The sinking of Numenor - a lesson to whom? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

akhtene

11-18-2002, 08:21 PM

While rereading the Silm I came across such a description of the sinking of Numenor. …and Numenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud; and all its gardens and its halls and its towers, its tombs and its riches, and its jewels and its web and its things painted or carven, and its laughter and its mirth and its music, its wisdom and its lore: they vanished forever. And last of all the mounting wave green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Miriel the Queen, Fairer than silver or ivory or pearls. Too late she strove to ascend the steep ways of the Meneltarma to the holy place; for the waters overtook her and her cry was lost in the roaring of wind. OK, I’m not going to ask why it happened and who was to blame if anyone.
My question is: WHY SUCH A POETIC, NOSTALGIC DESCRIPTION? It didn’t leave (with me) the feeling of a rightly deserved punishment, or eliminating something dangerous or hostile. Compare with a much grimmer description of destruction of Angband and sinking of Beleriand
And an end was made to the power of Angband… For so great was the fury of these adversariesthat the northern regions of the western world were rent asunder, and the sea roared in through many chasms, and there was confusion and great noise; and rivers perished or found new paths, and the valleys were upheaved and the hills trod down; and Sirion was no more…
IMHO the wording and style of the first quotation are more suitable for describing fair things destroyed by the Enemy, some terrible loss that shouldn’t have been. And mind, not a word mentions actual rebels or traitors perishing in the catastrophe, or even being on the island at the time. Only children and women and the fruits of fairest culture, and I read it that JRRT laments them. Was it then a mistake, a terrible accident? It couldn’t possibly be, as Eru is the One who knows exactly what He is doing. A lesson then? But for whom? The victims could hardly be taught anything this way. The rebels whose families and riches those were? But they had already been taken from this world (dead or asleep). The Faithful – they didn’t seem to need any such lesson. The rest of the world just in case? But haven’t there been greater villains who deserved punishment but were let off to redeem? Sorry if I sound too harsh or lengthy, but I’m trying to sort things out.

An idea that struck me after reading a recent thread Elves don't belong in Valinor? was that the Valar, Gods or God-like they be, weren’t perhaps always up to the point in carrying out Eru’s designs. And finally they messed things up so that simply lost control of things and had to appeal to Eru. As has been stated by many people here, it was the first (apart from the act of Creation) case of His direct interference in Arda’s affairs. I just presume that He wanted to make it the last one and exercised his power and might to such an extent to impress the Valar. As IMO creation of the Numenorean civilization was their pride and peak of there interference with the affairs of peoples of M-E.. If you agree that not only Elves and Men, but the Ainur were also His children, it’s just a kind of lesson, cruel but final, that a father could teach his children, who’ve become too big-headed but are unwilling or unable to cope on their own.

Well, to cut a long story short, with one stone Eru killed two birds – eventually taught a lesson to those who would learn and physically removed the Valar from the world, thus allowing them to watch and subtly influence, but preventing from meddling directly with HIS design.

If you had time and patience to read this to the end - thanks!

Mhoram

11-19-2002, 12:23 AM

My first thought is to consider what perspective these passages are being written from. There may not be enough information to make a conclusion, or there may be in the earlier versions of the story, but if you could figure that out, it might help. For example, if it were Elendil or some other man writing about the fall of Numenor, or even perhaps Elrond, it might sound like that.

In the earlier versions of the Silmarilion it is written as a story being told, but once that idea was abandonned it never really got rewritten stylistically, thats why I suggest this.

HerenIstarion

11-19-2002, 01:38 AM

check out the following:

The Downfall of Numenor (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000240)

Short comment:

I can't agree with definition as of "cruel lesson". I'm quoting myself from abovelinked thread:

Now numenoreans breaking this Ban became worse then orcs (I mean beast-orcs, not eldar or atani tortured by Morgoth), because one falling from a higher level falls deeper on the scale than one standing low from the beginning. They were seduced, but not by Sauron – he was a kind of the last drop, but by their own pride, which is opposite to obedience and acceptance. They started by rejecting the Lord’s gift, and ended up rejecting the Lord himself, wich is severest sin possible to commit. Still they were not punished – harm made to phisical body, hroa, in this case can not be counted as a punishment, but the decision was delayed somehow – here we have their eternal sleep until the day of Doom, which, maybe. is due to Ar-Pharazon’s hesitation in the end, or, still maybe a sign of the great mercy of the Lord who LOVES his children anyway. But their land was polluted by them, and had to be destroyed. So we got Atalante instead of Elenna.(cf history of Sodom)

the rest there smilies/smile.gif

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

tom bombariffic

11-19-2002, 04:36 AM

I would have said that The sinking of Numenor would have been written like that for 1 of 3 reasons:

a) Maybe it was because, although Eru's children rejected him and he was willing to drown them, it still brought a great pain to him to have to drown them, and of course to remember the reason why he was drowning them : they didnt believe in him. Sure, he wanted them gone, but surely that dosen't mean he wasn't upset about doing it?

b)Perhaps It was written like that because a lot of the drowned were just jumping on the bandwagon: it started with a few non-believers, then most of the population were caught up in it, pressured into not believing. It could have been that most of these people were dying because they had got caught up in the frenzy, and not because they were truly evil. That could be why it is written so sadly.

c) by far the least structured of my reasons, it could be to mirror the "noah's ark" story. We know that the bible is mirrored a lot in the silm, and I think (although Im not certain) that the Noah's ark story is written somewhat sadly, even though it was the right thing to do. Not sure about this one, just a speculation really.

I personally believe in the 1st reason, but then who knows? If anyone has any reasons of their own or comments on my reasoning, I'd be happy to hear them...

Bombariffic

Atariel

11-19-2002, 01:23 PM

Duh? it was obviously to punish the Numenoreans, becuase *they* were ensnared by Sauron and *they* should have known better. after all, they are the forefathers of all men on MIddle Earth. how can we be wise and noble if a group of *wise* and *noble* men, supposedly better than us cos we have dwindled, couldn't even say no to an Ainur?

Amanaduial the archer

11-19-2002, 03:18 PM

when you say they, it is the same they that people use to descibe masses. Its like the term "the public" is very different from "lots of individuals".

And certainly "they" were ensnared by Sauron and were becoming corrupted by him and his dark promises and orders, making sacrifices to him in horrible ways. Therefore, "they" deserved to be punished for these crimes and for turning directly against their gods. But did they truly need to be punished? In other words, did the Queen, Tar-Miriel deserve to be punished? And others who had gone against Sauron and his followers.

Just a thought. Sorry if you have no idea what Im talking about with the "they"s and the theys.

Galorme

11-19-2002, 05:27 PM

Who is the lesson aimed at? Us of course!

Anyway. In the bible didn't god regret what he did when he sunk the world? He acted in wrath and folly. God is not a perfect being (at least in the bible), and I think in the same way Eru is not perfect either. He was p*ssed off because his children were worshiping evil, so he hit the child. And, like a father who beats his children, justified it by saying, "it was to teach them a lesson". He was merely being human, or at least the template for a human (were Men made in Eru's image the same way they were made in God's image in Christianity?)

Voronwe

11-19-2002, 06:32 PM

I have to disagree with you there, Galorme. While it may or may not be otherwise in the Bible, Tolkien portrays Eru as a perfect and very distant god who only interacts with his creation on a few occasions. The Valar, of course, are certainly not perfect. It's debateable whether it was the Valar or Eru that took the decision to destroy Numenor; Manwe could have called upon Eru to accomplish the downfall of Numenor and the subsequent change of the world, since it was beyond the power of the Valar.

As to the original question, I don't think the downfall of Numenor was a lesson to anyone. It was simply the only just (although somewhat brutal) outcome of the situation. Numemor was originally a gift to the men who had rejected Morgoth and remained faithful to the Valar (and thereby Eru) in the War of Wrath. When the Numemoreans finally turned to worshiping Morgoth and attempted to make war upon the Valar, then the 'land of gift' was taken away. Only those who still remained faithful survived, but they too had Numenor taken away from them and had to return to Middle Earth.

This brings me to the reason for the poetic, regretful prose style in the description of the Downfall. This is easily explained by Elendil being the author of The Akallabeth, which is stated in Unfinished Tales. Elendil, while perhaps accepting the judgement of the Valar as just, is nonetheless filled with sadness at the destruction of his homeland, and with it so much knowledge, culture and beauty. Even many years after the Downfall the Numenoreans still thought of themselves as exiles, so Elendil's pain and loss must have been very deep. The passage is more an expression of regret for all good aspects of Numenor destroyed in the Downfall than any kind of justification for what happened.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Voronwe ]

Galorme

11-20-2002, 10:19 AM

HerenIstarion

11-21-2002, 06:33 AM

Galorme, I Have to totally disagree.

Free will is involved in the matter (btw, check out this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002229)) - Numenoreans, in fact, chose to be drowned themselves. And physical pain was not and is not considered as greatest evil possible, so the remark of "painless" death is meaningless. Death is not punishment, is a gift of Eru, release from the circles of the world. The birth is essential only as far as it qualifies human for his future death (since one can not die being unborn)Mark also that those mostly guilty - warriors of the fleet, - are not killed at all, but put to sleep under ruined hills of Aman until the end of the world. One starts to suspect that women and children left on an island were graced comparing with those of the fleet, who's depart journay was delayed for uncertain, but presumably very long period On the other hand, delay of their death may be considered as mercy on Eru's behalf as well, since he gave ar-Pharazon the chance to redeem his evil choice in the end, after awakening but before such an essential part of human's life as death is.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

tom bombariffic

11-21-2002, 04:59 PM

But the Men don't see death as a gift - they see it as a punishment. That's the funny thing about the children of Iluvatar - The Firstborn regard men as lucky as they get to die naturally - elves soon grow weary of the world and many wish to die. The Secondborn, however, are afraid of death and many see it as a punishment. Bottom line: each are jealous of each other when it comes to death.

I agree with you that being imprisoned under a hill until the end of the world is worse, but those who drowned in Numenor - despite death being a gift - were still being punished by Iluvatar, as he knew that they regarded death as a bad thing.

By the way, would those who were drowned due to their evilness have still gone on to the afterlife?

Gwaihir the Windlord

11-21-2002, 05:29 PM

The sinking of Numenor was sad, because it shouldn't have happened. Numenor was once a high, mighty, light civilisation; the perfect human existence. That they fell from this incredible enlightenment and glory to rebelling agaist the Eru and the very Valar who had provided them with their island, and to being jealous of the Elves who lived forever, is the tradegy. Their path had turned astray.
Thir destruction was certainly necessary, for they were an intolerable danger to the world and were now, in fact, an evil power. This is not to say that the fall and destruction was not lamentable.

And no, I don't think it was a 'lesson' to anyone really. It was just a necessary act; although it probably put the fear of god (The real fear of god) into the Dunedain forever. I spose that was good outcome anyway.

Galorme

11-21-2002, 05:33 PM

Mhoram

11-21-2002, 05:41 PM

"The fear of God". Now that sounds just plain evil. The idea that there is a higher power who will punish you if you do wrong is just sick. Don’t you love Christianity?

There is simply no place for a comment like that in The Books, or anywhere else on this forum. Stay on topic and leave your (non)religious convictions at the door.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Mhoram ]

HerenIstarion

11-22-2002, 03:46 AM

Galorme, I believe there is no "punishment" in case of Numenor's fall. Do you think the phrase "quit smoking or else you'll die" is threat? I'd rather name it warning. Or do you call surgeon cutting the cancer "executioner"? For it may look as punishment from cancer's point of view, but is healing from the whole body's. Numenor became cancer on the body of the Arda, it simply had to be drowned.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

Galorme

11-22-2002, 04:55 PM

Galorme plunges yet another conversation into a heated arguement. This had not been a good week smilies/frown.gif

HerenIstarion

11-25-2002, 03:53 AM

the truth is oft born in the [heated] debate... smilies/smile.gif

greyhavener

11-25-2002, 10:45 PM

True words, HerenInstarion.

The legend of Atlantis seems to me the most obvious parallel for the sinking of Numenor. Catastrophic events create change and end eras. Legend and speculation arise out of lost civilizations.

Tolkien's philosophy seems to be in the "there are larger forces at work" camp, however he hints that the reasons events occur might not be for mortal understanding.

I do see similarities between the attitude of the people of Numenor and those building the tower of Babel and can see how punishment for pride and a lust for power might fit the sinking of Numenor as it does the destruction of the tower. Destruction reveals the frailty of mortal strength.

However, there is sadness and longing for Numenor that is seldom associated with places destroyed as retribution for evil. It is the melancholy of the children of Israel exiled in Babylon "by the waters of Babylon I lay dowm my harp and I wept..." It is the heart that wants Avalon to be real. It is the whispers in ancient places like the Pueblos and the Parthenon. Tolkien said something to the effect that myths are truth wrapped in a story. I think this is a myth revealing a truth about mortality, loss and change.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

alatar

07-16-2008, 08:40 AM

…and Numenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud; and all its gardens and its halls and its towers, its tombs and its riches, and its jewels and its web and its things painted or carven, and its laughter and its mirth and its music, its wisdom and its lore: they vanished forever. And last of all the mounting wave green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Miriel the Queen, Fairer than silver or ivory or pearls. Too late she strove to ascend the steep ways of the Meneltarma to the holy place; for the waters overtook her and her cry was lost in the roaring of wind.

My question is: WHY SUCH A POETIC, NOSTALGIC DESCRIPTION?

IMHO the wording and style of the first quotation are more suitable for describing fair things destroyed by the Enemy, some terrible loss that shouldn’t have been. And mind, not a word mentions actual rebels or traitors perishing in the catastrophe, or even being on the island at the time. Only children and women and the fruits of fairest culture, and I read it that JRRT laments them. Was it then a mistake, a terrible accident? It couldn’t possibly be, as Eru is the One who knows exactly what He is doing. A lesson then? But for whom? The victims could hardly be taught anything this way. The rebels whose families and riches those were? But they had already been taken from this world (dead or asleep). The Faithful – they didn’t seem to need any such lesson. The rest of the world just in case? But haven’t there been greater villains who deserved punishment but were let off to redeem? Sorry if I sound too harsh or lengthy, but I’m trying to sort things out.
I'm interesting in knowing *who* recorded the event of those last moments. No one that lived saw Numenor drowned. The King's Men were either on ships or going down with the Land of the Star. The Faithful were sailing eastward, though not of their own volition.

I think that the 'poetic' description could be due to a few things. Anyone else ever feel lonely, or the loss of something vague that pulls at the heart? Was there some loss of something beautiful that Tolkien was expressing in these words? Was it the loss of innocence, like that one day when you 'wake up' and realize that you are no longer a child, and that the world isn't truly all chrome and flying cars?

Or was Tolkien trying to describe the Biblical story of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden? In that story, the Garden is not destroyed, but man's access is forever denied (well, maybe), and so in a sense this gifted garden too was removed from the Earth. Both stories describe a sadness of things that might have been, but now no longer can be. A paradise for men, a place of ease and safety, a fair place of healing and goodness, is lost in the mists.

Maybe if it were written less poetically, the reader would think, "Good for them! Drown all of those faithless ingrates!" The sadness over the loss of what was once beautiful (even though it currently festered) just wouldn't come across.

Firefoot

07-16-2008, 11:50 AM

My question is: WHY SUCH A POETIC, NOSTALGIC DESCRIPTION? It didn’t leave (with me) the feeling of a rightly deserved punishment, or eliminating something dangerous or hostile. Because although it was a deserved punishment, it was a tragedy that never should have happened. The nostalgia is for Numenor as it used to be - that Numenor had been dying for a long time, and its corruption was complete before it sank - the sinking was more like the burial of something dead rather than the murder or something living.

It can hardly have pleased Eru/the Valar to sink the island - they aren't, in general, vindictive sorts who sit on their thrones waiting for people to screw up so that they can be punished. It would have pleased them much more for the Numenoreans to see the error of their ways and, well, repent. To put it another way, let's say you have a really nice vase or something in your house, and it falls and breaks. You're going to fix it if you can, especially if it only chips. But sometimes you can't fix things... if it's in a thousand pieces, no matter how much you like the vase you sweep it up and throw it out. That doesn't mean you like getting rid of it. Numenor was in that thousand pieces... it couldn't be "fixed" and didn't want to be.

doug*platypus

07-17-2008, 06:09 AM

An interesting observation; it is a rather poetic and nostalgic account. I think this stems from Professor Tolkien's vision of what Atlantis may have been like. As I understand it, both Atlantis and Númenor represented a golden age of civilisation. Throughout the legendarium, there is a sense of the Númenóreans being the crowning glory of human achievement: their buildings, their prowess in battle, even aspects like their longevity and height. The fact that they could fall so far morally, to worship Melkor and assault the realm of the Valar is a tragedy, hence the wording. And the tragedy makes for good reading, to be quite honest. If the text were simply to state that "these people were bad, and so they were quite rightly punished" it would be very matter-of-fact and not so entertaining!

The description akhtene provided of the end of Angband is quite different, and rightly so. So much strife, war, bloodshed, horror and evil took place in Beleriand in the war with Morgoth, that quite frankly it was a relief when the Host of the West came in and destroyed the baddies, and the whole area was submerged by the cleansing sea. Still somewhat tragic, as many formerly beautiful or wondrous places would have been lost, and many lives as well we can surmise, but not so tragic apparently as the downfall of Númenor.

alatar

07-17-2008, 10:40 AM

I stepped right over the original question, or at least that which is posed in the thread title. "To whom was the lesson directed?"

I assume that it was to the Númenóreans, showing that that which is given can be as easily taken away. Sure, these men were rewarded for their faithfulness in the breaking of Angband, but this did not give them carte blanche to do whatever caught their fancy. When they too strayed down the dark road, it lead to their ruin as well, as it does for all beings.

Even Melkor and Sauron were good once, and yet...

Anyway, the Faithful that escaped the ruin would carry the lesson forward. Some might obscure the lesson with thought of merely the "Golden Age," but that is just part of the whole story.

Another thought: Was this a retelling of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, where united humanity attempted to build a tower all the way to Heaven (or however the story is read)? This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

Morthoron

07-17-2008, 12:08 PM

I assume that it was to the Númenóreans, showing that that which is given can be as easily taken away. Sure, these men were rewarded for their faithfulness in the breaking of Angband, but this did not give them carte blanche to do whatever caught their fancy. When they too strayed down the dark road, it lead to their ruin as well, as it does for all beings.

Anyway, the Faithful that escaped the ruin would carry the lesson forward. Some might obscure the lesson with thought of merely the "Golden Age," but that is just part of the whole story.

To whom was the sinking of Numenor directed? The answer is threefold: 1. The Numenorean survivors, 2. Sauron, and 3. the rest of mankind.

One has to consider the flood not merely as a localized punishment for Numenor. If that were the case, Ar-Pharazon and his army's destruction would have served the purpose. With Eru's involvement (and if we grant him a deity's omnipresence), it seems obvious that he would be aware that Sauron was the arch-nemesis of the whole Ar-Pharazon invasion, and would explain how Sauron was caught utterly by surprise by the virulence of the flood. Also, like the biblical flood, the lesson of god's wrath extends beyond the Israelites (or whatever Noah's folk was termed as at that point), and acts as a parable of divine retribution for later generations of mankind.

Another thought: Was this a retelling of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, where united humanity attempted to build a tower all the way to Heaven (or however the story is read)? This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

No, Al, I don't think it has anything to do with Babel. It is Tolkien's wedding of the biblical flood and the myth of Atlantis (thus Tolkien using the word Atalante). I think it was very clever of the Professor, and makes the story less allegorical and more in line with a world mythology rather than a direct link to a specific religion.

Bêthberry

07-17-2008, 01:03 PM

To whom was the sinking of Numenor directed? The answer is threefold: 1. The Numenorean survivors, 2. Sauron, and 3. the rest of mankind.

One has to consider the flood not merely as a localized punishment for Numenor. If that were the case, Ar-Pharazon and his army's destruction would have served the purpose. With Eru's involvement (and if we grant him a deity's omnipresence), it seems obvious that he would be aware that Sauron was the arch-nemesis of the whole Ar-Pharazon invasion, and would explain how Sauron was caught utterly by surprise by the virulence of the flood. Also, like the biblical flood, the lesson of god's wrath extends beyond the Israelites (or whatever Noah's folk was termed as at that point), and acts as a parable of divine retribution for later generations of mankind.

No, Al, I don't think it has anything to do with Babel. It is Tolkien's wedding of the biblical flood and the myth of Atlantis (thus Tolkien using the word Atalante). I think it was very clever of the Professor, and makes the story less allegorical and more in line with a world mythology rather than a direct link to a specific religion.

I wonder, would there be a touch of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah there also?

Morthoron

07-17-2008, 07:08 PM

I wonder, would there be a touch of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah there also?

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing, but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion). I suppose sacrificing whole families on the pyre of Morgoth would be rather inhospitable...rude even, but it seems the Numenoreons suffered more from the sins of Blasphemy and Pride (particularly since Tolkien was usually rather vague about sexual subjects); however, there is the forced marriage of Tar-Miriel by Ar-Pharazon (which, by the degree of consanguinity, could be considered incestuous by a medieval pope, and would require a hefty donation for a dispensation).

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-18-2008, 01:39 PM

Well, the Numenoreans were worshipping a false god (Morgoth), and then there was that whole human sacrifice thing,
That's the main thing, I would say. In any case, in contrary to the story of Akallabeth, the biblical descriptions are usually pretty vague, but I have no doubt Tolkien was inspired by both, as well as Atlantis, as it has been already mentioned here too.

but if I recall the biblical version of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had more to do with sexual perversion and inhospitality (selfishness, lack of compassion).
Let me add a note here. The second one definitely, but the first one, not - seeing sexual perversion in it was only a later meaning added to the text by later interpretators. The story itself speaks mainly about inhospitability in the worst sense - visitors come to the city, and the inhabitants not only don't offer them what they can, but actually intend harm and violence towards them. The fact that it had something to do with sex is merely the "colorite" - it's just another form of the violence when you want to rape somebody who came to your house asking for a night stay there. But overall, if I took the story, I would say it is something I could imagine even on Númenor as it's depicted during Pharazon's rule (or perhaps even in some scale during the reign of the kings before him).

Formendacil

07-18-2008, 05:38 PM

Morthoron

07-18-2008, 07:51 PM

If I may interject with my interpolation, I do not think Bêthberry was so much concerned with the particular sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how that was applicable to Númenor, but rather that she was pointing out that in the Akallabêth, as in Genesis, you have the story of a society that is deeply sinful (or evil, if you prefer) and is utterly smitten by God (Eru), with only a few survivors... Lot & Daughters/Elendili.

Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed struck down for wickedness and only Lot and his children survived; however, could not the same be said of Noah and his family? God struck down the wicked, drowning all the evil folk (which, if you believe the bible, would be all of mankind), leaving Noah in his floating ark. In Eru's case, this was not merely striking down two cities, but a great island continent, and then he fundamentally altered the geography of the world, forever separating the Undying lands from Arda.

Interestingly, and tying back to the main question, it seems to me that the Genesis story of Lot's company not being able to look back lest they turn to salt (as his wife did) is applicable to the original question of the thread title. Whether or not this is the point of Genesis, one could certainly say, literally, that Lot's family was not to turn back in any manner. In the same way, the utter destruction of Númenor utterly prevents any sort of a turning back. Elendil's family, like Lot's, can NEVER go back (although it is interesting to note, from the legend of Meneltarma rising above the waves and the many mariners that sought it, that the Dúnedain clearly tried).

Good point, but 'no turning back' is a theme elsewhere in the bible (Adam and Eve -- and the whole human race, for that matter -- never to return to the earthly paradise of Eden).

Personally, I don't think the sinking of Númenor can be considered a lesson to Sauron. If Eru had wanted him punished, I'm pretty sure that the Ilúvatar could have done quite a bit worse to him. As for Ar-Pharazôn and his crew, they either died flat out or were imprisoned. In the former case, it's hardly a lesson since the dead can't apply the lesson, and in the latter case they probably never even found out.

That really only leaves the Elendili.

The point is certainly arguable; however, if you read the final section of the Akallabêth concerning Sauron, "he was filled with fear at the wrath of the Valar, and the doom that Eru laid upon seas and land." Eru, ever-prescient but prone to allow free will (save for the Numeoreans blithely ignoring the prohibition against Men entering the Undying Lands), did not destroy Sauron utterly, which would be an utter removal of Sauron's free will, but gave him such an admonishment that most reasonable beings would take the hint. As it was, Sauron was forever stripped of his fair appearance and had to exist in spirit form for quite a time before being able to reassume a physical manifestation. Of course, we know that Sauron was never reasonable (being on the losing end of the War of Wrath should've been enough to show him the error of his ways).

In the end, Sauron was not destroyed by Eru, but by himself and the Ring he alone created. He chose the path of his own destruction by not heeding warnings that were so dire and ominous that one has to wonder about Sauron's mental state.

Bêthberry

07-20-2008, 01:33 PM

Thanks for keeping up this discussion, gentlemen.

I can see one other similarity between the story of Lot/Sodom and Numenor, although I grant it is hardly likely that such would have been one of Tolkien's intentions. Both stories demonstrate a traditional attitude towards women in patriarchial societies. Numenor enacts the traditional idea that it is an ill fate for a woman to inherit the throne--this was one of the prejudices which Elizabeth I constantly faced and had to fight down; in the story of Sodom Lot's wife is punished for looking back but Lot is never punished for offering his own daughters to be raped (to say nothing of what happens subsequently with the lewd story of drunkenness and incest--although the land of his son Moab is said to be a tainted land). Gender does not play a role in Babel except that I suppose one can say it is males who presume to build a tower to heaven in order to preempt further punishment from God--with God taking back his gift to Adam of naming things by creating linquistic diversity Himself.

Yet upon further ruminations I wonder if a lesson needs to be a central part of the story of Numenor. Perhaps the most salient point is that the pure, perfect Undying Lands are saved from the rude incursion of a deeply sinful people. Arda Unmarred (can I call the Deathless Lands Arda Umarred?) is removed from any possibility of taint or evil by this action. This was Eru's motivation, to preserve the only or last vestige of pureness from the hand of evil, rather than to teach sinful Men a lesson per se. He was preserving the last remnant of his perfect music by making it impossible for Men to know of it.

And there is not now upon Earth any place abiding where the memory of a time without evil is preserved. For Iluvatar cast back the Great Seas west of Middle-earth, and the Empty Lands east of it, and new lands and new seas were made and the world was diminished, for Valinor and Eressea were taken from it into the realm of hidden things.

Just another suggestion.

Morthoron

07-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Yet upon further ruminations I wonder if a lesson needs to be a central part of the story of Numenor. Perhaps the most salient point is that the pure, perfect Undying Lands are saved from the rude incursion of a deeply sinful people. Arda Unmarred (can I call the Deathless Lands Arda Umarred?) is removed from any possibility of taint or evil by this action. This was Eru's motivation, to preserve the only or last vestige of pureness from the hand of evil, rather than to teach sinful Men a lesson per se. He was preserving the last remnant of his perfect music by making it impossible for Men to know of it.

Hmmm...If that is the case (and again, very plausible, m'lady), then that is where Tolkien actually diverges from the bible, in that Eru acts only to save a piece of Eden unmarred, whereas Yahweh is punishing Adam and his descendants by removing Eden forever (as well as plopping the original sin guilt-trip on procreation, as well as casting woman as a seething pit of lasciviousness and temptation).

Yahweh was much more 'old school' vindictive than the more liberal Eru. I don't think the Puritans or the original Calvinists would have cared for Eru much.

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-20-2008, 02:52 PM

Hmm... I thought if this is not getting too off-topic, but then, it is still about the thesis you propose about Númenor. Whether Númenor was a patriarchal society (seemingly it was) and what effects it had is another thing, but it can't be shown on the examples you pose. Or, of course the society in which the biblical stories take place, and in which they are written, is patriarchal, and it's even shown on for example Lot's authority over his daughters, as you also mentioned. But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

I can see one other similarity between the story of Lot/Sodom and Numenor, although I grant it is hardly likely that such would have been one of Tolkien's intentions. Both stories demonstrate a traditional attitude towards women in patriarchial societies. Numenor enacts the traditional idea that it is an ill fate for a woman to inherit the throne--this was one of the prejudices which Elizabeth I constantly faced and had to fight down; in the story of Sodom Lot's wife is punished for looking back but Lot is never punished for offering his own daughters to be raped (to say nothing of what happens subsequently with the lewd story of drunkenness and incest--although the land of his son Moab is said to be a tainted land).
Lot's wife was turned into that statue because she turned back even though the refugees were told not to do so. On the other hand, Lot giving his daughters to be raped was actually a good deed from him (indeed! Though of course we won't perceive it like that in the current society, but you must think how people perceived it with the morals of the ancient societies, when the tale came to be), because he was willing to give his own daughters (his property, in that society -again, if you wished the story to happen in today's circumstances, you would have to imagine something else instead of the daughters there - but still it was probably the most prized "possession" he had) in exchange for the safety of his guests, strangers who came under his roof and to whom he promised a shelter and he was not going to break it, he was willing to sacrifice his own in order to really provide the guests with a safe haven. For illustration, if you wanted to make a story with similar point for example in M-E, you could make a story where for example Mim the Dwarf would send son for certain death to divert Morgoth's spies away from Amon Rudh in order to save Túrin from being discovered, or something like that.

As for the incest episode later, that could do for long. But in short, it was common in the ancient times in many cultures, for example for the Egyptians, to marry their close relatives, but the Israelites had clear law against it and it was not necessary to point out that it's something wrong, everybody knew - like nowadays. The "curse" for the incest can be explained for example in the meaning of the names of the two sons: the way they are translated here is different from the way the nations of Ammon and Moab (the descendants of these two sons) understood them. That way, this would be aimed against the nations of Ammon and Moab who claimed their kings being the descendants of gods, or maybe being so "high" and of "pure blood" because of the pure blood of their forefathers (the same blood = through the incest). It's well known also from many ancient mythologies that there are often incests in the families of the gods. So the Ammonites probably were proud of having such an ancestor. This tale was supposed to show that there's nothing to be proud of. (Although the main point of the story probably lies in the motives of the daughters and Lot, but that'd be probably for other talk.)

Gender does not play a role in Babel except that I suppose one can say it is males who presume to build a tower to heaven in order to preempt further punishment from God--with God taking back his gift to Adam of naming things by creating linquistic diversity Himself.
Well, here I would actually say that it definitely were not just males. Because even though a patriarchal society, the point of the story was that all the people wanted to be united by building the tower - and that would include even women, with no doubt, simply because of the logical point of the story.

Bêthberry

07-20-2008, 04:13 PM

Hmmm...If that is the case (and again, very plausible, m'lady), then that is where Tolkien actually diverges from the bible, in that Eru acts only to save a piece of Eden unmarred, whereas Yahweh is punishing Adam and his descendants by removing Eden forever (as well as plopping the original sin guilt-trip on procreation, as well as casting woman as a seething pit of lasciviousness and temptation).

Yahweh was much more 'old school' vindictive than the more liberal Eru. I don't think the Puritans or the original Calvinists would have cared for Eru much.

Well, this would leave us with several possible avenues to explore.

1. A deity who removes man from paradise, leaving the memory of it. This could lead two ways: Man would retaliate with anger and cognitive dissonance (those grapes are probably too sour anyway) and become even more isolated and distanced from paradise/perfection, or the memory would somehow inspire Man to hope somehow to attain it again, or to strive after it.

2. A deity who removes all memory of paradise/perfection leaves Man with his own devises and frailties, prey to evil without any hope or inkling of purity, beauty, perfection (assuming the long defeat).

This second possiblity is very dark indeed. But ultimately we know that the passage from the Akallabeth which I quote earlier is mitigated not only by the establishment of Gondor, and Aragorn (hope) in LotR but by the claims of Elendil's influence made in the Akallabeth itself.

Elendil and his sons after founded kingdoms in Middle-earth; and though their lore and craft was but an echo of that which had been ere Sauron came to Numemor, yet very great it seemed to the wild men of the world.

So, one has to wonder what Tolkien meant by saying there was no place with a memory of a time without evil, yet that some faint aspect of that time persisted in Elendil's influence. Did Tolkien realise that the first passage I quoted would create a very modern philosophy with no hope and no perfection, Middle-earth abandoned to Sauron? Or is this too much niggling because the Third Age had no revelation?

Legate, I must ask the boon of a delay in replying to your very interesting points, as RL makes strident demands on my internet time these days. I shall return as soon as I am able.

Morthoron

07-20-2008, 05:10 PM

Hmm... I thought if this is not getting too off-topic, but then, it is still about the thesis you propose about Númenor. Whether Númenor was a patriarchal society (seemingly it was) and what effects it had is another thing, but it can't be shown on the examples you pose. Or, of course the society in which the biblical stories take place, and in which they are written, is patriarchal, and it's even shown on for example Lot's authority over his daughters, as you also mentioned. But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

I don't think Numenor was as patriarchal a society as Gondor was to become. There were, after all, ruling queens in the dynastic chronology (and a strong-willed heroine in Erendis), and that only really changed when Ar-Pharazon usurped the throne and forced marriage on his cousin Tar-Miriel (the rightful queen). Obviously this was an upsetting point in Numenorean history, as it is cast in the negative in the Akallabêth; however, in a strange turn of events the Kings of Gondor from Elendil on down kept to a strict rule of primogeniture (first son inheriting, or in the case of no sons, the closest male heir), rather like the dubious Salic Law which the French quickly cobbled together to assure their favorite, Phillip VI, received the throne rather than England's Edward III (who had a better bloodline through his mother).

I have not really studied Gondorion dynastical history to any great degree, but I recall several gaps in which there was no son to inherit, and a related male claimed the throne. It seems that Tolkien, like the lands he created, became more patriarchal and stratified as the story progressed. Really, beyond Galadriel, there is no woman of regal stature left in Middle-earth at the end of the 3rd Age. Would Eowyn have inherited the crown of Rohan had Eomer died directly after Theoden? I think arguments could be made either way, but considering the dual lines of barrows outside of Meduseld (all occupied by dead male kings), it would be a first if she had.

And Tolkien does make the point (and proudly so) that the line of the Northern Dunedain remained unbroken from father to son all the way back to Valandil. The daughters and wives were merely left at home to mourn the dead.

Well, this would leave us with several possible avenues to explore.

1. A deity who removes man from paradise, leaving the memory of it. This could lead two ways: Man would retaliate with anger and cognitive dissonance (those grapes are probably too sour anyway) and become even more isolated and distanced from paradise/perfection, or the memory would somehow inspire Man to hope somehow to attain it again, or to strive after it.

2. A deity who removes all memory of paradise/perfection leaves Man with his own devises and frailties, prey to evil without any hope or inkling of purity, beauty, perfection (assuming the long defeat).

This second possiblity is very dark indeed. But ultimately we know that the passage from the Akallabeth which I quote earlier is mitigated not only by the establishment of Gondor, and Aragorn (hope) in LotR but by the claims of Elendil's influence made in the Akallabeth itself.

So, one has to wonder what Tolkien meant by saying there was no place with a memory of a time without evil, yet that some faint aspect of that time persisted in Elendil's influence. Did Tolkien realise that the first passage I quoted would create a very modern philosophy with no hope and no perfection, Middle-earth abandoned to Sauron? Or is this too much niggling because the Third Age had no revelation?

Well, depending on how one looks at it, the fact that Eru saved Elendil and his ships (like Yahweh saved Noah), but destroyed the rest of the wicked (or the non-commital) was a sign that the faithful would prevail (if, of course, they remained faithful); thus, the dark foreboding of your #2 is precluded from contention, as it was obviously not Eru's aim to wipe everyone out, and leave no lasting memory of that which was (remember the quote regarding Faramir and his silent remembrance before meals earlier in the discussion).

Again, I don't think Eru was as vengeful as Yahweh (and there are plenty of times Yahweh got out his bat of righteousness and smoted folk for merely being on land he wanted his Chosen Folk to occupy). If anything, Eru was a more hands-off kind of guy than Yahweh, and trusted his musical plan to work its way out in the end (the Numenorean debacle being one of the few times he actively assisted, and then only due to the the imploring Valar).

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-20-2008, 05:28 PM

Okay, this is more like general thoughts on the subject, not replying concretely on what's been said here, but connected to it.
(I wrote this post in the way "whatever comes to my mind", so please forgive eventual inconsistency - although I was trying to achieve it, at least in some way.)

There is one thing. Middle-Earthian Man was actually never "removed from paradise". In the meaning, he was never physically there. He was denied it from the very beginning - THE paradise, Valinor. Then, there was Númenor, the given land, which was not paradise (for example, the people had to work there like everywhere else and also, it could have been marred, as it was in the end), but it was something "special" - indeed, the "Golden Age" comparison seems very good to me - and it was taken away from the Númenoreans to be never given back. Along with it, any contact with the "real paradise" was removed - not a sight of it, just memory. But the memory was there (cf. even Faramir's ritual of looking to the West before dinner, "to Númenor which was, and to Eressea which is, and to what is behind Eressea and will always be"). Mentioning Faramir's words now, I seem to notice one thing: I originally thought that Valinor and all such stuff may have been just a memory of the glorious past, the time when we could climb up Meneltarma and had our own island and such things, but now it seems to me that - "which is behind Eressea and will always be" - Valinor has, strangely enough, some importance to the Dúnedain even in the present. My question would be, why should it? It's been removed from the Circles of the World and either way, it's the Elves' "heaven" - not Men's. Men have a different fate. Why are Dúnedain concerned at all? Is it the closeness to the Elves, maybe even in bloodline in some cases? Is it an expectation of hope like in Eärendil's times - and well-deserved, actually, thinking of the Istari? Or what?

As for the still returning comparisons to the biblical portrayals of paradise and such things. It's good to use them because it's probably the easiest way to compare something. But I would like to warn that it's not staying good to the subject to put the equal marks between some things in Arda's story and the biblical story. I said: comparison. When you look at the things in which the tales differ, you can notice more about how it works in Middle-Earth.
For one, we should acknowledge one thing - Arda lacks deeper interaction of the Creator and the Creation. It lacks the aspect of the "God descending", be it Christ in New Testament or "shekhina", presence of God following the Israelites even into the exile. As it has been said above, Eru is far more "liberal", also in the sense that he cares a lot less about the creation, at least compared to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He seldom acts in an apparent way, and when he does, we see rather an All-Ruler aspect in him than the descending God. (His acts are like that he "pushes" Gollum into the lava, for example.)

In any case, of all the comparisons of the tale mentioned here, I think the best comparison used was alatar's tower of Babel. Although I am pretty sure Tolkien did not intend it, so I disagree on that it would be retelling of it, but the point of the story seems to be the closest to what happened on Númenor: just as alatar said.

This act of pride was 'rewarded' with the dispersing of all humanity due to divinely-enacted language barriers, and so never again could humanity unite in such a prideful way - trying to reach Heaven/Aman.

So the direction of the "lesson" may be as well such as this one. Directed to all the "further generations" - however even here one interesting problem arises, and I am sure we are all aware of it: if the Undying Lands cannot be reached anymore, why the lesson? Even if Men tried to enter Aman with armies, they couldn't anymore. So this lesson may actually not be lesson at all; it may not be a word, but rather an actual deed.

To which relates: Note also one thing, which I am not sure if has been emphasised enough - the course of events during the Fall of Númenor is such that Manwë calls to Eru (apparently, things have reached the point where Manwë himself doesn't have adequate "power" - or what - to do something), and Eru does something unimaginable - a real change, literally the world "shakes at its basis". And at least to me it always seemed that without Manwë's asking for it, Eru wouldn't have done anything. It's obviously one of the "big shocks no one would expect" that he only can do, though, of course. But still - I would compare it for example to Eärendil's journey, although it was in a different scale and also somewhat different circumstances.

Although still, the destruction is not total, at least the memory remains - and, if we believe the legends, the top of Meneltarma. And now you can look back at the first paragraph of this post and think what it means to have this memory - even in presence.

Legate, I must ask the boon of a delay in replying to your very interesting points, as RL makes strident demands on my internet time these days. I shall return as soon as I am able.
Granted :D

EDIT: x-ed with Morthoron, and it seems we both remembered some things - obviously Faramir should have made a fortune by becoming a restaurant-owner: everybody recalls his meals :D

Bêthberry

07-21-2008, 08:02 PM

Finally able to return to reply . . .

Some of this discussion leads us very far away from the topic and Tolkien, so I will keep my comments short. Those who wish to consider Numenor might well wish to ignore this post.

But the way you use the examples is actually not percieving them the way they are meant. (Whoever doesn't want to read more and to whom this suffices may skip the rest of the post.)

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.

Lot's wife was turned into that statue because she turned back even though the refugees were told not to do so.

Actually, she did not turn back; she merely looked back, possibly the first Entwife. ;) And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.

Well, here [referring to my comment about Babel] I would actually say that it definitely were not just males. Because even though a patriarchal society, the point of the story was that all the people wanted to be united by building the tower - and that would include even women, with no doubt, simply because of the logical point of the story.

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

In any case, of all the comparisons of the tale mentioned here, I think the best comparison used was alatar's tower of Babel. Although I am pretty sure Tolkien did not intend it, so I disagree on that it would be retelling of it, but the point of the story seems to be the closest to what happened on Númenor: just as alatar said.

One of the really interesting things about this comparison to Babel is, I think, the absence of its linguistic consequence in Tolkien's work. His Legendarium has no mythological moment to explain or justify linguistic variation. Was this a case of his professional life influencing his creative life: the career philologist who devoted his time to the historical development of language could not imagine/write an episode which attributed language diversity to something other than historical change?

What this all rambling has to do with the drowning of Numenor, I'm not sure. :D

Morthoron

07-21-2008, 10:32 PM

One of the really interesting things about this comparison to Babel is, I think, the absence of its linguistic consequence in Tolkien's work. His Legendarium has no mythological moment to explain or justify linguistic variation. Was this a case of his professional life influencing his creative life: the career philologist who devoted his time to the historical development of language could not imagine/write an episode which attributed language diversity to something other than historical change?

That is why I don't think the Tower of Babel analogy is applicable. Because Tolkien was a philologist, his languages bare the subtle variations of time and place. Languages do change (the Gothic strains of the Northmen of Greenwood are altered eventually into the pseudo-Anglo-Saxon of Rohan, for instance), but there is a logic to the variances, such as the long sundering of two or three groups of the same race (the differences between Quenyan and Sindarin and Silvan), and the use of the Westron tongue as the lingua franca of the 3rd Age (like Latin, French and English examples in history). Frankly, Tolkien loved words too much to plop in a rather simplistic fable to explain away such a rich and evocative branch of learning; or to put it another way, weren't languages, in fact, the wellspring of all his works?

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-22-2008, 11:33 AM

Hoom. Hummm. Hruummm. Ascertaining the way stories are meant is a long and difficult process, as anyone who followed the infamous Canonicity may recall(That was I think before your time) and one not immune to the ravages of time. In fact, it can be argued that often 'intention' is more a creation of the time of the reader/perceiver than of the author. Nor is intention the only criterion one may use in discussing or analyzing narrative; it is often valuable to consider the context of narrative, something that, in a text as old and as gathered from multiple sources as Genesis, may not always provide one clear intention. After all, the story of Lot's incest is missing from the Quran, where Lot is regarded as a Prophet.
Hoom, hoom, this is about interpretation and the discussion will stray too far... well even further than it did now... if we continued that. But simply put, my point was aimed the way that I would not consider using it the way you use it "fair". All the stories, and with the biblical ones it can be seen very well, as they are very old, can be interpretated in different ways and new meanings and interpretations fitting the context of the current time may be applied to them in every century. That's normal, and of course even good. We do that even with Tolkien, sometimes asking for things which the Prof would simply not have thought about. But there are some things which simply are not following the original intention of the story in any way. Such things happen, for example many times lots of biblical texts have been misused, one example for all, Revelation 2,9 - the words about "synagogue of Satan" had been (and even is till today by some!) used as a basis of antisemitism, while it's obvious from the verse itself that the people about whom the verse speaks "say they are Jews, and are not, but the synagogue of Satan". So it's not that "they are Jews, i.e. synagogue of Satan", but they present themselves as Jews, but are not (meaning probably that they are Jews but do things a proper Jew shouldn't do). But it's simply that some people used it the way they wanted to. And that's a common thing everywhere. So because of this, one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims. For one, it's definitely not that the tale of Lot would support incest. That's clear enough, because of the motives of the daughters. *sigh* I didn't want to start about it. That'd be really for long. I will just point out the few things: all the "foremothers" (Sarah, Rachel...) had problems with giving birth, this way it was also underlined that it depended on God whether his chosen people will continue to exist. Yet both of Lot's daughters immediately become pregnant - isn't it curious? And their motives for the incest? "Our father is old, and there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth." So instead they decided to make their father drunk and have children from him. Lot, probably, although he was drunk, also isn't without guilt, but that'd be for really too long and far more speculative. In any case, the daughters' stance is obvious fear, maybe even the sight of hopeless situation face to face to the end of the lineage. They choose this very odd way to make the lineage continue, their own short-sighted solution for their cornered situation; and indeed, they immediately give birth to two sons, how great! But who becomes of such sons? Ammon and Moab. No chosen people, not even any special descendants of pure bloodline (cf. my previous post), but some "losers", or how to say that. So as if this was saying: dear daughters, this was not a good way you chose to solve your situation. (So you see, it does concern incest itself rather from just rational, calculated reasons.)

And while this was prohibited by the angels who warned Lot, my comment was to point out the value system of the story. One may not even look upon destruction without incurring wrath, but one may engage in incest without being punished--or rather, having only the descendents punished, as Amon and Moab were to become the traditional enemies of the Isrealites. Readers may ask why or how that system exists-- why is it that a mere look or glance is circumscribed but a sexual act that had been prohibited is not punished. Of course Genesis is all about men's refusal to accept limitation, therebye putting in greater contrast the great climax of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son on God's demand. But one can also ask why no Ram appeared in a bush to save Jephthah's daughter. It is all well and good to say that offerring one's child, one's most prized possession, is a sign of faithfulness and virtue, but one can also ask how the offerring is distributed and what it means for a child to be a mere possession of a father.
In any case, indeed, the readers may ask and they ask rightfully - but the only thing I want to point out is that the original readers, the ones to whom the story was narrated as to the first listeners, did NOT ask, because they considered some things as clear and they also saw some things clearer than us because of their circumstances. It's always easier to understand a contemporary book than a book even from let's say two hundred years ago, if only for example because you no longer know what "heap" was or something like that (I don't know if I gave a good example, in Czech it would be an old and not-used word). I believe the message of the text is always actualised, can be always actualised, should be always actualised, but there's just that some stories don't count with some things. In every tale, there's always the "core" and the "colorite". For example, I haven't seen anybody bother with the fact that Bilbo Baggins was seemingly a not-working exploiter of the society. If you for example ask, why the story punishes Lot's wife for disobedience, but doesn't punish the incest in also such a clear way, like that for example the cave would collapse on Lot and his daughters, I reply, because the point of the story lies elsewhere (aside from what I said before, that the incest actually IS punished). The same for example with Jephtah's daughter - the story will lose its point if some ram appeared to save her; the drasticness (is that a word?) of the story is what hits the reader hard and makes him see that making an unbreakable vow without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do (lo, Fëanor!). Someone spoke about lesson in the title of this thread, so this is exactly the case: a man who wishes to make an oath may actually stop, because he remembers the story (or in M-E terms, he could remember Fëanor or the Dead of Dunharrow). Or - oh, wonderful, I manage to stay on-topic! - a Fourth-Age King who starts to do some things the Númenoreans did can remember what happened to Númenor, and so rather stop and reconsider.

Here it is! I think I managed to formulate my response to the original question of the thread. :)

Actually, the passage in Genesis 11.1-9 uses only the word 'men' or 'children of men' or 'they' (I'm using the King James Bible and the Oxford New Engish Bible; I don't have the Jerusalem Bible at hand to compare translations.) And the context of Genesis 11 names only males: Genesis 10 lists the generations of male children of Noah and Genesis 11:10-23 lists the generations of Shem, again, all male children. The only named children are first born sons. It is a cultural assumption to say that the word 'men' includes women and it can quite often be demonstrated (not just in the Bible but in many literary texts over the centuries) that women are really not represented in this word because they don't contribute to the significance of the context, in this case, the context being heredity. As Morthoron pointed out, Aragorn comes from an unbroken line of male heirs. (As the Supreme Court of Canada once decided, "persons" does not include women.)

Yes, I checked the Hebrew text and it says "sons of Adam" (or "sons of Man" which is the same thing, the same word), which is rather poetic expression and indeed, one could argue whether "sons" does not include even females here. But in any case, it says "sons". The facts that in the name lists there are just males named is of no value here, because simply, in the patriarchal society there was really no reason to include women there. As you say, it played no role in the context of heredity, but this has nothing to do with this text, mind you. Here there's nothing about heredity, we speak about some unidentified masses of people - "all the whole earth", actually. These are the words by which the text starts. And that would definitely include women. Patriarchal society or not, all the nations are included, and that includes women. If nothing else, then it's clear enough that it's not like that men would be speaking different languages but women would still have the same language, so they must have been included in the event too. And all the logic speaks for it, as I said before.
(In any case, what would be the point of asking this I am not sure.)

alatar

07-22-2008, 12:16 PM

Happy Birthday, LoAL!

Hoom, hoom, this is about interpretation and the discussion will stray too far... well even further than it did now... if we continued that. But simply put, my point was aimed the way that I would not consider using it the way you use it "fair". All the stories, and with the biblical ones it can be seen very well, as they are very old, can be interpretated in different ways and new meanings and interpretations fitting the context of the current time may be applied to them in every century. That's normal, and of course even good.
Just one cynical note: Words from a god should be more absolute and clear if one is to escape eternal damnation by their proper interpretation. In the words on Agent Smart, "Missed it by THAT much!"

And that's a common thing everywhere. So because of this, one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims.
Something I've always hoped to point out is that ancient stories and myths had to have a peer audience, meaning that these stories weren't just written for people thousands of years in the future, but for the contemporary culture as well (if not exclusively).

Yet both of Lot's daughters immediately become pregnant - isn't it curious? And their motives for the incest? "Our father is old, and there's not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth." So instead they decided to make their father drunk and have children from him. Lot, probably, although he was drunk, also isn't without guilt, but that'd be for really too long and far more speculative. In any case, the daughters' stance is obvious fear, maybe even the sight of hopeless situation face to face to the end of the lineage. They choose this very odd way to make the lineage continue, their own short-sighted solution for their cornered situation; and indeed, they immediately give birth to two sons, how great! But who becomes of such sons? Ammon and Moab. No chosen people, not even any special descendants of pure bloodline (cf. my previous post), but some "losers", or how to say that. So as if this was saying: dear daughters, this was not a good way you chose to solve your situation. (So you see, it does concern incest itself rather from just rational, calculated reasons.)
I know that this too may be even more tangential, but from the above I'm reminded of the story of Noah Arkwright, when, having survived the Deluge, raised grapes, made wine, and his son Ham did something that made Noah not curse Ham but Ham's son Canaan, as stated here:

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."
I've read that one interprets the sin of Ham of having impregnated Noah's wife, Ham's mother. The son she bares is then cursed.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's not always the women involved in incest.

skip spence

07-22-2008, 12:43 PM

I've read that one interprets the sin of Ham of having impregnated Noah's wife, Ham's mother. The son she bares is then cursed.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's not always the women involved in incest.

They do? Wow! Anyways, that's a classic part of a classic book no doubt, hehe

alatar

07-22-2008, 01:23 PM

Just note that it's not 'just me' that reads the text this way. More information can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham); note that the content discusses incest, racism and slavery.

Bêthberry

07-22-2008, 08:28 PM

Well, let me come to the party late but still with good wishes for a happy fete day, Legate. :)

Really intriguing link there, alatar. Thanks for posting the story about earlier interpretations.

Frankly, Tolkien loved words too much to plop in a rather simplistic fable to explain away such a rich and evocative branch of learning; or to put it another way, weren't languages, in fact, the wellspring of all his works?

Well, for a fable, the story has permeated a great deal of contemporary society; witness Babel fish and the movie of the same name, although the theme of Man's presumptuous pride and agression against God is less referenced these days, the confusion rather than the tower gaining prominence. Still, the Tower of Babel does incorporate the aspect of false belief which also hovers around the Sodom and Gamorrah tale. The tower was built upon the demand of Nimrod, kind of Babylon, and of course was part of the great city itself, a site of false, rival belief. This aspect is also found in the story of Sodom and Gamorrah: Lot had, after all, turned away from Abraham's land and journeyed east; he was a stranger in Sodom himself and perhaps tainted by its ways. And Numenor is a story about a falling away from true belief in a monotheistic god in favour of a false pretender.

But, yes, I do think that Tolkien rather relished the confusion of languages. :D

But there are some things which simply are not following the original intention of the story in any way. . . . one important thing is to take care and consider where the original story aims. . . . but the only thing I want to point out is that the original readers, the ones to whom the story was narrated as to the first listeners, did NOT ask, because they considered some things as clear and they also saw some things clearer than us because of their circumstances. It's always easier to understand a contemporary book than a book even from let's say two hundred years ago,

Well, I suppose I would say that original intention for the original readers--listeners really, as all the Pentateuch began as Oral Law--comes down to us through a long line of redactors, starting with the change over two generations between the Prophets and the Scholars, way back centuries before the Second Temple fell, 70 CE and that's a very intersting switch in the nature of those whose inheritance it was to preserve the Law. And, if that original intention was so clear, how come the theme of disobedience and willful refusal to follow God's way had to be hammered home so often, and how come there's such a rich tradition of interpretation and analysis? I suppose this question is very similar to alatar's line about "missed it by this much."

There's also an argument to be made that it is more difficult to understand a contemporary book than one written two hundred years ago, as more is involved in interpretation than just the very important aspect of literal definition. Look at how easily LotR has been given several contradictory readings and how for some it is a reactionary tome and for others a very modern, forward looking book. And look at Tolkien's own Foreword where he gives a very stark 'interpretation' of the story had it truly had parallels with World War II. To continue with the hoom, harooms, it's very easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Yet, for all this, I think we have different points of view about intention and original meaning, which will likely never meet.

"all the whole earth", actually. These are the words by which the text starts. And that would definitely include women. Patriarchal society or not, all the nations are included, and that includes women. If nothing else, then it's clear enough that it's not like that men would be speaking different languages but women would still have the same language, so they must have been included in the event too. And all the logic speaks for it, as I said before.
(In any case, what would be the point of asking this I am not sure.)

Well, just for the sake of discussion as this is really getting tangential to the topic, I'm not sure where exactly the story of the Tower of Babel "starts" in the Hebrew, because the chapter and verse numbers are an invention of Christian exegesis. And I'm just a little bit intrigued by the fact that, of all the historical contexts and interpretations offerred of Babel on Wikipedia, only an apocryphal one, from the pseudepigrapha, The Third Apocalypse of Baruch, actually mentions women by word, with a rather stark story about the cruelty of the Tower's instigators: Wiki on Babel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel). But the treatment of queens is part of Tolkien's story of Numenor.

How did this get started? :eek:

Morthoron

07-22-2008, 09:36 PM

Well, for a fable, the story has permeated a great deal of contemporary society; witness Babel fish and the movie of the same name, although the theme of Man's presumptuous pride and agression against God is less referenced these days, the confusion rather than the tower gaining prominence. Still, the Tower of Babel does incorporate the aspect of false belief which also hovers around the Sodom and Gamorrah tale. The tower was built upon the demand of Nimrod, kind of Babylon, and of course was part of the great city itself, a site of false, rival belief.

Yes, and we know that good ol' Nimrod has permeated modern society as well, being the title of a Green Day album, and a slang term for a dolt as well (it also could mean 'hunter', but I've not seen any piece of literature published within the last 100 years that uses the name thus). Nevertheless, the major premise of the fable is the divergence of languages (brought on by presumptive pride); therefore, I still maintain it is not germane to the Fall of Numenor, as the moral of the story does not fit in any case.

But it would've been funny if Elendil, having landed on the shore of Eriador after the storm-tossed trip, claiming all the lands in the name of the Shire and uttering his name as Caradoc Brandybuck, with his sons Palanquin and Hennequin.

Macalaure

07-23-2008, 07:19 AM

Can I post something on topic? :D

I don't think the sinking of Numenor was supposed to be a punishment. This seems to me to be an unexpectedly calculated action by Iluvatar. Who should it be a lesson to? Sauron? It was not very effective, then. The surviving Numenoreans and the other people of Middle-earth? I can't think so. What would the lesson be? A lesson of fear, of course. But Eru doesn't at one (other) time give me the impression of being a father who desired to be feared by his children. The other option seems to be that he destroyed Numenor out of wrath. But this seems equally unlikely, because, as has been mentioned, Eru doesn't give a wrathful impression anywhere else either.

And at least to me it always seemed that without Manwë's asking for it, Eru wouldn't have done anything.

It seemed that way to me, too. Actually, I wonder whether Manwe really expected Eru to do something along those lines or whether he was shocked at the measure, too.

What I don't understand is, why did Eru wait to take action until Manwe asked him to, and then decided he would need to deal out punishment / decided he wanted to be wrathful. Wouldn't he just have addressed Manwe's plea, which was only to protect Valinor? Where did this idea come from? Or did Eru make up his mind long before, but didn't want to realize his plan as long as it would undermine Manwe's authority? I'm not sure whether any of this makes sense. Let's have a look at the quote.

Then Manwe upon the Mountain called upon Iluvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda. But Iluvatar showed forth his power, and he changed the fashion of the world; and a great chasm opened in the sea between Numenor and the Deathless Lands, and the waters flowed down into it, and the noise and smoke of the cataracts went up to heaven, and the world was shaken. And all the fleets of the Numenoreans were drawn down into the abyss, and they were drowned and swallowed up for ever. But Ar-Pharazon the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom.
But the land of Aman and Eressea of the Eldar were taken away and removed beyond the reach of Men for ever. And Andor, the Land of Gift, Numenor of the Kings, Elenna of the Star of Earendil, was utterly destroyed. For it was nigh to the east of the great rift, and its foundations were overturned, and it fell and went down into darkness, and is no more. And there is not now upon Earth any place abiding where the memory of a time without evil is preserved. For Iluvatar cast back the Great Seas west of Middle-earth, and the Empty Lands east of it, and new lands and new seas were made; and the world was diminished, for Valinor and Eressea were taken from it into the realm of hidden things.
In an hour unlocked for by Men this doom befell, on the nine and thirtieth day since the passing of the fleets. Then suddenly fire burst from the Meneltarma, and there came a mighty wind and a tumult of the earth, and the sky reeled, and the hills slid, and Nъmenor went down into the sea, with all its children and its wives and its maidens and its ladies proud; and all its gardens and its balls and its towers, its tombs and its riches, and its jewels and its webs and its things painted and carven, and its lore: they vanished for ever.

~Akallabeth

(emphasis mine, of course)Does anybody but me read this thinking that maybe Eru didn't actually want to destroy Numenor in the first place and that it was just an "accident" that happened when Eru wanted to protect Valinor? In the first paragraph, Ar-Pharazon's fleet is destroyed and his army captured. This is the only thing that's immediately necessary to satisfy Manwe's plea and this is what Tolkien starts with. In the second he describes Eru going further and removing Valinor, making it safe not just for the moment but for the future. Numenor is mentioned, but no more. Then, only in the third paragraph, Tolkien mentions the drowning of Numenor. (Of course, it could also be that it was just the last of the things to happen, chronologically.)

In the second paragraph, Tolkien gives a reason for the sinking of Numenor, being that "it was nigh to the east of the great rift". In other words, Numenor just happened to be in the way. This does not sound like its destruction was a prime intention of Eru. Now, one could ask, if he didn't want to destroy Numenor, couldn't he, being Eru, have devised a way to destroy Ar-Pharazon's fleet and remove Valinor without it? This is difficult to answer. Maybe Arda's geography really didn't allow it without a change to its laws of physics, who knows? But the feeling I get is that maybe Eru has simply ceased to care for Numenor. After all, the Numenoreans used to be the only people who didn't "just" worship the Valar primarily, but himself. I would say that Eru didn't really wanted to destroy Numenor - otherwise the blow would have been more direct, and the text passage wouldn't carry the feeling of collateral damage - but that Eru has grown indifferent enough towards it that it didn't matter to him very much anymore and if it had to be sacrificed to protect Valinor, then so be it.

(I have to add that I haven't checked any passages from HoMe to check for different descriptions, so I could be rather wrong.)

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-23-2008, 08:17 AM

Well, let me come to the party late but still with good wishes for a happy fete day, Legate. :)
Thank you. :) And to you too, alatar.

Well, I suppose I would say that original intention for the original readers--listeners really, as all the Pentateuch began as Oral Law--comes down to us through a long line of redactors, starting with the change over two generations between the Prophets and the Scholars, way back centuries before the Second Temple fell, 70 CE and that's a very intersting switch in the nature of those whose inheritance it was to preserve the Law. And, if that original intention was so clear, how come the theme of disobedience and willful refusal to follow God's way had to be hammered home so often, and how come there's such a rich tradition of interpretation and analysis? I suppose this question is very similar to alatar's line about "missed it by this much."

There's also an argument to be made that it is more difficult to understand a contemporary book than one written two hundred years ago, as more is involved in interpretation than just the very important aspect of literal definition. Look at how easily LotR has been given several contradictory readings and how for some it is a reactionary tome and for others a very modern, forward looking book. And look at Tolkien's own Foreword where he gives a very stark 'interpretation' of the story had it truly had parallels with World War II. To continue with the hoom, harooms, it's very easy to miss the forest for the trees.
That's true. But the way I put it in the post before I think the books written in different circumstances are more difficult to read - when you don't know much about the time when they were written. Because of the reasons I stated. It's true that when you know about the circumstances, it may be easy for you to abstract some "time-specific" things, like for example now I am reading a book about Mahatma Gandhi written by a Czech author during the era of totality here, and I know which things to relativise or to take with reservations (although I am aware that even this may be dangerous, as I possibly can't know all). But still I think the contemporary books are easier to understand just because of that. And what you say for example about Tolkien, and I believe it concerns even the biblical story by the time it was narrated in its first times, and that's also about the "clear intention" and the things you speak about in the first paragraph, it was prone just to the "wilful interpretation", as much as everything is.
Nevertheless, I never said the story has just one correct interpretation or something like that. That would be the biggest nonsense. But I simply say that there are certain criteria - and the disobedience, wilful refusals and such things you mention prove it - that there are some borders where the interpretation simply becomes wilful and untrue to the central message of it (also in the case you take the Bible as canon, be it just OT or both or in any other cases, you can actually apply this on any set of books, even on Tolkien - then you have to count with the single stories' interpretations being coherent with the message of the book as a whole). Now I must say I also mix some "criticism" into it, simply saying that there are things which I believe cannot in any way be based upon the concerned text. Anyway, actually I believe there may be situations when one interpretation may be appropriate while in a different situation it would not be. Look even into the biblical canon itself! There are some really contradictory things inside it. But that's what it is - and that's actually what I believe makes it still "live" and gives it some possibility of "dialogue". Aside from, whenever I am already speaking from personal opinion, the Holy Spirit, which makes it possible to convey some message to you. But that's purely Christian view now.

Yet, for all this, I think we have different points of view about intention and original meaning, which will likely never meet.
Who told you that? At least I was not able to "decipher" what is your point of view about intention and original meaning, not in the way that the result would tell me it's totally different from mine and that they can never meet.

Well, just for the sake of discussion as this is really getting tangential to the topic, I'm not sure where exactly the story of the Tower of Babel "starts" in the Hebrew, because the chapter and verse numbers are an invention of Christian exegesis.
Of course. But just for the sake of discussion, the point is that the story speaks, at least in this sentence, which is seemingly important (well, after all, it apparently caught the eye of those who divided the chapters), speaks about "all the earth". And it's definite that the point of the story concerns all people, be they male or female.
As for where it starts, one might take a look at it, but I would personally think, who knows, because it's put into the one whole by the redaction(s?) and one would have to try to find out by some signs, or actually, conclude where it theoretically might have started. Fortunately that's not our task at the moment anyway. At least not mine.

And I'm just a little bit intrigued by the fact that, of all the historical contexts and interpretations offerred of Babel on Wikipedia, only an apocryphal one, from the pseudepigrapha, The Third Apocalypse of Baruch, actually mentions women by word, with a rather stark story about the cruelty of the Tower's instigators: Wiki on Babel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel).
That's, I would say, an usual way it goes for the apocrypha. With the later age when they were written, one of the things they do is that they "fill in" these things which a reader would usually think about when using some logical conclusion, finding out that it seems the tale misses something. Like for example that women are not mentioned there.

On topic for a change: ;) Mac, I'd agree with some of the things you say, mainly I really am not sure, as you say, whether to see Eru's action as aimed against Númenor primarily. If anything, I would say it was like "All right Manwë, if you ask, I will take Valinor out, and just by the way it will destroy Númenor, how lucky it happens to be so close to the great rift, two flies by one hit, at least." But that's going too far in one direction and I think that won't still be the proper answer for the question.
In any case, on the other hand, even the "I will rip the world apart and look, as collateral damage it destroyed Númenor" explanation does not seem satisfactory, as Eru would surely know so we cannot label it as "accident" and the story even makes one think that it was not a mere "accident", right? Now I am a little exaggerating of course, but in any case we cannot avoid the question "so why did Eru do this?" and cannot just say "it just happened to be that way". Or so I would think.

skip spence

07-23-2008, 09:28 AM

I don't think the sinking of Numenor was supposed to be a punishment.

I disagree. The Numenorians were not allowed to come to Aman. They did come however with the intention to make war upon it and were severly punished.

Now, one could ask, if he didn't want to destroy Numenor, couldn't he, being Eru, have devised a way to destroy Ar-Pharazon's fleet and remove Valinor without it? This is difficult to answer.

I don't think it is difficult to answer. I believe Tolkien made it quite clear that Eru is limitless or omnipotent in relation to his creation, Eä, and that he (is it he btw?) could have chosen to spare all those who were innocent with a thought only, had he wished to do so. The destruction of Numenor was no accident.

Judging by the description in the Silmarillion Eru sees upon his creation much like a work of art and he wants it to be perfect and complete. To achieve this end, ugliness, suffering and evil deeds are just as important as beauty, goodness and pleasure, because without the former, the latter would of lesser value.

Eru doesn't seem bothered at all by the suffering of individual people (or elves) in Arda and the millions of innocent drowned in Numenor is of little or no importance to him I believe. Eru sees the big picture. Perhaps good people get their reward in the after-life (the gift of men) but of this not a word is spoken in the books. What becomes of men when they die is a complete mystery.

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.

If I am to make a guess, I'd say Eru removed Aman for sentimental reasons. It was so pretty and he couldn't stand to lose it, and his buddies the Ainur.. Since men have the freedom to make their own destiny, he might have hoped that they would play nice and leave Aman alone or at least not ruin it. But as it was, men would inevetably ruin Aman had it been left reachable on earth. Perhaps men will eventually make a new paradise of Arda (I forgot what they called it in HoME X) but sooner (Ar-Pharazon) or later (modern air pollution and the plundering of resources) Aman would have been ruined, there's no doubt about that.

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-23-2008, 11:34 AM

and that he (is it he btw?)
You should know that I smirked a little when reading this, because the note seemed just false to me. Eru, as far as I know, is addressed as "he" in the book, and so I would say he is "he", simply because there's no argument which would make us think we should call him "she" or "it", which is both as nonsens-ish, mind you. Why this seemed silly question to me is because Tolkien's books are a literary work we are given, and we have characters in them. You don't ask whether Frodo is "she", why should you ask the same about Eru. I hope it's understandable what I mean (the last sentence makes it pretty clear I think).

Judging by the description in the Silmarillion Eru sees upon his creation much like a work of art and he wants it to be perfect and complete.
Eee... really? I am not sure I ever had this impression. Eru likes to listen to the Music and see (or, hear) the beauty which comes out of it, but at least his behavior always made me think that there's something else going on in his head behind the beauty. Remember:
And they saw with amazement the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar, and the habitation that was prepared for them; and they perceived that they themselves in the labour of their music had been busy with the preparation of this dwelling, and yet knew not that it had any purpose beyond its own beauty.
And also, in particular, if he, as you say, wanted the creation to be perfect and complete, why not make it himself and instead call some Ainur, who only made a mess.

Perhaps good people get their reward in the after-life (the gift of men) but of this not a word is spoken in the books. What becomes of men when they die is a complete mystery.
This is actually a good point, because it seems to me this far we managed to fall into the trap of Morgoth together with the Middle-Earthians and take death as something negative. While it's actually a Gift, for the Men. So we shouldn't maybe worry about the death of the "innocent" (?) inhabitants of Númenor too much.

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.
That's also a good point.

Macalaure

07-23-2008, 11:50 AM

In any case, on the other hand, even the "I will rip the world apart and look, as collateral damage it destroyed Númenor" explanation does not seem satisfactory, as Eru would surely know so we cannot label it as "accident" and the story even makes one think that it was not a mere "accident", right? Now I am a little exaggerating of course, but in any case we cannot avoid the question "so why did Eru do this?" and cannot just say "it just happened to be that way". Or so I would think.

Well, calling it an "accident" was a little bit of an exaggeration itself, that's why I put the quote marks around it. My idea is not Eru saying "Oops, I guess that was a little too much to the right.", but that his intent was only to destroy Ar-Pharazôn's fleet and army and to remove Valinor into eternal safety. He probably could have done this without destroying Númenor, but didn't. He also could have let the great rift go straight through Númenor and make the character of punishment uncontestable, but didn't either. This leads me to speculate that Eru has become indifferent to it. I can't find a quote stating that Eru wanted to coldly punish the Númenóreans or destroyed it in wrath.

As for why Eru chose to destroy Numenor and remove Aman from the circles of the earth it is hard to say. Personally I feel that Tolkien thought not so much about Eru's inner motives and the theological implications when he wrote the story but rather about how good a story, or myth, it was, tying in with the Atlantis myth as it does. He probably pondered the theology as well, but imo this was more likely an afterthought and not the prime motivation behind the story.

With this I completely agree. And that is why it makes such a good topic for discussion. However, if you think this, then how do you know that

The Numenorians were not allowed to come to Aman. They did come however with the intention to make war upon it and were severly punished.

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.

In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

I don't think it is difficult to answer. I believe Tolkien made it quite clear that Eru is limitless or omnipotent in relation to his creation, Eä, and that he (is it he btw?) could have chosen to spare all those who were innocent with a thought only, had he wished to do so. The destruction of Numenor was no accident.

Well, whether he could have spared the innocents with a thought only is debatable. Seeing how long it took the Valar, even without the interruptions of Melkor, to build Arda, it might have been quite toilsome. That's why I get the impression that Eru didn't care about them enough to choose the scalpel over the broadsword.

This is actually a good point, because it seems to me this far we managed to fall into the trap of Morgoth together with the Middle-Earthians and take death as something negative. While it's actually a Gift, for the Men. So we shouldn't maybe worry about the death of the "innocent" (?) inhabitants of Númenor too much.This is certainly true, however, removing a person from life forcefully is considered to be evil. As I said in my last post, if indeed this was supposed to be a lesson, it was one of ambiguous content.

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-23-2008, 01:25 PM

Well, calling it an "accident" was a little bit of an exaggeration itself, that's why I put the quote marks around it. My idea is not Eru saying "Oops, I guess that was a little too much to the right."
Of course, I was aware of it. That's why I said it's a little exaggeration also when I was writing my post.

In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Actually, here we are back at what I said earlier about Manwë's prayer to Eru. Eru did not interfere when the Trees were destroyed, and in lots of other events of all-world importance. Curiously, the sending of Istari, as noted in UT, is said to be on account of Manwë, and Christopher notes that on the edge the Prof marked: "And perhaps he asked Eru for counsel?" In any case, what I want to point out here is that you actually don't usually see Eru acting in any direct, apparent way in the stories (not talking about HoME here, I don't know them, but even then, the tales in them are not among the "canonical" stuff). He rather makes the impression of somebody sitting "outside" and watching it all. But when he is specifically asked, he acts. But this happens really just a few times.
So, stemming from this, the destruction of Númenor, to me, doesn't look like the well-thought intervence of the omnipotent and omniscient creator, but rather the intervence of the omnipotent and omniscient creator who was asked by desperate King of Arda and heard his call. Something like "okay, you asked for it, so I will do it". And if I caricate it a little bit, he might have been saying: "All right, dear Manwë, I understand you. Yes, the course of the events is horrible, Men are going to violate Aman. I will remove the Undying Lands. *cough*itwilldestroynúmenorasitisontheedgeoftherif t*cough*" This is actually how I would imagine it.

alatar

07-23-2008, 01:33 PM

Ah, so we finally get the answer. The lesson was pointed at Manwe! I'm not sure what the lesson is, whether that he should have called on Eru earlier to solve some issues, or that he, being King of Arda, should NOT have ever needed to call on Eru.

Regardless, if we are polling, I'm going with Manwe.

Legate of Amon Lanc

07-23-2008, 01:53 PM

alatar

07-23-2008, 02:00 PM

Well. But, and did you also consider the possibility that there simply was no lesson intended in these circumstances?
Possibly, but as a 'learning creature,' I always look for survival patterns - i.e. what to do to avoid being stomped.

Lesson one - If Manwe sets aside his authority, run (don't walk) to the nearest submarine berthing facility, find one and set sail east as quickly as possible.

skip spence

07-24-2008, 09:31 AM

Eru, as far as I know, is addressed as "he" in the book

Actually, I wasn't trying to be clever. I just couldn't remember how Eru was adressed in the Silmarillion nor be bothered to look it up. You could however make the argument that Eru, in contrast to the Valar, in actuality was beyond any gender-description, being the One, although the Elves who wrote down the myth/history assumed he was a he, as they lived in a patriarchical society. But this is not a point I'd like to take any further.

And also, in particular, if he, as you say, wanted the creation to be perfect and complete, why not make it himself and instead call some Ainur, who only made a mess.

I don't presume to know what Eru wanted, I just got this impression. Eru wanted to create a work of art, a beautiful creation, a perfect drama. He could have made everything perfect to begin with, but where's the fun in that? Like I said earlier, perfection loses much of it's gloss without the possibility of chaos, beauty is diminished without ugliness, the merit of being good is lost without the possibility of a fall, without a lower path. He wanted his children to discover prefection and goodness by themselves, not just lay it out for them ordered and ready.

This is also why I said that Eru cares little about the suffering of individual people. Eru always had full knowledge that millions or rather billions of good people would suffer horribly before his great drama would play out and end happily.

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Why can I say it was Eru's intention to punish the Numenorians? Because the Numenorians were punished, that's why. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so cocksure, but I've hard time interpreting it any other way. Ar-Pharazon acted, Eru reacted, and like I thought we agreed on, Eru doesn't make mistakes. He wanted to destroy Numenor.

As to why he chose to punish the Numenorians but not any other people or individuals at any other time it's hard to say though. As I see it there's one unique thing about this episode. Men, as I remember having read somewhere, are supposed to be free to make their own fate beyond the Music, something which the elder children and even the Valar were not. Therefore, when Morgoth slew the trees, or when Feanor attacked and killed the Teleri, the events must (according to this interpretation) have been foretold in the Music and been a part of Eru's grand plan. Ar-Pharazon's attack on Aman need not have been so, and Eru could have felt the nessesity to act when he saw that his second children used this special freedom to make war upon Aman and his special friends the Ainur. Or perhaps he just did a favour for an old friend? But I agree with you that petty retaliation seems below Eru. There must be a message, a lesson to be learned. But here I'm stuck. I agree with Morth that this story is a wedding of the Biblical flood and the Atlantis-myth. But to be quite honest, I've a hard time figuring out what is to be learned from the biblical flood too, apart from the importance of sacrificing ritually clean beasts and follow best as you can God's every whim. Anyone?

Morthoron

07-24-2008, 10:49 AM

While it certainly was a punishment to the Númenóreans, how can you tell that it was Eru's intention to punish them? This is more than just splitting hairs: Only if it was Eru's intention to punish them, it makes sense to ask who the lesson was directed at.In the Silmarillion there are many deeds worthy of punishment by Eru, especially by Morgoth, yet he never comes to punish them. Why would Eru make such an exception? Why does he count the trespasses of those who are supposed to rule Arda in his stead less than the trespasses of his Children that live in it? Would it not make more sense the other way around?

Why can I say it was Eru's intention to punish the Numenorians? Because the Numenorians were punished, that's why. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so cocksure, but I've hard time interpreting it any other way. Ar-Pharazon acted, Eru reacted, and like I thought we agreed on, Eru doesn't make mistakes. He wanted to destroy Numenor.

As to why he chose to punish the Numenorians but not any other people or individuals at any other time it's hard to say though...

Numenor was the 'Land of the Gift' and Numenoreans were a chosen people, and, as is usual in most mythologies (the bible included), those who receive such gifts bear heavy responibilities in lieu of said gifts. Why were the Numenoreans punished? Simple, they squandered their gift, became overproud and sought to become gods themselves (or immortal in any case). As a parallel, look at the Israelites. They were Yahweh's chosen folk, but no race in the bible is more persecuted, more enslaved, and more likely to be forced from their lands and to wander aimlessly in a diaspora. The Numenoreans got off lightly if one considers their entire history.

Eru, in righteous indignation (and grouchy over having being woken up by an early morning emergency call from Manwe), smote the Numenoreans (both Ar-Pharazon's army and the sinners and King's men on the island) and took back the 'Land of the Gift'; however, he saved the Faithful who adhered to the old, reverential ways. The parallels to biblical accounts are obvious.

Eönwë

07-24-2008, 12:29 PM

After some thought on the Manwë stumbles (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14975) thread (And nice-ish sized post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=563496&postcount=12)on there- maybe not long or explanatory enough, but it gets the point across), I think the lesson might be aimed at Ulmo. After all, he is too kind to his chosen people. Through Tuor, he created Numenor, and maybe Manwe wanted to show him that he shouldn't be too forgiving, otherwise his kindness would be abused, as in the case of Manwe himself with Melkor (or was he Morgoth by then?). Just another, less likely idea.

Blokdog

08-20-2008, 01:30 AM

Well Eru is clearly not perfect, he may be careful and aloof, but he is clearly not perfect. Or if he is it suggests something somewhat darker. Because if Eru was perfect he could see that the men of Westinesse were turning to evil and could have taken somewhat a somewhat less horrific ruite, even something as simple as killing them painlessly. I don’t think it is Tolkein’s wish to portray Eru as perfect by any means. He even portrays him a big egocentric at times (“everything is for my greater glory”).

galorme, I disagree.
if you read the sil very carefully, you see that the valar knew long before that the numenoreans were turning to evil. see the conversation with tar-atanamir, when he, and his people, are warned for foolishness.

alatar

08-20-2008, 09:36 AM

galorme, I disagree.
if you read the sil very carefully, you see that the valar knew long before that the numenoreans were turning to evil. see the conversation with tar-atanamir, when he, and his people, are warned for foolishness.
Blokdog, Welcome to the Downs!

I'm not sure what you mean in your post. Galorme noted that Eru isn't presented as being perfect, and you note that the Valar knew that the Númenóreans were turning to evil. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. Care to help? :)

Blokdog

08-20-2008, 09:55 PM

Blokdog, Welcome to the Downs!

I'm not sure what you mean in your post. Galorme noted that Eru isn't presented as being perfect, and you note that the Valar knew that the Númenóreans were turning to evil. I'm having trouble connecting those dots. Care to help? :)

well, I was a bit in a hurry, so I couldn't quite complete my post. in his post he states that eru wasn't perfect because he hadn't noticed that the numenoreans were turning to evil. i just wanted to make clear that if the valar, who were certainly not perfect, knew this, it's no use to say that eru wasn't perfect, only for the reason...

Anárion Cúthalion

09-03-2008, 12:19 AM

"The fear of God". Now that sounds just plain evil. The idea that there is a higher power who will punish you if you do wrong is just sick. Don’t you love Christianity?

In case you haven't guessed I am letting some of my Atheist beliefs infuence me here a tad.

I'll grant you, his/her tone was a little off-putting, but, genuine 'fear' of God is more akin to very, very strong reverence. Humility, if you will. I think it was mostly the fault of the Numenorean Fleet and their King which sealed the fate of the whole nation on the home island; their hubris, their pride and vanity all conspired to bring them to a place where Sauron could bend them to his will. Or at least to where he could plant the seed of boldness that drove them to pursue what they were already thinking. The people on Numenor are fine now, where ever Eru wants them to be. The Fleet, on the other hand, is in a form of living (well, sleeping) hell until the proverbial sounding of the trumpet.

Lalwendë

09-03-2008, 05:58 AM

There are some facts to be had on the history of Numenor which help. The first is that it wasn't a gift of Eru, but of the Valar. The rules about not setting foot on the shores of Valinor (technically, not leaving sight of the shores of Numenor) were also set by the Valar, and not Eru. It was also Manwe who called upon Eru to do something about Ar-Pharazon's expedition (possibly following Amandil's journey to Valinor to parley with the bosses?).

If you read the discussion between Amandil and Elendil (which I was going to put in a quote but it's maybe so long as to be a bit close to breaching copyright ;)) then there is a hint that Amandil, if he indeed got to Valinor (this is kept purposefully shady) asked Manwe to get rid of Numenor. Read it, I want to see what you guys think.

Here's a little, and the most intriging part:
Seek out the Faithful that are known still to be true, and let them join you in secret, if they are willing to go with you, and share in your design.'
'And what shall that design be?' said Elendil.
'To meddle not in the war, and to watch,' answered Amandil. 'Until I return I can say no more. But it is most like that you shall fly from the Land of the Star with no star to guide you; for that land is defiled. Then you shall lose all that you have loved, foretasting death in life, seeking a land of exile elsewhere. But east or west the Valar alone can say.'
Then Amandil said farewell to all his household, as one that is about to die. 'For,' said he, 'it may well prove that you will see me never again; and that I shall show you no such sign as Earendil showed long ago. But hold you ever in readiness, for the end of the world that we have known is now at hand.'

Reading on from there, the Valar clearly did all they could within their remit (not being permitted to meddle with Men) to stop the Numenoreans from their plans, even causing an earthquake, which just leaves Sauron looking even cooler to Ar-Pharazon and his mates in a fabulously diabolical scene where he defies lightning. So they called on Eru.

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure. I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:

But Ar-Pharazon the King and the mortal warriors that had set foot upon the land of Aman were buried under falling hills: there it is said that they lie imprisoned in the Caves of the Forgotten, until the Last Battle and the Day of Doom.

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

alatar

09-03-2008, 12:17 PM

Thanks for the great post, Lalwendë.

There are some facts to be had on the history of Numenor which help. The first is that it wasn't a gift of Eru, but of the Valar. The rules about not setting foot on the shores of Valinor (technically, not leaving sight of the shores of Numenor) were also set by the Valar, and not Eru. It was also Manwe who called upon Eru to do something about Ar-Pharazon's expedition (possibly following Amandil's journey to Valinor to parley with the bosses?).
I never saw it that way before. This is yet another blunder by the Valar. Seems that every time they intervene with lesser beings, those beings die. Thinking about it, maybe this is the way it is supposed to be, where Manwe et al are just greater versions of ourselves. We are all children of the One; some just have greater abilities/responsibilities, and when they make a mistake, the foundations of Arda shake. I guess that instead of seeing the Valar as perfect, we can see them as like us, trying to get it right but not always doing so.

Must be those lies of Melkor, making me think that they're all gods or something.

Reading on from there, the Valar clearly did all they could within their remit (not being permitted to meddle with Men) to stop the Numenoreans from their plans, even causing an earthquake, which just leaves Sauron looking even cooler to Ar-Pharazon and his mates in a fabulously diabolical scene where he defies lightning. So they called on Eru.
As you say, these beings may not be perfect and all-knowing as their PR makes it seem. Maybe Eru removed Aman from the world to protect US from them!

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure.
It does put the One in a bad light. Why did the innocents die? Was there some reason they had to be sacrificed?

I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).
Omniscient beings don't get the pleasure of saying, "Oops! Sorry."

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:
Do we have any direct evidence that Eru actually exists? Or is it all based on hearsay via the Valar? What if they, consciously or subconsciously, created this overbeing as a useful tool? When things get really bad, they can blame him. No one's the wiser.

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...
One would hope not. But I thought that not all warriors were so entombed, but just those few that set foot to Aman with the King?

Macalaure

09-03-2008, 01:23 PM

If you read the discussion between Amandil and Elendil (which I was going to put in a quote but it's maybe so long as to be a bit close to breaching copyright) then there is a hint that Amandil, if he indeed got to Valinor (this is kept purposefully shady) asked Manwe to get rid of Numenor. Read it, I want to see what you guys think.

Intriguing idea (:)), but there are other lines from the same passage that speak against it, I think.

If I thought that Manwe needed such a messenger, I would betray the king. For there is but one loyalty from which no man can be absolved in heart for any cause. But it is for mercy upon Men and their deliverance from Sauron the Deceiver that I would plead, since some at least have remained faithful.

I always saw Amandil's words to Elendil rather like a prophecy of some kind. Maybe it was because of this foreseeing that he felt the need to tell Manwe that not all Numenor had gone bad, and that it, or at least some of it, was still worth protecting.
When the Faithfuls are saved, the connection with Amandil's plea is stated again:

But whether or not it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwe hearkened to his prayer, by the grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day.

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru. The Faithfuls escaped because of Amandil's foresight and the sudden "great winds roaring from the west", which I suppose came from Manwe (and also because of Sauron's soldiers which forced Elendil to man the ships instead of just waiting in the harbour).

Omniscient beings don't get the pleasure of saying, "Oops! Sorry."

But do they get the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, whatever."? ;)

Eönwë

09-03-2008, 02:16 PM

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru.

But wasn't it the Valar who called upon Eru? I think what they were saying was something like "We'll let these good people escape, and then we'll let Eru destroy Numenor however he wants."

Macalaure

09-03-2008, 02:35 PM

Hmm... that interpretation seems to be valid, too. I would still say that "by the grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day." suggests a more direct involvement of the Valar with the rescue of the Faithfuls, though.

edit: note also that in the paragraphs following the Valar's plea - the ones that describe the imprisonment of Pharazôn's army, the removal of Aman, and the drowning of Númenor - there is no reference to the Valar at all.

alatar

09-03-2008, 02:37 PM

Actually, this is also something which belongs in with your "Facts about Númenor": It's very often overlooked that it was the Valar who saved the Faithfuls, and not Eru. The Faithfuls escaped because of Amandil's foresight and the sudden "great winds roaring from the west", which I suppose came from Manwe (and also because of Sauron's soldiers which forced Elendil to man the ships instead of just waiting in the harbour).
I think you mean that it was the Faithful that saved the Faithful. If the Valar were involved, there'd be some floating island involved ;). Manwe's eastward wind was to slow the progress of Ar-Pharazon (or at least to give his rowers something to do). This same wind pushed the Faithful to safety; sure, but if they were still on Numenor, no wind would have pushed them across so far a sea.

But do they get the pleasure of saying, "Yeah, whatever."? ;)
"My ways are not your ways, and I like drowning things." :eek:

Macalaure

09-03-2008, 03:07 PM

I think you mean that it was the Faithful that saved the Faithful. If the Valar were involved, there'd be some floating island involved ;). Manwe's eastward wind was to slow the progress of Ar-Pharazon (or at least to give his rowers something to do). This same wind pushed the Faithful to safety; sure, but if they were still on Numenor, no wind would have pushed them across so far a sea.

Umm, but...

Thus the fleets of the Númenóreans moved against the menace of the West; and there was little wind,...
...
For a wind arose in the east and it wafted them away;

...the wind was still or even came out of the east. I agree, of course, that the decision to be on the ships instead of on Númenor saved them. Without the special wind, however, that would very likely not have been enough.

"My ways are not your ways, and I like drowning things." :eek:

Exactly. ;)

Well, my nice little theory stands and falls with what Eru was thinking, which is the case with every theory about the destruction of Númenor. Sadly, that's guesswork entirely.

Morthoron

09-03-2008, 06:57 PM

I find it hard to take that Eru would do this in order to teach Men a lesson, as those who were doing wrong were killed, along with a lot of innocents - not just in Numenor but also in Middle-earth as that too suffered huge floods and earthquakes - and who would there be to learn from this? Plus it would put Eru in the position of being an unpleasant figure. I'm quite happy to go along with Macalaure's idea that Eru did not intend to kill these people, just to change the shape of the world (which was something the Valar could not do).

There was plenty of collateral damage by Yahweh in the bible. I mean really, actually count the amount of massacres Yahweh not only condoned, but ordered, and you will be amazed. God-sponsored genocide in the bible took no account of young or old, men, women, children or infants. The innocent fell with the guilty, unless they were the chosen, and in Tolkien's case the chosen were the Faithful, and they were spared.

In matter of fact, the perpetrators weren't really punished. Sauron got a fright and legged it from the ruins, while Ar-Pharazon and his Men are entombed in Valinor waiting for the final day, in a strong echo of Loki waiting for Ragnarok:...

Sauron cannot be technically killed, can he? So disembodying him was about all one could do. And I think the greatest mortal king of the Second Age being buried under a hill for eternity does have some poetic justice. I mean, it's almost merciful. In a Christian sense, Ar-Pharazon would have face the eternal torments of Hell in the same circumstance.

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

Again, taken in context with the biblical Yahweh, Eru comes off looking much less vengeful and spiteful...almost kindly, in a wrath of god, apocalyptic sense.

Gwathagor

09-03-2008, 07:53 PM

Would Eru be so petty as to try a school teacher trick of keeping the whole class behind because one of them has been shooting spit balls? Hmmm...

Perhaps the Numenorean people should never have existed at all; one could consider them a failed experiment on the part of the Valar, a phenomenon that defied went against too many facts of reality and that was, at its core, wrong. It had gone well at first, but eventually it became clear that Men were not meant to live in such privilege, so close to the Valar, with gifts of knowledge, strength, health, and the ability to die when they saw fit. It might seem callous or simplistic to just take the Numenoreans as a whole race, rather than on an individual basis, but this approach would be consistent with Tolkien's style of dealing with race in LOTR: he frequent relies on generalities. The Numenoreans had run their course, which really never should have been. In this light, Eru appears merciful for allowing a few of this problematic people group, this aberration, to continue.

(I've never thought about it this way before, and I haven't even entirely convinced myself yet - but I'm entertaining the notion.)

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

09-03-2008, 08:54 PM

Again, taken in context with the biblical Yahweh, Eru comes off looking much less vengeful and spiteful...almost kindly, in a wrath of god, apocalyptic sense.

It does seem that the biggest mention of "wrath" is the War of Wrath, which was a label the Elves gave to the mobilization of the Valar against Morgoth -- which, if I'm recalling correctly, didn't really sit terribly well with Eru; He would have preferred them to move against Melkor much sooner, and trust Him to protect the Eruhini rather than remove the Elves to Aman for safekeeping -- a move which ultimately led to not only the destruction of Beleriand, but the creation and downfall of Numenor. In the Akallabeth, it says:

Then Manwe upon the Mountain called upon Iluvatar, and for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda. But Iluvatar showed forth his power and he changed the fashion of the world; and a great chasm opened in the sea between Numenor and the Deathless Lands, and the waters flowed down into it, and the noise and smoke of the cataracts went up into heaven, and the world was shaken...

There is no mention of wrath or punishment; in fact, there is no mention of whose idea this cataclysm was. Was it the Valar's, or Eru's? The whole "Numenor Project" was not terribly well conceived; it seems very much that the Valar, in attempting to reward the Edain, made another version of the same mistake they made with the Elves, allowing them to come close to something they then forbad them have. If they had learned about jealousy from Melkor and Feanor, they would have realized that this problem would almost inevitably arise among the Numenoreans. Sauron didn't cause them to yearn for immortality; he simply goaded them into an act he felt certain would bring about their complete destruction. It could be that the Valar, in setting aside their governance, asked for some kind of "final solution," without realizing the full implications of what they asked.

I also wonder just who wrote the account of the Akallabeth, particularly in regards to events in Aman (if we carry forward Tolkien's "conceit" of presuming these are actual historical documents). One can presume that Elendil and the other refugees were aware of the great wave and the inundation of the land, but who told the writer about the doings of the Valar? I can't imagine anyone in Middle-earth knew those particular details (unless Ulmo or Osse told them to Cirdan); is the document one peculiar to Elven historians in Aman?

Enquiring minds still want to know.... :)

Legate of Amon Lanc

09-04-2008, 02:46 AM

There is no mention of wrath or punishment; in fact, there is no mention of whose idea this cataclysm was. Was it the Valar's, or Eru's? The whole "Numenor Project" was not terribly well conceived; it seems very much that the Valar, in attempting to reward the Edain, made another version of the same mistake they made with the Elves, allowing them to come close to something they then forbad them have. If they had learned about jealousy from Melkor and Feanor, they would have realized that this problem would almost inevitably arise among the Numenoreans. Sauron didn't cause them to yearn for immortality; he simply goaded them into an act he felt certain would bring about their complete destruction. It could be that the Valar, in setting aside their governance, asked for some kind of "final solution," without realizing the full implications of what they asked.

This actually sounds quite good to me, or at least logical. You have to take into account that for Valar, the Children (be they Men or Elves) were still pretty much of an alien species, they knew very little about them, even after the few millenia of their existence, and even less about Men than about the Elves, of course. So the "Fëanor-mistake" you speak about would be actually pretty well explainable. Also, take into account that at least Manwë, and probably the other Valar too, from the large part, had very little idea about evil, I think it was mentioned somewhere that Manwë just couldn't get it how Melkor could have become the way he was (I think something like that is mentioned along the chaining of Melkor, although I am not sure whether that's the parcitular quote I have in mind). Anyway, the explanation of Valar's act as you outline it in the last sentence of the quote would once again make the most sense to me - what is clear to me is that Valar were desperate and did not know what to do anymore; that was the point beyond which they realised they couldn't reach. However, and that's the problem - to which we are returning all the time in this thread - is that I think it simply doesn't make sense, from our point of view (and neither of the solutions presented this far seemed 100% acceptable to me), that Valar sure didn't ask Eru to "do something" (or however they formulated it) which Eru would just do, destroying the Númenor as part of it - "collateral damage". Yes, it sounds the most sensible - but come on, don't you have the feeling that it's still weird? The crucial question is, don't tell me Eru couldn't have moved the rift a little bit more to the west or something like that (or created another to prevent the fall of Númenor). Don't tell me that you think it's like "okay, I take your resignation, Mr. Manwë. Btw, you fools placed Númenor at the worst spot in the sea, there's the great rift, look! - Splash!"
This is explainable only at the moment when we place, above omnipotent Eru, the even more omnipotent Tolkien, according to whose narrative purposes Eru must react. But as long as we wish to look from the in-Middle-Earth-perspective, we of course can't put any Tolkien into this. In that case, it feels more acceptable to me to simply say that "this is the way things go in M-E" and to say: the innocent people, men, women, children at Númenor had more than enough signs, from the knowledge about Aman and Sauron and Ban passed down to them by generations, through Elven counsels, to eagle-shaped clouds and lightnings. The lesson - "don't do that again once you come to Middle-Earth. Stop your Kings to go to Aman, to sacrifice people to Melkor, to listen to Saurons and stuff, if you have to. Or in the worst case, leave as far as you can from these wrongdoers, otherwise you may get caught in the wave." There was plenty time for those who were not totally corrupted to leave (the example of the Faithful shows that to save yourself was possible). It's a drastic, and quite merciless solution, but still, I would say, in the context of Middle-Earth more logical and easier to believe in than most of the speculation brought up by our postmodernistic minds. It's more medieval-ish, or ancient-ish, like the whole Middle-Earth is. Middle-Earth simply has its own rules, not ours, and these should be determined by what can we figure out from the story. Because, if you compare it, the tale of Tuor, who was sent to Gondolin also with a warning for the King, and maybe we could find some other similar tales, bears the same pattern. "Unheeded warning" is pretty cliché for this type of stories, so why couldn't it be also this case.

alatar

09-04-2008, 12:46 PM

Nice posts!

I still think that Eru was allowing Manwe and the rest of the Valar make their own decisions and accept the consequences of the same. When Feanor left Aman, innocent blood was spilled, and this had an effect on all those present for all time.

Maybe Eru, much like Manwe in regards to Feanor, let Manwe take his own course in regards to the Edain, first in raising the Island of the Star, then later sinking it. Just as with Feanor's bad decisions, innocents die. Manwe's hands now are splattered with blood that won't be easy to wash off.

Manwe too is learning; let us hope to weather his mistakes.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

10-03-2008, 04:39 PM

It has been suggested to me that I don't post as often as some might like. Those who asked have only themselves to blame.

Often it seems to be forgotten just how closely Tolkien's narrative follows Plato's account of Atlantis in the Timaeus and Criteas. For the sake of comparison, the last portion of the latter work is given below.

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells: For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power. Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows- [the remainder of the dialogue has been lost]

Plato Criteas, tr. Benjamin Jowett

The above translation is quoted in The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (without its conclusion), and it certainly bears a striking resemblance to Tolkien's account of Númenor: a race is founded by the admixture of mortal and immortal blood and settled on a large island. For a time they are noble and virtuous, but the gradual dilution of the immortal part in them is mirrored in the decline of their society's moral standards. Eventually their impiety brings down a divinely engineered catastrophe upon them in which their island home is destroyed. Tolkien even named the Land of Gift Atalantë, 'The Downfallen', and referred to Númenor in his letters as 'the Atlantis-isle'. For me, though, there is a striking difference between Tolkien and Plato: their divergent approaches to the divine motive.

In Plato, Zeus explicitly states that his intention is to punish the Atlanteans so that their character will improve (slightly illogical, since they will probably not survive their lesson). Tolkien, on the other hand, never refers to punishment or even a lesson in any of his drafts of the Númenor material. In fact, in some versions of The Downfall of Númenor, Andor is not the only land to be destroyed in the cataclysm.

§47 But those that are wisest in discernment aver that the fleets of the Nūmenōreans came indeed to Avallondē and encompassed it about, but the Avalāi made no sign. But Manawē being grieved sought the counsel at the last of Eru, and the Avalāi laid down their governance of Earth. And Eru overthrew its shape, and a great chasm was opened in the sea between Nūmenōr and Avallondē and the seas poured in, and into that abyss fell all the fleets of the Nūmenōreans and were swallowed in oblivion. But Avallondē and Nūmenōrē that stood on either side of the great rent were also destroyed; and they foundered and are no more. And the Avalāi thereafter had no local habitation on earth, nor is there any place more where memory of an earth without evil is preserved; and the Avalāi dwell in secret or have faded to shadows, and their power is minished.

The Drowning of Anadûnê (version 1), Sauron Defeated p.351

The above text was composed at a time when Tolkien was working on The Notion Club Papers, and pre-dates the Akallabêth by a considerable time. What strikes me as significant (other than the possibility that this is intended as a human rather than an Elvish tradition) is that both some portion of the Undying Lands and Númenor are destroyed in the reshaping of the earth. Had Tolkien left the story in this form it would have left us in no doubt about the incidental nature of Númenor's destruction, but this does raise another apparent contradiction: how can an omnipotent being cause collateral damage? This might be explained by the history of the text: in the earliest version of The Fall of Númenor, it is clearly the Valar, not Eru, who have reshaped the world.
§8 But Ilúvatar gave power to the Gods, and they bent back the edges of the Middle-earth, and they made it into a globe, so that however far a man should sail he could never again reach the true West, but came back weary at last to the place of his beginning. Thus New Lands came into being beneath the Old World, and all were equally distant from the centre of the round earth; and there was flood and great confusion of waters, and seas covered what was once the dry, and lands appeared where there had been deep seas. Thus also the heavy air flowed round all the earth in that time, above the waters; and the springs of all waters were cut off from the stars.
§9 But Númenor being nigh upon the East to the great rift was utterly thrown down and overwhelmed in sea, and its glory perished.

The Fall of Númenor (version 1), The Lost Road, p.16

Tolkien says something very similar in one of his published letters.

Faced by this rebellion, of appalling folly and blasphemy, and also real peril (since the Númenóreans directed by Sauron could have wrought ruin in Valinor itself) the Valar lay down their delegated power and appeal to God, and receive the power and permission to deal with the situation; the old world is broken and changed. A chasm is opened in the sea and Tar-Calion and his armada is engulfed. Númenor itself on the edge of the rift topples and vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Letters #131 (c. late 1951)

The agency involved, however, was to be changed not long afterwards. In 1954, Tolkien wrote about the events of the Akallabêth in another letter.

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion - for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred. At the moment that Arpharazôn set foot on the forbidden shore, a rift appeared: Númenor foundered and was utterly overwhelmed; the armada was swallowed up; and the Blessed Realm removed for ever from the circles of the physical world.

Letters #155 (September 1954)

Later still, he told Rhona Beare that "Sauron was first defeated by a 'miracle': a direct action of God the Creator, changing the fashion of the world, when appealed to by Manwë..." (Letters #211), so we can see a fairly rapid re-assessment of the whole story from an act of the Valar to the direct intervention of the creator. The Valar might be forgiven for their failure to foresee the extent of the damage this change in the earth's form would cause, but Tolkien has now replaced them as the prime agency with Eru himself, who ought to know what the outcome of his actions will be. Personally I feel that this causes a theological problem that could easily have been avoided, but since I ought to conclude this monster with some sort of opinion I will give one.

It seems to me that within the boundaries of Arda itself, Eru's powers were limited by the physical rules of his own creation. In the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, for example, Andreth cannot understand how the dream of the 'Men of the Old Hope' can be achieved.

'But they speak of Eru Himself entering into Arda... How could He the greater do this? Would it not shatter Arda, or indeed all Eä?'

Athrabeth (Morgoth's Ring p.322

In fact, Eru must become incarnate to do this, and Tolkien quite rightly shied away at the last from talking about the Crucifixion in his legends. However it does demonstrate that the limitless creator must limit himself in order to conform with the internal rules of his creation, and one of those rules is that enormous geological upheavals can cause islands to sink. As I said above, however, Tolkien had changed his mind enough for the theology of this situation to be unclear. Personally I think that narrative necessity demanded that Númenor be destroyed, because combining Plato's account and Tolkien's own dream of the wave was the whole point of the story. Once he had the dramatic situation on his hands - and had decided that Eru rather than the Valar should change the world - he was forced back on making the rebellion 'monstrous' and blasphemous, and the outcome of a Númenórean landing more perilous in order to avoid portraying Eru as a vengeful deity. No lesson appears to have been intended or received except by the reader.

Lalwendë

10-14-2008, 03:16 PM

Perhaps the Numenorean people should never have existed at all; one could consider them a failed experiment on the part of the Valar, a phenomenon that defied went against too many facts of reality and that was, at its core, wrong. It had gone well at first, but eventually it became clear that Men were not meant to live in such privilege, so close to the Valar, with gifts of knowledge, strength, health, and the ability to die when they saw fit. It might seem callous or simplistic to just take the Numenoreans as a whole race, rather than on an individual basis, but this approach would be consistent with Tolkien's style of dealing with race in LOTR: he frequent relies on generalities. The Numenoreans had run their course, which really never should have been. In this light, Eru appears merciful for allowing a few of this problematic people group, this aberration, to continue.

(I've never thought about it this way before, and I haven't even entirely convinced myself yet - but I'm entertaining the notion.)

This has made me think about the rights and wrongs of what the Valar did.

The Valar were quite cruel, providing Men with this island from which could be seen a tiny little glimpse of the Undying Lands, a place where the people are immortals. Not only that, but creating a place of near-perfection which only lacked that one ingredient which allowed the Men there to enjoy this paradise in eternity. Back in the 'real world', i.e. Middle-earth, life was still relatively gritty (even more so once the Edain upped sticks and abandoned the rest of the Men to their fate), but on Numenor it was great - just that they could only enjoy this 'jolly' of a life for a limited time.

Yet Eru had made Men in their nature mortals, and had made them that way because Eru saw their mortality as a gift. The Valar did not go against this, they could not change that, but they certainly tampered with it.

What happened in Numenor also gives you some background on why in later years the Elves tried to keep away from Men. It was quite possibly for the benefit of Men, not to torment them with this one thing they could not have.

I wouldn't say it was merciful for Eru to cause the cataclysm which sent Numenor to the watery depths, but it could certainly be argued that it was necessary for him to take the Undying Lands away from the sight of Men, for their own good.

Morthoron

10-14-2008, 04:11 PM

This has made me think about the rights and wrongs of what the Valar did.

The Valar were quite cruel, providing Men with this island from which could be seen a tiny little glimpse of the Undying Lands, a place where the people are immortals.

I would say the Valar were as equally short-sighted when they dragged off the Eldar from Middle-earth and kept them in Valinor (ostensibly for their own good). Granted, they earnestly wished to help the Eldar, but breaking up families in Cuivienen (remember, not all Elves wished to leave), and then practically ignoring those who stayed behind for many generations seems a bit callous.

Then of course fencing in creative, energetic folk like the Noldor was bound to cause friction eventually, even without Morgoth butting in. How long before the mean constraints of Valinor, however beautiful, would act as a catalyst for more adventurous Elves to yearn for more freedom? Galadriel, while not agreeing with Feanor and his sons, certainly longed for greater kingdoms to rule. In addition, Elves, like their mortal counterparts at times, seemed to always seek for that which they lost.

Lalwendë

10-15-2008, 06:16 AM

I would say the Valar were as equally short-sighted when they dragged off the Eldar from Middle-earth and kept them in Valinor (ostensibly for their own good). Granted, they earnestly wished to help the Eldar, but breaking up families in Cuivienen (remember, not all Elves wished to leave), and then practically ignoring those who stayed behind for many generations seems a bit callous.

Then of course fencing in creative, energetic folk like the Noldor was bound to cause friction eventually, even without Morgoth butting in. How long before the mean constraints of Valinor, however beautiful, would act as a catalyst for more adventurous Elves to yearn for more freedom? Galadriel, while not agreeing with Feanor and his sons, certainly longed for greater kingdoms to rule. In addition, Elves, like their mortal counterparts at times, seemed to always seek for that which they lost.

This adds grist to my mill that Being An Elf Would Suck. As if it's not bad enough being tied to the earth with no hope of a rest, and also being tied to whatever cataclysmic fate Eru has in store, the Valar come along like school prefects and stop you from venting your creative urges to the full through all the ages of your existence.

Would I have wanted to be one of the Moriquendi? Too right. I'd have tolerated Orc raids over beautiful boredom any day.

Morthoron

10-16-2008, 02:42 PM

This adds grist to my mill that Being An Elf Would Suck.

Perhaps this explains the seeming death wish of some Elves -- a vainglory straddling the line of utter madness. I guess that's the point where Elves turn 'fey'. I mean, really, what was Fingolfin thinking going up against Morgoth? Was it necessary from a strategic standpoint? Did it serve any purpose whatsoever? It seems immortality may cause a distinct urge to gamble with one's life, or rather, a disregard or fearlessness of consequences.

Morthoron

10-16-2008, 06:51 PM

So let it not be forgotten:
Ham did the begetting,
and Canaan was misbegotten.

Lalwendë

10-21-2008, 02:21 PM

Perhaps this explains the seeming death wish of some Elves -- a vainglory straddling the line of utter madness. I guess that's the point where Elves turn 'fey'. I mean, really, what was Fingolfin thinking going up against Morgoth? Was it necessary from a strategic standpoint? Did it serve any purpose whatsoever? It seems immortality may cause a distinct urge to gamble with one's life, or rather, a disregard or fearlessness of consequences.

Even so, there would be no guarantees once you had entered the Halls of Mandos. You may stay there or you may return to your/another life, but there is no way of telling. It's very different to the fate of Men who may turn fey in the belief (if they have it) that after death they would once again be with their loved ones so there is nothing to be lost.

Though after endless years seeing destruction and horror, especially in Beleriand while Morgoth was at large, I'm sure some Elves must have just snapped and lost it and literally threw themselves into battle. And who knows what went through the minds of the Noldor after they had stormed out of Valinor, lost kin on the Helcaraxe or the Kinslaying, maybe regretted their choice to leave?

Morthoron

10-21-2008, 03:32 PM

Interesting that the word 'fey' has its root in the term faery itself (French, I believe, as in Morgan la Fey), thereby insinuating an instability in the Elvish (or, more properly, Sidhe) set in a classical sense. Reading something like W.B. Yeats' or Crofton Croker's folklore of Ireland, it's certainly reasonable to believe that faery-folk are unreasonable and more than a bit daft. They are certainly not a stable race in any case (which is reiterated for modern readers in Mr. Norrell and Jonathan Strange).

I wonder if Tolkien perhaps gleaned a bit of the Elvish feyness from 19th century English and Irish writers. I know he didn't care much for Gaelic mythology (Usnach, Cu Chullain, Redbranch, etc.), but Faery feyness abounds in more current Irish folklore (say, within the last 2 or 3 centuries), and in older tales Tolkien was more partial to, as in the Welsh Mabinogion and the Arthurian cycle as well (The Green Knight was not the most stable character, was he?). I haven't read any George MacDonald in the last 2 decades, but I seem to remember a great bit of feyness permeating his novels.

Legate of Amon Lanc

10-21-2008, 03:33 PM

Even so, there would be no guarantees once you had entered the Halls of Mandos. You may stay there or you may return to your/another life, but there is no way of telling. It's very different to the fate of Men who may turn fey in the belief (if they have it) that after death they would once again be with their loved ones so there is nothing to be lost.

I have to note one thing which just kind of popped up at me here when reading this. From the theological point of view, the Fate of Men is actually of all the mythology something where Tolkien went probably the closest to the Christian message, particularly as given by the Resurrection. All the images of Valinor, Elves etc. are just "simple" things, and a view from indeed a mythology, which also Tolkien made fit into the mythologic world itself. But here is the difference: the Elves remain there, but the fate of Men is to head out into something uncertain. Yet when they rely on that message that it's going to be fine, however not exactly certain what's going to be there, they have this promise that their death is not the last instance where all hope would be lost. So if they believe this thing, resp. person who told them that (now I am not entirely sure if Eru is that much of a reliably-looking one, but whatever - actually, it's more like that Eru is not much looking like anything, at least from my point of view, so that's a bit on a different level), I think by removing all the other mythological colorite etc. this is pretty much the closest to the "bare core" of the Easter message.

I am now speaking from the point of view of the Silmarillion, UT and such, I don't know if there's anything more in HoME or such (which could make it more or on the other hand less fitting). But that's how I see it.

Lalwendë

10-22-2008, 02:30 PM

I have to note one thing which just kind of popped up at me here when reading this. From the theological point of view, the Fate of Men is actually of all the mythology something where Tolkien went probably the closest to the Christian message, particularly as given by the Resurrection. All the images of Valinor, Elves etc. are just "simple" things, and a view from indeed a mythology, which also Tolkien made fit into the mythologic world itself.

If you think about it, Men would be better off accepting their fate in a very real psychological sense. Denying death is not a healthy thing to do, as it comes to us all one day, and this idea has been explored over and over again by Artists. Even were Tolkien an out-an-out atheist it would make perfect logical sense for Men in his creation to be better off if they accept the inevitability of death - indeed that's one of the messages of Pullman's HDM and he has beliefs quite opposite to Tolkien's.

It is interesting how Tolkien though, of all people, counterbalances this with an examination of a race both immortal and bound to the fabric of the earth. I can't explain that. :confused:

Interesting that the word 'fey' has its root in the term faery itself (French, I believe, as in Morgan la Fey), thereby insinuating an instability in the Elvish (or, more properly, Sidhe) set in a classical sense. Reading something like W.B. Yeats' or Crofton Croker's folklore of Ireland, it's certainly reasonable to believe that faery-folk are unreasonable and more than a bit daft. They are certainly not a stable race in any case (which is reiterated for modern readers in Mr. Norrell and Jonathan Strange).

I wonder if Tolkien perhaps gleaned a bit of the Elvish feyness from 19th century English and Irish writers. I know he didn't care much for Gaelic mythology (Usnach, Cu Chullain, Redbranch, etc.), but Faery feyness abounds in more current Irish folklore (say, within the last 2 or 3 centuries), and in older tales Tolkien was more partial to, as in the Welsh Mabinogion and the Arthurian cycle as well (The Green Knight was not the most stable character, was he?). I haven't read any George MacDonald in the last 2 decades, but I seem to remember a great bit of feyness permeating his novels.

Good observation! And if you think about Tolkien's Elves, laying aside the sensible ones like Elrond (who also is a particular friend to Men), you are correct, they are not exactly perfect and are tinged with more than a little lunacy. Witness the issues with Eol, his wife, his son, his brother-in-law; Galadriel's power lust; Feanor's temper; the defensiveness of Thingol and of Thranduil.

When Men like Eomer and Boromir express a certain amount of fear about Lothlorien they are only echoing the feelings of people in the real world when told a place was inhabited by fairies - they were and are (in Tolkien's work) pretty perilous and unpredictable beings.

Incidentally, what did you make of Jonathan Strange in the end?

Morthoron

10-22-2008, 02:50 PM

Incidentally, what did you make of Jonathan Strange in the end?

Sadly, I found it unsatisfying. What started out as a very intriguing and ingeniously crafted novel slowly deflated over 800+ pages, and the climax and denouement did not make up for the loss of momentum over several hundred (or so it seemed) chapters. I found only a few characters I actually liked (Childermass for one), and the use of magic seemed far too over-the-top for a conservative like me, who believes in inherent magical ability used sparingly (or in the case of Uskglass, raised in Faery and imbued with magic via long immersion). For example, a mere mortal using a spell and moving an entire city (not an illusion, mind you, but actually lifting an entire city to a far-off location) disrupted the suspension of belief for me. And the liberal use of citations for mythical books was clever at first became more and more monotonous as the book progressed (rather like the endless citations and asides in Moby Dick, it eventually drives one to distraction).

If I were the editor, I would have perhaps cut out 100 or so pages (or as the Emperor said to Mozart, 'There are too many notes"). I was also bewildered that Strange brought himself to the brink of madness to save his wife, but then blithely traipsed off with that crashing boor Norrell rather than spend time with Arabella (the only settling influence he had). It was a very odd novel: so much to commend, but just as much to condemn.

Legate of Amon Lanc

10-22-2008, 03:33 PM

If you think about it, Men would be better off accepting their fate in a very real psychological sense. Denying death is not a healthy thing to do, as it comes to us all one day, and this idea has been explored over and over again by Artists. Even were Tolkien an out-an-out atheist it would make perfect logical sense for Men in his creation to be better off if they accept the inevitability of death - indeed that's one of the messages of Pullman's HDM and he has beliefs quite opposite to Tolkien's.

It is interesting how Tolkien though, of all people, counterbalances this with an examination of a race both immortal and bound to the fabric of the earth. I can't explain that. :confused:

Well but that's exactly it, I think - the more, in comparison to the Elves, the fate of Men stands out. The Elves are something totally alien from Men after all: or rather, something with a totally different fate. Where they share both the life in Arda (although each of them experiencing it with a bit different point of view nevertheless), the death of Men - and of Elves too, in the technical sense - is something completely different, there is a division that cannot be passed (as the tales of Beren and Lúthien etc. show in the brightest clarity). Middle-Earth is not Men's world, strangely enough. The Elves also, kind of, reflect something of the so often repeated (in RL tales, mythology etc.) idea of immortality. They are immortal, which also means bound to that world forever. Whereas Men are spared the infinity in this very same existence, their existence is seemingly mysteriously changed in some way (sure they are not anymore what they have been like while still alive), yet at the same time they seemingly remain themselves: their identity is preserved. Because we are told that Men will be present together with Ainur and the rest of the Children to sing in the Great Music at the end of days (see Ainulindalë). And that is what I had in mind when saying that it is probably where Tolkien succeeded the best (if he tried, or from where he tried) to reflect the Christian image of the world, resp. in this case human destiny in particular. I wanted to remark this purely from professional interest as it kind of popped at me. In case there were per chance any people interested in the echoes/depiction/not-depiction of whatever theological concepts in Tolkien's world reading it in the future.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

10-22-2008, 06:18 PM

Oddly enough in good ol' letter 156, Tolkien does make a comment about the Numenoreans and a known religion:

The Numenoreans thus began a great new good, and as monotheists; but like the Jews (only more so) with only one physical centre of 'worship': the summit of the mountain Meneltarma 'Pillar of Heaven'. . .but it had no building and no temple, as all such things had evil associations.

I presume his reference to the Jews is equating the Meneltarma with the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, and in their monotheism, not in their specific beliefs or practices.

This particular letter has quite a lot to say about the matter of Numenor, most of which we know through the published Akallabeth. Some things, however, are stated a bit more directly:

He [Sauron] finally induced Arpharazon, frightened by the approach of old age, to make the greatest of all armadas, and go up with war against the Blessed Realm itself, and wrest it and its 'immortality' into his own hands. This was a delusion of course, a Satanic lie. For as emissaries of the Valar clearly inform him, the Blessed Realm does not confer immortality. The land is blessed because the Blessed dwell there, not vice versa, and the Valar are immortal by right and nature, while Men are mortal by right and nature. But cozened by Sauron he dismissed all this as a diplomatic argument to ward off the power of the King of Kings. It might or might not be 'heretical,' if these myths were regarded as statements about the actual nature of Man in the real world; I do not know. But the view of the myth is that Death -- the mere shortness of human life-span -- is not a punishment for the Fall, but a biologically (and therefore also spiritually, since the body and spirit are integrated) inherent part of Man's nature. The attempt to escape it is wicked because 'unnatural', and silly because Death in that sense is the Gift of God (envied by the Elves), release from the weariness of Time. Death, in the penal sense, is viewed as a change in attitude to it: fear, reluctance. A good Numenorean died of free will when he felt it to be time to do so.

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion -- for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

Since Men and the Elves are referred to as the "Children of God," I sometimes (rather puckishly) think of the results of Eru's intervention as being an act rather like the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it." Perhaps that's the way Tolkien viewed God, but I tend to think not; having myself been raised in pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it never fails to amaze me that he would write, "Nothing was evil in its beginnings; not even Sauron was so." It certainly wasn't what I was taught as a child, and yet, he held this view even before I was born. Even inside the myth, perhaps the sinking of Numenor is not so much meant to be taken as a punishment as it is intended to be a lesson about human nature, the great heights to which it can rise when it keeps its purpose and deeds noble and pure, and how far it can fall when those purposes and deeds become selfish and corrupt. Sadly, it seems that many of the descendants of those who survived did not learn the lesson, and like their forebears, continued to yearn for what they could not have.

Formendacil

10-23-2008, 12:31 AM

Since Men and the Elves are referred to as the "Children of God," I sometimes (rather puckishly) think of the results of Eru's intervention as being an act rather like the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it." Perhaps that's the way Tolkien viewed God, but I tend to think not; having myself been raised in pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, it never fails to amaze me that he would write, "Nothing was evil in its beginnings; not even Sauron was so." It certainly wasn't what I was taught as a child, and yet, he held this view even before I was born.

I will perhaps be guilty of sending us off on a tangent here, but the quoted comments struck my interest, and I feel somewhat obliged to point out certain facts regarding said Catholic doctrine.

Firstly, the idea that nothing was evil in the beginning, that "not even Sauron was so," is a very Catholic sounding phrase to my mind. Lucifer, after all, doesn't mean "blasted evil person" but "light-bearer," and the idea of Lucifer's fall to becoming Satan was perhaps better known pre-Council than post, since more emphasis was given to the Devil than since, but it is most definitely good, old-fashioned Catholic thought to say that Lucifer was a good angel of God once.

Indeed, this harkens back very much to Augustinian thought. Augustine, in trying to account for the existence of evil in the world, comes up continually against the apparent contradiction that God, as a perfectly good being, wouldn't create evil... but He created the Devil, right? One of Augustine's answers to this question (he grappled with it long and had a few) was that God created everything Good, and things are evil only insofar as they have lost aspects of the Goodness proper to them.

In a sense, one can see this reflected in Melkor, who is, I am very willing to claim, no more evil in the beginning than Tolkien claimed of Sauron. Specifically, it seems demonstrable that as Melkor becomes more evil he loses parts of his original goodness and powers, eventually becoming completely unable to subcreate anything, but only to destroy, because creative power is a Good, and he has lost that as he has stripped himself more and more of his original goodness.

Anyway, without getting into more philosophy than my tired, addled brain can handle at this late hour, I'll basically just say that it seems very Catholic to me indeed that Tolkien should say such things of Sauron. Of course, this is not to say that such an understanding need be the household expression of faith (and no offence intended on that score to Ibri one way or another), but rather that Tolkien, given that he was raised, post-orphaning, by a Catholic priest, and was an academic with probably more than a passing knowledge of the classics (including Augustine and other church writers), would most definitely have had an understanding of evil that could accommodate a statement such as "even Sauron was not so in the beginning"--whether or not that was the understanding of the masses prior to the council, it is certainly in accord with centuries of philosophical Catholic thought.

Hmm... just ignore me if I've steamrolled too far into digression.

Legate of Amon Lanc

10-23-2008, 04:52 AM

Well, I would not worry that much as in fact, this is far closer to the original topic than lots of other things which have been discussed around were. Let me say only this, what you just presented, Form, is exactly what I always thought was Tolkien's idea about the evil in Middle-Earth. I have not read any letters or such, but only from Ainulindalë and these remarks "nothing was evil at the beginning, not even Sauron", I thought that it's pretty clear: the original state of Arda (resp. of the whole universe, including Ainur and everything) was "good" at the beginning. And only due to certain "falls" - of Melkor etc. - the state did not remain just good. And just to add, I am not possibly as much of an expert on Catholicism as Form is, but certainly the idea I had about Catholicism was that - of course, as in all forms of Christianity and Judaism, too (maybe even stronger there, without the ideas of "original sin") - it clearly holds that everything was good in the beginning, i.e. that the world and creation is fundamentally good. One hears "and it was good" after every day in the first chapter of Genesis, so I strongly doubt such think could be overlooked. Any sins, even if they were hereditary, are just a secondary thing.

Anyway, to get somewhat back to the very original topic, I actually find the second thing Ibri quoted as most interesting for this discussion:
They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

What does it mean - "change of plan"? Does it simply refer in other words to the reshaping of the world (i.e. rather "change of architectonic plans"), or does it get to the core of the problem we are questioning here? Doesn't it seem to you that this quote sounds almost like "there happened an accident"? Perhaps it's the word "occured" that makes me think so: had there been "Eru drowned them all", I would think otherwise. This sounds rather as if it were indeed an "accident", as some were implying here. Most curious, are we getting here the chance to see what Tolkien himself thought about it, or am I reading too much to this?

Lalwendë

10-23-2008, 07:07 AM

I presume his reference to the Jews is equating the Meneltarma with the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, and in their monotheism, not in their specific beliefs or practices.

Actually, do you know what the Meneltarma always makes me think of? The Kaaba at Mecca! And oddly, that itself is a pillar, maybe not in shape, but it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Interesting...

The Valar had no real answer to this monstrous rebellion -- for the Children of God were not under their ultimate jurisdiction: they were not allowed to destroy them, or coerce them with any 'divine' display of the powers they held over the physical world. They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

My take on this is that Eru had plans, some known to the Ainur and some unknown:

And many other things Iluvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past

And so my take is Eru changed the plan completely when he changed the world. The interesting bit is what 'the plan' was in the first place and whether it was one the Valar were party to. I strongly suspect not in this case!

If I were the editor, I would have perhaps cut out 100 or so pages (or as the Emperor said to Mozart, 'There are too many notes"). I was also bewildered that Strange brought himself to the brink of madness to save his wife, but then blithely traipsed off with that crashing boor Norrell rather than spend time with Arabella (the only settling influence he had). It was a very odd novel: so much to commend, but just as much to condemn.

I agree - a hundred or so pages less and it would have been better, though I think maybe she was trying to ape the style of the picaresque, and novels of that period did tend to wander a little (like Tristram Shandy - longest shaggy dog story ever!). I would say it's not a style necessarily to modern tastes, too, but it still sold reasonably well - maybe we like to think we are getting good value from a book? ;)

In contrast to you, I found the latter part of the book whizzed by!

Sorry, everyone BTW for turning this into Book review corner, I was curious what Morthoron thought of it, seeing as everyone else gushes about it ;)

Morthoron

10-23-2008, 07:17 AM

Anyway, to get somewhat back to the very original topic, I actually find the second thing Ibri quoted as most interesting for this discussion:

They appealed to God, and a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred.

What does it mean - "change of plan"? Does it simply refer in other words to the reshaping of the world (i.e. rather "change of architectonic plans"), or does it get to the core of the problem we are questioning here? Doesn't it seem to you that this quote sounds almost like "there happened an accident"? Perhaps it's the word "occured" that makes me think so: had there been "Eru drowned them all", I would think otherwise. This sounds rather as if it were indeed an "accident", as some were implying here. Most curious, are we getting here the chance to see what Tolkien himself thought about it, or am I reading too much to this?

First, Tolkien's conception of Sauron as inherently good (or not evil) in the beginning does not conflict with pre-Vatican II theology. To infer that Catholicism ever harbored a duality of good and evil (as would be the implication had Sauron or Morgoth been evil in the beginning) would be in error, as that was heretical back to the time of the Arian heresy as well as the Albigenses in the Middle-ages.

Second, I do not believe it was accidental, nor do I think the quote "a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred" infers any accident whatsoever. What it refers to is a surrender of choice by the Valar to the all-consuming power of Eru. In that remission of leadership, the Valar gave up any and all detente, cajoling or pleas to Numenor for a final verdict by Eru, who chose once and for all to divide Valinor from Arda and inflict the severest of all penalties upon Numenor. But even in his wrath, Eru appears as Yahweh to Noah, saving the faithful under Elendil (which I believe differentiates Atalante from Atlantis as there were no survivors in the Greek tradition).

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

10-23-2008, 08:11 AM

First, Tolkien's conception of Sauron as inherently good (or not evil) in the beginning does not conflict with pre-Vatican II theology. To infer that Catholicism ever harbored a duality of good and evil (as would be the implication had Sauron or Morgoth been evil in the beginning) would be in error, as that was heretical back to the time of the Arian heresy as well as the Albigenses in the Middle-ages.

Actually, what I was really referring to was my specific experience with a Catholic upbringing, which can vary widely, depending on the priests and nuns doing the teaching. The words of doctrine can be the same, but the impact will differ depending on how they are presented and the commentary and interpretation that follows. The clergy who taught at my church and school were very much of the mind that we are all sinners, sinners, sinners, evil wicked things in our very creation, and we must constantly strive for what they presented as an impossible goal of redemption. I suspect that Tolkien's teachers had a somewhat less "doom and gloom" presentation of Original Sin and its relevance to his personal life and ability to achieve salvation. But because of my own rearing, it astonished me to read those words in his writing. My parish priests and nuns certainly didn't believe that nothing was evil in its beginning, and it truly amazed me to hear another Catholic say otherwise. Still does, and I've long since left the Church.

Didn't mean to start a theological bruhaha; I should've been a bit clearer that I was speaking from a very personal viewpoint. :o

Second, I do not believe it was accidental, nor do I think the quote "a catastrophic 'change of plan' occurred" infers any accident whatsoever. What it refers to is a surrender of choice by the Valar to the all-consuming power of Eru. In that remission of leadership, the Valar gave up any and all detente, cajoling or pleas to Numenor for a final verdict by Eru, who chose once and for all to divide Valinor from Arda and inflict the severest of all penalties upon Numenor. But even in his wrath, Eru appears as Yahweh to Noah, saving the faithful under Elendil (which I believe differentiates Atalante from Atlantis as there were no survivors in the Greek tradition).

In fact, in the same letter, Tolkien does refer to the "Noachic" situation of Elendil and the Faithful. And when he says "change of plan," I wonder if he might not mean "the plan as the Valar understood it," or perhaps even "the Valar's plan," since they were the ones who came up with the idea of fashioning Numenor as a reward. The other time Tolkien refer to a "change of plan" is, I believe, elsewhere in the same letter, when he talks about the resurrection of Gandalf, and Eru's widening of a plan which began as the Valar's. In both cases, Eru intervened to change the situation after it had failed, in one way or another. The magnitude of the necessary intervention is, perhaps, in correlation with the magnitude of the error of those involved -- or perhaps of the plan itself.

Legate of Amon Lanc

10-24-2008, 05:14 AM

Actually, do you know what the Meneltarma always makes me think of? The Kaaba at Mecca! And oddly, that itself is a pillar, maybe not in shape, but it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Interesting...

Interesting indeed. But truly, it would be pretty clear even had not Tolkien written it down there, that he used mount Sion (or possibly mount Gerizim for the Samaritans) as inspiration for Meneltarma, even with the annual festival of coming up there and that even then not everybody could come to the very top. Hey, wasn't there even something like that only the King (in the function of "high priest" here) would make the prayer to Eru? That would be similar to the thing in pre-exile Judaism that only the high priest would call on the Name of God once a year there.

And when he says "change of plan," I wonder if he might not mean "the plan as the Valar understood it," or perhaps even "the Valar's plan," since they were the ones who came up with the idea of fashioning Numenor as a reward. The other time Tolkien refer to a "change of plan" is, I believe, elsewhere in the same letter, when he talks about the resurrection of Gandalf, and Eru's widening of a plan which began as the Valar's. In both cases, Eru intervened to change the situation after it had failed, in one way or another. The magnitude of the necessary intervention is, perhaps, in correlation with the magnitude of the error of those involved -- or perhaps of the plan itself.

Well, I would say it was the way that there was certain "plan" laid down in the Music - the plan with which Valar counted; and that there were some "inner laws" of the world, some apparent on first sight, some more obscure, but still, they were set in some way, so to say, to the law of action and consequences. That quote from Ainulindalë
for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past
simply means that the inner laws of the world (which were "codified" by the Music) are not compelling to Eru himself, and that the chain of action and consequences is not the final thing (as said quite explicitely in the quote).