Valar / Greek and Roman gods
 

Yes, your eyes aren't playing any tricks on you I have indeed started a new topic after centuries of inactivity and lurking around. I've been so busy I simply had no time to post anything and I just looked in here from time to time. But now I had an idea in my head and I just had to post it here on the Downs.

I wanted to start a discussion about the differences and the similarities between the Valar and the Greek and Roman gods and by this I mean the most important gods, 12 in number for the ancients if I remember well. It's easy to notice stuff like Aule and Hefaistos, but what's more to this whole business?

Also, I will admit that I have not checked if any such topic exists, so in case there is already is something like this out there a link would be nice and then you can close the thread.

Yours,
Might :)

Well, right off the bat the Valar are much more detached from humanity, aren't they? They don't exhibit neither the same range of emotions, nor entangle themselves in mortals' everyday life as the Greek pantheon did. Aside from Nienna's weeping and the noted tempers of Tulkas and Orome, there just aint much emotion in that colorless bunch (no wonder none of them had children -- they couldn't get stirred up enough to even try).

Of course there are similarities from one pantheon to the next, the general studies/abilities of each Valar (Manwe the sky, Mandos of Hades, Aule of earth, Ulmo the sea, etc.) matches the hierarchical equivalents of the Greeks in form if not direct comparison; however, the Greek pantheon were more human in their foibles, jealousies, loves, anguish, rages, etc., than the lofty Valar.

Overall, I think I'd rather party with the Greeks than the Valar.

You couldn't trust the Greek gods. One minute they'll favor you, the next they won't. Because all of a sudden they became insanely jealous or heard a prayer from someone they favor more. The Valar is "higher" than that I suppose. They are, erm, more civilized. :D

In earlier versions (BoLT etc.) the Valar were more emotional, more human, so to speak. Tolkien's original idea was for them to have children; he changed that in later versions. So perhaps his first concept was closer to Greek/Roman gods; they evolved to more angelic beings as the legendarium grew.

I think I can only support what's been said here this far - well, maybe except for Morthoron's choice with whom to party (and I would also vehemently protest against "colorless bunch", at least when it comes to Ulmo, but that's another topic :) ), because indeed, as Lindale mentioned, there was this problem with the Greek gods that they were too "chaotic", what more, they were so prone to the negative emotions and stuff, that they could easily choose to pick up a fight with you or curse you if you said something they didn't approve, and if three goddesses came to you to ask which of them you consider the most beautiful, you'd better run for it.

When speaking of the early drafts Esty mentioned, I think the Valar stood closer to those at the very beginning of their existence and in their early days in Arda, in the sense that they were still learning a lot - I am thinking now about their failures with Melkor (letting him run free in Aman), the gigantic battle before when Utumno was destroyed - they themselves considered it a mistake on their part, or of course Aulë's attempt with the Dwarves (he definitely had something to learn in that event, which he then did), and we could find many more. The Valar became detached only later, slowly, more and more detached from the Middle-Earth as the events were getting closer to the Elves' fading and with the coming of the dominion of Men. So, to be true towards them, they were not that much detached in the sense that they would not care about M-E: they did care, but it just wasn't that much of their business, especially when it came to the Children, because the Children were not in their "domains" (unlike water, plants, whatever), but they were Ilúvatar's Children (and you can see that when you read the Sil, I think there's something like the Valar thinking about how much they should interfere when the Children of Ilúvatar awakened). And I think it goes further with Men than with Elves, who, after all, could come - and did come - to Aman, and remained in Arda (the realm of Valar, at least at the beginning), but Men's ultimate fate was different and had nothing to do with Valar at all.

Speaking of fate (and getting back to comparing Valar and the Greek gods), you can also see that Valar did not influence people's individual fates as much as the Greek gods did (except for Melkor in the tale of Húrin and his children, for example) - the Greek gods were supposed to have pretty much direct influence over every person's fate. There's nothing like that with Valar, once again I believe for the reason I stated in the paragraph above.

So, overall I would say the strongest similarity would be these "portfolios", sky, sea, nature, whatever; and I think the Greek gods and Valar are similar to an unattentive observer "on first sight", but when one looks deeper, the images seem to part a lot.

Pffft! Nonsense! Who wouldn't rather party with Dionysus than Nienna? All that weeping and carrying on. And Tulkas? No thanks, bud, no wrestling for me today. I have no interest being in the grip of a big sweaty Vala.

Seriously though, it must be stated that the Greek pantheon were, in fact, gods, and the Valar were not, but rather emissaries of Eru, the one god; therefore, their capacities and limitations were completely different, even if they shared many of the same natural attributes/affinities. It is a compliment to Tolkien, however, that his synthesis of biblical and classical creation stories produced a genesis far more poetic in its grandeur than the material he based it on. In this case, the end product is greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with you on this one, Morthoron. The Greek gods where what I call modern day college students (with no offense intended for you college students;)). Unlike the Valar the seven Greek gods inherited the earth from their parents, Cronus and Mother Earth, overthrowing both of them and living off of their wealth as you might say. The Greek gods complained, argued, plotted, fought, and begrudged each other. In fact their was very little harmony or authority at all with them, other than the most powerful of them governs all (even that didn't work sometimes). So in short the Greek gods are a bunch of siblings who where saved from death by their mother only to dishonor her, and their father, living off of their parents blessings, governing through fear, and gave some really cool parties. Hephestus is excluded from all this, I like him!:D

The Valar on the other hand had a sense of morality, order, knew the difference between right and wrong and generally had good moods. Just look at the difference between Tulkas and Ares, there's almost no similarity in their moods. Another main difference is the Valar's respect of life, they genuinely cared for the peoples of Arda, unlike the Greek gods who used the humans as pawns for amusement or to get pleasure from.

No need to be afraid, Mr. Redbeard, I don't bite...much.

Come on over later. Thor, Loki and the Aesir are coming to the barbeque, and we're going to drink mead until we vomit (or pass out, whichever comes first). I just hope Odin doesn't do magic tricks with his one eye again (it's very disconcerting to see that cerulean orb floating in a glass of ale).

Loki is cool
 

[QUOTE=Morthoron;566226]No need to be afraid, Mr. Redbeard, I don't bite...much.

Did you just trope his rhetoric?

I like the level upon which the gods were discussed on this thread. It was interesting.

Since I saw that Loki was included, I want to try and remember an opinion which was once put before me in regard to Loki falling out of favor with the other gods. He was often relied upon to get things done to the benefit of this or that god. While concurrently, being often reviled as a distasteful necessary evil. In turn, Loki did not agree with the self proclaimed perfection that the gods supposedly possessed with Baldr epitomizing it. I will not opine on what Loki or myself personally think about the attaining of perfection. I've read what opinion of perfection he supposedly had, and I have developed my own.

Loki supposedly killed Baldr and I feel that this might be mere assertion and it could quite possibly have been another god, jealous of the esteem Baldr enjoyed from so many deities.

I've read something indicating that Loki might pertain to a position not so distant in height above mind. That part of mind that can closely participate with matter, a more direct connect.

Maybe there is a moral somewhere among my above ramblings. This theme might point to the physical necessity of doing, and dammit! I just ain't perfect about it! and there is the problem, for it is intrinsic within us - whether we are aware of it or not- to always be striving toward the pinnacle of pefection. Deny it all you want as many as who might. OM

Actually, in at least some versions of the legends I've heard, Loki was only a sort of "honorary" Aesier. He was by birth, a Joton (one of the bad giant/troll races) who impressed Odin so much with his shapeshifing ability that Odin brough him to Asgard and made him his blood brother. Most of the other gods hated Loki, but they coulnt do anything to him since he had Odin's blood in him now. they also gave him some credit for using his shapeshifting abilites to turn himself into a mare and draw the gant stomasons horse off before the stonemason could make good on his promise to wall all of Asgard in one day, thereby simultaneously saving the Aesier from losing Freya (and by extension access to the golden apples of immortality and youth) and simultaneously providing Odin with Slephnir his hyperfast eight legged steed. As to Baldur both points are tecnically correct. It was Loki who found out Baldur's one weakness (mistletoe) made the arrow out of it and tricked someone into shooting it. but it was tecnically another God who took the shot. But there is no question that Loki has a dark side, I mean look at who his Children were, Hel (queen of the underword), The Midgard Serpent, and Fenrir who ultimately bit off Tyr's hand (shades of Charcaroth and Beren?) Also wasnt he the god supposed to pilot the boat of dead men's fingernails during Ragnarok? thats enough for now.

I think the Valar are just as interesting and perhaps a bit easier to understand than the Greek gods. The number fourteen is an interesting aspect and draws to my mind the image of force and matter among seven grades.

I've put much more time into reading about the Greek gods, and only a small amount in comparison, to reading about Norse gods. It is easier to remember the latter. I'm choosing to refrain from speculating on why that is.

I watch anything that is LotR type of movie. It is very beautiful, and I am finding out some interesting insights into the late author and what he might have devoted a lot of study to.

I just thought about this...

Even if JRRT stuck to the idea of Valar having kids, do you or can you imagine Manwe the Holy siring an indefinite bunch of kids in the grand tradition of Zeus, even if Zeus has many merits of his own? Maybe Melkor, I can picture as that. :D And from this maybe comes the really bad ton of fan fic about daughters-of-evil.

Actually, I can't. I think that Melkor fits the idea of having offspring of his own less than anyone else (well, maybe except for Ulmo, or maybe Mandos) - he was too concerned with other things, I would say "because of lust for power he forgot everything else". And anyway, Valar overall, the way they are portrayed in the last draft, seem quite detached from this and at least for me really hard to imagine - maybe except for one or two Vánas and Nessas, but that'd be about it. In other words, whether this was Tolkien's intention or not in this draft of the Valar or not, I think he succeeded in making the Valar truly "outworldly" in this aspect.

Well, Tolkien's notion of the Valar having children -- the Valarindi -- was his original concept for what became the Maiar. I'm going on memory, for the moment, but I seem to recall that at one point, there was Fionwe, the son of Manwe, and at another point, Eonwe and Ilmare were the children of Manwe and Varda. I don't recall any other specific mentions of such child/parent connections in the various drafts and notes Tolkien made, but I do suspect that Tolkien decided to skip this kind of human-like descendancy to avoid the kind of "earthy" similarity to the Greco/Roman pantheon, and to place it more in line with his personal religious views. The Valar and Maiar as we now know them fit well with at least some of the various choirs of angels of Judeo/Christian tradition, and yet maintain a certain feel of classical mythology.

Wait a second. Are we talking about gods reproducing as if they are seperate male and female individuals that we are all familiar with here on Earth?

Well, gods are beyond me, I suppose they can reproduce any manner they see fit.

Certainly, it's evident in Greek Mythology: Hercules, Apollo and Diana, Athena (who sprang fully armored from Zeus' head), and Persephone; in Tolkien: Melian the Maia; and in Christianity: Jesus, son of God (I always felt bad for Joseph in that regard); as well as in Egyptian, Hindu and Norse mythos (and many others).

Yes, I think Jesus would want us to reach our inner-most Heart of Being. This is not an easy trip to complete. Too much material in the way. You simply cannot mix force with substance any ole way, it has to be done just right.

Actually, Legate, I got the idea from HoME, just can't remember which: the Balrogs were supposed to be his offspring.

But again, just in some of the early drafts, right? In any case, it never got to the "officially published" "completed" works.

furies become eumenides
 

~~~
I'm thinking that you were almost one hundred percent exoteric. Hel (queen of the underworld, or the dead), esoterically refers to the past. Fingernails also refers to something totally different than the image that the word describes. There is a reason, however, for writings to be written in a manner that hides the real meaning, so I will not go on about it.

I'm not certain, but I think Loki and Promethius might be analogous. There were many things contributed by seperate entities to create humanity, and the last one was very difficult to deliver to us without destroying us. Here I stop while saying only a little, and miolnir does not strike sparks from space to form worlds anymore, nevertheless this hammer still works as in our labors and toils and the pain which heals with wisdom, and keeping the latter and releasing the former.

Hmm, I get the point about the difference in feelings and actions. Seems there are less similarities than I previously thought.

Pantheon Compendium
 

Interesting thread!

While there are some obvious parallels with the Greek (and by extension, Roman) Gods, eg Vulcan-Aule, Neptune-Ulmo, they seem to me to be about the 'area of responsibility' of each deity rather than their characters.

In character the Valar appear more similar to the Angels and Archangels of Christianity (and Milton), more serious-minded, and not running around seducing princesses while disguised as wildlife. And likely less fun than Dionysus at a party!

I noticed the Norse gods were brought up. In a way Tulkas reminded me of Thor (though without the lightning bolts etc), being similarly forthright characters.

Does anyone recognise the Valar in other Pantheons at all?

The Celtic gods seem a bit nebuous and tricky to tie down but Hindu perhaps? I'm afraid I know too little!

To put my two cents in concerning strictly the Valar/Greek 'cross over', I'd like to that perhaps the Tolkien demi-Pantheon converts easier to the many 'lesser' gods/goddesses, some of which weren't anthropomorphic so much as personifications or some of the earilier generations. Nienna, seems to fit the 'personification' bill much nicer than Yavanna, for instance, who would make a wonderful good-natured havest goddess or titaness... like Rheia. Or the Greek Goddess Hebe (Daughter of Zeus and Hera) who matches fairly well with Vana.

I agree that the Valar are much more even natured compared to the Greek dubious dozen, but if you prescribe to nurture more than nature you've probably considered the fact that being eaten by dear, old daddy Cronus might make you a bit pessimistic too. Or to have the origin Aphrodite has? Yikes. I'd probably feel the urge to copy Nienna some. Now, I'm not aware of Tolkien's over-all philosophy, whether he bought into Locke or Hobbs or whatever, but I know the Greeks were realists. They knew Why Bad Things Happen To Good People (to borrow a phrase) and thats because they, simply, were people. Beliefs are created to explain the reason why things happen they way they do. The harsher religions tend to be older.

On that note... Rumil: I'd suggest looking into the Enuma Elesh and Hurrian-Hittite mythologies. They're from the same theological family as those of the Greeks and Romans with a few subtle differences (I'll just say that the Cronus character was being -nice- in the Greek mythology.)

But your interest in the Hindi religion did bring me to find Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which counts the number of Gods as first 303, then 33; 6; 3; 2 and finally 1. I know that this refers to Hinduism as being monotheistic, though appearing polytheistic on the outset, but it brings back up Mothoron's comment about the Valar not really being Gods themselves, so much. They are part of Eru, the One, and have specific roles according to his will.

Linked to this is Nuer theology, which I think I see the closest connection. All of the Gods are actually one God with many forms (Kwoth). They're of the Above, which are revered far more (Manwe and Varda, etc.) and the Below (Yavanna and Aule, etc.). Unlike the Valar, however they are also not overly friendly toward human beings. They are jealous and greedy. (the Nuer protect their babies from the Gods/God by calling them ugly and spitting on them until they reach the second age-grade. It's really a fascinating culture.)

From where I sit I see a kind of theological gradient:
Greco/Roman > Nuer > Hindi* > Valar

* My knowledge of Hinduism is somewhat more than just lacking. I'd love it if someone would correct my points.

This is an excellent topic, Might

allowed to see from one turn rather than seven
 

I find that my scope of ignorance expands in direct proportion to my increase in knowledge. Buddhism and that which is among the Pali and Sanskrit have probably been best at not corrupting through interpolations and omissions. Superstitio is a word originally meaning 'that which is added upon or to a thing'.

I would not say anything about any religion which might appear negative, as I believe that they all strive toward universal principles. I strongly suspect that there is at times, one Mother Religion, where a global accord exists on this point. Plato and the latter - and perhaps better - Neo-Platonists were very comprehensive as well. I simply believe that the doors close when great leaders of men express sefish aims. We are only beginning to recover from these closed doors. I think the doors began closing around the time of King Croesus and Agememnon. They definitely closed around 2nd century A.D. and the Dark Ages occurred shortly thereafter in Europe.

These fourteen Valars might represent seven forces and seven elements gradually becoming more ethereal as they ascend. Seperation is not so much a thing to focus on as is interpermeation. Our attractions in life and our inner state might represent an idea of what we might have to experience after or in between death and rebirth. But only to slough them off, or not requiring that depending on the individual. From the very tiny bit that I have learned in the past five years, I'm learning that maintaining an even temperment for the most part indicates I might be on the right path. I'm not saying extremes never have any role to play, I only think that it better not be self-centered selfish motivations.

I came to this site because I love the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and watch them everytime they come on tv. I haven't yet seen anyone mention their interpretation of 'Middle Earth' other than the hollow space in this planet. Please, I don't want to hear about the earth being hollow. Perhaps I should start a thread concerning that very question, but then I'd have to oversee it, and don't know if my other activities would allow it. I realize I'm likely being ignorant as it probably already popped-up here and I should have looked.

?????????????

:confused::confused::confused:

Okay... I've had another look at your question. Ummm... are you asking what the term "Middle-earth" refers to?

A brief note to that Hinduism thing. It's so that Hinduism represents a rather diverse collection of all sorts of beliefs in local gods, various traditions from various ages, various views of the world-order (from the brahmanism through upanishadas etc.). I am pretty sure you would find some gods in there which you could compare to some of the Valar pretty well. But it's not like that "in Hinduism, there is X gods", and then some specific order or structure between them. Hinduism, in fact, represents simply anything that is religious and comes from India at the same time, if I say it in somewhat simple way. The only thing is, that there is the attempt to ultimately reach the "main" gods, or maybe better to say "the gods above gods", if I am to hold this terminology (basically three, or two, or depends, it varies among certain specific traditions). But anyway, it's all somewhat complicated and I don't want to go deep to it here because that would be probably for long, but overall I believe it's quite alien from the concept of Valar and such. Also because again, the "nature" of the gods is a lot different from the one of the Valar, or even the Greek gods. In my opinon, when we are comparing, the Greek, or European pantheons in general are far more fitting, simply because they are European and M-E is rather European than anything else.

Not anymore. I had a little interest in what was thought regarding middle earth, I caught a glimmer out of the corner of my eye, I turned to look but it was gone... I have become comfortably done.

Well... anytime you do want to know something, just ask.

You speak in riddles my friend. ;)

Sorry for not sticking to the topic
 

According the earliest sources it was Hoðr (Hod) Baldr's brother who killed him by throwing a spear (or shoting an arrow) at Baldr. This spear (arrow) was made of mistletoe, the only object that did not vow not to hurt Baldr. Of course Hoðr was tricked into this by Loki, but still. . .
Anyways I have not seen any indication that any God other than Loki had a desire to kill Baldr.

He was definitly Odin's bloodbrother, but it is hard to tell if he was a giant or a god. . .There is no real consistency in what the sourses say.

Anyways I just want clarify that it was Idun who was the keeper of the Golden Apples.

Its alright MA, I'm only sighing.
 

~~~

The light of kindness from yourself and skip was a mistake, because of the fact that I am going to continue with more of my thoughts:D

I think that the seemingly unshakeable belief of the gods that Baldr was the epitome of perfection, must have in reality been an accord based on coercion. Loki would not have been able to trick a higher god into killing Baldr if this accord among all the gods was sincere. Even Loki realized that perfection is a state requiring no further experiencing and evolution toward continued upward progress.

Emanation of force and substance which in turn begins its own evolution is done even by humanity, and I'm not only referring to child-birth. But I will refrain from expanding upon this.

If I was to use the Nordic term 'ALL FATHER' and the word perfection, then I would feel the appropriateness of the word.

One way of speaking of the 14 Valars, if I was going to place them on seven grades and the feminine or substance on one side, with the masculine or force on the other, then I would say that these are states or conditions relatively close to each one of us, but then I would have to state the existence of seven more grades above those seven. These latter might be known as Tattwas with the ones closest to us being Lokas.

I'm not trying to be pedantic or impress. When I write things down, I remember them better, so if I do it on a public domain, my logic is that I'm impressing upon myself all the better, that which I'm trying to comprehend.

riddles remind me of spirals. Direct transmission of a concept from one point to another, with departure and arrival seeming to be simultaneous, interferes with the will of an individual.

The rules of the road have been lodged...
 

...it's people's games you've got to dodge.

Hmmm...but Loki tricked blind Hödr into killing Baldr to circumvent the accord. It does not mean the compact between the gods was insincere; rather, the fact that there was imperfection (as a god without eyesight clearly indicates) even among the Aesir. It is likely that Hödr would not wilfully kill his brother; therefore, it was not the accord but the singular god who was imperfect (physically due to blindness, not morally), and thus Hödr became the dupe by which Loki assassinated Baldr. Also, Hödr and Baldr were reconciled in the end (at least, according to the Prose Edda), and so it would seem that Baldr did not recriminate Hödr for involuntarily breaching the accord.

In any case, the very fact that Baldr had an Achilles' heel (if I may mix pantheonic metaphors) indicates a limit to perfection (which Loki obviously discerned in his malice). And I'm not altogether sure that Loki had some philosophical ideal that mandated an action be taken against the falsity of a perfect state; rather, he was simply malicious. He was the primeval sociopath.

I realize you stated you weren't trying to be obscurant, but no one here has interpreted Middle-earth to be the hollow space inside this planet; on the contrary, I would think that most folk here (I can't account for any eccentrics) would reply in opposition to such a concept in Tolkien's cosmology. Can you elucidate without the superfluity, please?

Say what? Say who?
 

I simply came upon a hesitation toward delving into the interpretation of middle earth on this forum. The reason is not my possessing a low esteem of the members of this forum, but rather the wide spectrum of beliefs. I think that approaching this subject begins to narrow the focus. So, on this one thing, it is probably best for me to just leave 'middle-earth' alone.

When I act from inspiration I'm more confident. There are still so many instances of attraction to matter. For instance, right now I want to go get something to eat, but I also need to go jump in the shower. I just got home from work not too long ago. I'm going to take the shower first. It is not exactly divine inspiration involved in this choice.

I suspect that the indictment of Loki being a primeval sociopath includes manas and mahat. All three refer to mind. Mahat of course is more than mind in that it is cosmic. The story of Loki is about the mind of man choosing to be in accord with the divine, with so very many opportunities to be inurred within temptation, making dreadful decisions or choices. Perhaps one insight on the manifestation in matter, relying on mind, is a necessity worthy of enduring in order to become always aspiring gods of ever increasing perfection. Perhaps we are already gods, but not while we are down here being humans. That is kind of a cool way to look at things.

Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before

Look, wispeight, you're really going to have to work harder at communicating with us plebs.;)

Again, what do you mean by "interpretation of Middle-earth"? Are you asking what or where it is supposed to be?

Or do you wish to discuss possible symbolism in the story?

Either way, the fact that nobody else happens to be talking about what you're interested in at a given time doesn't mean it's a forbidden topic. Why not start a thread?

Isn't that all we do here? Or do you have in mind something more specific?

EDIT: Oh, I guess you do. I should have read thoroughly first.

who dat who dat
 

~~~

I've been obtuse and pretentious to the point where I've made 'myself' sick. So I don't even want to imagine how I reflected onto others here. So I will come clean. For at least two decades, I've come across the phrase 'middle-earth' more times than I can count. I hesitate to say that I finally know what it means, because that indicates conclusion.

An acceptable explanation I've come across, happened because I became thoroughly fascinated with Theosophy. I suppose sharing the explanation for the phrase would not be considered proselytizing, but I would have preferred nonetheless that someone else jumped in with the explanation.

Did anyone notice that I still didn't cough it up? I'm bad.

You discover
That you'd just be
One more person crying

'Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their marks
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.'

Since this thread has passed the point of obnubilation, I might as well reply lyrically.

That, I think is painfully clear to all of us who have read your verbose, obscure and ultimately pointless posts. So why don't you? You feel better afterwards. After all, this is a forum where we discuss ideas.

I have a suggestion - instead of questioning someone on a post which is not only obscure, but also off-topic, why don't we just get back to the subject of this thread?! Thanks! :)