|
Well, if we accept that this interpretation is correct - & here we have Tolkien the Mythographer analysing the Legendarium as though it is genuine myth - then we have to say I am, as you say, both correct & incorrect.
Yet it is presented in the form of an 'interpretation' of the events by a 'detatched' expert, it is not presented as an explanation by the author of the stories - in other words, I read this as Tolkien playing the role of an interpreter of an ancient mythology, a scholar offering an personal analysis of events.
Quote:It has to be remembered that the 'mythology' is repre¬sented as being two stages removed from a true record: it is based first upon Elvish records and lore about the Valar and their own dealings with them; and these have reached us (fragmentarily) only through relics of Númenórean (human) traditions, derived from the Eldar, in the earlier parts, though for later times supplemented by anthropocentric histories and tales.
Well, this was Tolkien's (not entirely successful) attempt to explain the inconsistencies within the Legendarium, & the lack of consistency between the Legendarium & modern scientific accounts of the history of the world. I've said before that I find (sadly) a great deal of Tolkien's attempts in this late period to 'clarify' the legendarium has the opposite effect.
My own feeling is that the explanation is problematical, as it has the Valar standing back & allowing a lot of innocent people to suffer in order that they can become 'better' people through suffering - bit like the parent about to beat his child senseless saying 'this is for your own good!' I think that Tolkien is trying to construct an account of the Valar's behaviour which would be consistent with the later form of the Mythology - the selfish, confused, proud Valar worked fine in the context of the Lost Tales, even of the '30's Quenta Silmarillion, but by the later period, where they have moved from the equivalent of the Pagan gods to incarnate Angels their behaviour has to be accounted for in a different way. The account Tolkien gives in the quote is one possible explanation for the Valar's behaviour, but I'm not sure it works completely - like so much in the later writings.
Quote: Yet Morgoth is finally overthrown by the Host of the West, which mainly consists of humble and calm Vanyar. Proud and andry Noldor are crushed.
I don't recall the Vanyar being described as 'calm'. I doubt they were all that calm when faced with dragons, Balrogs & orcs slaughtering their comrades during the battle. And as Tolkien says, only the Noldor could have done the job of holding Morgoth in check throughout the FA - the Noldor as they were, with both vices & virtues.
|