Ooh la la, Lúthien...

[Lush]

I have a feeling that this has not been discussed here before. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

I want to bring to your attention a couple of simple facts. What interests me is how these facts relate to each other.

First of all, Tolkien was a Catholic. And we all end up making a big deal about that on numerous threads, some very interesting, some not so much, but nevertheless, its presence looms large on this board, for better or for worse. The Catholic Church is generally known for its continuous frowning upon pre-marital sex, and its harsh stance on birth control, though that's completely unrelated. In general, we all know how conservative the Catholics were in Tolkien's time, and how conservative Catholics are today, especially when it comes to sex.

Still with me so far?

Now, as it has been discussed ad nauseum, Tolkien did not overtly stick his religion into his works. At the same time, I think we can all agree that to a certain extent, the union of Aragorn and Arwen embodies the Catholic ideal. I mean, when you read about them, you do end up assuming that they did not get it on until after they were married.

Ok, so here is what I am really getting at: if the union of Aragorn and Arwen is supposed to reflect the union of Beren and Lúthien, there is a marked difference in the way Tolkien treats the latter pair. I am hinting, of course, at pre-marital sex.

Truth be told, I am not so much a total nymphomaniac not to notice the simple fact that Tolkien was completely un-interested in writing about sex. Nevethless, I think it's appropriate to point out that he is far more ambiguous about the nature of Beren and Lúthien's relationship.

The Silmarillion is not the end-all, be-all of truth in regards to Tolkien's writing, but I have read up on Beren and Lúthien in other works (I think it was the Lost Tales, but I don't have a copy with me, so I am beat), and found his writing to be equally ambiguous there as well, even more so, when it came to Daeron. But nevermind Daeron, here is what the Silmarillion says in regards to Beren first meeting Lúthien:

Then she halted in wonder and fled no more, and Beren came to her. But as she looked on him, doom fell upon her, and she loved him; yet she slipped from his arms and vanished from his sight even as the day was breaking.

(I did the bolding)

One can assume anything one wants from this statement, but doesn't it strike you as being at least pretty darn vague? If the Lost Tales say something different, please let me know, because I don't have a copy here, and I can't recall what it said exactly.

Further on, after some vaguely "joyful" times, and a not-so-vague comment from Thingol on the whole thing, Lúthien runs away and accompanies Beren on his quest, unattended, if I may note, by her daddy, or any other authority figure. And after everything is over and done with, and Lúthien is a mortal, nowhere is it mentioned that her parents bless her union with Beren, or that there even was an official wedding.

In general, Lúthien strikes the reader as being a character that is, in general, free-wheeling, and, in stark contrast to Arwen, ready to drop everything in an instant for true love (the situations of these two girls are, of course, different, but I think they are meant to be compared to a certain degree, especially when one remembers Aragorn singing about Lúthien to the Hobbits, and other such diversions).

I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this if it wasn't for the way that some people treat Tolkien's work. They like it because it's "clean," and "moral," and "upstanding," and so on and so forth. And it is, for the most part, exactly that. A nice distraction from out otherwise dirty lives.

Buuut, for my part, I wanted to point out Tolkien's treatment of Lúthien to get you thinking. Not in stark terms, and not about pre-marital sex per se (I'm trying hard not to be obtuse), but about the general vagueness that surrounds her relationship with Beren, and stemming from that vagueness, whether it is appropriate to make a big deal out of Tolkien's Catholicism in regards to sexual innuendo or lack therof in his work and in literature in general (nevermind everything else his Catholicism gets linked to).

A reasonable question would be, if this vagueness means that Tolkien simply didn't care, then why should we? And further on, this vagueness could also be the simple main difference between the LOTR and the Sil, in which one is more detailed than the other.

Having taken all that into account, I still say that this ambiguity is worth pondering, and not just because Lúthien was the greatest of the Eldar, and so on and so forth. I'm talking here about romantic passion, something rarely touched upon in Tolkien's works. Here it is, in the story of Beren and Lúthien, and it makes this particular section all the more interesting.

This reading of the relationship of Beren and Lúthien (erroneous as it may be), does not change my personal view on Tolkien's work en masse. Which is to say that I still view it as being sexually innocent, clean, and upstanding. But, for someone who thinks otherwise of pre-marital sex (or even subsequent lack of an official marriage ceremony), what does my reading of Beren and Lúthien's relationship mean?

And what do you think about this in general? Is it reasonable to view Beren and Lúthien this way? Or has college corrupted me beyond all reason and repair? smilies/wink.gif

[Tar-Palantir]

hahaha! Dear Lush, I am afraid that youthful (and apparently vigorous) experimentation is your current dilemna. College is but a willing canvas for your paints.

I honestly know little of the tale of Beren and Luthien, but am now as eager as ever now to get to the reading! What I do know of the few relationships encountered in Tolkien's work shows nothing of any ambiguity. We have Faramir/Eowyn, Aragorn/Arwen and Sam/Rosie in LotR. All of which ended prosperously and were begun innocently, without rash (lustful if you like smilies/wink.gif) behavior.

The only other instance of courtship/relationship that I know of ended with poor results or never began. Those being Grima/Eowyn and Turin/Nienor. Both were ill-concieved or vulgar from the get go and the outcomes were quite harsh. Now I know there are short-stories concerning various wives and mothers of notable figures, but I could not possibly recall them without more digging. And I doubt enough detail would be given to properly judge their wholesomeness, or, in the event of a tragic end, whether this end blossomed from a lack of innocent 'roots'. i.e. pre-marital sex.

Looking forward to seeing some responses. smilies/smile.gif

[mark12_30]

After a description of gifts and ceremony, Tolkien states the following in the section entitled "Laws and Customs of the Eldar" (HoME, Morgoth's Ring; italics mine):

But these ceremonies were not rites necessary to marriage; they were only a gracious mode by which the love of the parents was manifested... It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete. In happy days and times of peace it was held ungracious and contemptuous of kin to forgo the ceremonies, but it was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, both being unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name*); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble. In days of old, in times of trouble, in flight and exile and wandering, such marriages were often made.

* The Name named, is, as described in the preceeding paragraph, the name of Eru taken as solemn witness to the marriage.

This, especialy in light of the preceeding paragraphs, shows the genuine sacred purpose of sex-- it is such a sacred act that even for immortal elves it creates and ordains a bond that will last between the two as long as they live ("indissoluble"); for an elf, potentially for as long as the earth remains for Tolkien states that is their potential lifespan.

Hence, "one night" for an elf signals a lasting, permanent and sacred commitment that will last unbroken and unbreakable ("indissoluble") for thousands upon thousands of years.

Now that's real, meaningful sex...

...therefore choose wisely!

[ February 13, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Liriodendron]

Oh my! That is so "special"! smilies/smile.gif The perfect union of love and lust! Sigh... smilies/redface.gif

[Lush]

Tar, the fact that Beren and Lúthien's relationship is the one that's full of ambiguity is what makes it so interesting to me.

Helen, thanks for the quote, it's very educational. The only thing I can say in response to that is the fact that Beren was not an Elf, but a man, which changes things. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty cool guy, just, you know, not an Elf.

[Diamond18]

Well, well, whatever else can be gleaned from this, Helen's quotes cement that Tolkien was an extreme idealist.

I also noticed the "ambiguity" in the Sil concerning our two love birds, and I'm not in college or...anything. So it's not your nymphomania, Lush. smilies/wink.gif I think.

At any rate, it strikes me that if Tolkien definitely wanted their first meeting to be interpreted as chaste, he would have noticed how suspicious his wording sounded and changed it.

Or maybe he would have had he lived to publish it, instead of Christopher.

How vague this reply is. But ask a vague question and you get a vague answer, right? smilies/biggrin.gif

[Bekah]

Okay, I must say that I've been influenced by many books and people - and God, or Eru. The end result is that I'm not going to even kiss before the vows have been said at the alter. Go on, call me an nutter, but it's not the point here, I'm just trying to give you guys a little idea of my view-point.

I agree with what Helen said, but I'd also like to add...it's kind of relevant on Earth too. And the elves aren't here any more - I'm talking about the race of men. And Beren, as someone pointed out, is of the race of men.

If you make love, there's a bond - not visible, of course - that's going to stay there. For those of you who are Christians, check out Paul's letters to the Corinthians - for those of you who aren't, I am not trying to force my beliefs down your throat. There's a verse in there that says something like, "if a man loves a prostitute, there will be a bond between them." I'm talking about eros here, not agape or any of the other loves. And I'm not certain about the verse, sorry. There's also a verse in Genesis that says that a man will leave his house and parents and cleave to his wife - sex is something sacred, which is why it is reserved for marriage, which is basically a statement to everyone saying that you love this person, and will stick with them, 'until death do you part'. Because sex is not something to be trifled with, it's cementing a bond of life between you.

I'm going to bed now.

God bless,

~ Elentari II

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Lalaith]

Lush, I too had always assumed that the 'slipping from his arms" line was significant and implied that a union had taken place - whether of body, or of spirit, or of both, however, was ambigious. I don't however think the fact that Beren was a man and not an elf necessarily makes the quote about elf marriage insignificant. There was also a 'moment of truth' between Aragorn and Arwen, on Cerin Amroth.
And I also agree that Tolkien was definitely an idealist when it came to male/female relations, but in a very non-condemnatory way. I think he had a very positive - if perhaps slightly unrealistic - view of women in general, compared to say, CS Lewis who was something of a misogynist. There are no purely evil females in Tolkien (except perhaps Ungoliant) The very few unsympathetic female characters - Lobelia Sackville Baggins springs to mind - have redeeming characteristics.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As promised, this post has been edited to expand my argument and hopefully offer some evidence in support.

I think I shall start with a brief consideration of Helen's quotation and its applicability to the case of Beren and Lúthien. Although in the published Silmarillion Beren is a Man, at the time of the Lost Tales he was a Gnome, Beren of the Noldoli; in which case the Elven marriage would apply equally to both of them. In any case it's by no means unusual for people to honour the customs of their spouses-to-be, and after all it doesn't sound like so very unpleasant a way to tie the knot.

I think that in many cases a great deal too much is made of Tolkien's Catholicism. Whilst he was clearly a committed Christian this does not mean that he sat down and compared every word he wrote to Catholic doctrine to see if the two were compatible. He was a free-thinking idealist, with a clearly defined sense of honour and moral understanding, which meant that he was quite capable of making up his own mind about moral issues; and in some cases, horror of horrors, his writing diverged from the minor tenets of his faith. This is by no means unusual: John Betjeman, a contemporary of Tolkien's and another Oxford man, suffered a great deal of anguish in trying to reconcile some of his views with his Catholicism. I should also note that the Lost Tales were written when Tolkien was still in his twenties, and I think I can say with relative authority that men of that age can find some of the stricter moral codes a little difficult to obey, no matter how noble their spirits. Also, at the time of the first composition of The Tale of Tinúviel in 1917, Tolkien was himself a man who had seen war and bloodshed on a scale unequalled at any previous time in human history. I mention this because there's nothing like seeing lives wasted, literally cast away for nothing, to make some of society's moral opinions about sex seem rather petty and unimportant; and let's not be under any illusions about this, marriage is for the benefit of other people: to announce and solemnise a commitment which already exists in the eyes of the two people involved. Without that commitment, and without love, marriage is a pointless and hollow institution, and its vows are nothing. We only need look at Aredhel and Eöl to see where a loveless union will lead, as I have mentioned in another of Lush's rather entertaining threads.

In this respect, it doesn't matter how passionate and physical Beren and Lúthien were without a marriage ceremony per se, because whatever they were doing together sprang from love. Not infatuation, momentary attraction or one too many miruvors, but love at its purest. From the moment that they first met they were joined for life, and there was nothing that they or anyone else could do about it. Similarly there was no need for an official declaration of this fact until the time was convenient: actions speak louder than words, however solemn and godly those words may be.

That's not to say that I agree with this reading of the passage in question, though. The Silmarillion also says that this meeting took place "...near dawn on the eve of Spring...", and the phrase "...and she loved him", whilst it can refer to a physical act of love, can equally mean that at that moment she fell in love with him, with all the associated birds suddenly appearing and so forth (to my mind, this passage refers to a window of no more than fifteen minutes, and I'm not sure that Tolkien was the sort to write a quick knee-trembler into his epic romance). The interesting part of this is the timing: just before dawn on the first day of spring is a very significant time of year. I shan't belabour the symbolism of rebirth and fertility implicit in this setting, rather I shall quote the much racier version of their first real meeting from the Lay of Leithian:

Then stared he wild in dumbness bound
at silent trees, deserted ground;
he blindly groped across the glade
to the dark trees' encircling shade,
and, while she watched with veiléd eyes,
touched her soft arm in sweet surprise.
Like startled moth from deathlike sleep
in sunless nook or bushes deep
she darted swift, and to and fro
with cunning that elvish dancers know
about the trunks of trees she twined
a path fantastic. Far behind
enchanted, wildered and forlorn
Beren came blundering, bruised and torn

"What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?" Where is our chaste professor here? The later version, as used in the Silmarillion works better within the framework of the story, because it ties in much more readily with the idea that it was Beren and Lúthien's fate to meet thus and love one another, and in any case the romantic in me likes to see the sudden spark in the rewritten account; but the earlier work seems more human, and perhaps more realistic. Although Tolkien seems to have intended for Lúthien to be afraid of Beren's rough appearance, as in the earlier prose version, there's something more playful about the language that suggests a game that I think we can all recognise. "Ooh la la" indeed.

I'm very much in accord with Lush's comments about Lúthien's personality. She's definitely the more rebellious of the pair, and she's certainly no thrall to convention. It is Beren who insists that he must complete Thingol's insulting mission, whereas she is perfectly happy to defy her father and to live in exile if it means that she can be with the man she loves. Beren is the more bound by social propriety, and he does have more to lose (Thingol is not the sort of person with whom one should trifle), although there's probably an element of male pride as well: nobody likes to decline a challenge.

Now I come to the tricky part of this whole discourse, because I have to bring in morality and religion. Sex within marriage is tied very strongly to the concept behind the Roman church's attitude towards contraception, which can essentially be summed up as "No copulation without procreation", in deference to Genesis II 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth", and given that this precludes both abortion and contraception, marriage is the most sensible and logical state in which to do one's multiplication. I must stress that this is not necessarily my opinion, but that of Tolkien's Church as I see it.

However, the Bible also says
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,
I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal
(I Corinthians XIII:1)

All loveless states and actions are as nothing, and Tolkien has extrapolated this in his portrayal of Beren and Lúthien, although he has almost certainly stepped beyond the bounds of official doctrine in so doing. What use is a ceremony when you're imprisoned by Sauron, or trying to sneak into Morgoth's fortress? It takes a lot more than a social convention to keep a relationship going under that sort of strain, and without Thingol's blessing the marriage could not be concluded anyway. In this both of the lovers are concerned, so they act as a married couple would and share the trial, which Beren would certainly have failed alone. As one saying goes, marriage isn't all about gazing into each others' eyes, but looking confidently in the same direction.

This brings me to my idea of what Tolkien probably did find morally objectionable, and the spirit that probably lies behind the traditional morals of wedlock: there is no joy or happiness to be had in loveless and mechanical fornication, which is the only form of intercourse, especially in the form of adultery, which is specifically banned in the Commandments. My objection (it would be beyond my ambit to presume what Tolkien's was, although I like to think that it was quite similar) is that such activity reduces the union to nothing more than the gratification of a bodily impulse, no more redolent of joy or love than the scratching of a troublesome itch. At several points in his works Tolkien demonstrates that it is love, not marriage that is important, because when life gets difficult and everything seems against you what will not keep you going is a piece of paper with some signatures on it and the Church's approval. Later, in Aldarion and Erendis, and later still in The Shibboleth of Fëanor, Tolkien described marriages in collapse (in the former because of a husband's inability to choose either his wife or the sea, in the latter because of a wife's unwillingness to return from the halls of Mandos to her husband and son), and it is clear from these accounts that he understood what sacrifices had to be made to maintain a successful union. Love is the only impetus that will force someone to make those sacrifices. What tragedies befell because of the bitterness that this inspired in the children of those unions? How would Fëanor have behaved in the presence of his mother's moderating influence? And people think that Tolkien didn't write about real relationships. "What fools these mortals be"

[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Lush]

Bekah, that's a very nice, thoughtful post, but I fail to see what it has to do with the discussion in general.

Lalaith, you're absolutely right in drawing that distinction between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, at least judging from what I've read of Lewis so far. And as for Ungoliant, I don't think she qualifies, because she is a spider, not a person. The fact that Ungoliant and Shelob are female is significant, of course, but I don't think that this relates to Tolkien's over-idealized view of women per se.

think that Tolkien was the sort of person who knew what was morally right without having to be told by a religious organisation, and what is morally objectionable is loveless and mechanical sexual activity, which reduces the union to nothing more than the gratification of a bodily impulse.

That's very well put. smilies/wink.gif

So I am not the only lunatic out there who was intrigued by Beren and Lúthien's first meeting, which is comforting.

Lalaith, I agree that Arwen and Aragorn also had a very big "moment" on Cerin Amroth, but I think that it was different, less passionate somehow. For my part, I justify this by concentrating on what lay ahead for Aragorn and Arwen, they felt the presence of the shadow, and Arwen, for her part, was troubled by the idea of leaving her kin behind, even though she promised Aragorn that she would cleave to him. Lúthien, for her part, was never shown to have any doubts. Maybe that has something to do with the way the Sil is written, maybe with the fact that Lúthien was the daughter of a Maia, I am not quite sure.

[Bekah]

Helen, thanks for the quote, it's very educational. The only thing I can say in response to that is the fact that Beren was not an Elf, but a man, which changes things. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty cool guy, just, you know, not an Elf.



That was, I believe, what I was trying to reply to. Anyway, I don't have time to debate/discuss it at the moment. Sorry.

~ Elentari II

[Lush]

I just had another (brilliant) thought strike me.

I'm sure at least some of you who were around here last year remember the initial brouhaha surrounding Arwen's expanded role in the film. Most of the criticism centered on the fact that she wielded a sword, but a great deal of people also had a beef with the fact that she was out "sneaking around" with Aragorn after-hours, obviously unattended, behaving in a manner "unbecoming" of an Elf of her stature.

But, according to the quote that Helen provided, this sort of behaviour must be totally acceptable. Lúthien did it, and she was of much nobler stature than Arwen. So Peter Jackson is not entirely off the mark there, eh?

Which leads me to my next point: since what Lúthien did was in accordance with true love, and it was apparently her right to do it, and she wasn't in the wrong, then what right did Thingol have in doing what he did, especially if he knew that Lúthien had already devoted herself emotionally and physically to Beren. We know that Thingol is aware of this according to this quote:

"...shall such as these lay hands on you, and yet live?"

Hmmm. For the first time ever the reprecussions of Thingol's involvement begin to make sense to me.

But now I am also getting myself confused. If Beren and Lúthien were wedded in the fashion that Helen's quote from HoME describes, is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing? I.e., that they were physically involved before the official marriage ceremony after the defeat of Sauron? But if they weren't, does Elrond have anything to do with that? And if he does, why? Because Aragorn was his adopted son, and thus owed his obedience to him? But does that also mean that Elrond, in all his wisdom, could not see true love (the kind described in HoME) right in front of him? But Galadriel could (hence the Cerin Amroth episode)?

Intriguing.

[Eru]

is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing?

i beilieve it is since she she would rather spend one life time with him then all the ages without.

or maybe that was the movie. i'm going home and reading FoTR. it's been too long...

[red]

A Lush topic about sex. *shock*

[the mortal elf]

I'm not even going to touch on Beren and Luthien since most of you all-time-great essay writers already handled it (especially Squatter).

In reference to Aragorn and Arwen, I was under the impression that they weren't bonded in the fashion described in the quote until after they were officially married. I could be wrong, but if the quote means like it says: that you're now to stay with that person for "1000's upon 1000's of years" then how would Arwen still have the choice to go to Valinor? Wouldn't she have to cleave to Aragorn? I haven't read much of the histories or Unfinished Tales yet (aren't I a disgrace? smilies/smile.gif), so this is just my opinion, not based on much fact.

[Bekah]

I agree. I don't think Arwen and Aragorn were bonded in the way Luthien was bonded with Beren until after their marriage. It wasn't the thing that their whole relationship revolved upon. And you guys are free to disagree if you want.

I think Elrond realized partially what was going on, but giving up your daughter, and letting her give up her immortality and her people is a big thing for a guy to do...especially if you don't know that those sacrifices will be worth it.

~ Elentari II

[Lush]

mortal elf, you have a point.

red, you expected Balrog wings?

[Orual]

Well, the thing is that the only defining requirement for marriage in the Church (don't take my word on this, though, I'm no theologian) is mutual consent on behalf of the two parties being married. The actual ceremony is formality and officiality, "for the record" and all that. If Beren and Lúthien decided that they were going to bind themselves to each other, be intimate solely with each other, in essence marry, then that's that. In essence, they're married.

Hence, "one night" for an elf signals a lasting, permanent and sacred commitment that will last unbroken and unbreakable ("indissoluble") for thousands upon thousands of years.

Choose wisely indeed. Ceremony is well and good, even preferable (as it makes matters official), but as long as they didn't...how shall I say this...get intimate with anybody but each other, they're married and in no sin.

Again, I am no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that what I said is correct.

Namárië,

~*~Orual~*~

[mark12_30]

With regard to Aragorn and Arwen: remember that when Aragorn was twentysomething he met Arwen in the woods, and Elrond figured out why he was starry eyed. He was still under Elrond's authority at that time. Here's Elrond's quote:

"Many years of trial lie before you. You shall neither have wife, nor bind any woman to you in troth, until your time comes and you are found worthy of it."
'Then Aragorn was troubled, and he said, "Can it be that my mother has spoken of this?"
"No indeed, " said Elrond. Your own eyes have betrayed you. But I do not speak of my daughter alone. You shall be betrothed to no man's child as yet. ..."

Then (after Galadriel set Aragorn up, and Elrond learned of it) Elrond tells Aragorn this: (I wonder if he was thinking of his brother Elros):
"Maybe it has been appointed so, that by my loss the kingship of men may be restored. Therefore, though I love you, I say to you: Arwen Undomiel shall not diminish her life's gracve for less cause. She shall not be the bride of any man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor."

Aragorn accepted the challenge to make Arwen the queen of Arnor and Gondor. To do that, he's got to be a King, and he's got some footwork to do to make that happen.

Beren's challenge was not to make Luthien a queen, but to burglarize or otherwise obtain a Silmaril. Footwork involved was grueling but apolitical: go, get jewel, return.

In addition, Thingol's challenge was designed to destroy Beren and get rid of him, and Luthien joined in Beren's quest to avoid losing him. I don't think that he could have fulfilled the quest without her.

In contrast, Elrond's challenge was intended to raise Aragorn up and challenge him to come into his inheritance in the fullest sense: that of freeing Middle-Earth. And if Arwen had gone with Aragorn, would it have helped him in his quest?

Arwen's gifting, it seems to me, lies more in "watching over him in thought from afar", like Galadriel. I can't imagine Arwen turning Aragorn into a werewolf, or herself into a bat. It's not her style. She does Osanwe, not skin-changing. So would she really have been helpful if she had physically come long on the quest? Or was she more useful behind the lines? I tend to think the latter.

(We don't see Galadriel trooping off with the Fellowship either, and we don't expect her to. She belongs in the woods, wielding hre ring, doing Osanwe, sending Halbarad, etc.)

So, do I doubt that Aragorn and Arwen were physically involved before Aragorn was crowned? Yes; for one thing, they both knew the conventions, Aragorn having been raised by Elrond and not by men; for another, Aragorn accepted Elrond's challenge to make Arwen a queen; and for a third, Aragorn and Arwen were not going off together in peril, wanderings, or war or other forms of duress mentioned by Tolkien in his discussion.

Luthien: to love is to give; to serve; greater love has no man (or elf-woman) than this: to lay down one's life for another.

Arwen: Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Both true.

[Tar-Palantir]

Poor Aragorn, 87 years without any? And Arwen, almost 3 millenia? Ouch... I assume they both kept themselves... ummm 'pristine'? Since they met when Aragorn was young (20?), and he knew she was one hot tamale, he probably waited. And judging from what I read a few posts up about the elvish views on the physical side of love, that Arwen too had waited (did I mention the 3 millenia??).

I suppose this long wait was far from common, most men and hobbits don't live long enough for that kind of torture. But what I find strange also (yet another segue from the topic, sorry) is that Bilbo especially never got hitched. Neither did Frodo. Neither did Gimli, or most dwarven males for that matter. Legolas might have found someone to 'betrothe' later if he made it to Valinor, but even so, that is a loooooong dry spell he endured. What about Saruman, and Gandalf? What about how long the Ents have been without the Entwives? A reeeeaaallllly long time. So does it seem to anyone else like the shorter your lifespan is the quicker you need to buffer the population numbers? And the longer you live, the less 'urgency' you may have? Sorry, but I have to come up with some kind of theory to justify this post! Because, I'll tell you, romantic love or just plain old procreation is ingrained in our DNA, it seems twisted to deprive these characters of their needs for so long.

Happy Valentine's Day! hehehe... http://www.reefaquariumguide.com/forums/images/smilies/new/lovebirds.gif

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Bekah]

Bother! I lost my copy of the LOTR. Could someone please look up for me how long Aragorn ruled? He had a pretty long life-span, I know that...and hobbits seem to live a little longer than most humans, and they don't 'come of age' until the age of 33. Dwarves? They live for about twice the life-span of most humans. As for elves...they're immortal. If anyone wants to know the relevance of this, it's in response to something Tar-Palantir said.

Anyway, I'd rather not contemplate the sexual feelings of the people of Middle-earth. It's either a long, long, long time ago, on another planet, or on another world (Narnia?), and for all of those options Tolkien wrote the story not knowing that it was true. Or else, the most common theory, it doesn't exist. For all of those theories, the peoples are different from us. So they might not feel the same way about sex as we do, living here and now.

But I still like reading these intelligent posts in a good, friendly debate. smilies/wink.gif

~ Elentari II

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Diamond18]

Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing. I mean, roughly 3,000 years not just without sex, but without romance or any kind of boy/girl relationship? What did they do all that time? (Remember, Arwen was old by the time she met Aragorn, so she didn't have him to look forward to all those years.)

Of course, the point has been made that Elves are immortal so maybe there's no urgency to get hitched, have children to ensure posterity, so on.

But, they did mate, so we must assume they had some sex drive. Or not?

As I said before, from the quotes Helen provided it sounds very "ideal" in the sense of "unrealistic". I mean, it reads as if this permanent union never to be dissolved marraige was not just the way it would be in a perfect world, but the way it was. Now, we know that in our world the proscribed customs are not always followed and not everyone believes in the same truths. Our world isn't a perfect place where what is good and pure reigns. And neither was Middle-earth, ever since Melkor got his hands on it.

What I'm saying is that Middle-earth seems to be represented as a fallen world in every aspect except sex. I mean, so far the worst scenario has been unhappy and loveless marraiges. But since Middle-earth isn't a perfect world, why don't we have playboy elves or loose she-elves? Or are they just "loser-elves" who didn't deserve to be mentioned in the great tales? Should we assume that they were present in the world but not mentioned in the books because of the chaste nature of Tolkien's writings, or did they really not exist in Arda?

Elves were not above greed and murder, so why should we think they were above lust?

Though I can't really picture Tolkien sitting at his desk thinking "How long can they endure without sex before they snap?"

That's Lush's department. smilies/wink.gif

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Bekah]

Yes...but not only is this bonding the way it was, it is for some people, the way it is. I'm not saying they live happily ever after, or don't argue, or whatever...but they really love each other so much that they would willingly give their immortality for them, as Arwen and Luthien did...only they're already mortal. My point is, if you check out the lives of those people who end up being divorced, they're not happy. Some people who are married, of course, aren't happy, but most long-standing marriages are happy.

~ Elentari II

[Marigold Hedgeworth]

Once I'd read this thread I found a copy of the Catechism to look up exactly what the Catholic Church says about marriage, just to see what Tolkien would be drawing from, if he was, in fact, trying to reconcile his writing and the Church. Here's what I found: In the Latin Church, it is ordinarily understood that the spouses, as ministers of Christ's grace, mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church.

And skipping a bit farther on: Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses); the public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

Now, assuming that elves and 'early' men were a bit more apt to keep their word than those of us today, it would seem that beginning a marriage with the...err..consummation wouldn't be a problem.

Beginning with consummation. That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one smilies/confused.gif. I think I'll just go to bed now, so I can stop making my poor little brain work so hard smilies/rolleyes.gif.

[Tar-Palantir]

So for the Eldar, if they did not bond in time of crisis by consumating in the night, then you needed some witnesses and a minister from the 'Church of Eru' to wed you? Is that right? No church of Eru? So just witnesses then?

What about Hobbits, they have no churches as far as I know, filthy little Hobbitsess.

Woses, Dunlendings? Rohirrim? Church of the Charging Steed?

I just realized that the complete lack of sex in LotR is counter-balanced by the complete lack of an organized religion - not a single pew to be found. Hmmm... coincindental?

Bekah - on the subject of ages this is my judgement, in list form for easier digestion:
Hobbits, Men - short
Dwarves, Numenorean - medium
Elves, Maia (Gandalf, Saruman), Ents - REALLY long
BTW- Aragorn lived to 210 years.

cheers,
smilies/smile.gif

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would like to add a Biblical quote to this discussion, the very first mention of marriage in the Bible, before the Fall of Man into sin, mind you! Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24, KJV)
Though it was Adam who said it, in my King James Bible, there's a heading over the three verses from which this is taken: 'God institutes marriage'. Originally, nothing more was needed to make a marital bond binding but the union, exclusively and obviously physically, of two persons. Perhaps Tolkien was taking his story, which is intended to be prehistoric for our present world, back to the original principle of marriage that is accounted in Genesis. He would most certainly have been familiar with the story of creation as told there.

Another sociological aspect that has not yet been mentioned here is the history of ‘common-law’ marriages, which were traditionally considered legally binding without a formal ceremony or document. Perhaps someone knows more details about that than I do.

[mark12_30]

More from Alfwine's preamble, HoME, Morgoth's Ring:
The Eldar grew in bodily form slower than men, but in mind more swiftly. They learned to speak before they were one year old; and in the same time they learned to walk and to dance, for their wills came soon to the mastery of their bodies....

The Eldar wedded only once in life, and for love or at least by free will upon either part. Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-Earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.

[Marigold Hedgeworth]

Tar,I wasn't trying to say that witnesses were required for marriage(although I think they would be, in more conventional situations). I was trying to point out that giving one's word seems to have been much more of a serious thing in Middle Earth than it is in our modern world. (Feanor and sons, for example. They didn't go back on their word, no matter how much they hated what they had to do.) If this was the case, then witnesses wouldn't have been an absolute necessity, since the partners weren't likely to go back on what they were promising each other. Sorry if that was a bit ambiguous.

As for hobbits and marriage, I seem to remember having read something, somewhere about the Mayor officiating at Shire weddings. I can't find this quote for the life of me, so I may have just dreamed it up. Does anyone know if such a passage exists, and what book it's in if it does?

And on a rather unrelated note, I just realized that my earlier post could be read as advocating pre-marital sex. In point of fact, I'm staunchly opposed to sex outside of marriage. Just for the record smilies/smile.gif .

Mari

[Child of the 7th Age]

Mari,

I don't recall that about hobbit marriages. In HoMe, Tolkien says that hobbits keep their engagements secret and often run off to elope. He does allude to the possibilty of a "ceremony" but doesn't say anything about who officiates or the form it

JRRT once toyed with the idea of having Bilbo disappear from the Shire by eloping (at a younger age than 111!), with the subsequent birth of a son.

BTW, when I read the Luthien/Beren scene, I immediately had the same impression as Lush, but I set that impression within the context which Mark12_30 sets forward, the exchange of private vows before Eru. My impression is that, Man or not, Beren would have gone to extraordinary lengths to please the one whom he loved, and would have respected her traditions.

By the same token, I agree with Marigold that folk took their promises very seriously in Middle-earth. Even among the hobbits, divorce or remarriage was said to be virtually unknown.

If Beren pledged his life and love to Luthien, I think he would see that as forever binding. For this reason, I don't think we can equate the modern incidence of premarital sex (whether you think it's a 'bad' thing or not) with what happened between these two characters. The context and usual intention is totally different.

sharon

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Magician of Nathar]

A very...interesting topic.
Here is my two penny worth of thoughts

Elves were not above greed and murder, so why should we think they were above lust?



Well, i rather think they aren't. Remember Maglor?

[red]

Should we assume that they(unchaste elves) were present in the world but not mentioned in the books because of the chaste nature of Tolkien's writings, or did they really not exist in Arda? (parentheses mine)Arda itself does not exist outside of Tolkien's writings so this question is moot. Actually your very first sentence, Diamond, is the key: Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing.And that's that.

[the mortal elf]

Remember Maglor?

*shudders* actually, I'd rather not. smilies/smile.gif

Anyway, I was just reading through these continually excellent points of view when a quote came to mind. I perceive it as having relevance, but I'm having trouble putting it into words. Infer all you like. smilies/smile.gif

Elrond:
...On him alone is any charge laid.....The others go with himas free companions to help him on his way. You may tarry, or come back, or turn aside into other paths, as the chance allows. The further you go, the less easy it will be to withdraw; yet no oath or bond is laid on you to go further than you will....

(other conversations)

Gimli:
Yet strong word may strengthen quaking heart.

I'm trying to put my connections into words, but it probably won't make much sense. We were talking about how as long as you're devoted to the person, marriage is just an official ceremony, possibly to help you in times of trouble because "strong word may strengthen quaking heart." I related marriage to the fellowship, which might not be proper or relevant, but you can draw your own conclusions.

[Lush]

A very...interesting topic.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to start these topics.

Here is what I can add to the discussion so far: Celegorm is a great example of an Elf that was definitely not above lust. He was the illustrius dude that kept Lúthien captive, and wanted to marry her against her will, and against Elvish custom, as I recall.

And relating marriage to the Fellowship is an intersting and, I think, relevant way of thinking about this.

[the mortal elf]

Thanks Lush, for starting this topic in the first place and for the compliment. smilies/biggrin.gif

[Tar-Palantir]

Actually I don't think Tolkien thought that far into the matter for it to be an issue in his writing.

That, is not that smilies/smile.gif He obviously decribed in his letters, as posted above, what was required for a union between the Eldar. He included in his books weddings of various sorts alongside instances of lust. The tales are simply incomplete in certain details of the process and more importantly, what was their standard?? What policies did most people adhere to? How prevalent was deviant behavior? Who was prone to be the deviant one (men v. women, humans v. elves)?

Like Estelyn said, he was presumably writing a prehistory to our modern day world. That is why I believe Tolkien most certainly thought about it, when studying histories of varying cultures this subject is eminently worthy of attention, given that every culture you could wish to study is invariably different regarding marriage and man/wowan relationships.

I prefer to think he rejected the idea of greatly broaching the subject because it would do little to further improve the richness of this story without causing mountains of problems. In example, I doubt he wanted to get stuck between A) including (according to his beliefs) deviant sexual behavior; or B) writing a manual of how perfect or ideal love should manifest itself.

No offense intended, but I think the argument that a legally binding document is necessary today because someone's word 'back then' was worth more is a huge pile of hooey. The idea that the our societys today don't know how to express and interpret love anymore is a better argument.

Cheers,
smilies/smile.gif

[Kalimac]

Lush, great topic. And Squatter, I'm impressed as always smilies/smile.gif.

Orual - your point about the church is well taken. I was brought up Catholic, and from what I remember, the situation NOW is that the marriage must be officiated by a priest, who of course automatically witnesses the thing.

But in early and even late medieval times it was very different; all that was needed was that the two parties involved make a vow to each other, followed by consummation (in fact, it was common for consummation to follow the betrothal, and not wait until the actual ceremony). The vow had to be made, but consummation was what put it into force, so to speak - simply making vows to each and not doing anything would not have the binding force of a marriage. There was a case in about the 14th century, I *think* in the Paston family (but don't quote me on that) where a high-born girl had married a young man beneath her in social standing, and what they had done was simply make vows to each other and then consummate. Her family tried to get it annulled, but the two were examined separately by a bishop and asked what words they had used to make their vows. Their versions of what they had said were identical, so they were declared to be officially married.

I'm guessing that it's like that for the Elves; witnesses are nice but not necessary; the vow and the consummation together are what make the marriage. I haven't read too much about Beren and Luthien so can't pronounce one way or the other, but if they've vowed to be faithful to each other and then slept together, I'm betting that Tolkien is regarding that as either a marriage or a very close equivalent.

Also, one other point. Tolkien was indeed a very serious Catholic, but he was also an artist, and his characters came to life under his pen while he wrote about them. The first thing a fiction-writer learns is that you do not control the story so much as your characters do, and sometimes they'll spring up and do things that you didn't expect, or hadn't planned. (Think of Pushkin's famous comment on finishing Eugene Onegin: "Did you know my Tatiana has rejected Onegin? I never would have expected it of her.") Even if Luthien had slept with Beren on a whim and with no commitment - only a marriage by the strictest Old Testament definition, and even that's arguable - it wouldn't necessarily say anything about Tolkien's views on the Church. I try to live according to the rules of religion - well, most of the time, anyway - but that does not mean that every story I write will have people behaving as the Church thinks they should, even the protagonists. Stories just don't work like that.

[Bekah]

There's also a verse in Genesis that says that a man will leave his house and parents and cleave to his wife

This is a quote of my first post on this thread, in response to Estelyn's later, though more specific, quoting of that verse. But I'm glad that someone else other than me thought it was relevant...

And now I'm going to read all these interesting posts that sprang up while I was at church (it's Sunday over here).

~ Elentari II

P.S. I have nothing to add...

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Bekah ]

[Nuranar]

This is indeed a fascinating topic. I wish I could offer my dos pesetas, but alas I have not done the reading I feel necessary to have an adequate understanding. I do want to respond to something, however.

Squatter, your post was excellent; I both enjoyed and appreciated your insightful and sensitive exposition. I just had a quick comment about one thing:

However, the Bible also says

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love,
I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I Corinthians XIII:1)
All loveless states and actions are as nothing, and Tolkien has extrapolated this in his portrayal of Beren and Lúthien, although he has almost certainly stepped beyond the bounds of official doctrine in so doing. (boldface mine)

I agree; no matter how "good" or noble or beneficial the action, without love it means absolutely nothing. The love that Paul writes of here, however, is probably not the love that existed between Beren and Lúthien. (I used an online lexicon available here (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/NewTestamentGreek/).

In New Testament Greek, I found two different kinds of love: agape and phileo. Phileo is defined as:

1. to love: to approve of; to like; sanction; to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend
2. to show signs of love: to kiss
3. to be fond of doing: be wont, use to do

I would say romantic love falls in this category. It is the root from whence comes philadelphia, brotherly love.

By contrast, agape means:

brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence

This is the love found in I Corinthians 13:1. From scanning a lexicon, I see that Paul (the author of I Corinthians) uses it almost exclusively to refer to the love of God, of Christ Jesus, and of the Spirit.

From various sermons and Bible studies I had thought there was a third kind of love. I have e-mailed my father (he has studied NT Greek), and if he confirms I will update this post.

I really appreciate your post, Squatter; I just wanted to clarify that small point. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. smilies/smile.gif

[Lush]

Don't forget eros, Nuranar, the third kind of love.

[Diamond18]

Yes, but wouldn't bringing that one up be a little redundant, Lush? smilies/wink.gif

red (note the lower-case r...):

Arda itself does not exist outside of Tolkien's writings so this question is moot.

I only meant that just because Tolkien didn't describe it doesn't automatically mean he viewed it as not being there. For instance, I don't recall him ever talking about bathrooms and the biological plumbing system, but I think it's safe to assume that people performed that bodily function. That's somewhat along the lines of how I was thinking about lust and fornification in Arda.

But Helen came through again and answered the questions posed in my inane ramblings with another Alfwine quote:

Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-Earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them.

But as to this:

Well, i rather think they aren't [above lust]. Remember Maglor?

I must admit that even though I read the Silmarillion and I know who Maglor is (2nd son of Fëanor, he's even on the front of my copy of the Sil, for pity's sake) I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bill Ferny]

Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

In reply to the opening post:

The Catholic Church is generally known for its continuous frowning upon pre-marital sex, and its harsh stance on birth control…

I’ll take this as constructive criticism. It’s a shame, really. Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse is a single grain of sand on the vast shore of Catholic doctrine and theology. We Catholics really have to do a better job of letting people know what the Catholic Church is all about. (In fact, I’ve found that Catholics are the least prudish Christians I know!)

I wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this if it wasn't for the way that some people treat Tolkien's work. They like it because it's "clean," and "moral," and "upstanding," and so on and so forth. And it is, for the most part, exactly that. A nice distraction from out otherwise dirty lives.

I understand what you are getting at. However, there are much more obvious ways of showing the non-Christian aspects of Tolkien’s mythology. For example, his treatment of fae/hroa… a far cry from a Christian anthropology; or his treatment of free will, the fallen world, sin, and redemption - his Pelagianism is worlds away from orthodox Christian belief. Your example of an “illicit” sexual affair between Beren and Lúthien is simply too vague from the written material.

And after everything is over and done with, and Lúthien is a mortal, nowhere is it mentioned that her parents bless her union with Beren, or that there even was an official wedding.

We hear of people getting married, so forth and so on, but never is an actual wedding described. “And Aragorn the King Elessar wedded Arwen Undómiel in the City of the Kings…” (RotK, VI, 5). That’s pretty brief on the description, kind of like a Tolkien battle scene, ey? The reason is, as Helen, points out by quoting HoME, the actual marriage was the sexual intercourse, not the ceremony. For Tolkien’s mythology, the romantic love between male and female constitutes the marriage. Believe it or not, but his isn’t too far from the Catholic notion of marriage. However, if marriage is determined by sexual intercourse only, then it is… well… Pelagian. Once again Tolkien proves his mythology is quite divergent from the Christianity that he practiced in real life.

Squatter,

I think that in many cases a great deal too much is made of Tolkien's Catholicism.

Agreed.

…and in some cases, horror of horrors, his writing diverged from the minor tenets of his faith.

On the contrary, his mythology diverged from many of the major tenets of his faith.

…and let's not be under any illusions about this, marriage is for the benefit of other people: to announce and solemnise a commitment which already exists in the eyes of the two people involved.

Don’t be too hasty. Whatever you might personally think about ritual and ceremony, for the Catholic both ritual and ceremony are outward signs of an unseen reality. A wedding is more than just a stage show, but the real presence of Christ. (It always comes down to belief in the real presence, after all.) This, though, is actually irrelevant for the present discussion, as there are no sacraments in Tolkien’s Middle Earth. In Middle Earth, any wedding ceremony would indeed be nothing more than a stage show.

Sex within marriage is tied very strongly to the concept behind the Roman church's attitude towards contraception, which can essentially be summed up as "No copulation without procreation", in deference to Genesis II 28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth", and given that this precludes both abortion and contraception, marriage is the most sensible and logical state in which to do one's multiplication.

I wonder how this can be? If all that people know about the Catholic Church is it’s moral teachings about sexual intercourse, how can said people not even know what the Catholic Church teaches about sexual intercourse? Once again, I’ll take this as constructive criticism, indicating that we Catholics really have to do a better job presenting our Church’s teachings.

Orual,

Well, the thing is that the only defining requirement for marriage in the Church (don't take my word on this, though, I'm no theologian) is mutual consent on behalf of the two parties being married. The actual ceremony is formality and officiality, "for the record" and all that.

The sacrament of marriage is in the mutual consent, finalized in the consummation (sexual intercourse). The primary ministers of the sacrament of marriage, from beginning to end, are the two people getting married. Not the priest! Kalimac. All kinds of sacramental marriages have nothing in the least to do with priests… What? Do you think we Catholics believe the only people in the world who are married are people who were married in the Catholic Church? Umm, no we don’t.

Thank you, Marigold Hedgeworth for looking up those quotes in the Catechism. However, the CotCC is often a little too brief for its own good, and there is much more to the ceremony than just adding communal validity to a marriage. The ceremony is part of the outward sign of the internal reality of marriage. It is the initial step in the ongoing sacrament of marriage. That sacrament, that internal reality, is, of course, the real presence of Christ, not just manifested in the consummation, but in the spouses lives together. The wedding ceremony takes place in the context of the Catholic mass, because the Eucharist is the center of the marriage relationship. Thus, for Catholics, marriage is a ritual, a very long ritual, one that married people participate in every moment that they are married, and one that starts with the wedding ceremony.

Lush,

If Beren and Lúthien were wedded in the fashion that Helen's quote from HoME describes, is it also not safe to assume that Arwen and Aragorn did the same thing?

Yes. There were no significant “religious” changes in Middle Earth prior to Aragorn’s and Arwen’s marriage.

I.e., that they were physically involved before the official marriage ceremony after the defeat of Sauron?

There is no indication from the text that they were. In fact it would have been rather difficult as they were separated during and after the war until Aragorn was crowned king.

But if they weren't, does Elrond have anything to do with that? And if he does, why?

Elrond both prophesied and imposed an injunction upon Aragorn and Arwen’s marriage, as Helen pointed out in her post. Arwen was not to be given to Aragorn unless he was the king of Gondor. In RotK, VI, 5 Elrond surrendered the sceptre, and laid the hand of his daughter in the hand of the king at the same time (and in the same sentience); there was intimate connection between him allowing Arwen to marry Aragorn, and Aragorn being king.

But does that also mean that Elrond, in all his wisdom, could not see true love (the kind described in HoME) right in front of him?

Perhaps, in all his wisdom, Elrond could see the price of true love. We often forget that love, no matter if its charitable or romantic, is at its root, has for its very essence, sacrifice. Love demands a price. Helen, I’m glad you added the following quote in your post: “greater love has no man than this: to lay down one's life for another.” There is no better definition.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Hullo again, Bill. It's nice to cross posts with you again, even though to do so I must bear the public exposure of my mistakes.

Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

I share your frustration. You're clearly more qualified than a lot of us, myself most definitely included, to comment on doctrinal issues, and it's a great relief to have someone come in and clear up some of the theological mess that I've made. You have, as you are no doubt aware, exposed my shameless pontification on the subject of Catholicism: I am duly chastened and admonished, and thankful to be placed on the right track.

Truth to tell, I've re-read my post several times, and have always been unhappy with the section of it that you quoted: I feel unqualified to be talking about the Church's attitude to anything, but I wanted to try and make two points: firstly that Tolkien's writings weren't ruled by his religious beliefs anything like as much as many people believe, and secondly that what he appears to be driving at is that love and commitment are a great deal more important than any ceremony.

I should, perhaps, have made it clearer that my comments about marriage were indeed intended as an expression of my personal views, and that I was looking at it from a sociological rather than a religious point of view. Of course to a practicing Christian it is vital to make these declarations in the sight of God, so that the union can receive the divine blessing; but to society in general, particularly the chattering portion that delights in judging others and finding them wanting, it's a mere observation of the proprieties, which becomes less and less essential every day. You are quite right to say that this is irrelevant in Middle-earth, where religion is based a great deal more on personal piety than organised ceremony.

I stand corrected also that Tolkien's divergence from Catholic tenets was major rather than minor. I find it not a little ironic that one of my few attempts at caution in my discourse should have so damaged the accuracy of my comment. This only serves further to underline the point I was making that Tolkien was not consciously trying to write a Catholic work at all, but was an author who just happened to be a Catholic.

As for my dreadful howler over sex, marriage and Catholic doctrine, I am entirely to blame. Whether or not your church is projecting its image correctly is completely besides the point, which is that I posted without reading around the subject as I should have done, and am in great danger of causing very justifiable offence. I certainly intended no criticism, constructive or otherwise. I actually considered removing that part of my post entirely at one point, but let it bide in the hope that I might be right. Clearly I was not.

I can only extend my heartfelt apologies to anyone who was offended or misled by any of my errors, and particularly to you, Bill, as a very lucid and convincing spokesperson for your faith.

[Nuranar]

Don't forget eros, Nuranar, the third kind of love.

I didn't forget it, Lush. In the lexicon I searched for "love" and only found agape and phileo. Then I searched for eros, then erot, and finally in desperation ero and found no word for love.

Thus I am waiting for my father's reply. I'm beginning to surmise that none of the New Testament writers referred to that kind of love.

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Nuranar ]

[Lush]

Hm, the New Testament writers must have been a bunch of squares.

Kidding! Kidding! I am just kidding. I am not going to sit here and insult my own religion, as well as any other Christian who happens to come along. That's not my style.

Though religion, or Catholicism, to be more specific, was shamelessly used by yours truly to provide a context for all of my musings on sex in Tolkien's work, in terms of people's reaction to it. Was that heavy-handed and obtuse of me? You bet it was.

Nuranar, don't pay any attention to my comment on eros. I don't even remember posting it (it was Saturday night...). smilies/wink.gif

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Bill Ferny]

Squatter

I was up a bit late last night, and came to the forum after a rather frustrating day of work. I apologize for what now seems to be a bit of a sarcastic post. I still think, though, that the Catholic Church needs to improve its PR skills, though smilies/wink.gif , and it certainly doesn’t need my sarcasm!

I do agree with you strongly that Tolkien’s Catholicism is often exaggerated. In regards to other aspects of his mythology, I’ve noticed that Tolkien’s Christian beliefs often take a back seat.

However, I’m afraid that in regards to the present thread, it can be seen that his attitude toward eros is a rather Catholic one, thus backfiring as far as Lush’s original argument is concerned. The Catholic mentality toward sexual intercourse involves a number of consistent themes that are present in Tolkien’s own treatment of the issue in his mythology. First, sexual intercourse is the consummation of marriage; second, eros should not be without agape; and third, sexual intercourse should be pleasurable. These are all themes that make up most Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse.

Aside, just to set the record straight in a nutshell: Catholic moral teaching does not say that sex is for procreation; rather, it teaches that procreation is one of many natural aspects of sexual intercourse, its importance in relation to the other aspects is determined by intent and circumstance. More often than not, procreation is not the first priority considered when making moral judgements. For example, the Church’s teaching regarding artificial means of contraception has as much, if not more, to do with bodily-ness as it does with procreation.

[Kalimac]

Um...Bill...I put it clumsily but I wasn't trying to imply that the priest had somehow superseded the two parties getting married. I don't know as much about the history of this sort of thing as I should, but I realize that ultimately all that's needed is that the two people make the vows and that consummation follows. (And NO, for everyone else - what I've been told is that while procreation is a natural byproduct of sex, it does not have to be the ONLY aim. That is, if you're infertile, or over-age, you can still, umm...)

All I meant was that the way things work now, you'll have a very hard time getting married in the Church without a priest officiating. You could make private vows and try to square things with them later on, but both with the legal aspect (signing the marriage license) and the religious aspect, it would be a real mess.

[Bill Ferny]

Kalimac

I was up a bit late last night, and came to the forum after a rather frustrating day of work. I apologize for what now seems to be a bit of a sarcastic post… smilies/wink.gif

To be honest I didn’t read your post carefully enough last night… in my defense this was already an extremely long thread. After re-reading your post, I see what you are getting at. Marriage ceremony is not, of course, necessary for the recognition of a marriage. However, the Catholic emphasis on ritual gives the wedding a great amount of significance both as validation and, in regard to those who are Catholic, as indicating without any confusion the couple’s intent for sacramentality. The actual sacrament, however, still remains the couple’s life together.

What happens in Tolkien’s pre-Christian mythology? You lose the sacramental aspect. While this doesn’t negate ritual completely, it certainly takes the bite out of the wedding ceremony. Marriage, then is striped bare, so to speak… pun might have been intended, its hard to tell with my mind… or, in other words, the consummation alone is the only real indication of marriage. If you choose to look at this from Tolkien's religious beliefs its kind of like Tolkien took half of his Catholicism into consideration (but really, what choice would he have in a pre-Christian mythos?).

I, on the other hand, don't think that Tolkien approached this issue consciously considering his religious views about marriage, sexual intercourse, or love. Rather, I think what's really at work in this whole thing is a kind of mentality akin to the courtly romances of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I see more courtly romance in Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen (and Elrond?), than modern Catholic theology.

[Bêthberry]

Lush,

I want to compliment you on creating a thread which has proven very interesting. It also has one of the more meaningful discussions of religion in Tolkien--few personal axes to grind but much analysis.

Good job.

Bethberry

[Lush]

Bethberry,

I throw a half-baked idea dressed in pretty language out there, and the real intellectuals do the rest.

But thank you for your kind words.

And thanks to Bill for providing us with a clear-eyed Catholic perspective (and for now flaming me for being presumptuous, which, in my Orthodox arrogance, is something I am bound to do over and over again).

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Nuranar]

Not at all, Lush! I took no offense. On the contrary, I was pleased that someone had responded to my comments and pointed out the omission I had already found curious.

This is really incredible, though:

In the college class at church this morning, the college pastor spoke about being a disciple of Christ. ('By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' John 13:35) And he 'happened' to begin by explaining the three Greek words for love:

Eros is romantic love, or desire, or lust.
Phileo is friendship love, brotherly love, deep comradeship.
Agape is the love of God - 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us' (Ephesians 5:1-2).

Interestingly enough, agape never occurs in any secular Greek literature - the New Testament writers had to invent a word to adequately convey God's love for us. And as I was beginning to think, eros never shows up in the New Testament. I don't think the NT writers were squares smilies/wink.gif , but I do think that when they wrote of love they were speaking of the believers' relationships with God, with each other, and with the world.

Thus (to try to stay on topic - please forgive me for turning your topic into a Greek discussion!) the love of Beren and Luthien is I think both eros (not lustful, but romantic) and phileo. I still believe the love Paul writes of in I Corinthians is the deeper, greater abiding love of God that Christians are called to have.

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Nuranar ]

[Magician of Nathar]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, i rather think they aren't [above lust]. Remember Maglor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must admit that even though I read the Silmarillion and I know who Maglor is (2nd son of Fëanor, he's even on the front of my copy of the Sil, for pity's sake) I have no idea what you're talking about.

--------------------



Ack!!!! So sorry, that's a typo. I meant Maeglin!! Sorry about it, I wan't in my right mind when I typed that!!!! smilies/frown.gif

[Dain]

I think any race that lives forever would have a much lower sex-drive, inasmuch as procreation is a way to achieve a sort of immortality. If you already had it, the desire for children would lessen, at least on an instinctual level. I picture elves as being so interested in everything around them that they could keep themselves busy for millenia until "the one" suddenly walked in. Patience must be in their blood. On the other hand, as a human, whenever a girl walks by, I get immensely distracted. Pretty much the same said of Dwarves (who live ~250 years): only about a third of men marry, and not all women marry, though there are fewer women than men, but many dwarves simply can't be distracted from their crafts to notice or pursue a mate. No wonder the race is dying out! Men and Hobbits, I think, procede in a way much more familiar to us.

Also, the setting and style of the book is one of a medieval legend, and so obviously the love mentioned is of the chivalrous and epic sort, like those good medieval romances (though, the only ones I can think of are Arthurian, and those are all a bit sketchy...). The style is one that does not talk about the details of the romances, but I'm sure if you were well versed in medieval romances you could pick up with phrases meant "then they had sex" and which phrases didn't. I haven't a clue, but I'm sure Tolkien would, and would have used similar "code" if he needed too. So if Tolkien seems not to mention it, maybe it's just a mixture of style and setting, and not prudishness, lack-of-interest or something like that. Even if he was sex-obsessed, I think his dedication to the story and the style would keep it out of the story. His an innocent world as far as love goes--Sam and Frodo, Gimli and Legolas, Aragorn and Arwen. I think that's rather nice, and not unbelievable, either.

Went on a bit there...I think it's late... smilies/rolleyes.gif

And now I realize I didn't notice the 2nd page!
Rather, I think what's really at work in this whole thing is a kind of mentality akin to the courtly romances of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I see more courtly romance in Beren and Lúthien, Aragorn and Arwen (and Elrond?), than modern Catholic theology.
Exactly what I was thinking/trying to say. Time for this Dwarf to sleep...

[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[Mithalwen]

Since I have been directed here, I may as well shove in my ten pennorth....

I am fairly sure that there is a note in HoME to the Laws and Customs that raises the issue of Beren and Luthien and states that while it would have been legal for them to marry without the customary rituals other than the vow, it really was not "the done thing" and why go on the ludicrously dangerous quest if you are going to jump the gun anyway? So much simpler just to elope......

As for Tar-Palantir's comments - well Dain is right. While modern mores have moved so far that procreation is sidelined by recreation! It should be remembered sex drive is there to ensure our "selfish genes" are perpetuated.
And the shorter the life span, the more urgency there is to passing on your genes - I remember seeing a cartoon of two Mayflies - one says "What do you mean 'not tonight' - we only live one day!" Consequently it makes sense that elves would not have a high sex drive. Although most in the beginning, according to the laws and customs, did marry and presumably have children, by the time of LOTR - the elves were fading and the long years were taking their toll - also it was not Elvish practice to rear children in times of uncertainty so it would be less likely that there would be many elf children around at that time. It also says in the "laws" that crimes of lust were rare amongst elves - but obviously there are exceptions.


As for Maia - they are angelic spirits - and well has been discussed elsewhere Melian had to take an Elvish body in order to reproduce. Also with the "paired" Ainur - it is a spiritual rather than physical espousal. So I guess that Saruman and Gandalf, and indeed Sauron had no sex drive - I know that Morgoth lusted for Luthien but rape is more about power than sex and has nothing to do with love and I think it was similar to his desire for the Silmarils - the desire to possess something beautiful.

As for the hobbits - well it is pointed out that Frodo and Bilbo were very unusual in their bachelor status.

[The Saucepan Man]

So I guess that Saruman and Gandalf, and indeed Sauron had no sex driveBut Saruman and Gandalf were both embodied in human form and therefore subject to human physical needs and frailties. They had to eat, sleep etc. And Sauron took physical form throughout much of his existence in Middle-earth. So, while matters of the flesh may well have been of little interest to them (particularly Gandalf), I would certainly not class them as having been incapable ... :rolleyes:

[Mithalwen]

Well, in theory.... but in practice ... maybe there weren't many takers for a bunch of grumpy old men ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, but what about Sauron's devilish charm? ;)

[Mithalwen]

What about it? I can't help thinking that the lidless eye would be a bit of a turn off - even if they did love it when he was masterful :rolleyes: . Mind you some women still think they can change men (even if they don't have the receipt). :p

[tar-ancalime]

Ted Hughes as Sauron? :eek:

I wonder if we could populate Middle-Earth with poets....e.e. cummings is a shoo-in for Tom-Bom, jolly Tom!

[Mithalwen]

Oh but I love e.e.'s poetry and loath TB's..... Tom and Viv would be interesting casting ... I say Sam is Pam Ayres.

[Bêthberry]

Not fair! not fair! Ted Hughes is Faramir.

Ezra Pound for Sauron.

Margaret Atwood for Eowyn. (Wait, that isn't fair to Hughes either.) ;)

[HerenIstarion]

The few last posts made the universal entrophy believable for yours truly :p

[Lalwendë]

Ted Hughes? Hmm, a little bit Byronic, slightly threatening, and very masculine...how about Boromir?

I see Faramir more as a Seamus Heaney.

Who could Wiiliam Blake be cast as?

[Bêthberry]

William Blake = Bilbo, visionary and scamp, writing verse of a mythology unheard in his Shire ;)

[Mithalwen]

Would I be pushing it to say Ted Hughes for Turin?
Frodo - hmm Wilfrid Owen ?
Aragorn mmm Maybe TS Eliot
If it weren't for his cruder side I would want e.e.cummings for Elrond
Margaret Attwood I have only read as a novelist (just started Oryx and Crake last night) ......

[tar-ancalime]

I'd like to suggest: Yeats=Aragorn

Though this suggestion may well be colored by my extreme fondness for both Yeats and Aragorn...

Wallace Stevens is definitely Saruman.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

As much as I [err...] enjoy reading about Lush's allusions and what not, I must take some exception to the points about Catholics. While conservatism and sexual naïveté reign supreme in the hierarchy of my chosen church, the positions against abortion and contraception reflect other origins. Also, what you have in the Christian church is the agonizing guilt handed down from the brilliant St. Augustine in reaction to the consequences of what may have been basic enough liaisons in his youth, or much great licentiousness. Still, biblically speaking, sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman is not really a sin.

Clearly, however, it is fair to say that JRRT was discrete about sexual matters, and completely uninterested in addressing them in his work in any obvious way. This I would ascribe not so much to his catholicism, nothwithstanding being raised in the household of a priest, but rather to Victorian mores, and being a good ole' fashioned guy.

Something that surprisingly I did not find in scanning this long thread is that the story of Lúthien and Beren is a fundamental tale of his, which by some accounts was conceived in his childhood. More compelling is to consider that on his and his wife's tombstones is inscribed the words Lúthien and Beren by his request. Letters underscore how much she was his Tinuviel.

In his youth, because of the difference in their ages, JRRT and his future wife could not see each other for several years, by his agreement with his priest guardian, until he was of a certain age. (Sounds a bit like Aragorn, Arwen and Elrond) As for the story of Beren & Lúthien, I think what one is really sensing there is the actual tension that existed with his passion for his wife.

In both cases, though, I see no reason to assume anything but true chastity before betrothal/marriage as mutually and ritually blessed by both families. Lúthien's "slipping" from Beren arms means just that, in that they had been embracing -- ie, just hugging & kissing, amorous maybe, but only first base. Sorry.

If they had already "coupled" then there would have been little point in going before Thingol for his "blessing."

Victorianism and chivalry aside, JRRT was really aspiring for a pre-Fall model of love. Where sexual relations were good and timeless, and death after a long Númenórean-like life is also only another stage in the journey to Eru. Beren, Faramir and Aragorn, as well as Elves in general, are not perfect and contain something of the Marring of Arda by Morgoth, but they are not supposed to be as fallen as you, me and most of the race of Men in Middle-Earth. It's just different.

With some of the oblique references to evil and torment one might assume something of Sodom and Gormorrah. But JRRT leaves that to the imagination.

With Beren and Lúthien, I don't think he means to do that at all, except to affirm them as a noble model of what true love can and will endure. With all of the swordplay, towers and entering into caves and hobbit holes, one would never be able to stop with the innuendos and possibilities.

As for Maeglin, he is the one of the few clear example of a corrupted elf that we meet in person, where incestous lust seems to be at work, although he is just as much lusting after the throne, and indeed, Celegorm is really more greedy for power than for ....

[Lush]

This thread was a message to various members of this forum that liked to jump to conclusions regarding Tolkien's treatment of romantic love in his works.

It wasn't meant as a commentary on Catholicism, but as a commentary on the way in which certain people assign their own values to fictional characters, based on a nebulous notion of "But Tolkien was a Catholic!"

But so what?

That's what I was trying to say at the time, however clumsily.

[HerenIstarion]

But so what?

May I invite you to take a look at this thread (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10593)? :rolleyes:

PS
The thread name made me do it, it was not me, I'm innocent, I was set up... Ooh la la, that invitation surely qualifies for that :)

[Mithalwen]

I think this is fairly comprehensive

http://www.ansereg.com/what_tolkien_officially_said_abo.htm

other than that in a note to Laws and Customs in HoME it reports that JRRT made a comment to the effect that it would have been lawful for Beren and Tinuviel to contract the "basic" marriage described in the text (ie vows & consummation without the ceremonial feating and gift giving) IF it had not been for Beren's vow to Thingol. So I guess that is a no....

Also as Man of the Wold points out our modern eyes may read far mor into language than was intended at the time - an older but famous example is in Jane Austen's "Emma" when the vicar (whose name escapes me at the moment) 'makes love' to Miss Woodhouse in the carriage - the realtively innocent can be seen as something quite scandalous (at least for a 18th century maiden and a man of the cloth!).

Heren Istarion - an entire Order of Wizards should no so easily be led astray, surely? Don't forget that Oo la la is itself an expression that has changed sense as it crossed the channel - in France it is uttered with disapproving tones as a rule... :P

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Lush,

I do appreciate and understand your observations. Tolkien's catholicism may have had a role in shaping his views on sexuality, which either colored or suppressed his characterizations and scenes in the Books.

Still there isn't much there that is necessarily suggestive, intentional or otherwise. The Beren & Lúthien story is clearly a romance with passion, but a perfectly traditional one in my view.

Also, I think given the times and real world of Tolkien, which was very different from our own, I could easily see him growing up Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian or something else, and being no less conservative with sexual issues in terms of writings to be printed, which is not to say that there weren't contemporary writers of different values (think Joyce).

While there is some intriguing imagery and symbolism that one can associate with Catholic liturgy and traditions, it does not seem to rise to the level of being either essential or deliberate. I for one am of the camp that holds that at a very profound level, the Lord of the Rings is heavily wrought with Tolkien's Christianity, but in rather ecumenical way, or perhaps fundamental way.

[Mithalwen]

Bump

[Eruanna]

Thanks for the link in post 69, Mithalwen.
Truly entertaining! :D

[skip spence]

Ah yes, foxy Luthien...

I've always been struck by how sexually alluring Luthien comes across as, despite, or perhaps because of, Tolkien's understated language. Although much of the passion of the Lost Tales has been edited away in later versions, there's still an element of raw, if innocent, sexuality whenever Luthien is involved. Besides her first meeting with Beren in LT (I made the same initial interpretation as Lush did reading this), just think of her dance in front of Morgoth in his court. Phew!

[alatar]

just think of her dance in front of Morgoth in his court. Phew!
I must have missed something ... as didn't Morgoth fall asleep?

[skip spence]

I must have missed something ... as didn't Morgoth fall asleep?

:D

He did, but as I remember it (being without both Lost Tales and Silm at the moment) it wasn't because of boredom, like a chav falling asleep in a dark movie theater having to watch "You've Got Mail" with his girlfriend, rather because Morgoth, very uncharacteristically, allowed himself to get filled with dark thoughts of sexual desire, thus letting his guard down and giving Luthen the chance to put him to sleep with her cloak. At least that's how I interpret the incident. Especially The Lost Tales-version is very suggestive, of course in an understated way.

[alatar]

He did, but as I remember it (being without both Lost Tales and Silm at the moment) it wasn't because of boredom, like a chav falling asleep in a dark movie saloon having to watch "You've Got Mail" with his girlfriend, rather because he, very uncharacteristically, allowed himself to get filled with dark thoughts of sexual desire, thus letting his guard down and giving Luthen the chance to put him to sleep with her cloak. At least that's how I interpret the incident. Especially The Lost Tales-version is very suggestive, of course in an understated way.
If that's how you would want to read it. To me, sleep and excitement are usually two different roads.

In mocking Morgoth in another thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=517138&postcount=29), I noted that the 'Lord of Arda' had the hottest elf in time and space in his proverbial bedroom/lounge, and couldn't pull off the deal, so to speak.

[skip spence]

To me, sleep and excitement are usually two different roads.


Not nessesarily different roads, rather different stops on the same road with the first one mentioned usually coming after the other ... err sorry about that... Tolkien is great anyway :)

[Bêthberry]

Re: sleep and excitement.

I don't recall that Morgoth lit up any ciggies. ;)

[alatar]

Re: sleep and excitement.

I don't recall that Morgoth lit up any ciggies. ;)
I've tried to stay away from the obvious, but note that Morgoth became ever sleepier the more that Luthien danced (i.e. He didn't *suddenly* have the desire to sleep).

[skip spence]

Jokes aside, Morgoth and his court were getting sleepy because Luthien was putting a spell on them to be able to finally deliver the coup de grace with her magic cloak. I assume the singing and dancing, while certainly part of the spell, was also a way of distracting Morgoth from what was actually going on. He probably could have snapped out of it when he first started to feel drowsy, seeing his Balrogs and what not yawning in their chairs, but he just couldn't take his eyes off the luscious Luthien before it was too late. Oh what humiliation! Waking up alone and confused without even a taste of the action, and worst of all robbed, robbed of a silmaril of all things!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
Re: sleep and excitement.

I don't recall that Morgoth lit up any ciggies.

I've tried to stay away from the obvious, but note that Morgoth became ever sleepier the more that Luthien danced (i.e. He didn't *suddenly* have the desire to sleep).


It wasn't an obvious comment at all but a test to see if anyone would point out that cigarettes would be an anachronism in Middle-earth, tobacco being called pipeweed. :p


Oh what humiliation! Waking up alone and confused without even a taste of the action, and worst of all robbed, robbed of a silmaril of all things!

Well, it's not like he could have been robbed of his virtue, is it?

[alatar]

It wasn't an obvious comment at all but a test to see if anyone would point out that cigarettes would be an anachronism in Middle-earth, tobacco being called pipeweed. :p
Oh, sure, now that you point that out, your intent is obvious. Silly me; failed again.

"Curse you forever, Fingolfin!" Melkor said, seated on his dark throne as Luthien danced. He looked down at his lame foot, knowing that he'd never square dance ever again.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart since he fled from Valinor. Thus he was beguiled by his own malice, for he watched her, leaving her free for a while, and taking secret pleasure in his thought...

:D

Then suddenly she eluded his sight, and out of the shadpws began a song of such surpassing loveliness, and of such blinding power, that he listened perforce; and a blindness came upon him, as his eyes roamed to and fro, seeking her.

As I... ahem... remembered it, Morgoth seemed to get a waking wet dream first, before slumbering from the ... er... fatigue... Typical male libido...

[The Sixth Wizard]

One wonders what drove respectable elf women to discard their perfect immortality for the possibility of a hundred years with Men like Turin or Beren.

Guess they just had really long fingers...

[alatar]

One wonders what drove respectable elf women to discard their perfect immortality for the possibility of a hundred years with Men like Turin or Beren.
It's been studied in various species. The female, in order to incorporate new genes into the tribe, will mate with the 'outsider.' There's also the cad-dad (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0DE113AF931A35751C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) theory, which states that females like a cad now and then to just a plain old dad. And what could be plainer than a thousand-plus year old elf?

Luthien, obviously, knew that a hybrid would be more successful, and Beren was just so dashing, and if it didn't work out, he'd surely be dead in a hundred years or two.

[Morthoron]

It's been studied in various species. The female, in order to incorporate new genes into the tribe, will mate with the 'outsider.' There's also the cad-dad (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0DE113AF931A35751C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) theory, which states that females like a cad now and then to just a plain old dad. And what could be plainer than a thousand-plus year old elf?

Luthien, obviously, knew that a hybrid would be more successful, and Beren was just so dashing, and if it didn't work out, he'd surely be dead in a hundred years or two.

In Luthien's case, throw in a bit of rebellion, and I think you're right. Thingol wasn't the most liberal thinker in the Sil. He seemed to me a very strict father-figure, which made it easier for Luth to let her hair down. If it were the 60's, she'd be in Haight-Ashbury as a groupie for the Grateful Dead.

[alatar]

In Luthien's case, throw in a bit of rebellion, and I think you're right. Thingol wasn't the most liberal thinker in the Sil. He seemed to me a very strict father-figure, which made it easier for Luth to let her hair down. If it were the 60's, she'd be in Haight-Ashbury as a groupie for the Grateful Dead.
Remember, she herself was a hybrid. Plus, she may have been not only looking to further add to the gene pool, but what better way to get dad's attention than to do the worst possible thing (besides hooking up with Melkor, which Thingol may have preferred over Beren)?

[Lush]

You know, after all this time, I have to say... She's not very complicated, but she is probably my favourite character of the "olden days" as it may be.

[Mithalwen]

And I still loathe her completely... possibly more than any other character in the entire opus..... want to smack her hard with the heftiest feminist tract available...

[Lush]

Feminist she ain't, but there's "something in the way she moves." ;)

Says Lush, the hard-bitten cynical eurotrash feminist of her generation.

[Lalaith]

Why not feminist? She did cool stuff. Not just the Morgoth-enchanting....

She acted as ambassador for the peoples of Middle Earth. She moved Mandos as he had never been moved before. She softened the ground for Earendil, IMO.

[Morthoron]

Why not feminist? She did cool stuff. Not just the Morgoth-enchanting....

She acted as ambassador for the peoples of Middle Earth. She moved Mandos as he had never been moved before. She softened the ground for Earendil, IMO.

And she was hot!

Ummm...why are all you women glaring at me?

[Mithalwen]

Why not feminist? She did cool stuff. Not just the Morgoth-enchanting....

She acted as ambassador for the peoples of Middle Earth. She moved Mandos as he had never been moved before. She softened the ground for Earendil, IMO.

Rubbish - she acted purely out of self interest founded from her lust for Beren. She did nothing until then and allowed herself to be kept in a cage. She does not speak she merely twitters yet everyone falls over themselves because she is beautiful. In addition I hate the story because I think of what an unhappy time Edith idealised as Luthien had.

Idril wipes the floor with her - Tolkien deified his brunettes but the blondes definitely have more fun :p

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Why not feminist? She did cool stuff. Not just the Morgoth-enchanting....

She acted as ambassador for the peoples of Middle Earth. She moved Mandos as he had never been moved before. She softened the ground for Earendil, IMO.

In all male dominated times women have done great deeds, but that does not make you a feminist. I am quite sure that Thyra Danebod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyra) was no feminist, neither do I belive that Margrete I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark) was one, but they might be feminist examples on womens equal ability.

[alatar]

Rubbish - she acted purely out of self interest founded from her lust for Beren.
I would have blamed it on her genes, which saw an opportunity to create a hybrid species that would increase their (the genes) chances of survival. Luthien was just a vehicle through which they acted.

Don't hate her because she is beautiful; are we sure that her beauty was merely outwardly? Some of us troglodytes see inner as well as outer beauty.

She did nothing until then and allowed herself to be kept in a cage.
She was just pacing herself, husbanding her resources until they would be needed. ;)

She does not speak she merely twitters yet everyone falls over themselves because she is beautiful.
Brevity in speech can be a gift.

Idril wipes the floor with her - Tolkien deified his brunettes but the blondes definitely have more fun :p
Can we not like more than one thing? Some prefer roses, others daisies, some Birds of Paradise, and yet to me, the dandelions plucked from my yard in the hand of my daughter are the best of all.

[Mithalwen]

Don't hate her because she is beautiful; are we sure that her beauty was merely outwardly? Some of us troglodytes see inner as well as outer beauty.

.

I don't hate her for being beautiful I hate the fact that it is the sole criterion. That Luthien is placed highest for her beauty where as those who were wise and resourceful and served their people as well as being beautiful are sidelined.

And dying for love is so irritatingly adolescent.

[alatar]

I don't hate her for being beautiful I hate the fact that it is the sole criterion.
Maybe that's just shorthand for the beauty of her soul and for the deeds and hope that sprung from her hands.

That Luthien is placed highest for her beauty where as those who were wise and resourceful and served their people as well as being beautiful are sidelined.
Maybe Tolkien was just being a realist. Thinking about school alumni this weekend, the reason why our school reunions are so disorganized, ill-conceived and planned, and therefore mostly unattended is that, back in the day when hormones ruled our brains, we elected our male and female class officers due to looks/charisma and not necessarily because they would make for good leaders.

Has anyone else noticed this happening? Surely, come this November in 'Merica, most voters will vote for a candidate only after a careful examination of all candidates' positions, strengths, skills, deeds and psychological evalutaions. ;)

And dying for love is so irritatingly adolescent.
Not sure what you mean, and when I first read this, I thought that you had written irrationally adolescent, which I thought was an oxymoron, and note that that is only apparent when one is not either.

[Mithalwen]

And may be it was short-hand for a complete absence of character .... :p


Thinking back to a fascinating lecture David Doughan gave at Oxonmoot 06 about how Tolkien's attitude to women changed as he aged, I think Luthien was too much a product of his earlier attitude. Having heard reports of Priscilla being (unsuprisingly) formidable intellectually, I can't help speculating if being the father of a clever and strongminded daughter forced him to alter his opinions. :cool:

Oh that Romeo and Juliet stuff ... silly way to carry on Beren is no Kester Woodseaves - he really was "a man to die for".

[alatar]

And may be it was short-hand for a complete absence of character .... :p
Do I hear a poll forming somewhere on the Downs?

about how Tolkien's attitude to women changed as he aged, I think Luthien was too much a product of his earlier attitude.
Speaking from the male side and from experience, if one's attitudes regarding the 'fairer half' don't change over time, one might want to examine one's toes to see if there be a little expiration tag attached.

Oh that Romeo and Juliet stuff ... silly way to carry on Beren is no Kester Woodseaves - he really was "a man to die for".
What adolescent didn't want to die for a love, at least once? I too may have been once benighted...;)

And, seeing my wife's mother lose her husband of nearly fifty years, she too has wanted to die, if only to be with him, to be by his side once more, and she is well beyond the years of adolescence, may mean that later years only change the forms, but not the intensity, of the expression.

[Mithalwen]

Oh it makes so much more sense after 50 years... though your Mother in Law was truly blessed - my Great -grandmother apparently used to say that she shouldn't mind a few years a widow..... and didn't get them. But it is rather overdramatic and unnecessary - considering the duration of most relationships taking a single sleeping tablet should suffice.... :p

[alatar]

But it is rather overdramatic and unnecessary - considering the duration of most relationships taking a single sleeping tablet should suffice.... :p
But you must walk yourself back to those years, when so much that now seems silly was SO important. What's truly sad is when one so young is successful in taking the short bridge, not realizing that much of what seems 'to die for' will be forgotten in just a few years.

On the other hand, can we truly say that Luthien ever acted immaturely? She took down Morgoth, gave her father and company the slip, and brought back the Man and the Silmaril, and so she was much more than just a pretty face.

[Mithalwen]

But you must walk yourself back to those years, when so much that now seems silly was SO important. What's truly sad is when one so young is successful in taking the short bridge, not realizing that much of what seems 'to die for' will be forgotten in just a few years.



Which is exactly my point. Should have got over that drip Beren .... And I don't see what is so clever about giving Thingol the slip. Any girl worth her salt handles Daddy far better. Idril managed even to get Daddy's blessing for her mortal beau without all those ridiculous shenanigans. Luthien is entirely self obsessed and motivated only by self interest - that is very adolescent.

[Lalaith]

Idril managed even to get Daddy's blessing for her mortal beau without all those ridiculous shenanigans
well, yes, because it suited Tolkien's plotlines for Gondolin/Tuor better. I don't think it was due to any intrinsic difference between the characters...
Plus...wasn't Idril an even earlier character in the mythology than even Luthien? (I may be wrong on this)

We'll just have to agree to differ on this one Mith.

Rune's idea about feminism is quite interesting. women have done great deeds, but that does not make you a feminist
As is Mith's point about Priscilla.
Eowyn (written I think to please Priscilla - where did I read that?) was aware of the constraints facing women and rebelled against them. Neither she, nor probably her creator, had ever heard of the concept of feminism. Does that make her, nonetheless, a feminist figure? I think so. Rune, and others, may not.

Which reminds me.
"I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the stomach of a concrete elephant. First I'm going to have a little drinkie, and then I'm going to execute the whole bally lot of you."
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Pelicula/MirandaRichardson(Blackadder).jpg

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Rune's idea about feminism is quite interesting.
As is Mith's point about Priscilla.

Eowyn (written I think to please Priscilla - where did I read that?) was aware of the constraints facing women and rebelled against them. Neither she, nor probably her creator, had ever heard of the concept of feminism. Does that make her, nonetheless, a feminist figure? I think so. Rune, and others, may not.


It should probably have said "many women have done great deeds, but that does not make them a feminist" and not "women have done great deeds, but that does not make you a feminist"

Anyways I do agree with what you say, I belive that you can be symbol of something you might not even understand or belive in.

My posts are just not well written.

[Lalaith]

Rune, don't worry, I did understand you meant 'them' not 'you'.

I was pondering on whether you could 'be' something before that concept had been named. Eg feminism.
You could ponder the same issue with Marxism, Christianity, etc....

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Lalaith;564990]well, yes, because it suited Tolkien's plotlines for Gondolin/Tuor better. I don't think it was due to any intrinsic difference between the characters...
Plus...wasn't Idril an even earlier character in the mythology than even Luthien? (I may be wrong on this)

We'll just have to agree to differ on this one Mith.

QUOTE]

Oh come on you think that Luthien is as she is to suit the plot? Luthien is idealised as the perfect woman - passive other than as meets the needs of her man for whom she sacrifices everything. I just find this completely and irredeemably horrific.

[Morthoron]

Oh come on you think that Luthien is as she is to suit the plot? Luthien is idealised as the perfect woman - passive other than as meets the needs of her man for whom she sacrifices everything. I just find this completely and irredeemably horrific.

Ummm...but the hotness factor supersedes all the feminist claptrap.

*The Dark Elf, realizing he has once again accidently spoken his mind out loud, quicky reverts to subterfuge*

Well, aside from Galadriel and Haleth (with a small mention of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins wielding her dreaded bumbershoot), there is a dearth of a strong female presence in Middle-earth. Melian never told Thingol to just shut the heck up (which would've happened in most marriages), Erendis is rather impetuous and spoiled, Miriel meekly acquiesces and surrenders her crown to Ar-Pharazon (and then just as meekly drowns afterward), Celebrian surrenders to melancholy after her 'rape' by the orcs, and even Arwen, save for her defiance of Elrond, merely follows the fairy tale ritual of giving it up to the enchanted frog who becomes Prince Charming.

If one is looking for feminist characters in Tolkien's work, only Galadriel and Haleth can be identified as the tough female corporate executives breaking through an arbitrary glass ceiling to achieve independence and renown on their own terms.

[Mithalwen]

The first time I read it I couldn't believe that Aragorn could prefer her to Eowyn - after all "A woman should never learn to sew, and if she can she shouldn't admit to it.". Then I realised that Faramir is Mr Wonderful and was very glad.. you couldn't really call Arwen defiant (unless you are *gulp* referring to the films ;) ) in which case I'd say petulant.

I don't ask for miracles just a bit of wit and spark - and that is the blondes - Idril, Galadriel, Eowyn - Erendis lacks style but not strength.

Actually it is a miracle that I like this stuff at all :p

[Tuor in Gondolin]

If one is looking for feminist characters in Tolkien's work, only Galadriel and Haleth can be identified as the tough female corporate executives breaking through an arbitrary glass ceiling to achieve independence and renown on their own terms.

Well, I think you'd have to include Luthien taking on Morgoth
(via Beleriand Idol song contest) in Angband, and
how about Tar-Ancalime? (Now there's a proto-feminist,
and a scary date :eek: ).

[Lindale]

Well, aside from Galadriel and Haleth (with a small mention of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins wielding her dreaded bumbershoot), there is a dearth of a strong female presence in Middle-earth. Melian never told Thingol to just shut the heck up (which would've happened in most marriages), Erendis is rather impetuous and spoiled, Miriel meekly acquiesces and surrenders her crown to Ar-Pharazon (and then just as meekly drowns afterward), Celebrian surrenders to melancholy after her 'rape' by the orcs, and even Arwen, save for her defiance of Elrond, merely follows the fairy tale ritual of giving it up to the enchanted frog who becomes Prince Charming.

If one is looking for feminist characters in Tolkien's work, only Galadriel and Haleth can be identified as the tough female corporate executives breaking through an arbitrary glass ceiling to achieve independence and renown on their own terms.

It bothered me that after Thingol died, Melian just went away weeping. She had the power to keep off evil from her realm, and besides, if you're a monarch aren't you supposed to protect your people? I suppose being dowager, she isn't. She left it in Dior's hands entirely. Had she stayed and endured her grief (which is pretty understandable, the loss of a darling husband), Doriath would stand longer, maybe as long as Gondolin. But then, Melian being such a "weak" character fits in with the whole plot for the fall of the kingdoms in Beleriand.

But about Erendis: it shocked me. (Well, I was a young and brought up with traditional Catholic teaching and values). The whole concept of men being half-elves, great and proud, and women but little playthings, "for their bodies' needs," or "if fair to adorn their table and hearth", "of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain."

Her advice to her daughter, "sink your roots into the rock and face the wind, though it blow away all your leaves," is it not a way of saying "you're a woman, but of a great heritage. You are bound to get gender discriminations, but then you gotta prove them wrong"?

Ancalime however is not the perfect feminist manifesto, though I think she is one of the strongest female characters of Tolkien. She did not refuse the scepter, she was clever, but no mention of Numenor gaining further glory--she even abandoned her father's policy after he died. The event at Emerie, "where even the sheep seemed to make fun of her" further gives the impression you can't be female and a very strong leader, or you'll be made fun of. And Ancalime still had to marry, because of the patriarchal laws. And when Gondor and Arnor were established, Elendil didn't really follow the "new law", did he?

Once in a class someone said that Eowyn can pass for a feminist character, she being able to kill the WK, and prior to that entrusted with the care of Edoras. But it was equally countered, she had the help of Merry, and if Aragorn didn't really refuse her she wouldn't have gone to Gondor seeking death (rather too emo-ey, isn't it?); she was chosen in Edoras simply because she was the last of the line of Eorl, and she wasn't even thought of before Hama (or whoever) suggested it. Furthermore, after the war, she accepted her fate as a woman: not even queen, but a healer. Eomer and Aragorn still had problems of renegade orcs even after Sauron, but Eowyn no longer rode with them.

The most freedom Tolkien's females have is the freedom to choose who they will love. From Melian, Luthien, Galadriel, Idril, Arwen, Eowyn, etc, except Ancalime who did not want it. Eowyn had to settle for "less", but still it was her choice. But even the freedom to choose their loves restricted them. You don't really hear of ugly females, only fair ones who would be counted amongst the great because they married so-and-so. But even by the choice of their lovers were they, even the most willful, chained, in a matter of speaking.

[Lalaith]

Really thoughtful analysis Lindale. However...
fair ones who would be counted amongst the great because they married so-and-so

Galadriel chose to leave Valinor for Middle Earth and was counted among the great entirely in her own right. That decision was nothing to do with who she loved, and her marriage to Celeborn seems almost incidental to her identity.

[Morthoron]

Galadriel chose to leave Valinor for Middle Earth and was counted among the great entirely in her own right. That decision was nothing to do with who she loved, and her marriage to Celeborn seems almost incidental to her identity.

I have to agree with yourt analysis regarding Galadriel, Lalaith. She gave the cold shoulder to the greatest elf in the history of his own mind, Feanor, and picked Celeborn for her boy-toy due to his distinctive silver hair and his willingness to relocate to wherever she wanted to go. All kidding aside, when Celeborn and Galadriel have a discussion with the Fellowship in Lorien, isn't it plain to everyone who the 'real' power is in Lorien? It always struck me that Celeborn was given his army to command so he wouldn't lose face having to answer to his more powerful and cunning wife (after all, she has the Elven Ring, not he). It would be very embarrassing for poor old Celeborn to be 2nd in command of the army as well as the kingdom (I don't think Galadriel would have skipped a beat leading the army).

[Lindale]

Galadriel chose to leave Valinor for Middle Earth and was counted among the great entirely in her own right. That decision was nothing to do with who she loved, and her marriage to Celeborn seems almost incidental to her identity.

My bad. I guess I overgeneralized it again. Anyway, this is pretty much the same stuff I wrote for a term paper in a survey of European lit class around a year ago, and it didn't fare too well, mainly because I didn't read the course description properly: Survey of Continental European Literature.

About Galadriel, if I may add, she was Nerwen too, man-maiden. Like Pallas Athena of the ancient patriarchal Greeks, who was female in gender and appearance, but male in everything else, fatherless, a true warrior, embodiment of wisdom (which ironically females were supposed to have lesser than men). Galadriel did wield an elven ring, but the mightiest of the three was with Elrond. She is counted with Feanor as the greatest of the Noldor, but isn't the greatest elf of all.

"I passed the test, I will diminish, and go to the West, and remain Galadriel." Before my feminism classes I thought it a very good concept. But now I have my doubts.... patriarchy and such buzzing around in my head again.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Lindale;565279]
Furthermore, after the war, she accepted her fate as a woman: not even queen, but a healer. Eomer and Aragorn still had problems of renegade orcs even after Sauron, but Eowyn no longer rode with them.

QUOTE]

I agree with a lot of what you have said but I have to dispute this. Eowyn does not passively accept her fate. She chooses it. Eowyn is admirable in so many ways. She is fair and noble by birth but she is brave and high hearted and strong. And intelligent. Yes, Grima's words may have had an effect but she knows there is no point in staying at Edoras (yet somehow she is usually judged harder than the men who defy orders) and that is no doubt why Elfhelm colludes with her riding - and UT tells us that the Marshal was not averse to following his own wisdom. She sees only death and despair and Aragorn is the only available escape route. I do not seeing why choosing life and the love of a man who loves her for herself stops her being feminist. Healing isn't a specifically female occupation in ME - the greatest healers are men - Elrond and his sons and Aragorn and while there are women in the houses of healing it is male led.
I am pretty sure that Eowyn wasn't planning on emptying bedpans.... :p

In elven culture healers abstained as much as possible from warfare and even hunting though in Gondorian (and indeed English) culture the healer-king is part of the tradition and the King would inevitably also be a warrior.

[Lindale]

Generally speaking, though, she thinks of warriors as "more" or "above" healers, at least until Faramir.

[Mithalwen]

Ah but the context has changed greatly. . Look at their conversations in "The Steward and the king". Faramir see them as equals and indeed he is at her mercy since he does not conceal his feelings. There is that crucial moment when they stand on the walls of the City and she says "I stand upon some dreadful brink , and it is utterly dark in the abyss before my feet, but whetherthere is any light behind me I cannot tell. For I cannot turn yet. I am waiting for some stroke of doom.' and at that moment everything is still even their hearts for a moment. Only then is Eowyn able ot turn to light and life and love. The world has changed - Eowyn was a warrior becasue it was the only way of doing something that might make a difference. As she says later when she accepts Faramir "The Shadow has departed. I will be a shieldmaiden no longer....I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren" . It is Eowyn who changes in response to hope.

[Lush]

I love you guys.

Oh, and I've never really pondered the Edith-as-Luthien thing (even though I've heard and read about it) up until now, but does anyone know if she even had a say in putting the name "Luthien" on that tombstone?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Nope - she was dead. ;) :p :Merisu:

[Mithalwen]

I love you guys.

Oh, and I've never really pondered the Edith-as-Luthien thing (even though I've heard and read about it) up until now, but does anyone know if she even had a say in putting the name "Luthien" on that tombstone?

While some people leave detailed instructions as to their funerals there is a letter, I think to Michael which implies that this was JRRT's own idea. Certainly it seems more likely. Seldom has a romantic gesture seemed so chilling... :cool:

[Lindale]

While some people leave detailed instructions as to their funerals there is a letter, I think to Michael which implies that this was JRRT's own idea. Certainly it seems more likely. Seldom has a romantic gesture seemed so chilling... :cool:

And I don't think old JRRT had in his mind any of the arguments against Luthien that you lot have raised.. :D

[Lush]

Yeah, what I was talking about is whether or not she had perhaps planned it for the future (I mean, I already have my funeral playlist pretty much set, and yes, Guns 'n Roses will be on it, and if that stuff isn't blasted, and I mean blasted, my vengeful spirit is coming back to haunt every single one of you). Maybe I just watched a bit too much "Six Feet Under" at an impressionable age, I don't know.

I have to say, while on one level it strikes me as weird, on another level, I totally empathize with our friend J.R.R.T. I'm a writer too, and while I'm merely a bad one, I am fanciful enough to where I could see myself pulling a similar stunt with my habibi. I think women are just as capable of idealizing and dehumanizing men, and if we weren't, the romance novel industry wouldn't be calling me with its delicious prospects of profit. It's just that men are usually lionized for that sort of thing, or else we say that "boys will be boys," (Richard bloody Ford certainly comes to mind) or "it was the times!" while women are cold-hearted shrews if we want someone purrrfect and all powerful and unrealistically devoted. Heh. Same goes for female writers who create somewhat unrealistic male characters - they're just "bad," whereas male writers get away with unrealistic female characters more easily, imho.

Above all else, this just makes me glad that I don't live with a writer.

As for Luthien, I'll always like her, though not in a way I like, say, Eowyn. What I like about Luthien's story is the sadness. Even when it's happy, it's sad.

[Mithalwen]

Lindale, I don't suppose he did ... but I have to say that it is a good illustration of why all fairytales end after the wedding with and "they all lived happily ever after". It seem that Tolkien loved the idea of Edith more than the reality. Basically it seems like he fell in love with about the first girl he met and had she not been so idealised and forbidden they might have got to know each other and discovered their incompatability and gone on to find more compatible partners - in fact I think Edith had become engaged to someone who might have suited her better. Arguably if Tolkien had really loved her he would have let her go at that point ...as the old saw saith....

Six Feet Under was wonderful. There was quite a lot of Queen at my uncle's funeral which was unothodox but rather fab - I think the vicar was a little startled though that might have been some of the racier anecdotes in the step-son's eulogy :)

[Aiwendil]

It seem that Tolkien loved the idea of Edith more than the reality.

Indeed. For that matter, I would say that every feeling anyone has for anyone else is actually for their internal 'idea' of that person rather than for the external 'reality' (if such a thing can even be meaningfully talked about). All that varies is the extent to which that internal idea gives a reasonable approximation of the person's behaviour.

In other words, I think Tolkien's idealization of Edith/Luthien is nothing unusual - which, I suppose, makes the story of Beren and Luthien that much more universal in its appeal.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

It seem that Tolkien loved the idea of Edith more than the reality.
Aiwendil is right - Mithalwen has expressed a universal truth here. I find it easier to recognize it in others than in myself...

I'm sure the gender gap played a role as well. It has been mentioned that Tolkien felt most comfortable among other men of his own interests and status, and that Edith seems to have resented that fact. The expectations of men and women concerning marriage were widely divergent at that time - though perhaps today's ideas are more unrealistic. Certainly from Tolkien's writings we see that he had a highly idealized notion of what a relationship should be like - his notes on the Elves and their marriages reflect that. Edith may have had her own fantasies about marriage, and without communication, neither had a chance to live up to the other one's expectations.

[Lalwendë]

Indeed. For that matter, I would say that every feeling anyone has for anyone else is actually for their internal 'idea' of that person rather than for the external 'reality' (if such a thing can even be meaningfully talked about). All that varies is the extent to which that internal idea gives a reasonable approximation of the person's behaviour.

In other words, I think Tolkien's idealization of Edith/Luthien is nothing unusual - which, I suppose, makes the story of Beren and Luthien that much more universal in its appeal.

All very Jungian...

If Tolkien was in love with an ideal of Edith, then it must have been strong as he managed to keep it up his whole life - he seemed as much in love with her at the end of their lives as at the beginning. Or maybe she managed to hide anything which would have made him think of her more negatively? That's something we wouldn't ever know...

However I definitely think he was an idealist and he had a dream of what the perfect relationship and family ought to be, having been denied family from a young age. So his idealism was wholly understandable. The evidence of it is right there is his own personal life and in the family lives he sketched out in his writing. The story of The Children of Hurin for example is as much a tragedy for the family life we see destroyed as for anything else lost.

[Lindale]

All very Jungian...

If Tolkien was in love with an ideal of Edith, then it must have been strong as he managed to keep it up his whole life - he seemed as much in love with her at the end of their lives as at the beginning. Or maybe she managed to hide anything which would have made him think of her more negatively? That's something we wouldn't ever know...



Couldn't we also blame his Catholicism for that? A girl who's lived and been raised in a family living in a very strict Catholic manner where the Catholic Church's influence still holds a sway even in politics, I think I know what I'm talking about. Divorce is a sin. And being a very strict Cath, your idea of your spouse, if you really did not like or know them very well in the beginning, would remain idealized, much like the idea of the Virgin Mother. Could it possibly be? In my young life I can say I've seen this kind of marriage.

[wispeight]

Darn it! Why don’t I notice these threads when they are new? Oh well.

In reply to the opening post:



I’ll take this as constructive criticism. It’s a shame, really. Catholic moral teachings regarding sexual intercourse is a single grain of sand on the vast shore of Catholic doctrine and theology. We Catholics really have to do a better job of letting people know what the Catholic Church is all about. (In fact, I’ve found that Catholics are the least prudish Christians I know!)



I understand what you are getting at. However, there are much more obvious ways of showing the non-Christian aspects of Tolkien’s mythology. For example, his treatment of fae/hroa… a far cry from a Christian anthropology; or his treatment of free will, the fallen world, sin, and redemption - his Pelagianism is worlds away from orthodox Christian belief. Your example of an “illicit” sexual affair between Beren and Lúthien is simply too vague from the written material.



[QUOTE]We hear of people getting married, so forth and so on, but never is an actual wedding described. “And Aragorn the King Elessar wedded Arwen Undómiel in the City of the Kings…” (RotK, VI, 5). That’s pretty brief on the description, kind of like a Tolkien battle scene, ey? The reason is, as Helen, points out by quoting HoME, the actual marriage was the sexual intercourse, not the ceremony. For Tolkien’s mythology, the romantic love between male and female constitutes the marriage. Believe it or not, but his isn’t too far from the Catholic notion of marriage. However, if marriage is determined by sexual intercourse only, then it is… well… Pelagian. Once again Tolkien proves his mythology is quite divergent from the Christianity that he practiced in real life.
~~~
I don't have anything to say in regard to Catholics because I simply do not think of that religion. Not out of indifference, but simply focussed elsewhere. From what I have found written in regard to Palagius, I have noted that almost all historic written record concerning Palagius comes from his contemporary opponents. I find that he was concerned with WILL. Not 'will' that is concerned with every passion and desire concerning physical existence. Although I believe that gifts of Nature are not evil, even the seperation of humanity into male and female was a gift of Nature, at least, one might choose to look at it in this manner, and not be completely incorrect. Dang, I only wanted to give some small defense to Palagius and I'm lecturing instead. No, I'm being really brief, so I claim innocence to the charge of lecturing.

Each one of us have at our Heart of Being that WILL which is coeval to High Divinity. We are not seperate from it. Even when we fail at making a completely conscious accord and concord with That, it is still able, through interpermeability to guide us, and it is not so difficult to learn when to know this is happening. It is knowing what to listen to inside.

[skip spence]

Yeah, what I was talking about is whether or not she had perhaps planned it for the future (I mean, I already have my funeral playlist pretty much set, and yes, Guns 'n Roses will be on it, and if that stuff isn't blasted, and I mean blasted, my vengeful spirit is coming back to haunt every single one of you)

Jeez, not one of those epic pieces that has a bare-chested Slash playing his guitar on top of a cliff, I hope... ;)

Luthien is idealised as the perfect woman - passive other than as meets the needs of her man for whom she sacrifices everything. I just find this completely and irredeemably horrific.

C'mon it's not like that at all! Sure she's a fool in love and acts mainly because of this but it is certainly she who wears the pants in that relationship, and it is her needs as much as it is his needs she meets. Obviously she needs no man's permission (including Beren's) to do what she will. She is very far from the stereotypical princess waiting to be rescued. Although locked up in a tower she escapes herself without any assistance from her man. What's wrong with romantic love anyway?

Beren always tries to act the man but it's all huff and puff really and the quest is a lost cause without her help. And throughout it, it's she who performs all the real marvels as Beren never do anything very productive in winning the Silmaril. Also, he drags Finrod Felagund with him to his death.

[wispeight]

I was going to go on from what I see as the Source, All Father, which is really not a term that is among common usage within my lexicon, and go on to describe the very first emanation as form consisting of substance. The vehicle, vessel, soul, all of which are considered feminine. In this light we should be seeing that the very first emanation is feminine.

Now, we would also see that Source is considered masculine. However, if substance is an emanation from source, then it is a part of source.

Now for confusion; if the vessel, vehicle, soul, or substance are feminine, then what do we say about the male physical body? It is a vessel, vehicle, soul, substance. Is it a mutation of the XX into XY chromosome and as a result immediately under attack by the Mother's immune system, and this would be the ultimate source of conflict between male and female.

Ex facto, the female started it! they picked the fight! they didn't even let the male be born, being in such a hurry to engage us in conflict. :D

[Lindale]

What's wrong with romantic love anyway?

Erm, begging your pardon, if ever she fell in love with the wrong guy then, she would've been evil, don't you think? Imagine if that were a son of Feanor she fell for, or someone with the temperament and overall characteristics of Feanor. What could she have done? Go to war with them? She has the potential enough for that, given her lineage and her passion. What if, she was deceived and before she knew it, even if she had a golden but naive heart, she had murdered or committed some other form of evil? Would she have gotten revenge or some sort of thing? Luckily Beren just happens to be a good guy. A really good guy who likes to follow rules. Remember Luthien was trying to persuade him to run away, but he has this strong conscience and/or sense of duty that made him pursue the quest?

[skip spence]

Luckily Beren just happens to be a good guy.

But don't you think she fell in love in Beren because he was a good guy, not to mention a strapping young lad? She certainly had little love for Celegorm and he was a looker... Besides, would you not do something you normally considered wrong to protect your lover? Would you turn your lover over to the coppers or would you tell a lie and look the other way?

[Lindale]

But don't you think she fell in love in Beren because he was a good guy, not to mention a strapping young lad?

What was her idea of good and evil? Evil, a foreign word, what Mummy Melian kept away with her Girdle? She could have battled, say, Finrod, if she thought he was standing in her way to Beren. And given what she did to Sauron and even Morgoth, she could win. But I don't even think Luthien knows too much about Elvish politics at that time. When the Noldorin messengers arrived at Doriath, Melian and Galadriel are the only women we hear who talk. Do we then assume Luthien was busy dancing and not heeding these tidings? Or she was too much of a little girl in this sense that she thought politics was a sort of "grown-up" thing she couldn't nose into? And when Beren comes into the picture, she suddenly has an epiphany, she just has to save him no matter what? It strikes me as that, from the very beginning, the whole point of Beren and Luthien is love-conquers-all.

She had little love for Celegorm, I believe, because by the time she met him she had already fallen deeply for Beren. And when Celegorm made the wrong move, imprisoning her, what kind of woman would love him back?

To protect a lover, that is a delicate issue, a very relative one. As it happens Beren is the type who would follow his duty. So off Luthien with him goes, because of great love. Do you suppose then that if Beren was a bad guy who told her to lie to Daddy Thingol, she would have done it? Now that is something I cannot answer readily: on one hand, she actually might, considering she escaped from Hirilorn and all that because of her overwhelming passion, no thoughts of the Silmarils and the fate of Arda; on the other, she may think that it is too much--lying to Thingol for someone evil will cause evil, escaping to help a good lover and escaping to help a bad lover are two different things.

[alatar]

That whole lovesick/infatuation/craziness is just Nature's way of getting the process started. One cannot know if one truly loves another unless one has lived at least 50 or so years with the other - every other statement is just conjecture. Love isn't just when you're dating and on the wedding day or even when you've ridden off into the sunset, but all of those days thereafter. So Luthien gets a little crazy for Beren, and they get together, but after a time life shows up and they have to deal with Daddy and Morgoth and the mortgage payment and buying nappies for Dior. Both could have run away from life, but each knew that it was his/her job to help the other when things got tough. Beren - "No, we're not going to live in the woods." Luthien - "No, I'm not going to let you die after telling all of my friends that I was dating a human." That's love.

Though I have no proof to show or statistics to muddle, I would guess that just as many marriages fail when the couple has had time beforehand to check things out as for those that just show up and get hitched that day.

And what's wrong with idealization? I can see where it can be taken too far, when you get married to something so completely divergent from reality that you cannot see the obvious, (She says, "I HATE you with my entire soul, with every cell of my body, and from now until everlasting!" He hears, "She has strong feelings for me. Bliss!"), but on the other hand, I still see my wife at times as the girl that I used to carpool with, back before kids and minivans and houses and wrinkles.

And who better that Tolkien to write one's last words?

[Galadriel55]

Returning to the original question, though, I think that Tolkien didn't mean to hint anything sexual. The way I understood it, that moment was simply an embrace, nothing serious. You see similar things in other relationships that were entioned above - Faramir kissed Eowyn before marying her, and Sam most likely hugged Rosie. Aragorn and Arwen, being what they are, ost likely did not express their feelings in public, but there was also Arwen's dilemma of who to become - elf or human. I'm guessing that she didn't allow herself to physically express her love for Aragorn until she finally made the choice.

[Pitchwife]

Returning to the original question, though, I think that Tolkien didn't mean to hint anything sexual. The way I understood it, that moment was simply an embrace, nothing serious.
Well, such things are all in the eye of the beholder; take, for example, these lines from the Lay of Leithian:
In hour enchanted long ago
her arms around his neck did go,
and gently down she drew to rest
his weary head upon her breast.
To you this may be a chaste embrace, to me it's the most subtly erotic moment in all of Tolkien's works; in any case, I get a strong impression that there was nothing un-serious about that embrace.
You see similar things in other relationships that were entioned above - Faramir kissed Eowyn before marying her, and Sam most likely hugged Rosie.
Yes, but all of these were mortal-mortal couples; the Elves took a slightly different stance in this matter. As several of the posters above us have pointed out, there simply was, by definition, no such thing as pre-marital sex for the Elves (relevant quote from Laws and Customs given by mark 12_30 in #3), since, in their eyes, it was the sexual act that made the marriage, not the ceremony (and speaking from personal experience, I feel that Tolkien had a good point here); so if Beren and Lúthien did it, they were from that moment on legally married in Elvish eyes, with or without Thingol's blessing.
Aragorn and Arwen, being what they are, ost likely did not express their feelings in public, but there was also Arwen's dilemma of who to become - elf or human. I'm guessing that she didn't allow herself to physically express her love for Aragorn until she finally made the choice.
I think you may be right in this case - for all the fuss that is made about Arwen's likeness to Lúthien, she wasn't that much like her ancestress in character. There's just no way Lúthien would have been content with watching over Beren from afar and embroidering banners. Even given that Aragorn first fell in love with Arwen as a twen and needed time to mature, he was well in his eighties, far travelled and battle-hardened at the time of LotR, and I think Lúthien, in Arwen's place, would have insisted on going with the Fellowship (or found a way to follow them, if daddy denied her).

[Galadriel55]

Yeah, Luthien was more foward in this sense than Arwen

[Mithalwen]

I think in the notes to LACE Tolkien makes it clear that they regaraded it as a matter of honour not to present Thingol with a fait accompli..

Even though, as many of you know, I could hardly like Luthien less, she is less passive than Arwen. There is a sense that she carves her destiny while Arwen born in her image lets fate unwind. Leads to all sorts of questions (which I can not necessarily answer) about the workings of fate and destiny in the books since Eowyn who could be seen as a instrument of destiny withregard to the witch-king, has to defy the de-facto paternal authority over her to fulfil the prophecy whereas is like some cloistered heroine in a pre-raphaelite painting waiting for external events to decide her fate.

[Puddleglum]

There's just no way Lúthien would have been content with watching over Beren from afar and embroidering banners... I think Lúthien, in Arwen's place, would have insisted on going with the Fellowship (or found a way to follow them, if daddy denied her).
Maybe, but there is another (I think) significant difference between the conditions surrounding Beren & Aragorn.

Beren had been maneuvered into accepting a "hopeless" (meaning almost everyone considered it hopeless) quest that was *INTENDED* to kill off Beren. Luthien desperately wanted to avoid that death and was willing to do practically anything to save Beren.
She was even willing, as I recall, to abandon Beleriand, her mother, her people, her father, etc and wander into the east with just Beren. It was Beren who refused that path for them.

Aragorn, on the other hand, remained high in the Favor of Elrond, and in his love. He was not "sent" on any "hopeless" quest aimed at his death far from help. Rather he was gladly and willingly engaged in a HEROIC effort to defeat Sauron and restore peace and hope to all peoples of the west. A task in which he had Elrond's whole-hearted support and aid (at least so far as Elves would aid anyone).

Also, Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and had various abilities which Arwen lacked (like the ability to sing Morgoth's whole court into slumber).

Arwen, in the books, is not reported to have much of any especial talents (at least where war is concerned). She wasn't the one who caused the Bruinen to rise - that was commanded by Elrond (it was only PJ who turned that into an Arwenian incantation). And even there, there is no suggestion that even ELROND could have caused just any river to rise - making that less useful in fighting Sauron in Mordor or Gondor.

And, finally, Beren's quest was (essentially) a one-man task (or two, with Luthien). Aragorn - once he got to the theater of action - was involved over and over in pitched battles. There is no suggestion in the books that Arwen was either an accomplished swordswoman (shieldmaiden?) or archer [or that Luthien was, for that matter - remember that she did NOT go on the final hunting of the wolf, when Beren was killed].

[Galadriel55]

It is also possible that Arwen was less passionate than Luthien and didn't want to give up everything she had for a man who is more than likely to die in one of the wars for the Ring. As I've said before, she probably still didn't make her choice yet.

[Puddleglum]

As I've said before, she probably still didn't make her choice yet.
It seems pretty clear (imo) from the "Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" (RoTK Apdx A) that she made her choice in 2980 when Aragorn met her again in Lorien after returning from deeds in the south.

Aragorn: Neither, lady, is the Twilight for me; for I am mortal, and if you will cleave to me, Evenstar, the the Twilight you must also renounce.
And she stood still as a white tree, looking into the West, and at last she said:
Arwen: I will cleave to you, Dunadan, and turn from the Twilight...
When Elrond heard the choice of his daughter, he was silent, though his heart was grived and found the doom long feared none the easier to endure.

I suppose it's an open question whether such a choice, once made, could be changed. Aragorn seemed to think it could. Even as he lay on his death bed he suggested Arwen should change her mind and go into the West - tho that would mean sundering their destinies BEYOND THE CIRCLES OF THE WORLD. Arwen didn't really say such a change was not "allowed", only that there was no remaining ship to take.

Interestingly, that wasn't strictly true, since Legloas built his own ship and sailed into the west shortly after.

Arwen must have been wise enough to realize ships "could" be built (if that was all that was needed). So, maybe she was really just reaffirming her choice one last time.

[Galadriel55]

I haven't read The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but you are probably right. Maybe Arwen just didn't want to commit herself to her choice right away as Luthien did.

[Bêthberry]

I haven't read The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but you are probably right. Maybe Arwen just didn't want to commit herself to her choice right away as Luthien did.

Are you saying you have not read all of Lord of the Rings? :eek:

The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is, as Puddleglum has pointed out, part of LotR, found in Appendix A, part v. It is a substantial part of the story, one of the few parts of the Appendices that Tolkien insisted upon, when a translation threatened to ditch them. It contains probably Tolkien's most poignant part of his characterisation of Arwen. It is particularly significant because it describes events in the Fourth Age, after the War of the Ring (whereas much of the Appendices pre-date the Fellowship and War).

So it's kind of crucial to any understanding of Arwen.

[Galadriel55]

I've read the translation LOTR, TH, The Sil, and Narn i Hin Hurin. The transators excluded half the appendixes, for some reason. I've read LOTR and whatever else was there many times. Just a few days ago I took out the original from a library, so I'm working on it :), and I'll eventually get to The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.

[Snowdog]

I'm grateful that the first time I read Return of the King it was a late 1950's hardback printing I checked out from the library and had all the Appendices. The tale of Aragorn and Arwen did seem that it should have been in the main tale somewhere, but I can understand why it wasn't.

Indeed, Arwen was likely not as bold and forward as Luthien was, but still....
Elf/Mortal one night stands are it seems eternal bonds. ;)

[Inziladun]

I'm grateful that the first time I read Return of the King it was a late 1950's hardback printing I checked out from the library and had all the Appendices. The tale of Aragorn and Arwen did seem that it should have been in the main tale somewhere, but I can understand why it wasn't.

Well, we get the abbreviated version from Aragorn at Weathertop. To me, that's one of the draws of both The Hobbit and LOTR. There are references to older tales and events that give extra depth to the books, whetting the reader's appetite to learn more.

Indeed, Arwen was likely not as bold and forward as Luthien was, but still....
Elf/Mortal one night stands are it seems eternal bonds. ;)

And Arwen's daddy didn't even have to lock her away to keep her from her beloved. ;)

[Belegorn]

And Arwen's daddy didn't even have to lock her away to keep her from her beloved. ;)

He was related to Aragorn who was the High King of the Dúnedain. That was Elrond's stipulation.

She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the king of both Gondor and Arnor.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

I don't believe Inziladun was comparing Beren and Aragorn's respective verbal contracts with the respective fathers of their respective loves, but rather just making a joke about Arwen's apparent lack of initiative compared to Luthien.

[shadowfax]

Forgive me if I'm going in circles here as I admit to not having read every post in thius thread

But there is another relationship that interests me as well.

what about Morgoth and Luthien. When she danced for him, did she really just dance for him?

To come back to JRRT being Catholic, there is a Bible passage, and interestingly its one of the passages that Martin Luther and other people in the reformation decided to drop out, as such if you want to read it today you need a Catholic Bible.

In that story there is a young woman, not entirely dissimilar to Luthien, who dances for the king, flirts with him, gets him drunk on wine, and when he sleeps she draws her knife and cuts off his head and takes it (with the crown on) to her mother (I think). In the Jewish original, the sensual nature of her dance is apparently even less ambiguous but i haven't actually read that myself.