I certainly do, and I agree with you up to a point. It has always been my own position that people should not seek to claim their own individual (and unique) understanding of LotR as the “correct and true” meaning of the book and so superior to the understanding of others. I have made that position clear on this thread, and I seem to remember arguing with you at length over the point on a certain other thread which shall remain nameless. Still, nice to see that all that effort paid off …;)

So, your position having been made clear to one and all, I cannot for the life of me understand why you continue to restate it over and over again at length.

You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”

It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.

Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).

But, really, what does it matter?

You raise the possibility of discussion of biblical parallels becoming an excuse for bible study, or even evangelicising. Well, I think that you will have to trust the forum moderators to step in if that happens.

You question whether such discussion should be classified as “serious” discussion and assert that the question of whether a particular discussion is “serious” or not is a subjective one. Perhaps. But ultimately, here, the question of whether a discussion is appropriate to the forum is one for the moderators. If you disagree with their assessment, well, tough.

Finally, I must say that I feel uncomfortable with your references to the rep system. Reps are a means by which members can register their approval (or disapproval) of what another member has posted. They are a private matter between the rep-giver and the recipient and should not really be reproduced by the recipient without the giver’s permission. Moreover, it is the right of someone giving a rep (whether positive or negative) to do so anonymously should they choose, and you should not seek to make capital from the fact that some may have chosen to exercise that right. Also, I am not clear why you feel the need to keep referring to the positive reps that you have received on this thread. Suffice it to say that, if you think that it makes your case any the stronger, then you are sadly mistaken. It is entirely meaningless on its own (for example, I myself positively repped you early on in the thread, before things went awry, thus preventing me from negatively repping you later on, when I felt inclined to do so :p ). But, in any event, the rep system is not about "who's got the best argument", and it’s inappropriate to try to use it in that way (if that is what you are seeking to do).

So let’s keep rep out of the discussion from now on, shall we?

littlemanpoet

09-18-2006, 08:28 PM

In spite of such multiple treatment, however, studies of these issues are with few exceptions flawed in three dangerous ways: by the general critical sin of Sloppy Statements, by a tendency to simple-minded and profligate Parallel-Hunting, and by the Voilà Syndrome, whereby the critic impressively points to something but fails to ask that first of all critical questions, "So what?"

I agree that this thread has suffered from all three flaws.

Now, what is LMP's point in stating that Christians think of the Norse gods in this way - what is he saying here?

1)This is what Christians think (& as far as I'm concerned they're right)?

2)This is what Christians think (aren't they silly?)

3) This is what Christians think (..... .......) - ie 'I'm just stating it for the record' The answer to your question was in the post itself: "just a notion". During the time that the particular post in question was written, this thread had moved away from an antagonistic bent (not in itself a bad thing, merely meaning two sides debating opposing sides of an issue), and conversations were occurring instead of debates. That post should be read in that light.

The major problem with reading LotR as a 'Christian' work is that so much of it is clearly not in any way Biblically inspired.This is by no means clear. I will present evidence as time allows. .... by tasting directly of the soup, by the way. ;)

What one should not do is make similar claims for events & characters in LotR, without supporting evidence, because Tolkien wrote the story he wrote & set it up in the way he did, with its own rules & narrative structure.I agree; but take note of the words I've bolded.

I find this kind of reading deeply troubling.I agree. It is a foolish analysis and I think this Greg Wright, if presented accurately, doesn't know what he's talking about or doing. He doesn't understand Tolkien at all, if what is told here of his work is accurate (which I don't doubt, just playing it safe).

davem, Mr. Wright may be saying "evangelize", but he means "proselytize". I realize there doesn't seem to be much difference, but there is sufficient difference to be careful with terms. "Evangelium" is a word found in Tolkien's "On Faerie Stories", as many of us well know, by which he means "good news", which is of course its original intent. "Proselytizing" is of course the effort of trying to persuade someone else to one's own faith; not in itself wrong, although no doubt offensive to some in this age of toleration of all faiths (except for the act of proselytizing?).

Of course, a Christian will read LotR from a Christian perspective, a Pagan from a Pagan perspective, a humanist from a humanist perspective, & a pink elephantist from a pink elephantist perspective. The more important point though, is that even if LotR was a deliberate Christian allegory a Pagan will likely not pick up on that, or actually ignore it in favour of their own interpretation. Hence LotR (whatever Tolkien intended) is only a Christian book if the reader reads it in that way.Are we moving back into the canonicity debate here? The book is what the author wrote it to be, and the reader's mind interprets the story in whatevery way the reader's mind will; it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

I wonder why some people are so desperate to prove LotR is a Christian work. Does it have to be Christian for it to matter to them? Would it matter less if it could be shown not to be?Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

On Uniqueness:

It is necessary, for the sake of fairness, to dispense with the double standard such that only that which is uniquely Christian is acceptable whilst all that is required of Nordic, pagan, and other sources, is evidence that the particular fits the accepted description of the source in question. We must apply one standard to both sides of the argument. If we insist that in every case only that which uniquely belongs to a given possible source, will be accepted, we will quickly run aground, realizing that the standard is frankly impossible; not a faith system or mythic source in the world can hold up to such a standard. Therefore, the only legitimate standard is as follows:

Does that which is found in the text adequately fit the description of the possible source?

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

to be continued....

davem

09-19-2006, 01:31 AM

You ask, in response to the biblical (and other) parallels that have been drawn: “So what?”

It seems to me that an appropriate response might be: “Simply because”.

Why, on a Tolkien-based forum such as this, should those who see particular parallels in LotR not share and discuss them with others who are interested in hearing of and discussing them? There does not have to be a reason sufficient to satisfy you (or Jonathan Glenn) for them to do so. Perhaps they feel that it will enhance their own understanding of the book. Perhaps it is simply for the pleasure of sharing their own understanding and learning of others’ experiences (although that doesn't mean that they all have to agree).

Well, it depends whether this is a 'serious' debate or not. If this thread is a serious analysis of possible Biblical influences on Tolkien's work then 'so what' questions have to be asked. One can draw parallels till the cows come home, all true, most more or less relevant, some just silly. Of course, Christians will want to compare their thoughts about LotR & good for them. But

This is an open debate, on a public forum, about Tolkien. And that's when everyone has to be careful. If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.

Now as to the 'rep' thing. You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second. There was a point to giving them.

Point. Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.

I will add, though, that while I also have found some posters' comments on various threads here over the years 'offensive', I have never given out any negative rep to anyone & never will. As far as those comments go they should have been posted on the thread, because the question of 'disrespect' could have been cleared up that much sooner.

Who said anything about desperation? It seems to me, davem, that you're the one characterizing Christians in this way. I'm not desperate about it at all. I'm eager to share what I've discovered. And if you want a "so what" answer to that, it goes like this: understanding something I didn't before is its own pleasure; beyond that, I gain wisdom. Life becomes richer. That's what I'm eager for.

Ok, not 'desperation' then. I appreciate you are 'eager' to share your Christian understanding of Tolkien's work. But I'm not sure you've shown it is a Christian work in & of itself, so what you're actually sharing is your faith, & I'm sure you could share with me your Christian understanding of everything from LotR to light bulbs, but I'm not sure that, while it would tell me a lot about Christianity, it would tell me much about the book or the bulbs.

n the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Well, it may be in the passive tense, but one also has to say that its a bit flowery (or poetically expressed if you will) & I don't think it can be used to support the kind of metaphysical speculations you're making. But let's say Tolkien is referring to Eru's direct intervention there (though I note that in the original version of TH Bilbo's hand did not need to be 'stayed'. Bilbo's hand only needed to be 'stayed' once Tolkien had revised the story - & I note that it has been argued that this revision was part of the 'consciously so' Christianisation of the story. Which would mean that while it was a 'pagan' story pity may have been absent, but it wasn't necessary. When it became a 'Christian story' Bilbo has to be stopped from murdering Gollum. ....I'll leave that one there)

Even if we accept that this 'pity' has an external origin in Eru. I don't see that, while a parallel may be drawn between Eru & God that it is necessary to know about, or believe in the latter to understand the former or to appreciate the moment or its implications.

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

it does not therefore follow that the reader's mind somehow magically turns the book into something other than what the author intended, regardless if it sits in one reader's hands or another.

No it doesn't - but we're talking about the angle a reader comes from. As a Christian you will read LotR & find it full of Christian themes & images. I don't, because I'm not a Christian. We could both look at the same sunset & percieve it in diferent ways, because you see the Christian God behind everything, his hand in everything, & I don't. Its a bit like the old joke about the vicar walking down the road & stopping at a particularly beautiful garden. The householder is leaning on the gate & the vicar says 'Well, what a beatiful garden you have. Isn't it amazing what God & man can do together?' To which the man replies, 'I don't know about that - you should have seen the state of it when he had it on his own...'

The Saucepan Man

09-19-2006, 02:37 AM

If you introduce a subject onto a public forum (cast your pearls before swine as t'were) you have to be prepared to have your points challenged. You also have to be very careful to distinguish between what Tolkien said, believed & intended & what you yourself believe & intend. If you say 'This reminds me of 'x', that's fine. If you say 'Tolkien intended ''x'', or 'This is Tolkien's inspiration for "y"' Then I'm going to ask you for quotes & references. So, its not a ''free for all" here Statements about Tolkien himself must be factual - & I think you'll find those are the only statements I've challenged. If I repeat myself on this thread I'm sorry but my feeling is tha claims made about Tolkien & his work have to be supportable - we can interpret the work in any way we choose, but we can't just make up things about the man himself.As I said, I understand your point here and agree with it, so no arguments from me on any of this. I'm just not sure that it needs to be continually restated. There is no problem with challenging statements made by others. That is a normal and healthy part of Downs discourse. It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

Both were criticising me for being 'disrespectful' about the Bible - & I'd picked up that that feeling was prevalent among some members. I then made the point that if I had said the same things in a Tolkien & Shakespeare thread no-one would have taken my comments as being 'disrespectful' to Shakespeare, but as an 'attack' on the way Shakespeare was being used.As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

You'll notice that while I gave the text of the rep comments & pointed out the first was unsigned I didn't give the name of the person who gave out the second.It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

davem

09-19-2006, 03:11 AM

This is straying off topic, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree. For the record though....

It only becomes a problem when the challenge is made in an abrasive or disrespectful manner.

As far as the moderating team is concerned, the earlier problems arose not because you were being disrespectful about the Bible, but because you were being disrespectful of other posters and their opinions and beliefs. That is not acceptable on this forum, whether you are discussing biblical parallels, Shakespearian parallels or whatever.

But I wasn't 'attacking' any individual or their beliefs. I was responding to the points they made. There is a difference between attacking an individual, or being 'disrespectful' of their views & beliefs, & attacking statements. I don't see that I was anymore 'disrespectful' of posters on this thread than I was of say, Philip Pullman or Michael Moorcock in another recent thread. I can see, however, that it could have been taken that way. So, I accept, as I said, that I took a wrong approach.

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly. This is one reason why I never give out negative rep - because I think it is usually taken as an attack on the poster rather than on the post.

Finally, I can only say that if anyone is inclined to attack or abuse my beliefs they are free to do so - except that would be difficult for them, because I keep them to myself.....

It makes no difference. The point is, they were private communications from other members to you and should not have been repeated openly without permission.

I didn't give any names, therefore no-one knows who said what. In the first case I couldn't have asked permission anyway. As far as I'm concerned they were part of the debate which should have been posted on the board.

Private 'attacks' are no better, or respectful, than public ones.

This is a question of etiquette, I suppose, & it all comes down to what one feels is acceptable & what one thinks is a step too far. I remember reading Jung's works. He would give detailed accounts of cases, but never give the patient's names, so they could not be identified. Further, neither of the comments gave any personal information about the person who sent them, they merely expressed an opinion about my behaviour - so in effect they were about me, not about the poster. The communication, on the point of reciept, became 'mine' to do with as I would.

In conclusion, I can only say that if one is ashamed or embarrassed about something one says being made public, one should think very carefully before one says it in private.

But we should get back to the topic, I suppose. I'll be happy to continue this by PM, as it is a rather philosophical debate - & in this case I will promise not to reveal anything you say....;)

mark12_30

09-19-2006, 04:24 AM

Point being, there is never a point in the Legendarium where Tolkien refers us elsewhere (to the Bible, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala,) for an 'explanation' of something in the story. He explains who every character, from Eru down, is. There is no need to draw on external sources to be able to understand what's going oin in the story. Eru behaves in a loving, compassionate way, he is all knowing & all powerful & so is God (if you're a believer) but Eru is perfectly understandable as a character without reference to, or knowledge of, God. God may intervene to stay one's hand, Eru intervenes to stay Bilbo's hand. That does'nt make them the same being. A reader of LotR who knew absolutely nothing of the Bible would not find themselves flummoxed by anything in the Legendarium.

This can be reversed. A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

narfforc

09-19-2006, 05:28 AM

That can also be reversed mark12_30, there are those who can see the bible and those who see paganism, what of those who see neither, those who see this as just a book, so now we have three view points. If Tolkien was alive today which of these view points would he be most likely to favour?. As I said in my last post #389, Tolkien states LotR is not an allegory, he dislikes allegory. The rules he himself sets down are written in his lifetime, and are published for all the world to read. So if LotR is not an allegory it is something else, it is neither wholly Christian nor wholly Pagan, it is a amalgam. Where the problem occurs is when one of either side of Christian/Pagan lobby claims a statement/symbol in the book as one of their own, this cannot and should not be done. Take pity for instance, it is arrogant to claim it only exists in one religion, that only one religion is fighting the good fight, or has understanding of it. When Tolkien states something in LotR, none know what he actually intended or was thinking at that time. I do not mind events in LotR being compared with events elswhere, in other books religious or fictional, I myself see similarity between the meetings of Elwe/Melian or Beren/Luthien and that of the meeting Alveric/Lirazel (The King of Elflands Daughter by Dunsany), yet I would not say Tolkien stole this from him, for this did not belong to Dunsany in the first place, the theme was old when he wrote it. Like I say the problem occurs when people claim things as their own, not everyone believes in religion and it doesn't make their viewpoint wrong, and just because you are devout in someway it doesn't make you right, it just makes you think you are, and I cannot say you are not.

I think the posts on this thread have become sometimes a battle of who is right or wrong, instead of examining the evidence, which has on some occasions been pretty thin. Maybe if posters used sentances like: In my view this may be compared to, instead of The Balrog is Satan, so that the other side could answer with: Yes maybe, and it is also, in my view comparable with Surt, then more of us would be happier bunnies.

alatar

09-19-2006, 08:44 AM

You have to understand that my approach to debate is to (in my own mind) 'depersonalise' it & just respond to the statement itself. As a statement it is either correct or incorrect, logical or illogical, sensible or silly.
Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. :eek: You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Anyway...

Clouds. If you sit out on a green lawn and look out up at those white puffy cumulus clouds, and you let you imagination run a bit, you can see all types of faces, animals, shapes, etc, limited only by what's in your brain. The information that you have, from reading books, looking at pictures, your life experiences, all provide you with images into which to fit the random cloud shapes. If you've been reading LotR, you might see various Middle Earth imagery; if Disney, then 'the Mouse' may appear. Regardless, the shape of the clouds are the same and you choose, from the set within your head, the image that best matches. At that point you say, "See that one...that looks like Gollum's head." Your friend, sitting beside you and never having read nor saw anything Tolkien, can only respond with, "Huh? You mean the one that looks like Mickey?"

A very obvious point, but to make it anyway, is it any mystery why some see certain things in Tolkien's works while others do not? Plus, when we pattern-match the clouds, our brains are using 'fuzzy fitting,' meaning that the shape that looks like Galadriel really doesn't look just like the elf queen, but, say, 20% of the shape does and our brain fudges the rest. The cloud and image fit closely enough for our brain to engage our mouth so that we can tell the world of our obvious observation.

Tolkien was well-read (I assume) and also, like us all, had a unique life experience, and lived through some times that thankfully we won't see. All of those events put images into his head, and so when he wrote, looking at the white paper like a cloud, surely some of those images, fudged a bit, came back out. Some of the images may even have been Christian.

Hope that that makes some sense.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen... :eek:

davem

09-19-2006, 10:02 AM

A reader who knows nothing about the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, will also be able to understand LOTR as it is. Are we then to believe that the Eddas, Beowulf, the Mabinogion, and the Kalevala had no effect or affect on LOTR, that there are no parallels, that the works were not part of the 'compost' out of which the legendarium grew, and that they should not be discussed here on the Downs?

They all had an effect. But what effect did they have, & how did they work on Tolkien's imagination? There is some of Odin in Gandalf, some of Gwydion, some of Vainamoinen, some of Merlin, perhaps some of Jesus even. One could go very deeply into the way Tolkien's mind worked. He himself stated that he could not study fairy stories as he constantly approached them as a source of raw material.

The question is, did Tolkien 'steal' from the Bible - ie, did he take any figure or event straight from the Bible or not. Clearly he did not. He wrote the story as it came to him & images & ideas arose.

Now, the next question is whether such analysis & parallel hunting tells us anything. Does it tell us anything about M-e itself? About what went into it, perhaps, but that way lies a real danger, one that Tolkien himself pointed up - 'Breaking a thing to find out what it is made of'. Yet we know that Tolkien had read all the works you list above, the Bible, & many more. We know they influenced his thinking. Its not telling us anything we don't already know. 'There's an 'x' in LotR & an 'x' in the Bible' is a process that can go on for months, beginning with 'There is a Creator God in both' down to 'There is a lot of letter 'e's' in both'. The interesting thing, to my mind, is not to look at the raw materials he used, but at what he did with them.

Let's say the Bible was his chief influence - how & why did he produce something like LotR - on the surface of it a work a million miles away from the Bible?

Just a thought: Let's say you observed my children and had some 'advice' for me, as they were acting slightly less than angelic. You want me to hear what you have to say, but as it's concerning my kids, you know that, though I may want to be depersonalizedly objective and open (and may even whole-heartedly agree with your observation), you're still going to engage that part of me that's emotional, whether I like it or not. A person's faith/beliefs may be like that. Surely you know this.

Well, yes, I do know it, but.... Let me clarify my position as regards faith & religion. I would defend anyone's freedom of belief & their right to worship. That is an essential human right. On condition they do not harm anyone else - or attempt to prevent anyone else practicing their own belief. However, I do not respect 'belief' itself, or any particular religion. People believe all kinds of odd things - they always have & always will. I actually like the fact that folk believe all kinds of wierd things - it makes for an interesting world. I will go down fighting for your right to believe in & worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Ceridwen, Odin, cosmic pink elephants or who or whatever you want, but at the same time as I'm taking a bullet for your right to believe & worship as you will I'll also quite probably be thinking that what you believe is a bit silly.

P.S. I too would argue that reps should not be posted without permission, as I would then have to continually be fretting that I wasn't writing 'good enough for primetime' reptext, which would then shorten the text (maybe that's not a bad thing) or leave it unsigned, just in case...but then if it were considered the best reptext ever on the Downs, then no one would ever know that it was from my pen...

But if you weren't named then it would hardly matter. Again, my position is that if one has a gripe with another poster one should come out with it publicly. Its too easy to play Mr or Ms Sweetness & Light in the public forum & then stick the boot in in private & demand no-one must be told about it. My reps (all good, btw) usually come with the comment 'Good one ....davem' & that's it. Don't give bad rep comments & there won't be any need to worry about them being posted - anonymously or otherwise.....

Mister Underhill

09-19-2006, 11:12 AM

davem, what's up, man? If anyone here seems "desperate" to prove anything, or convinced that his view is the one true way, or determined to silence any view other than his own, it's you.

Since you don't seem to respond well to friendly suggestions from moderators and seem to prefer to handle these matters publicly anyway, let me lay it on the line for you:

1. Publishing privately made comments and private PMs without permission has long been a no-no here on the Downs. In the past when people have seen fit to take private comments and publish them on the Downs, we've often deleted them, as I have now done with the ones you published.

2. As SPM mentioned waaaay back upthread, discussion is not serious or relevant or appropriate only when davem deems it to be so. The moderators of the forum make those calls.

We are not extremely rigid about this; members are free to question a topic or to alert the moderators to a thread or a post or a member who has stepped over the line. But when we make a call -- such as that the "Lord of the Bible?" thread is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion -- we expect members to respect that call, and not to continually challenge it or attempt to shout down or intimidate other members or otherwise hijack the thread.

I would think that the fact that Tolkien himself was willing to entertain the idea of drawing parallels between his work and his religion would be enough to justify the validity of the topic. In the past we've had threads that discussed WWI parallels, WWII parallels, parallels with ancient myth and fairy tale, and yes, biblical/religious parallels.

You don't think this activity reveals anything valuable or worthwhile for you. Okay, we get it. If that's all you have to say, stop saying it and let others who do find it valuable or even just interesting do it. If you can't see how disruptive your posts have been in the latter part of this thread, I can't help you, I can only urge you to find a topic that you do find more valuable and spend your energy there instead.

3. Respect forum policies and mod decisions and requests. In this case, I'm going to request that you do something that's going to be very difficult for you: resist the temptation to respond to this post line by line, justifying why you think you're right and explaining again why you think this topic isn't serious enough to meet your standards. If you (or anyone) have questions on our moderating policies or any of the calls we've made here, please feel free to PM me for further clarification.

davem

09-19-2006, 12:34 PM

I will step aside from this thread, as my reappearance on the Downs has been welcomed by many here & I don't want to deprive them of my wisdom & insights on Tolkieniana :p Its difficult to avoid repetition when the points one has already challenged are themselves repeated, but there I will leave it.

It seems to me that the question that started all this has been answered already with a resounding No! Where it can go from here I have no idea, but I will let others do as they will with it.

narfforc

09-19-2006, 01:09 PM

Mansun

09-19-2006, 01:26 PM

An argument is very rarely Won, what tends to happen is that both sides go their seperate ways still believing what did from the start. It is not always won by the person who utters the last words, nor shouts down his opponent, and is never won when one side is independently silenced. The problem is that this thread turned into an argument and not a discussion, and that is usually the case when religion is involved. It is probably the best thing Davem to step away and not concede defeat, knowing that this discussion will continue in circles.

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

narfforc

09-19-2006, 01:34 PM

I agree with many of your points Mansun, and the thread for the most part has been a success, I just haven't enjoyed reading some of the repetitive arguments.

Lalwendë

09-19-2006, 01:37 PM

The original question to the thread was a rhetorical one - the answer was always going to be a no. But out of it has come a greater appreciation of the LOTR & the Bible, & acknowledgement of the fact that there is great similarity between the two texts, suggesting that Tolkein gained many of his fundamental themes/ideas through inspiration from the Bible. Gandalf isn't Christ, but he is Christ-like. Saruman isn't Judas, but he is just as bad a traitor. The far green country isn't heaven, but it is the undying lands where the High Elves dwell in peace.

Um, well I'm just one of a few yet to be convinced by anything. The most interesting notion was that of having a 'holy city' of some description in Middle-earth, and even with that there's absolutely no evidence in the text that Tolkien intended it, it's just an interesting literary motif to be pursued.

And on that note....

Exhibit #1: Pity stayed Bilbo

In the Prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring, section four, paragraph seven, we read,
"...Bilbo was tempted to slay [Gollum] with his sword. But pity stayed him...."
First, this is precisely the same way it is presented in the revised "The Hobbit, Riddles in the Dark". Note the passive tense. It does not say 'Bilbo took pity on him', but 'pity stayed him'. Pity is thus something acting upon Bilbo rather than he doing the pitying. What is this pity? Does it have a source? If not, we are left with an unanswerable conundrum, or else not the best writing (passive tense instead of active). If this pity does have a source, what is it? Or are we dealing with a 'who'?
The question is too early to answer yet; we don't have enough information, and must read further to see if any answers are forthcoming.

Interesting point. I know that Pity is one of the Christian virtues, and in fact is pretty central to any genuine Christian (now aint the place to pursue what a non-genuine Christian is in this respect ;)) but I would also have to point out that its in no way exclusive. Pity is one of the attributes setting us out as distinctly human (and is naturally linked to another basic emotion - disgust). Pity is something also displayed to a great degree by non-Christians, e.g. Oxfam is a secular charity doing work to help people less fortunate. Amnesty International also works to lobby for more 'pity' even for people who have broken the law and done 'wrong'.

Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.

Raynor

09-19-2006, 02:02 PM

My congrats to Mansun too, I think he phrased his idea very well.
Saying 'Pity stayed him' actually to me seems more like the basic human instinct of pity coming to the fore, whereas 'took pity on him' suggests the conscious mind taking over, e.g. deciding to exercise the pity you are required to show as part of your religion.I think it is interesting to show Gandalf's comments too:
Pity? It was Pity that stayed [Bilbo's] hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

To adress the second part of Lal's statement:
To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

I would also compare Tolkien's words:
Of course, he did not mean to say that one must be merciful, for it may prove useful later – it would not then be mercy or pity, which are only truly present when contrary to prudence. Not ours to plan ! But we are assured that we must be ourselves extravagantly generous, if we are to hope for the extravagant generosity which the slightest easing of, or escape from, the consequences of our own follies and errors represents. And that mercy does sometimes occur in this life.to the Bible:
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Lalwendë

09-19-2006, 04:27 PM

Now, it is interesting to note the capitalisation of Pity and Mercy - the ones who will bring about the saving grace in the end - also, the fact that Pity is rewarded, which, again, implies divine action.

I have to add here that many Important Things are capitalised. In the UK the terms Government and Minister are capitalised too, but this does not imply divine action. The common Christian use of capitalisation too is to reserve it for naming or referring to God, and occasionally to Jesus and Mary, e.g. in His name, the lord our God, the Almighty, our Lady etc. so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues. It all depends if you would use capitalisation or not; as matter of fact, I sometimes might myself, when discussing as a concept. Note that Tolkien also capitalises Ring, East and West.

Blake also uses a capitalised Pity in The Divine Image (where he also links virtues like Pity directly to humanity and says that it is in our fellow humanity that we find God - something that also comes through in Tolkien's work to me - Frodo instinctively recoils from hurting Gollum, unlike Aragorn and Gandalf who treat him inhumanely, resorting to baser instincts - it is Frodo's innocence and recognition of himself in Gollum which I think stays his hand), but he like Tolkien also goes on to capitalise in an individualistic fashion, see Auguries of Innocence for some highly random capitalisation of simple things which he found important to emphasise, as Tolkien also did.

So, in the light of this, unless we consider Frodo to be mad, we are left with the spiritual explanation of his action.

Again, only if you read that into it. Pity at times which might seem foolish can include any number of instances which have little to do with faith, and a whole lot to do with simple humanity, e.g. the many stories of soldiers in war not killing someone from the opposing army when they could, something which Tolkien would have been well aware of. Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.

Pity is a common theme throughout culture, e.g. a hero not killing a creature who at a later stage will prove to return and save them. And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?

littlemanpoet

09-19-2006, 07:26 PM

.... I'll just make an observation.

It's really quite comical how this is going once you boil down the arguments:

"There is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are aspects of Christianity all over LotR."

"I could just as well argue that there are aspects of Norse myth all over LotR."

"If so, why can't we also say that there are aspects of Christianity in LotR?"

"I insist, though, that LotR is not a Christian book."

"And I insist, that you can't say there is nothing Christian in LotR."

"And I insist that there is nothing uniquely Christian in LotR."

"On the contrary, there are........"

We're arguing past ourselves. I don't think any Christian appreciator of LotR here at the Downs is saying that LotR is strictly Christian. That would be stupid.

Nor is any non-Christian saying that there is NO Christian element in LotR.

I think that we can all agree that there is no EXCLUSIVELY Christian aspect in LotR, just as there is no EXCLUSIVELY Norse mythic, Baghavad Gita'ish, etc., aspect to LotR.

My exhibits (properly numbered of course) will continue to show aspects; we will see what the text itself reveals. ... later.... :)

narfforc

09-20-2006, 01:47 AM

Well said LMP, it is exactly what I have been trying to say, LotR is not an allegory, it is an amalgm, now can we please stop the merry-go-round (carousel) I want to get off.

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 03:39 AM

lmp - you've just boiled down the many lost hours of internet time for me, because basically you could say that about any discussion on the Downs, or indeed on any forum about any topic! Someone says something, someone else argues a different case. You've scared me now, I'm thinking I should be doing something useful instead! Hey ho. :)

I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian! But even any one single aspect can be interpreted any number of ways. One thing that a lot of us agree on is that there are multiple influences and interpretations. That's one of the reasons why Tolkien's work is so loved by so many diverse people.

As I've said before, feel free to say what you like on here, even if its a bit mad, I'll happily discuss and argue with anything that anyone sticks on, but we should all think twice before posting if we don't want someone to challenge us on what we say. Hmmm, maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit but is there anyone out there who does seriously expect to be able to post statements, assumptions, opinions without having them challenged? Isn't challenge and discussion what its all about?

Keep 'em coming if you like, 'cause I enjoy examining these points. None of us will learn anything otherwise. :)

mark12_30

09-20-2006, 04:44 AM

Lal, you baffle me.

My last serious post on this thread was (A) in answer to two specific questions and (B) provided extensive detail for those answers. My answer to Sharon was geared entirely towards (my grasp of) Sharon's worldview and how it would contrast between Tolkien's pre-incarnation worldview. Hence the extensive comparison/contrast between the OT worldview and the NT pre-incarnation worldview, explaining the difference in terms I hoped would resonate with Sharon and provide the contrast I thought she was looking for.

However, instead of responding to the difference between the two worldviews, or questioning my presentation of the information and processing it, and challenging the provided aspects of (New Testament, Christian) pre-incarnation hope and post-incarnation hope versus the Old Testament (Hebrew) aspects of hope-- challenging the information given on its own merit-- I was simply accused of proseletyzing, and otherwise the discussion ignored everything I had said in the post. I can hardly refrain from adding, that except for the comment about sheep and goats which was intended for humor, I did not claim "This is what I believe, and it is clearly true and all else is false." (Some others on this thread have, with impunity.) I simply presented my arguments regarding hope in context of the Christian worldview, supported by the texts, as thoroughly as I could.

Before it was over, I was rebuked for my textual support, and Sharon was rebuked for her question. I find this extremely unfortunate, since I thought Sharon had asked one of the most challenging questions on this thread so far.

Level of detail has been a point of contention on this thread. The repeated accusation is that those arguing in favor of Christian/ biblical influences offer only guesses and no proof. How are we suupposed to offer any proof for our points when as soon as we offer concrete textual support of our points we are accused of proseletyzing?

If my discussion had been about the Norse worldview and I had discussed the Eddas, providing textual quotes and summaries of ideas and worldviews, would anyone have complained?

I hope you'll pardon my skepticism, but in light of your reaction to my detailed answer to Sharon's question, I find your statement "Keep 'em coming if you like" a bit hard to trust. What are you looking for?

An afterthought, directed toward those who hold an 'anti-biblical-influence' stance or a neutral stance: -- what is it that you would like to see? Textual support? Summaries of overarching principles? One-liner, unsupported opinions? If I'm going to put real time and energy into this thread (as yet undecided) I'd like some indication.

mark12_30

09-20-2006, 05:07 AM

Sharon-- please allow me to cast the worldview argument in an entirely different light, that of eucatastrophe.

Tolkien's view (stated in On Fairy Stories, Ballantine paperback p.88, 89; and also in Letters 89, page 100-101) was that the incarnation was the eucatastrophe of Man's history (for the pre-incarnation world, or the BC era) and the resurrection was the eucatastrophe of the story of the incarnation.

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?

By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

Does that make sense?

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.

The Saucepan Man

09-20-2006, 06:28 AM

Helen, I rather hoped that I had already addressed this point:

There is a fine line between stating Biblical text (or any other religious source) to justify a particular point (for example, in the context of this thread, a personally drawn Biblical parallel) and "sermonising" to others involved in the debate. The latter can come across as aggressive and cause offence, which is why I expressed my hope earlier in this thread that those who might be inclined to indulge in it would refrain from doing so.

Mark12_30 was answering a specific question that had been raised and was at pains to point out in her original post that she had no intention of causing offence. Nevertheless, and particularly in threads like this, a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is required (on all "sides" of the debate). This may not be a matter of changing the content of what you want to say, but considering the manner in which you express it. Generally, personal beliefs should be expressed as just that - personal beliefs - rather than as assumed realities.

I hope that clarifies the position and would ask that all involved in this discussion bear these points in mind, since continued Mod and Admin intervention is both disruptive of the ongoing debate and time-consuming for the Mods/Admins involved.As I recall, there was no criticism of Sharon for raising the question. Nor was there any issue about whether it was a proper question to raise and discuss. My own view was that your initial response erred on the side of pure biblical discussion, as opposed to discussion of possible biblical influence on Tolkien's works, but I had no issue with your edited post.

If people make clear (whether by words, tone, content or whatever) that a particular point is either a personal opinion/reaction/interpretation or that it involves speculation as to Tolkien's intent/approach (in which case, it would be sensible to provide supporting material), then I would hope that this thread can stay on track.

I trust such optimism is not misplaced.

littlemanpoet

09-20-2006, 08:57 AM

Actually, Helen, I'm not sure I agree with all your points (below)

A eucatastrophe assumes a catastrophe-- does it not?I think it would be more accurate to say that a eucatastrophe assumes the potential and seeming inevitability of a catastrophe, or worse, a dis-catastrophe (another word Tolkien coined on the same page as 'eucatastrophe').

By definition, using Tolkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct?Yes. Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe.No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection. That would reduce eucatastrophe to allegory. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.Not by definition perhaps, but it is readily apparent through his narrative description that much of the time Middle Earth is in a state of catastrophe; but much of the time it is not.

Why should [Tolkien] present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.This is esepecially the case since those who are in the middle of the struggle are not even hoping for a eucatastrophe (Aragorn: "We shall have to do without hope"). They are struggling through because it's the right thing to do, even at the expense of their lives.

Further edit: I think the Norse worldview plays into this, rather than opposes it. I'd be happy to discuss that thought further-- but RL calls.
I agree. There is a mixture of 'mere' sense of duty as opposed to pushing forward because one hopes for the best. It seems to me that these two aspects are characterized by Frodo (duty) and Sam (hope). I hope I'm not oversimplifying, but Frodo is the one who most often speaks words of despair whilst Sam speaks words of hope.

Child of the 7th Age

09-20-2006, 08:59 AM

Helen -

We are reading this differently. I did not feel earlier that I was being rebuked by anyone for the question I raised.

Now on to the second post.....

First, regarding my "take" on Tolkien's world view. My words on Satan's domination were poorly chosen. On catastrophe and eucatastophe, I would agree that, as a Catholic and the outside author, Tolkien sometimes viewed things in the way that you are describing. However, even here there were differences. It's difficult to see the small, stubborn optomism of the Shire as part of a world totally engulfed in catastrophe. Does your equation allow for this?

In certain other respects, however, I feel the author paints with an even blacker brush than you are seeing. His world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.

alatar

09-20-2006, 09:56 AM

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.
Interesting that you see it that way. I would say that Middle Earth/Arda is less bleak than the Christian world. In Arda I assume that I would not be born to evil, but could choose to follow that road, or not. In the Christian view I'm born already on the wrong road.

I may have asked this before, but in the Christian creation view, when is Lucifer and the other angels who follow him cast from heaven? My assumption, having not being able to find anything definitive, is that this takes place before Day 6 of Creation; before Man, but that could be completely wrong. I guess that as the Snake does not appear until after Eve that Satan could have been cast out after the creation of Adam/Eve. Any help?

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

Bêthberry

09-20-2006, 10:33 AM

My point here is that if Lucifer rebels pre-Creation or during Creation, then it may be closer to Arda than thought. And think that I may have included the Biblical verse previously where it states that Satan was sinning from the beginning.

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan (http://www.richmondreview.co.uk/books/origin.html)

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us but that as Christianity developed in the first century he was literally demonised to be the enemy within. Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 10:55 AM

I just don't want to see long posts filled with personal, subjective interpretations of religious texts. We all already know just how many interpretations there are to the Bible, that's why there are so many religions based on it, and the danger of such posts is that other readers take this as Word. Just as I like to see a proper quote made of anything from Tolkien's work, I also like to see a proper quote made of Biblical text. Perhaps what's at the root of this thread is the struggle between objectivity and subjectivity.

Anyway, back to business.

By definition, using TOlkien's worldview as illustrated by his definition of the incarnation and resurrection as eucatastrophes, LOTR (and most of the legendarium) takes place in a pre-incarnation time period. Correct? Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. So by Tolkien's definition, the LOTR world is in a catastrophic state.

Why should he present such a world-- that is in need of a eucatastrophe-- in a hopeful light? The eucatastrophe IS the hope. Those present in that world are hoping for a eucatastrophe-- but by definition of an eucatastrophe, to those waiting for the eucatastrophe, until it arrives, all hope seems lost.

To begin with this would depend on whether you see Middle-earth as 'our' world or not. To me its clearly a secondary world because its simply a work of fiction (watch as hands are held up in horror and Downers are shaken out of their reverie!) and we know the world was not created in that way. There's no pre-incarnation and no post-incarnation as Jesus never did, never will and never would enter Arda, though he indeed came to Earth. I think that Tolkien sought out this kind of separation between a fictional and the Real world by a. not writing an allegory and b. trying to keep all mentions of religion absent.

Secondly it depends how we interpret what Tolkien says in the Athrabeth about any kind of Messiah. And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.

Finally, I'm not sure how someone could hope for a eucatastrophe as the word itself means something wholly unexpected (so while I might hope to win the lottery, any eucatastrophe I experienced would be something unimaginable happening to me). A eucatastrophe can surely only be seen in retrospect. And to follow on from that, to me, one of the most Christian ideals in the text is that all these incredibly powerful people, Kings, Wizards, Stewards, have only two little Hobbits in whom to place all their hopes, the most humble of people. That's one of those incredible moments where Christianity and Humanism come close. It must have been difficult for such powerful people to feel they could place their trust in two insignificant Hobbits (and indeed, only some of them do manage to do so), but that's the only little hope that they've got, and its a very humbling idea.

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us but that as Christianity developed in the first century he was literally demonised to be the enemy within. Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.

As far as I understand it, the Satan of early Judaism was indeed simply God's assistant who would work under God's direction to test people. At some point the Satan of Zoroastrianism was incorporated into Judaism and also taken over into Christianity.

One other notable difference between Satan and Melkor is that Satan is cast out for his rebellion and he walks the earth trying to tempt people from God's will. Melkor however, is allowed to sing his discordant tune, allowed to taint not only the vision of Arda but the real thing, which Eru goes ahead and creates even though he knows what Melkor has done, and furthermore he is allowed to freely enter Arda and wreak havoc for some time before he is eventually chained in the void. So Earthly evil is Satan's doing, but the Earth itself is not evil, whereas in Arda there is no Melkor to tempt anyone, but the fabric of the world itself is evil.

alatar

09-20-2006, 11:00 AM

Hmm. It all depends on which 'Satan' one ascribes to. The Satan we know in popular culture is inherited from Milton. (And we ought to recall that Milton's Paradise Lost is/was on the Vatican list of proscribed books for its doctrinal irregularities, so we cannot automatically assume that Tolkien ascribed to a Miltonic Satan.) One very interesting, very different view of Satan is Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan (http://www.richmondreview.co.uk/books/origin.html)
Agree. Think that many think that Milton's work is in the Bible, word for word. Read Pagel's book, and it's interesting to see the 'evolution' of Satan.

Melkor is not simply an antagonist of the Children of Illuvatar, but one whose desire to sub-create challenges Eru's status as The One. In fact, perhaps it can be said that Melkor's rebellion arises from the original treatment of him as the enemy within who is demonised.
Did Melkor want to be like his father (assuming Eru is male) like Aule, but, from pride, not want to accept any criticism and so decided to become a 'spoiler,' not trying to add but to simply ruin the works and joy of others? Not big on the series, but isn't there a take in one the Anne Rice's (?) vampire books that describes things from the devil's side, where he takes the side of humans over God's plan, somewhat like Prometheus? In that version Satan rebels for the 'good' of mankind. Melkor cannot be confused with that version though, as by the time man arrives in Arda he's already well into his blackness.

Child of the 7th Age

09-20-2006, 11:03 AM

Her thesis is that in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the satan was merely an adversary of humans, doing God's will to challenge or test us

I concur. As someone who has more familiarity with the older Hebrew texts than the Christian Bible, I can tell you that this is how Satan is still presented within the Jewish tradition. In the rabbinic tradition, there is far less emphasis on Satan as an external force and more emphasis on the struggle within the human soul between the yetzer hara, the so-called "evil inclination," and yetzer hatov, the "good inclination."

But neither of these entities in the soul are totally evil or good.... That would take a lengthy explanation which would not be directly relevent to this thread.

alatar

09-20-2006, 11:07 AM

That's one of those incredible moments where Christianity and Humanism come close. It must have been difficult for such powerful people to feel they could place their trust in two insignificant Hobbits (and indeed, only some of them do manage to do so), but that's the only little hope that they've got, and its a very humbling idea.
Cool insight. That, to me, is almost Christian as it's not by might or by a person's works (not including Frodo and Sam) that salvation is achieved, but by faith/grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 11:18 AM

Cool insight. That, to me, is almost Christian as it's not by might or by a person's works (not including Frodo and Sam) that salvation is achieved, but by faith/grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The way I see it is that those outside Mordor must have 'faith' in Frodo and Sam, no matter how hopeless or impossible their mission seems, but those inside Mordor, namely Frodo and Sam simply need 'courage'. In some ways Sam is the biggest hero of them all because its his courage that keeps them both going. It cuts both ways - salvation is found both through hope and through human courage.

I like that though - don't put all your faith in the great leaders, the Aragorns and Gandalfs and Faramirs (the PMs and presidents), put it in the least likely people, the Frodos and Sams (the ordinary ones plodding on just like us). ;)

Raynor

09-20-2006, 12:20 PM

so Tolkien capitalising the words in no way implies exclusively Christian virtues.Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.
Whether that urge comes from God is entirely a personal thing, but with or without God, humans do that kind of thing all the time.All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.
And it is possibly an even stronger theme in Buddhism (and Confucianism), but who is going to say that Tolkien was giving us a Buddhist message here?Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.
Therefore it is pre-eucatastrophe. No. Such a reading assumes a one-to-one correlation between, on the one hand, eucatastrophe, and on the other, incarnation and resurrection.
I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:
The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.
And to follow on from that, while we're all flinging ideas around from said text, it must be remembered that Tolkien himself felt distinctly uncomfortable with the text as he felt it was almost a parody of Christianity, something he did not want.Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:
But this surely is not parody, nor even parallel, but the extension - if only represented as vision, hope, or prophecy - of the 'theology' of Arda into specifically, and of course centrally, Christian belief An extension; not parody, not allegory.

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 01:43 PM

Did I [or for that matter, all those who more or less argue on this side of the fence] ever claimed the we can find exclusively Christian virtues in LotR? I am sorry, but your argument is a strawman. More to the point, I think you misunderstood me; I wasn't trying, in that particular post, to prove that this is Christian pity, but that it is a religious feeling, not a "merely" human one.

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian. And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.

All the time?? I _really_ doubt that. It is really hard to see pity when it is required, let alone when it is safe; to do pity nowadays when it would present a mortal danger represents something very rare, almost unique. More to the point, I would argue that Frodo's pity wasn't singular, he did spare Gollum's life at just one moment - but throughout it all.

I agree Frodo's pity wasn't just one instance but a generalised feeling towards Gollum. But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of it (we just give the beggar a quid and walk on, help the old lady pick up her dropped shopping bags and continue on our way to work, have a direct debit each month to Amnesty International etc. etc.)

Now that we are at it, I am really curious to see what redempting value is given to pity in Norse myths.

Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.

I disagre; in the letters, Tolkien noted that:
Originally Posted by Letter #297
The Fall of Man is in the past and off stage; the Redemption of Man in the far future.
So, to a point, this does indicate that LotR is at a time that is pre-eucatastrophic, as mark (Helen, if I may) pointed.

Yet we have to acknowledge that Tolkien doesn't have The Fall Of Man. Men do not Fall, the world is Fallen before Men even get there. There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge. Melkor is the cause and root of evil, not Men. There is no original sin to be saved from.

Chris, in his comments, while he does admit that this presents a challenge to Tolkien's desire to present the religious truth only implicitly, also goes on to say that:
An extension; not parody, not allegory

Christopher's thoughts, not his father's, which were as I stated distinctly uncomfortable with the implied parody of Christianity.

Raynor

09-20-2006, 02:16 PM

Pinpointing an instance of particular behaviour and then analysing it to say that this marks a parallel with a point in the bible or a tenet of Christian faith is unavoidably 'claiming' it as Christian.Well, this is quite a general statement; someone who is actually a non- or anti-Christian (whatever that means) could write something more or less similar. To claim that it is something Christian, knowing the background/intentions of the writer, it is quite a stretch.
And pity isn't a religious feeling, its a cognitive process.Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.
But I don't agree that pity is lacking in our world, in fact its alive and well, but most of us don't expect anything for it nor make a show of itI didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.
Don't know, but Tolkien's inspiration isn't either/either Christian or Norse, it's a lot of things, not least English fairy and folktale, which is filled with instances of pity, usually a lesson where a hero stays his hand filled with pity for the injured wolf (or other scary creature), and later on finds said creature rescues him or turns out to be a princess etc.Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.
Christopher's thoughts, not his father's Yes, I stated so at the begining of my sentence; I do believe they represent a rather valid idea.
There is no garden of Eden, no serpent, no tree of knowledge. Well, there is Valinor and Melkor tempting people with reasoning and gifts. As far as the Fall is concerned, it is attested in the Letters (#131 deals at large with it) and hinted at in the Silmarillion:
But it was said afterwards among the Eldar that when Men awoke in Hildorien at the rising of the Sun the spies of Morgoth were watchful, and tidings were soon brought to him; and this seemed to him so great a matter that secretly under shadow he himself departed from Angband, and went forth into Middle-earth, leaving to Sauron the command of the War. Of his dealings with Men the Eldar indeed knew nothing, at that time, and learnt but little afterwards; but that a darkness lay upon the hearts of Men (as the shadow of the Kinslaying and the Doom of Mandos lay upon the Noldor) they perceived clearly even in the people of the Elf-friends whom they first knew.

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 02:43 PM

Although I agree this is a bit off-topic, could you please expand on that idea? As far as my understanding of Christianity goes, pity is to be given regardless what reasoning says, and out from the heart.

Well I mean quite literally that pity is something innately human, it is one of our instincts (and I suppose you could say it comes from the heart, as its usually felt without a conscious decision). Assigning it to come from God (any God) is ultimately neither here nor there as we feel it anyway. The only difference is that a genuine Christian should consciously think about showing Pity.

I didn't say it was lacking (completely); rather that the level we encounter is a far cry from Frodo's.

I don't know. People can be capable of tremendous feelings of Pity which can go on for a long time. I should feel just angry towards the bloke who crashed into my car a few years ago, but I actually feel pity for him as he now has no face and I was fully able to accept him not going to prison as I felt he would be suffering enough, even though I had the chance to challenge that judgement. Other people show vastly more compassion than I do!

Then I am curious in what folklore does pity save the world? And to keep on the Norse line, since you made a powerful argument concerning possible parallels, what sort of moral values does it promote? I would generally have the same questions about other belief systems in which you could find genuine/signifcant parallels.

Well a reading of a selection of folklore and fairy tales will soon give you plenty of instances. The Princess and the Frog for one shows a girl who shows pity to a little ugly frog who turns out to be a prince. Beauty and the Beast shows how a girl's turning to pity results in yet another happy ending. I'm not sure why the moral values promoted by a culture or a belief system would be relevant though as Tolkien's stories weren't putting forward a moral message?

Raynor

09-20-2006, 03:05 PM

The Princess and the Frog for one shows a girl who shows pity to a little ugly frog who turns out to be a prince. Beauty and the Beast shows how a girl's turning to pity results in yet another happy ending.The problem with these is that not them answers my question - regarding acts of pity that save the world.
Other people show vastly more compassion than I doThat could be so; I can't argue against. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on how common Frodo's pity is in real life.
I'm not sure why the moral values promoted by a culture or a belief system would be relevant though as Tolkien's stories weren't putting forward a moral message? Well, the height of the story is the eucatastrophe; according to Tolkien, the greatest fairy-story produces the "essential emotion: Christian joy". Elsewhere, he notes that the religious truth should not be put out explicitly. Subcreation, which is the apex of an author's development, according to him, is also but a reflection of Truth. At least for him, the myth-maker, his work carried a potentially cathartic power, in the religious sense.

Lalwendë

09-20-2006, 03:18 PM

The problem with these is that not them answers my question - regarding acts of pity that save the world..

Yet essentially they all serve the same purpose. Christ shows us that having pity for others is the right thing to do; fairytales tell us the same thing by simple cause and effect.

Well, the height of the story is the eucatastrophe; according to Tolkien, the greatest fairy-story produces the "essential emotion: Christian joy". Elsewhere, he notes that the religious truth should not be put out explicitly. Subcreation, which is the apex of an author's development, according to him, is also but a reflection of Truth. At least for him, the myth-maker, his work carried a potentially cathartic power, in the religious sense

Tolkien calls it Christian joy because that's his faith; however I know exactly what he means even though I define it differently. That's Tolkien being subjective, as much as any of us can be on that idea. And calling it Christian joy also depends upon the person's experience of Christianity - where this has been poor or bad (or simply unknown), they would never call it Christian joy as the two could never be linked, but for others the relationship is a good one. It's joy all the same.

Raynor

09-20-2006, 03:29 PM

Yet essentially they all serve the same purpose. Christ shows us that having pity for others is the right thing to do; fairytales tell us the same thing by simple cause and effect.Imo, Christ's and Frodo's pity (and their burdens/suffering/peril due to it) are incomparable with those to which you reffered.
It's joy all the same.I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same ;).

littlemanpoet

09-20-2006, 04:36 PM

Exhibit #2.: Bilbo's Will is Not his Own

In A Long-Expected Party, after Bilbo has put on the Ring and disappeared from the party, he is confronted by Gandalf at Bag-End. Gandalf insists that he keep his promise and give up the Ring to Frodo (who is not there). Then this:

'Well, if you want my ring yourself, say so!' cried Bilbo. 'But you won't get it. I won't give my precious away, I tell you.' His hand strayed to the hilt of his small sword.

Gandalf's eyes flashed. 'It will be my turn to get angry soon,' he said. 'If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked.' He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air in the room tingled.

Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.

'I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf,' he said. You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said.'

'I have never called you one,' Gandalf answered. 'And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used.' He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.

Quite a few things happen here. Most are presented as facts, but two are presented as seemings. Let's take a deeper look at the action.

1. Bilbo insists on possessing the Ring and accuses Gandalf of wanting it for his own. In the passage just preceding the above quoted, it becomes apparent that as Bilbo possesses the Ring, so it possesses him. And now at the beginning of the quoted text, Bilbo is so far gone as to cast an aspersion upon the character of Gandalf; by doing so he mimicks Gollum. Where does Bilbo get the idea that Gandalf might possibly want the Ring for himself? He himself is his only indication of how another might think and be motivated. Thus, this is a very subtle and effective way of indicating that Bilbo is completely under the influence of the Ring, for he is reduced to thinking precisely how Gandalf later describes the thinking of Sauron: anybody who attempts to wrest the Ring from another must necessarily want to keep it for himself. That Bilbo is thinking this way shows that he is heavily under the influence of the Ring; of evil.

2. Bilbo's hand strays to his sword, to defend himself against Gandalf! This is either great bravery or very foolhardy; it is, in fact, foolhardy and shows just how in possession of Bilbo the Ring is.

3. Gandalf's eyes flashed. They don't seem to flash; they do flash. We can imagine what this looks like, seeing it as a flexing of the muscles around the eyes so that the whites are less covered and appear to be enlarged, then recede back under the eyelids; this indicates a mix of surprise and indignation. Or, perhaps, Gandalf's eyes literally flashed; indicating the same thing in either case. Neither way of imagining it is out of the question.

4. Gandalf warns Bilbo. So far Tolkien has used Gandalf as his means of telling the reader what's true. We are given no indication that it is different in this instance.

5. Gandalf seems to grow tall and menacing. This is the first seeming, and presents a different challenge to the reader. What appears to be happening may or may not be what really is happening. What is happening is necessarily related to what seems to be happening, for this is high poesis. The seeming has to do with height, which suggests authority; Gandalf's shadow fills the room, indicating great power.

6. Bilbo backs away, breathing hard, clutching at the pocket where the Ring is stowed. This is a defensive posture, but 'breathing hard' indicates that Bilbo is under great strain. From the Ring? No, he has already given himself up to the Ring. He is defending his possession of the Ring from Gandalf, indicated by how he is clutching at it.

7. As they face each other, Gandalf remains cloaked (for Bilbo has not repeated the onerous words thus there is no call), yet he is revealed as full of veiled power, for the air tingles. The air does not seem to tingle, but actually does so. How? We are not told. What we do know is that there are three sources of power in the room: Sting, the Ring, and Gandalf. Sting's only power is to turn blue in the presence of Orcs. The Ring's powers are well known, and causing tingling in a room is not listed among them. That leaves Gandalf. Is he making the air in the room tingle? Not directly; it is a by-product of something else that he is doing, which is to allow what he really is, to be experienced in the room, and by Bilbo. What does the reader know, at this point, about Gandalf? That he has magic powers, and that he is good (despite being menacing!). It will suffice for now.

8. Gandalf's eyes remain bent on the hobbit. This indicates a contest of wills. Gandalf's is of course the stronger.

9. Bilbo's hands slowly relax: one its grip on the Ring, the other on the sword, and he begins to tremble. Trembling could indicate various things. It could suggest fear, or weariness. In either case, Bilbo has lost the contest of wills.

10. And then Bilbo says that Gandalf is the one who is acting strangely, as if it's all Gandalf and not himself at all. This is self-deception. His next words are revealing: "I'm not a thief". His conscience has been bothering him on this point for a long, long time, and he is afraid that he did indeed steal the Ring despite the 'deal' he had made with Gollum. But Bilbo is wise enough to understand that since Gandalf is acting so menacing towards him instead of friendly, that it must somehow be important, because he does trust Gandalf.

11. Gandalf's words of reconciliation come not after, but before, he seems to dwindle. This is significant because he shows gentleness from a mien of menace and authority instead of from a worried old wizard-man.

12. Here again we have a seeming, in reverse of the previous one. We will keep watch on Tolkien's uses of 'seeming' with the understanding that Tolkien, niggler that he was, went over his word choices with a fine-tooth-comb, as it were, especially in crucial scenes like this one.

What can we summarize from Exhibit #2?
That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.

to be continued....

Lalwendë

09-21-2006, 04:43 AM

I disagree; this joy "produces tears because it is qualitatively so like sorrow, because it comes from those places where Joy and Sorrow are at one, reconciled, as selfishness and altruism are lost in Love" (letter #89). Quite not all the same ;).

Well we'll have to agree to disagree here. I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree.

To take another literary example, in His Dark Materials, the scene where Lyra and Pantalaimon are almost parted in Bolvangar but are saved from the blade evokes exactly the same kind of feeling as the scene at Mount Doom. We are at once terrified, upset to the core, but at the same time elated and joyful that they have been saved. This is because we have been at a point where a perfect Love has almost been permanently severed and at the very last moment has been saved. Reading this you find yourself in tears, of both joy and sorrow.

lmp - this is a reading of the text from a particular perspective, in a way, trying to get to a point by breaking it down into statements. What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not. This passage can be read in any number of ways. A simple exercise in describing a face-off. As an example of supernatural horror. Even as an instance of sanwe. But all of them would be speculation and personal interpretations because all that this is about is trying to show how Bilbo has been 'captured' by the Ring and underlining its status as a dangerous magical object when previously Tolkien had written the object as a handy trinket useful for hiding from the neighbours (the contrast between The Hobbit and the more serious LotR which he had to bridge). The points made are all fair enough (give or take one or two that I'd read differently), but to then build any more onto that we enter the realms of speculation, and possibly into reading too much into the text.

littlemanpoet

09-21-2006, 09:08 AM

Well, Lalwendë, I must object.

What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not.I hope you're right that nobody is arguing that LotR is exclusively Christian!Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

The reason for the "exhibit" format I'm using is to build, as with stones, a tower of evidence, the complete edifice of which will show what the individual parts cannot precisely because they are only parts. To be quite honest, I can only make an educated guess at what we will find, because my process is to read the actual texts and discern to the best of my ability what Tolkien is saying. Surely no-one cares to object to that!?! :eek:

Actually, there are a few more summary points that could be added, which I will later, but the evidence is up until now too tenuous to put them out there.

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

Hookbill the Goomba

09-21-2006, 09:23 AM

Remember, the test is NOT "is this uniquely Christian", but "does this adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"? No one has objected to this statement of the test, and so I'll proceed accordingly.

I think it's safe to say that, of the many sources of influence that Tolkien used, Christianity is very probably one of them. By his own admission, God is in The Lord of the Rings (The One).

I think many people look at The lord of the Rings next to Narnia, the latter being a very overtly Christian work and the fact that, not only was Tolkien a friend of Lewis, but Tolkien contributed to Lewis' conversion, many are tempted to say that it is also a Christian work. I think it would be foolish to say that Christianity or at least Biblical principals were the only part of the 'soil of experience', as he calls it in the forward, for, as he also says, how the story germ uses these experiences is incredibly complex and our attempts to identify and define them are, at best, guesses.

I think I've probably made this point before, but I'll say it again to entertain, at least, my own satisfaction. Plus, I have a terrible memory. :rolleyes:

[EDIT] Ah yes, one last thought.
If there were all these many different influencces Tolkien drew from, perhaps we should have a Topic, "The Lord of the Myths." ;)

Lalwendë

09-21-2006, 09:45 AM

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements? Just to make it perfectly clear what I see in these two posts: in the first you want to see something that is uniquely Christian, while in the second you hope no-one thinks that such a thing can be produced. You simply cannot have both.

Erm, there is no contradiction. Firstly I hope that nobody wants to pinpoint LotR as an exclusively Christian text as its plainly many things to many people. And secondly, I had hoped that someone could come up with an instance of imagery from somewhere within the text that was as I said, unequivocally Christian (and by that not also something else). Having the second does not mean that the first is true, and the first not being true does not preclude the second from happening.

Methinks the purpose of the thread has subtly changed. It began with a lot of fire about Gandalf being Jesus etc and now it aims to be somewhere for Christians to share their personal impressions? Which in itself is a subtle way of forcing things into the conclusion that LotR is Christian. Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.

Raynor

09-21-2006, 02:40 PM

There is one other parallel I was pondering on lately: Mindolluin and the holy of holies. Both are approached by the priest alone (Tolkien reffered to Numenorean kings as being priests as well) and both contain a special manifestation of divinity (seeing that the white tree was linked through Nimloth, Celeborn and Galathilion to Telperion). Acknolwedging that this is not a temple, Tolkien states:
It later appears that there had been a 'hallow' on Mindolluin, only approachable by the King, where he had anciently offered thanks and praise on behalf of his people; but it had been forgotten. It was re-entered by Aragorn, and there he found a sapling of the White Tree, and replanted it in the Court of the Fountain. It is to be presumed that with the reemergence of the lineal priest kings (of whom Luthien the Blessed Elf-maiden was a foremother) the worship of God would be renewed, and His Name (or title) be again more often heard.I can honestly say that Christian joy does not have the monopoly on this kind of emotion, and many non-Christians will agree. There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message. Now we know that for some already it is Christian, and that's fine of course, but we've still not had any of the hard evidence promised early on.Hard evidenced? Promised? By who? As far as I am concerned, this is still an open debate and I am looking forward to keep learning.
What I want to see is something which is unequivocally Christian symbolism which this is not. I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity? The most that I personally asked is to refute the weight/significance of whatever parallels were presented, and/or to present other significant parallels in other systems of beliefes. Lal, if you can't answer this above question positively, then it seems to me that you made the longest non sequitur I witnessed on this site. As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

Lalwendë

09-21-2006, 04:15 PM

There is a big difference between "everyday" joy, to which you seemed to have related to in your previous post, and this sort of joy. Secondly, I haven't argued that this is something unique to Christianity, but, together with other refferences, arguing against your statement that Tolkien didn't have a message.

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique?

I have this question for you: can you point to one instance where it has been argued that the identified possible parallel is uniquely particular to Christianity?

Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe.

As it has been argued my others and myself, there is little if anything in Christianity that is absolutely unique, so, to me, your repeated request/critique of this kind doesn't seem to be on point.

Well I have to honestly say that this is not how posts have read. People have put forward ideas and when presented with evidence that these things are as likely something else entirely, other posters have either got upset or claimed that certain things are indeed unique to Christianity and that other people cannot possibly understand those concepts which is a bit much really.

littlemanpoet

09-21-2006, 08:26 PM

Erm, there is no contradiction.Quite right. Sorry for my daftness. Unequivocal = 'leaving no doubt'. I'm not sure that's possible, precisely because belief and doubt are choices made by people. The best I can promise is evidence as clearly laid out as possible, and each person is intellectually responsible (to the rest of us for those who think that way, and to our Maker for those who think that way) to examine it and come to the best conclusions they can.

Okay: As to Bilbo and the Ring. The points I made before were:

That Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes from.
To these should be added the following:
Bilbo calls the Ring his own: he claims possession. This is a critical point, and we shall see (or already know) how it compares to Frodo and Sam.
This theme of possession is central to Tolkien. Thorin Oakenshield was taken with lust for the Arkenstone and it completely warped his state of mind in regard to the others who had a claim to any of the treasure. Likewise, Tolkien wrote poems, the most appropo being The Hoard, which pretty much states his case quite clearly. In succession, a hoard of treasure is held by Elves, then Dwarf, a Dragon, a Knight, then no-one at all. The Dwarf, Dragon, and Knight are each in turn ruined by their greed for the Hoard. Now for that which is unequivocal in my view: there was a certain teacher in a land by a great sea who taught wisdom to those who would listen. One of the things that he said was:

Do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Even if one doubts the middle of these three lines, the first and especially the third are just good wisdom. They are not exclusive to Christianity, but that's not what I'm trying to show anyway.

Putting it together: Bilbo claims the Ring as his own; he treasures it. His heart is given to it. He tells Gandalf that he had hoped that giving all these other gifts would make giving up the Ring easier, but it does not. Because Bilbo treasures the Ring, going so far as to call it his precious, the Ring owns him. It takes what little will power Bilbo can muster, with a great amount of from Gandalf, to give up the Ring.

The Ring is beautiful and seductive, as well as powerful. Things that have good qualities but are still damaging to us are the hardest things to give up, even though they might be killing us, or in the case of Bilbo, dragging him into a state of undeadness.

It just so happens that the Ring is also evil, and has a will of its own. It is intriguing to me that Tolkien adds this degree of malevolence. It seems obvious that he had to for the sake of the story, but this was the story he chose to tell; it could have been a different story. What is it about this Ring? Why mix the charateristics of beauty, allure, willfulness, and evil? It is because this is precisely the nature of the struggle humans face, every day. Tolkien objectifies it in the Ring, but in real life we find a pull to wrongdoing already inside, right along with the pull to doing good and right. We're a battleground, every one of us. It's part of what's so Real about LotR.

So just to sommarize: the unequivocal theme that harmonizes with a Christian world view in this scene, is 'That which I give my heart to the possession of, enslaves me.' Bilbo is enslaved by the Ring because he insists that it is his. It's interesting, just as an aside, that the quote from 'the teacher' mentions thieving. I make no more nor less of it than just to note it.

Raynor

09-22-2006, 03:13 PM

But your first statement here suggests that you have said that this is unique? So, even if I stated explicitly several times that I am not looking for something uniquely Christian, even if I didn't use any restrictive qualifier, you still persist on this line of argument? When on the same page you repeated the "unicity" critique, I considered that in my reply as a strawman of my argument, a misrepresentation. As I already stated, in that post I was merely pointing out the existence of what I believed was a moral message, and my refference wasn't anymore restrictive that the original text of the letter was.
Yes, see above Joy. Also in the case of Pity. Also in the Apocalypse/Ragnarok discussion. Also Eucatastrophe. Well, maybe it's the late hour, mabye the fact that I am not a native English speaker, but where are the restrictive qualifiers you are reffering to in those cases?:confused:

Anyway, what do you think of my comparison of Mindolluin? I would be quite interested to know if other religions have a similar setting/event. There is also a refference to Meneltarma in UT that I think might be interesting for our discussion:
Near to the centre of the Mittalmar stood the tall mountain called the Meneltarma, Pillar of the Heavens, sacred to the worship of Eru Iluvatar; ... and no other likeness of a temple did the Numenoreans possess in all the days of their grace, until the coming of Sauron. There no tool or weapon had ever been borne; and there none might speak any word, save the King only. Thrice only in each year the King spoke, offering prayer for the coming year at the Erukyerme in the first days of spring, praise of Eru Iluvatar at the Erulaitale in midsummeer, and thanksgiving to him at the Eruhantale at the end of autumn. At these times the King ascended the mountain on foot followed by a great concourse of the people, clad in white and garlanded, but silent.[This is a less strong comparison than the previous one, seeing that it is a community event]

littlemanpoet

09-22-2006, 08:13 PM

The thing is, Raynor, that it is basically accepted that Christian analogies can be found in Unfinished Tales, The Silmarillion, and various segments of the HoME series. The real issue is, what about LotR?

Raynor

09-23-2006, 12:15 AM

littlemanpoet

09-23-2006, 10:03 AM

I missed this post earlier.

[Tolkien's] world is corrupted with evil in a way that goes beyond the traditional Christian view. It is a bleaker, more fatalistic place than that proposed in the Bible, whether because of certain influences from his beloved pagan myth or an intentional desire to portray Arda in a strikingly different light.

Just look at the creation story. The biblical story does not have any of the fallen angels actively participating in the creation of the world. Yet this is what Tolkien does. Morgoth's music is intertwined within the very fabric of Eru's world. To me, that is a very important distinction. It makes Arda laden with evil in a way that is not true of the Judaeo/Christian world where evil was introduced by the personal choices of two individuals. In the biblical paradigm, we are fighting against the evil impulses within our own soul. In the context of middle-earth, we must not only fight our personal impulses but contend with an evil that was woven into the fabric of the physical world from before the dawn of time. This makes the "long defeat" even longer! And because of this unique aspect of creation, I sometimes get the general feeling (a la Shippey) that Tolkien has presented us with an evil in middle-earth that is a great deal more substantial than the traditional Judaeo-Christian view of evil as the simple negation of good. Pretty heavy stuff, considerably bleaker than the orthodox story of creation as itirated in the bible.Actually, it depends upon whether you follow the primary, demythologized (and overly 'scrubbed') theological tradition, or the the more mythical, biblical-story reading.

(Herein lies another example of Greek "hardening of the categories" that has rendered Christian understanding of its own faith and history frankly moribund.)

The more mythical and biblical-story reading has to do with fallen angels mating with humans, the giants (nephilim) that resulted from such unions, and the filling of Canaan with these giant enemies of the Promise ... the sun and moon standing still for a day ... we're talking mythic power treated as history.

I italicized "simple negation of good" because it's an interesting point. First, is it an accurate reading of the biblical-mythic story? Second, even if it is (which I don't think), is it really that simple?

Why is this? Why did Tolkien change this critical aspect of the creation story? He could have had Morgoth fall before the beginning of time and drop away from the group, yet still used the other Ainur to help him fashion the music. Why did he permit evil to be woven into the core of creation in a way that is very different than the biblical story? Perhaps if we knew the answer to this, it would help us understand how and why Tolkien used symbols and stories from the bible, but somehow changed them to create a world which is not exactly the same as ours.Perhaps Tolkien instinctivley knew that the way he presented his myth was in fact closer to the reality than the antiseptic theological renderings of the Greeky-clean theological tradition of the church.

EDIT: Littlemanpoet -- Sorry, we crossposted so my post doesn't take your excellent point on Frodo and Sam under consideration. I do think the Shire has to be considered in any attempt to weigh good and evil.Thanks. Immediately after I had written that about Sam and Frodo, I was reminded of your interest in how the journey of Frodo and Sam affected the two, especially Frodo.

Bêthberry

09-24-2006, 03:33 PM

Today I happened upon a speech by Gandalf and the thought arose: how are readers to understand Gandalf's meaning here?

The passage occurs in the first interview of Denethor, Gandalf and Pippin. I'll quote first Denethor's observation and then Gandalf's.

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good o fGondor; and the rule of Gondor, my lord, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."

"Unless the king should come again?" said Gandalf. "Well, my lord Steward, it is your task to keep some kingdom still against that event, which few now look to see. In that task you shall have all the aid that you are pleased to ask for. But I will say this: the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, thought Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?"

If Gandalf is a steward, who is his king? It strikes me that some readers may assume the answer to be Aragorn--and they would be correct--while others will interpret a different one--and they also would be correct. Their interpretation would be based upon the collocation of words in these passages, words such as king and kingdom, which have a meaning beyond simply the political one here, given Gandalf's reference to those who might survive the night. Both readings are equally possible here.

I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?

littlemanpoet

09-24-2006, 07:10 PM

Today I happened upon a speech by Gandalf and the thought arose: how are readers to understand Gandalf's meaning here?

The passage occurs in the first interview of Denethor, Gandalf and Pippin. I'll quote first Denethor's observation and then Gandalf's.

[quote snipped (see above)]

If Gandalf is a steward, who is his king? It strikes me that some readers may assume the answer to be Aragorn--and they would be correct--while others will interpret a different one--and they also would be correct. Their interpretation would be based upon the collocation of words in these passages, words such as king and kingdom, which have a meaning beyond simply the political one here, given Gandalf's reference to those who might survive the night. Both readings are equally possible here.

I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?
I expect Tolkien niggled at every passage in the entirety of the book. So yes. And both interpretations do seem to me valid, and not in the least mutually exclusive; how could they be? Nice one, Bb.

Aiwendil

09-24-2006, 08:39 PM

Bethberry wrote:
I offer this as one example of a passage in LotR which can legitimately sustain two interpretations. Is this a passage which Tolkien niggled at?

Indeed it is. In the first draft, the conversation with Denethor ended just before the passages you quoted.

As a matter of fact, I would say that this constitutes one of the few actual pieces of evidence in support of Tolkien's assertion that LotR was "consciously so [Christian] in the revision". The words may puzzle the reader who does not know Gandalf's true nature; in light of the further information found in the appendices and in UT, it seems clear that Gandalf is referring to a kind of stewardship over Middle-earth, in service of Manwe (the King of Arda) or perhaps even Iluvatar.

Lalwendë

09-25-2006, 02:39 AM

There's a few interpretations you could get from this one. Gandalf could be a steward of Eru, of Manwe, or he could be a steward for Aragorn as Denethor is. you could also say he is a steward for saruman - as he has taken leadership of the Istari by 'default'.

Bearing in mind that the Sil was not published for some years after LotR, the interpretation that Gandalf was also a steward of Gondor would probably have been the main interpretation for a long time as Eru was unknown. However, there is yet another possible interpretation looking at the following:

But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come.

So Gandalf is the Steward of the wider world, of Middle-earth itself. He first explains stewardship (for the readers' benefit or Denethor's?) and then goes on to explain what he is Steward of. Here he is Steward not of Gondor, nor of Eru, but of the good people and flora and fauna of Middle-earth which stand against Sauron.

Still not sure how much this could be read as Christian (as opposed to Eruist) though, as to get that interpretation we must first of all also accept that Eru is God. Sure he's God of Arda, but is he God? Even if he's Tolkien's interpretation of God (which is a most peculiar one - we've had this discussion many times and that seems to be the most common point agreed on), and therefore an allegorical God, then would all Christians read it that way, or would some indeed be deeply offended?

Aiwendil

09-25-2006, 07:36 AM

Lalwende wrote:
or he could be a steward for Aragorn as Denethor is.

This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Gandalf has no particular association with Gondor over any other part of northeastern Middle-earth. I suppose that, in the absence of further information on Gandalf, some readers might interpret it this way, but it seems quite clear that this is not what either Gandalf or Tolkien intended.

Still not sure how much this could be read as Christian (as opposed to Eruist) though, as to get that interpretation we must first of all also accept that Eru is God. Sure he's God of Arda, but is he God? Even if he's Tolkien's interpretation of God (which is a most peculiar one - we've had this discussion many times and that seems to be the most common point agreed on), and therefore an allegorical God, then would all Christians read it that way, or would some indeed be deeply offended?

This strikes me as splitting semantic hairs. One might as well ask whether Milton's character is "really" Satan, or whether Allah of the Koran is "really" Yahweh of the Torah.

If you ask me, the question "is Eru God?" is only a semantic one. There are other questions one could ask, of course, that are not merely semantic - Are there differences between Eru as presented in the Silmarillion and the Judeo-Christian God as presented in the Torah, or in the New Testament, or in later theology? Does LotR contain more parallels with the Bible than with other myths? And so on. These are, I think, interesting and non-trivial questions. But it seems to me that there is a tendency to conflate them with one another, and with pseudo-questions, via imprecise wording and over-generalization.

I suppose I'm beginning to ramble. Anyway, with regard to Gandalf's line about being a steward - what I'm trying to say is that the question of whether Tolkien wrote this thinking of it as a Christian element is distinct from the question of whether it necessarily comes across as a specifically Christian element. Certainly, the line itself does not convey anything specifically Christian. My claim is only that, when we consider the probable meaning of the line (i.e. steward for Eru/Manwe), the time at which the line was added (in the revision), and Tolkien's claim that the work was consciously Christian in the revision, we have at least a single piece of evidence that he was not lying or mistaken when he made that claim.

Bêthberry

09-25-2006, 07:52 AM

Indeed it is. In the first draft, the conversation with Denethor ended just before the passages you quoted.

As a matter of fact, I would say that this constitutes one of the few actual pieces of evidence in support of Tolkien's assertion that LotR was "consciously so [Christian] in the revision". The words may puzzle the reader who does not know Gandalf's true nature; in light of the further information found in the appendices and in UT, it seems clear that Gandalf is referring to a kind of stewardship over Middle-earth, in service of Manwe (the King of Arda) or perhaps even Iluvatar.

Interesting. I wonder, then, if Pippin's thoughts about Gandalf on the facing page (in my trusty HarperCollins paperback) were also a later addition?

. . . He (Denethor) turned his dark eyes on Gandalf, and now Pippin saw a likeness between the two, and he felt the strain between them, almost as if he saw a line of smouldering fire, drawn from eye to eye, that might suddenly burst into flame.

Denethor looked indeed much more like a great wizard than Gandalf did, more kingly, beautiful, and powerful; and older. Yet by a sense other than sight Pippin perceived that Gandalf had the greater power and the deeper wisdom, and a majesty that was veiled. And he was older, far older. 'How much older?' he wondered, and then he thought how odd it was that he had never thought about it before. Treebeard had said something about wizards, but even then he had not thought of Gandalf as one of them. What was Gandalf? In what far time and place did he come into the world, and when would he leave? And then his musings broke off . . .

The title "Steward" is an interesting one. It has the general meaning of a manager, one who watches over things for an owner, but the word's full panoply of meaning is more replete than that. It is an example of a word with a specifically UK historical sense: not simply an officer of a royal household, but also a title of state. For instance, The Lord High Steward of Scotland was, according to the OED, "The first officer of the Scottish King in early times; he had control of the royal household, great administrative power, and the priviledge of leading the army into battle."

Whether Saruman fits the kingly role here is debatable and so the interpretation that Gandalf is steward for Saruman would be one of the less likely or probable ones. But as Pippin's musings suggest, readers are being prepared to see Gandalf in a different light.

Words travel in groups and the company they keep often is part of the resonance, ambiguity and reflected meaning they shine. Such reflection is the way literary text enrich language. (Also the way comedy routines work, exploiting ambiguity.) There is the immediate context and then the reflected area. There are many reflections which are collocated here. One need not necessarily see them, of course, as with any interpretation.

Certainly Aiwendil is correct in pointing us to the Appendices, where Appendix A summarises parts of The Silm and tells readers that there are "Guardians of the World." In fact, readers are told:

. . . and when all was ready he (Ar-Pharazôn) sounded his trumpets and set sail; and he broke the Ban of the Valar, going up with war to wrest everlasting life from the Lords of the West. But when Ar-Pharazôn set foot upon the shores of Aman the Blessed, the Valar laid down their Guardianship and called upon the One, and the world was changed. Númenor was thrown down and swallowed in the Sea, and the Undying Lands were removed for ever from the circles of the world.

My bolding.

Lalwendë

09-25-2006, 08:27 AM

Lalwende wrote:
This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Gandalf has no particular association with Gondor over any other part of northeastern Middle-earth. I suppose that, in the absence of further information on Gandalf, some readers might interpret it this way, but it seems quite clear that this is not what either Gandalf or Tolkien intended..

That would be one of the inevitable conclusions that a reader might make before reading The Sil, in the absence of any information about Eru. Yes it does look like a stretch to us, but we are privileged as we have much material to read.

However, the relationship between Gandalf and Aragorn is a special one, and Gandalf does act on Aragorn's behalf, and very much acts as his personal adviser; note how Aragorn does defer to the wiser Gandalf and allow him to make decisions, very much what a Steward would do.

This strikes me as splitting semantic hairs. One might as well ask whether Milton's character is "really" Satan, or whether Allah of the Koran is "really" Yahweh of the Torah.

Hmm, no, as Milton's Satan is a clear literary interpretation of the Biblical Satan - this is what Milton set out to do; and readers of Paradise Lost must accept that this is in no way a depiction of the 'real' Satan but one writer's vision of him. In fact, if readers did start to think that this was the 'real' Satan they might end up deserting churches in droves as he's rather cool. ;) As for the second example these are theological writings and so are very different to either Paradise Lost or to LotR.

If you ask me, the question "is Eru God?" is only a semantic one.

Now that's a wormy point to make knowing the rows that have happened over the years on this very topic. Everything I've read has pointed to the fact that the question can't be answered definitively. We cannot even all agree that Eru is Tolkien's personal interpretation of God, let alone that Eru is God full stop. I'd rather this one remained buried where it was. ;)

Had some more thoughts on this recently and the gist of them went thus: Tolkien may have wished to have a Monotheistic God in the manner of the Christian God (who we can't even define anyway as there are Unitarians as well as Trinitarians in the real world, and a Pantheistic range of Gods in Arda) in his cosmology, and he may even have referred to Eru as He (capitalised) in his letters, and drawn upon comparisons of God and Eru, even going as far as saying Eru is 'The One' (what? Neo?); but the very nature of God and how he is interpreted by each individual is far too numinous for us to be able to say with absolute certainty that Eru is God. The very most we could ever say is Eru is Tolkien's God.

Even breaking this down further, Tolkien may have hoped that his readers would perceive Eru as being in nature something like the God he knew, hence using terminology similar to Christianity to emphasise this fact. As someone who writes, if I wanted to create a cosmology where there was a Monotheistic, omnipotent God in the nature of 'our' God, then I too would employ the familiar literary devices of He and The One and Almighty.

Whose God anyway? Eru is most defintely not the God I have known even as a Christian, nor the god that I know now. Eru is a construct in a book, a writer's creation, and in his nature is something entirely different. From my Christian youth one thing I remember being taught is that there was only one book to find the real God in and that's The Bible.

Consider this - if we are going to say that Eru is God, with absolute certainty, does this not then suggest that Tolkien's work, stories about Eru and his world, is the Word of God and we might as well study that in church instead of the Bible if we so desire? I think Tolkien would have found this prospect slightly frightening himself! :eek:

There's something very clever and very deliberate behind all of this fudging in my opinion, and Tolkien put it there. He despised allegory and did not want to write one. Likewise he was squeamish about creating a world with a God which was wholly different to the God he loved as a devout man. If he had the God in there then this would be allegorical, not only that, but also potentially blasphemous. But he could have something which might remind some of us of God, and he could cleverly construct this to make it convincing; he could also construct enough around this 'Eru' figure he made up to make it look like something new. And hey, what an opportunity to explore all his own, personal feelings about God?

Aiwendil

09-25-2006, 09:22 AM

Bethberry wrote:
Interesting. I wonder, then, if Pippin's thoughts about Gandalf on the facing page (in my trusty HarperCollins paperback) were also a later addition?

They were present in the first draft, but the wording was different:

Whence and what was Gandalf: when and in what far time and place [was he born >] did he come into the world and would he ever die?

You might want to invest in HoMe VIII - but I forgot HoMe is "boring" . . .

The title "Steward" is an interesting one. It has the general meaning of a manager, one who watches over things for an owner, but the word's full panoply of meaning is more replete than that. It is an example of a word with a specifically UK historical sense: not simply an officer of a royal household, but also a title of state.

Another use of the word that may have been in Tolkien's mind is in "The House of Stuart". The Stuart monarchs of England and Scotland were descended from Robert Stewart of Scotland; his ancestors had been the Lords High Steward, but in 1371 he, like Denethor's ancestor, went from Steward to ruler - though unlike the Stewards of Gondor, he took the title 'king', and indeed he was descended from the former king Robert Bruce through his mother. Still, it seems to me that someone who still resented the Norman invasion might very well still consider James VI/I and his descendants "stewards" of a sort.

Lalwende wrote:
As for the second example these are theological writings and so are very different to either Paradise Lost or to LotR.

I don't know - it seems to me that the Torah and the Koran are stories, "myths" if you like, and that we can't draw a clear line between myth and literature. On which side would the Kalevala fall? What about the Eddas? Beowulf? Sure, there are people who believe the Torah or the Koran to be true, while there aren't people (as far as I know) who consider LotR or the Silmarillion to be true. But surely this doesn't make them incomparable or incommensurable.

There is a character in the Torah called God. There is a character in the Koran called God. In a sense, they seem to refer to the same entity. It is sensible for Jews and Muslims to discuss God, and even perhaps argue about God; they basically mean the same thing when they say "God", even if they have different beliefs about that thing. Consider the question "Is Allah God?" from the point of view of a Jew or a Christian. The question might be understood in several different ways, and thus elicit several different answers. The Jew might understand the question to mean "Is 'Allah' the word Muslims use for God?", in which case he or she will answer "yes". Or the question might be understood as "Does Allah of the Koran present a true picture of God?" in which case the answer will presumably be "no".

I'm sorry if I seem to be belaboring the point. What I'm getting at is that a question like "Is Eru God?" is vague and could in fact mean several different things. Some of those possible meanings will bear an affirmative answer (e.g. "Is Eru the God of Arda?"), some will bear a negative (e.g. "Is the presentation of Eru identical in every way to the presentation of God in the New Testament?"), and some will be debatable ("Is Eru fundamentally very similar to the God presented in the New Testament?").

Bêthberry

09-25-2006, 10:12 AM

From my Christian youth one thing I remember being taught is that there was only one book to find the real God in and that's The Bible.

This suggest, dearie, that you was brung up Protestant, because in the Catholic pedagogic tradition, individual reading of The Bible was not the purview of each believer. There were other ways of learning faith and that was through the Church catechism.

There is also, for some Christians, the Book of Life. ;)

You might want to invest in HoMe XIII - but I forgot HoMe is "boring" . . .

At $25 a volume, paperback, and twelve volumes, that's a bit steep. I know some people who have bought first editions LotR for not too terribly much more than that.

Besides, it is much more interesting coming from you than from Christopher. :p ;)

Lalwendë

09-25-2006, 10:54 AM

There was a fantastic talk on Stewardship and its function in real history (including with regard to the Scots) at Birmingham last year, but I think Esty was not there, and I cannot remember all the detail, so your last hope on that one is to recall davem for more information...

There is a character in the Torah called God. There is a character in the Koran called God. In a sense, they seem to refer to the same entity. It is sensible for Jews and Muslims to discuss God, and even perhaps argue about God; they basically mean the same thing when they say "God", even if they have different beliefs about that thing. Consider the question "Is Allah God?" from the point of view of a Jew or a Christian. The question might be understood in several different ways, and thus elicit several different answers. The Jew might understand the question to mean "Is 'Allah' the word Muslims use for God?", in which case he or she will answer "yes". Or the question might be understood as "Does Allah of the Koran present a true picture of God?" in which case the answer will presumably be "no".

The very thorny sticking point that fascinates me so much is this very one. And note I'm talking Real World now. That God can be God for so many different religions yet they all have to fight over him; my own belief is that there is One God, but no one religion has it 'right', even if we can personify whatever God is. That's why I call myself a Universalist. And why I also resist categorising Eru. ;)

And is also why, ultimately, I like to stick to thinking of Eru as Eru (or Illuvatar, depending on the text...) and examining what he does from within the context of the secondary world, otherwise it all gets far too thorny.

I'm sorry if I seem to be belaboring the point. What I'm getting at is that a question like "Is Eru God?" is vague and could in fact mean several different things. Some of those possible meanings will bear an affirmative answer (e.g. "Is Eru the God of Arda?"), some will bear a negative (e.g. "Is the presentation of Eru identical in every way to the presentation of God in the New Testament?"), and some will be debatable ("Is Eru fundamentally very similar to the God presented in the New Testament?").

This is what I'm getting at myself! If we assume that Eru = God then we can get into some real tangles of interpretation and most likely, not get anywhere.

This suggest, dearie, that you was brung up Protestant, because in the Catholic pedagogic tradition, individual reading of The Bible was not the purview of each believer. There were other ways of learning faith and that was through the Church catechism.

I was, but with a gloomy and not entirely fully renounced Catholic grandmother who liked to make me read the Catechism. Again though, she'd have told me that God's Word was only in those texts approved by the Pope (Bible, prayer book, catechism). And believe me, I'd hear some squabbles between her and one of her sisters about this and that from the Bible (usually to do with what it said about gambling ;)), so they didn't leave it all up to the Priest to decide what it meant.

littlemanpoet

09-25-2006, 08:07 PM

Boring but Necessary Preliminaries (feel free to skip):
The Question: "Does this text adequately reflect that which Christians understand about reality"?

Pity stays Bilbo; Bilbo is the passive receptor of Pity. What is the source of this Pity?
Bilbo is not in control of his own will; it takes Gandalf's will overpowering Bilbo's, for the hobbit to begin to come to his senses.
That Gandalf is powerful and good; we have as yet no indication where his power comes
Bilbo calls the Ring his own: he claims possession. This is a critical point, and we shall see (or already know) how it compares to Frodo and Sam.

Exhibit #3: Bilbo Surrenders the Ring

I won't quote this section at length; it is that section in chapter one that starts with "You have still got the Ring in your pocket", and ends with "Well that's that."

1. Bilbo is at this point trying to cooperate, but he needs Gandalf to guide him through the most basic steps in regard to the Ring. Bilbo is not being difficult (at least not on purpose) anymore. Either the Ring's power is causing him to forget that he has it in his pocket, or a long habit of possession holds sway; whichever the case, Bilbo's stated choice to give up the Ring to Frodo is quickly compromised.

2. Bilbo uses what seems now to him to be the wise course, to turn over the responsibility for the Ring to Gandalf; but he refuses it, knowing full well what a danger the Ring is in his hands (even if we only guess this as of yet). He directs Bilbo to leave it on the mantelpiece for Frodo.

3. This next sequence is telling.

Bilbo tries to set the envelope on the mantelpiece but his hand jerks back against his will. What will is overpowering his own? Surely not Gandalf's. It is the Ring: if the Ring can get out of Hobbiton in Bilbo's possession, it will not be long before it has betrayed Bilbo into the unmercies of Sauron.
Rather than remain in Bilbo's hand, the packet falls to the floor. What has happened? Is this Bilbo's will trying to let go versus the Ring trying to stay in his hand, resulting in the accidental drop? Or is there another force (other than gravity) at work, causing Bilbo's clutch to loosen? If so, is it Gandalf? The actions of Gandalf as described up to this point do not indicate it. Perhaps there is another force? The text doesn't clarify it if there is. Whatever the case, it appears that chance, "if chance you call it", leads to another chance.
In a quick motion Gandalf picks up the packet and sets it on the mantelpiece in a gesture so decisive that his purpose in regard to it is clear: he wants nothing to do direclty with it.

4. Bilbo's complex reaction to this quick sequence deserves a study unto itself.

First comes a spasm of anger: something has happened that Bilbo doesn't want to have happened. What is it? That the Ring is on the mantelpiece instead of in his hand? That Gandalf has taken the situation out of his hands? Maybe both; we are not told for sure.
Second, Bilbo exhibits relief and laughter. So immediate! What has happened in this millisecond of time? The Ring has been taken out of his possession, and just as critically, he has been freed from possession by the Ring. Just moments before, Bilbo apparently had enough of himself still free from the Ring's domination so that he could want what was right and best, to give the Ring to Frodo. Now that it has been achieved - with much help, cajoling, and direct force of will from Gandalf - Bilbo is free. Finally free, he is able to laugh. His concluding words say it all: "that's that"; a phrase synonymous with "it is finished", but said at a hobbit level.

Conclusions: It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that Bilbo being freed from the Ring, is, here again, a passive event. Gandalf had to free him; he couldn't do it on his own. Once freed, Bilbo is finally happy again, ready and quite relieved to leave the Ring behind. Bilbo is finally himself again.

littlemanpoet

10-01-2006, 06:51 PM

Exhibit #4: Frodo is Seen

While Gandalf is gone for the most part of the next seventeen years, Frodo is seen. Just once he is "fingering something in his pocket" when Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is about. He is not recorded as becoming invisible. We do not read that Frodo uses the Ring or is not seen where he is expected to be seen.

This implies that Frodo heeds Gandalf's advice and shows wisdom. What's more, he behaves in a very unhobbit-like manner, constantly wandering about the Shire's wilds and talking with Dwarves and Elves when he gets a chance. This makes him a bad hobbit, maybe, but not a bad person.

The point is, he remains free from the Ring. Lack of use results in lack of addiction, and therefore the Ring holds little if any sway over him. His heart is his own. He stewards the Ring and does not possess it. This is critical.

Tolkien does not specifically use the word "steward" in this part of the story, but what he does say indicates that Frodo is not behaving like a possessor of the Ring. The only alternative, short of dropping it on the side of the road, is stewardship. This word and theme will come back often in the story; it is an important element. Frodo stewards the Ring, which places him in an appropriate relationship to a thing. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Frodo's heart is not with the Ring, but with the Shire.

The Ring's power does leave him well-preserved, but that may be the effect of having it near. The important thing is that Frodo is not under the Ring's influence, and that is a very good thing, especially considering what Gandalf has to tell him soon.

Mansun

10-11-2006, 05:08 PM

I would like to thank the people who contributed to this thread so intensely & helped to achieve so many views & viewers. ;)

littlemanpoet

10-12-2006, 08:53 AM

Uh, I have more 'exhibits', but it seems the call for them has died down. Anyway....

Child of the 7th Age

10-12-2006, 08:57 AM

Littlemanpoet,

I've been reading and enjoying the posts. However, with a cramped schedule, I haven't had anything to add or question. But I did want you to know you have a reader.

Raynor

10-12-2006, 09:28 AM

lmp, I disagree with your point that Bilbo couldn't give the ring away on his own:

[Gandalf] For he gave it up in the end of his own accord: an important point.
...
[Gandalf] You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you – except by force, which would break your mind

littlemanpoet

10-13-2006, 10:04 PM

Thanks, Child.

Raynor, you make a good point since Gandalf is Tolkien's truth teller. This statement of Gandalf's about Bilbo "giving it up in the end of his own accord" is interesting, and serves as an excellent example (imho) of Tolkien's realistic combining of that ever present dilemma of human existence, the interplay between free will and providence. Both are real (again imho) and it is impossible to tease them apart from each other. Gandalf is speaking to one of the two realities at the point, and being Tolkien's truth teller, is uselessly gainsaid. However, read the narrative carefully and you will still see that Bilbo needed all the help Gandalf could provide to summon the will, or should I say, be given the strength of will, to resist the allure of the Ring.

Gandalf is also correct that he would break the mind of Bilbo or Frodo, for he is merely finite. But it is arguable that a more subtle Power may be at work here, that knows hobbits from their inner workings due to the fact of having invented them in the first place (and I mean this as a reference to Tolkien only in pun), which I choose to call providence; or perhaps it might best be called "chance, if chance you call it".

littlemanpoet

10-20-2006, 06:52 PM

Exhibit #5: Sam Believes

Toward the beginning of Shadows of the Past, Sam Gamgee's character is established by comparison to Ted Sandyman. The section we're looking at is that which begins with "Sam Gamgee was sitting in one corner near the fire.....", and ends with "He walked home under the early stars through Hobbiton and up the Hill, whistling softly and thoughtfully."

Sam is trying to have a conversation about "queer tales". Ted will have none of it. First he refuses to even listen on the grounds that they're just hearth stories and children's tales thus not worth listening to (we are put in mind of On Faerie Stories in which Tolkien criticizes this view). Sam insists that there's truth in them, such as dragon stories. But Ted will have none of that either, for he'd heard of them when younger (maybe from Bilbo?) but "there's no call to believe in them now".

Sam lets him have his point but brings up tree men - giants - that have been seen on the North Moors. Namely Hal has seen them. Ted suggests that Hal's either a liar or "seeing things that ain't there", et. al., hallucinating. Sam provides more detail: "big as an elm and walking seven yards to a stride". Ted bets it was an elm tree, and stationary. This is worth quoting:

'Then I bet it wasn't an inch. What he saw was an elm tree, as like as not.'
'But this one was walking, I tell you; and there ain't no elm tree on the North Moors.'
'Then Hal can't have seen one,' said Ted. There was some laughing and clapping: the audience seemed to think that Ted had scored a point.

By this point our sympathy is with Sam (if it wasn't before) because Ted is arguing with such bad logic (if any at all) that it's downright confounding for poor Sam. To make sure the reader doesn't miss what has just happened, Tolkien includes authorial commentary that Ted actually had scored no point at all. In fact, Ted had actually made Sam's point for him; but Ted and the hobbits are so sure that there 'ain't no such things as tree men' even if there ain't no such things as elms on the North Moors.

But it would take more intellectual ability than Sam can muster to untangle Ted's confoundment, so Sam insists on what can't be denied: queer folk crossing the Shire or being kept out of it. On this Ted makes no interruption or denial. Then Sam speaks elegaically of Elves; Ted merely laughs, saing it has nothing to do with hobbits, and asserts that no hobbits have seen Elves moving through the Shire. Not this is telling. Ted denies the existence of dragons (which the reader knows is wrong), then denies the existence of Ents (which the reader knows nothing about yet), then all but denies the passage of Elves through the Shire, implying that Elves don't exist either!

Why is Ted so adamant? How can he be so certain? Well, it's because such things are not part of the normal experience of hobbits; therefore they can't exist. This is bad logic, obviously, and begins to sound like the attitude of a philosophical naturalist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: 'if you can't perceive it with your senses, it can't be real'.

So both Sam's and Ted's characters are being laid out for the reader. Tolkien will draw our attention back to Ted toward the end of the entire story, where Ted's bankrupt attitude toward the things Sam believes results in moral bankruptcy, working with Sharkey's ruffians. Nevermind Ted's illogic; his stubborn cussedness undermines Sam's efforts to put forward his case effectively.

Sam's response to Ted's doubts on Elves is to bring in his trump cards: Bilbo and Frodo for whom Sam already has deep respect and a high opinion (and as we learn later(in A Conspiracy Unmasked) , Sam already knows about the Ring). Ted dismisses them as 'cracked and becoming cracked'. With this final dismissal of Sam's arsenal of evidence, Ted leaves noisily. Sam soon leaves too, quietly and thoughtful. The pairing makes Ted's noisy leavetaking the more glaring for its failure of thoughtfulness.

What do we make of this exchange? Sam believes in dragons, tree men, Elves, and Bilbo and Frodo, and has reason to; supporting evidence. Ted refuses to believe, contrary to the evidence, and does not even care to consider the evidence. He simply doesn't want such things to be part of his life at all, without examination.

What difference this makes will unfold as we take a look at more of the story.

Mansun

10-13-2007, 08:23 AM

lmp, I disagree with your point that Bilbo couldn't give the ring away on his own:

Gandalf of Bilbo: " And he needed all my help too". This implies Bilbo could not have given up the Ring totally of his own accord. What Gandalf means is that Bilbo was not forced physically to hand the Ring over. Though quite what this point has to do with this thread is beyond me.

The thread was based on the idea that if the Bible had not been written, the LOTR may not have even existed. It is the inspiration of all that is good about it.

Raynor

10-13-2007, 11:28 AM

Raynor, you make a good point since Gandalf is Tolkien's truth teller. This statement of Gandalf's about Bilbo "giving it up in the end of his own accord" is interesting, and serves as an excellent example (imho) of Tolkien's realistic combining of that ever present dilemma of human existence, the interplay between free will and providence. Both are real (again imho) and it is impossible to tease them apart from each other. Gandalf is speaking to one of the two realities at the point, and being Tolkien's truth teller, is uselessly gainsaid. However, read the narrative carefully and you will still see that Bilbo needed all the help Gandalf could provide to summon the will, or should I say, be given the strength of will, to resist the allure of the Ring.
In my opinion, Gandalf's role was more of an eye-opener than anything else. Therefore, it is conceivable that a "life situation" (I am thinking, for example, of a new and better understanding of Gollum's situation, or even of the Ringwraiths') with similar consequences on Bilbo's view of his relation to the ring, would have prompted him to take the same path. In the end, it would only be another manifestation of providence/grace, as Gandalf too is.

alatar

09-18-2008, 02:36 PM

With much trepidation I post in this ill-favoured thread of threads, yet not sure where else to post this little giblet.

In William Young's book, The Shack,, the main character, Mack, gets to meet with the triune Christian god in person. He is at first taken aback as God the Father is in the form of an African woman.

He - Mack - notes that he was expecting God to look more like "Gandalf." :D

Groin Redbeard

09-18-2008, 04:18 PM

Great literature according to Aristotle, did not explicitly draw attention to the themes that one sought to explain. Rather, they were subtley concealed within the text so that the reader, through reason, could draw them out.
Such themes abound in LOTR. Simple examples include the character of Gandalf. He is a pure spiritual being - an Istari - who choses to become incarnate in order to combat evil. If this does not in part reflect a Christocentric theme what does. Also, in his fight with the Balrog in Moria, Gandalf dies, but returns to earth, no longer as Gandalf the Grey, but rather Gandalf the White. His powers are increased and all are awed in the revelation of his glory in Fangorn forest. Can one not envision the parallel to the glorified Christ after the Resurrection.

Then there is the Lembas - the Elf bread - which sustains the members of the Fellowship through their journeys. What more specific example of the Catholic view of the Eucharist does one need.
One final example is the date chosen for the destruction of the Ring - March 25th. In the Catholic liturgical calendar, this is the date of the feast of the Incarnation - the date when Christ became incarnate in the womb of Mary and the saga of the Redemption of Man began. What other event can one identify more closely with the Christian understanding of the destruction of evil than this.

But the overall key to Tolkein's LOTR is not that it is a specifically Christian work, but rather a work of myth that is infused with a Christian spirit. Let me explain another way. We each have are everyday activities. We go to work, take care of our families and tend to social duties. These are rather mundane secualar activities for the most part and seem far removed from God and Church. But that is the drama of the Christian life - to take the ordinary, and transform it into a work done for God. Much as Christ lived an ordinary life as son and carpenter, transforming this life into the extraordinary, so Tolkein harkens us to this image. The image that all human activities, from the drama of Helm's Deep, to the simple daily lives of hobbits, can be transformed into something truly dramatic in Christ. This is the meaning of a Sanctifying Myth and also the meaning of our lives as Christians (Catholics and Protestants)- to sanctify the ordinary.