[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

There was a letter I read from the early '50s wherein Tolkien makes no distinction between the two degrees which led me to believe that he had not fully fleshed out the topic at that point, but he may only have been simplifying the explanation for his correspondent.

Whilst I have no way of knowing which letter you meant, I've managed to track down some references to incarnation. The earliest I could find was from 1957, but I didn't go very far back into the 1940s; if the letter was earlier, then it probably remains to be found.

According to the mythology of these things... though of course a creature, [Sauron] belonged to the race of intelligent beings that were made before the physical world, and were permitted to assist in their measure in the making of it.

...

They were self-incarnated, if they wished; but their incarnate forms were more analogous to our clothes than to our bodies, except that they were more than are clothes the expression of their desires, moods, wills and functions.

...

After the battle with Gilgalad and Elendil, Sauron took a long while to re-build, longer than he had done after the downfall of Númenor (I suppose because each building-up used up some of the inherent energy of the spirit, which might be called the 'will' or the effective link between the indestructible mind and being and the realization of its imagination).

Extracts from letter #200, to Maj. R. Bowen, 25 June 1957

I give the comments on Sauron's re-incarnation after the War of the Last Alliance since I believe it may be of some interest in this debate, particularly since it has a bearing on the respective places of will, spirit and body in Tolkien's cosmogony.

It was because of their love of Eä, and because of the part they had played in its making, that they wished to, and could, incarnate themselves in visible physical forms, though these were comparable to our clothes (in so far as our clothes are a personal expression) not to our bodies. Their forms were thus an expression of their persons, powers, and loves. They need not be anthropomorphic (Yavanna wife* of Aulë would, for instance, appear in the form of a great Tree.) But the 'habitual' shapes of the Valar, when visible or clothed, were anthropomorphic, because of their intense concern with Elves and Men.

[Tolkien's footnote given below]

* It is the view of the Myth that in (say) Elves and Men 'sex' is only an expression in physical or biological terms of a difference of nature in the 'spirit', not the ultimate cause of the difference between femininity and masculinity.

Letter #212 to Rhona Beare. Draft continuation of Letter #211 (14 October, 1958)

These two expressions of the relationship between the naturally discarnate and their bodies seem to spring from a concept that had found its way into the Silmarillion material as early as the late 1930s, albeit in a very inchoate and undeveloped form.

But others, and among them were many of the wisest and fairest of the Ainur, craved leave of Ilúvatar to enter into the world and dwell there, and put on the form and raiment of Time...

Now the Ainur that came into the world took shape and form, such even as have the Children of Ilúvatar who were born of the world; but their shape and form is greater and more lovely and it comes of the knowledge and desire of the substance of the world rather than of that substance itself, and it cannot always be perceived, though they be present. And some of them, therefore, took form and temper as of female and some as of male.

HoME V, The Lost Road and Other Writings. Ainulindalë.

Footnote 19 to p. 162 of my 1993 HarperCollins paperback edition ends with the statement: "This is the first statement in my father's writings concerning the 'physical' (or rather 'perceptible') form of the Valar, and the meaning of gender as applied to them."

I only give the HoME reference since it appears to mark a terminus post quem for Tolkien's thoughts on incarnation. It would appear that a kernel of his ideas concerning the spirit and the body existed prior to the composition of LR and that it developed significantly during the writing of this work.

I must apologise in advance if the following veers too far off-topic. Debate continued in the thread that gave rise to this one, but remained as off-topic for Movies as before. I've therefore decided to respond here to various points related to this debate so as to allow that thread to get back on track.

Originally Posted by Saucie

But isn't that rather the point being made in this discussion? That, regardless of the relative "power" of the combatants, there is always remains the possibility that "circumstances" will allow the weaker to prevail. In any confrontation, it is not a foregone conclusion that the higher in relative (natural) power will gain the victory.

Originally I was going to post exactly that argument, but it rapidly occurred to me that this is only true when a weaker character on the 'good' side is faced with a more powerful 'evil' character, and in all cases divine providence clearly has a hand. The most extreme example of the weaker apparently overcoming the strong is surely Frodo's destruction of the Ring, which unbodies a Maia to the extent that he cannot re-form his hröa. Of this action, Tolkien had the following to say.

There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one's power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not 'arrange' the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story.

...

But we can at least judge them by the will and intentions with which they entered the Sammath Naur; and not demand impossible feats of will, which could only happen in stories unconcerned with real moral and mental probability.

No, Frodo 'failed'. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however 'good'; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us.

Extracts from Letter #191 (draft) to Miss J. Burne (emphasis mine).

It seems clear to me that Tolkien meant characters like Frodo to be reliant in the end on divine providence, as enabled by their own virtuous actions, for which we need an evil that cannot be resisted. The idea that W-K could expect the same sort of help against Gandalf seems to me quite unlikely.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But in the context of the work, lack of victory would have made all ennoblement equal to zero. If they failed, there won't be any noble or sanctified beings - you cannot divide these two.

But that would be to argue that the physical world is the only meaningful plain of existence in Eä, which it clearly isn't. Tolkien is quite clear that the soul has an existence separate from the body and a life that outlasts it; therefore every spiritual development has meaning even, one might say especially, after death. In any case, the unqualified statement that failure will result in no noble or sanctified beings cannot possibly be true: the Valar are sanctified and noble beings, as are the Eldar in Aman. Besides, in Tolkien's model of courage nobility is valuable irrespective of its success in material terms, as I pointed out in my last post on the Movies thread.

Originally Posted by me

Those quotations say that small people can affect dramatically the policies of the great.
...
They do not say that the small and weak can independently and unassisted defeat the great or overturn their policies

Originally Posted by Raynor

Aren't you contradicting yourself concerning this 'policies' issue?

No, and the two examples I gave on the other thread ought to have clarified my point beyond misunderstanding. Whilst to overturn something is to affect it dramatically, one can affect something dramatically without overturning or defeating it. The key word here is unassisted: Frodo and Sam are aided in their quest by most of the warriors of Middle-earth at one time or another; Merry comes by his sword with the assistance of Tom Bombadil, and he and Éowyn assist one another in the destruction of the Witch-King. Unassisted also carries the deliberate qualification that Eru's interference can be traced throughout the victories against the odds in LR.

The involvement of Eru in the victories of the weak is not a puppet show. The mercy inherent in assistance is earned only by supreme resistance to evil and overwhelming courage, and Tolkien's whole approach to the issue is designed to underline the idea that Providence cannot simply be relied upon, but manifests itself when strength has been exhausted in its service. The relationship between providence and free will has been debated in English since the language first existed, and T.A. Shippey refers to Alfred the Great's addition to his translation of De Consolatione Philosophiae (an excellent starting point) in his own examination of the theme in LR. To be brief, Alfred wrote:

Ac ðæt ðætte we hatað Godes foreþonc ond his forsceawung, þæt bið þa hwile þe hit ðær mid him bið on his mode ær ðæm þe hit gefremede weorðe, þa hwile ðe hit geþoht bið. Ac siððan hit fullfremed bið, þonne hatað we hit "wyrd"

But that which we call God's providence and his foresight, that exists as long as it is there with Him in His mind before it is brought about, as long as it is thought about. But when it is accomplished, then we call it "fate".

Alfred, froforboc (De Consolatione Philosophiae), ch. 39 (my translation)

But 'fate' is an imperfect translation of OE wyrd. Shippey argues that a better one would be "luck", saying:

People can 'change their luck', and can in a way say 'No' to divine Providence, though of course if they do they have to stand by the consequences of their decision. In Middle-earth, one may say, Providence or the Valar sent the dream that took Boromir to Rivendell. But they sent it first and most often to Faramir, who would no doubt have been a better choice. It was human decision, or human perversity, which led to Boromir claiming the journey, with what chain of ill-effects and casualties no one can tell. 'Luck', then, is a continuous interplay of providence and free will, a blending of so many factors that the mind cannot disentangle them...

The Road to Middle-earth, 3rd ed. p.173.

The point being that in this as in other great philosophical questions, Tolkien had found a middle ground that gave equal importance to both extremes. I think that it demeans his subtlety to suggest that a story in which the good must give credit to their creator for their victories on his behalf (he says in Letter #183 that "[The conflict] is about God, and His sole right to divine honour") is in some way a meaningless parade of automata.

Originally Posted by me

I would argue (and look: I'm doing it too) that someone's not being invincible does not open the field up to all comers to defeat them, at least not in single combat.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But this is a strawman of my argument.

Actually it's a reductio ad absurdum of your argument that "Unless the strong is impossible to defeat (which is not the case in Arda - there is no supreme, invicible power, besides Eru), then the weak can defeat the strong." As far as I can see this says quite clearly that the weak can destroy something which is not indestructible, and my analogy was simply provided to demonstrate how something can be beyond the powers of the weak to defeat (the weak in my example being me and the strong Dover Castle) without being indestructible. If the original argument has proven to be a straw man I did not make it so.

Originally Posted by me

Ofermod is an Old English word with a disputed meaning, but used in many contexts to mean 'pride'. In no way does it equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT

Originally Posted by Raynor

Since Rico Abrahamsen states that some critics did see ofermod as "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", I will take your bolded statement with a grain of salt.

Whilst you are quite welcome to do so, Raynor, you might wish to consider another post of mine on the subject, which is based on the arguments of the very critics to whom Mr. Abrahamsen refers. With all due respect to the Valar Guild, they have yet to be acknowledged as an authority on Germanic philology; and with all due respect to Mr. Abrahamsen, a degree in English/American studies and Rhetoric from the University of Wisconsin in Madison does not equip one to comment on the finer points of Old English semantics. Nor does it trump the PhD and Chair held by Helmut Gneuss, who mentions the interpretation given in Abrahamsen's essay precisely never in his exhaustive semantic analysis of the word ofermod. The nearest any commentator appears to have got to an interpretation 'supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form' is Professor J. B. Bessinger's vague description of the term as 'a traditional heroic fault'. In any case this entire point is redundant, since Abrahamsen (or should I call him 'Dreamlord'?) only mentions this supposed meaning of ofermod in the introduction to an argument which accepts Tolkien's view, supported by Gneuss' later work, that the word means 'pride', specifically sinful pride or Latin superbia. The entirety of his approach to Túrin and Fëanor is based on this negative interpretation, and he throws in his rather clumsy reference to the vast body of research on ofermod in acknowledgement of a wider debate, of which he says himself "This is obviously not the place to settle that linguistic difference of opinion."

Of course, I'm no more than an apprentice philologist, but I think you'll find me a more reliable source in this instance than Wikipedia.