[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

However, the divine always has a hand, as seen in Manwe's vision from the Silmarillion, or from Tolkien's notes in the Athrabeth. The question is whether this 'hand' significantly reduces, or if it nulifies, the value of the weak's contribution to victory. I hold that it doesn't.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes and that we agree on this point. I argued in my posts in Movies that the divine will is essential to victory, but I have also argued that this does not nullify the actions of the 'good' or the 'weak'. Eru is absolutely central to LR:

The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person to be an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-king, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

Letter #183: Notes on W.H. Auden's review of The Return of the King (c.1956)

Since Eru is central to the entire question it makes sense that he would support those who remained faithful to him in their struggle. However, since Morgoth had corrupted the very substance of Arda they fought at a disadvantage, their inherent qualities being insufficient to victory. They are therefore reliant on divine intervention for ultimate victory, but this does not devalue their struggle, in fact it lends it nobility. Their only source of hope in their battle is estel ('trust'); like Andreth they have no recourse to amdir, which would be supported by the knowledge of greater strength or ultimate victory.

The second author's note to the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth stresses the great importance of estel to the Eldar:

[The Elves] knew themselves to be limited by Arda; but the length of its existence they do not seem to have known. Possibly the Valar did not know. More probably they were not informed by the will or design of Eru, who appears in the Elvish tradition to demand two things from His Children (of either Kindred): belief in Him, and proceeding from that, hope or trust in Him (called by the Eldar estel).

HME X. Athrabeth, p.338.

What the Athrabeth makes abundantly clear is that belief in Eru and trust in Him are the two most important qualities, in fact the only two qualities demanded of the Children of Ilúvatar; but it also makes clear that these were the most difficult qualities to sustain in Arda Marred. Significantly the major factor in Gandalf's strategy against Sauron is estel: the hope that something will turn up; the trust in Providence.

I further suggested that free will and divine intervention must meet one another half-way. In both of these points I am supported by Tolkien, as luck would have it in the same letter. As seems so often to be the case, it concerns Frodo and the pivotal moment at the Sammath Naur.

...we must estimate the limits of another's strength and weigh this against the force of particular circumstances.

I do not think that Frodo's was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted. Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour; and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him Mercy: his failure was redressed.

We are finite creatures with absolute limitations upon the powers of our soul-body structure in either action or endurance. Moral failure can only be asserted, I think, when a man's effort or endurance falls short of its limits, and the blame decreases as that limit is closer approached. [Tolkien continues in a footnote]: No account is here taken of 'grace' or the enhancement of our powers as instruments of Providence. Frodo was given 'grace': first to answer the call (at the end of the Council) after long resisting a complete surrender; and later in his resistance to the temptation of the Ring (at times when to claim and so reveal it would have been fatal), and in his endurance of fear and suffering. But grace is not infinite, and for the most part seems in the Divine economy limited to what is sufficient for the accomplishment of the task appointed to one instrument in a pattern of circumstances and other instruments. [End of footnote]

Nonetheless I think it can be observed in history and experience that some individuals seem to be placed in 'sacrificial' situations: situations or tasks that for perfection of solution demand powers beyond their utmost limits, even beyond all possible limits for an incarnate creature in a physical world - in which a body may be destroyed, or so maimed that it affects the mind and will. Judgement upon any such case should then depend on the motives and disposition with which he started out, and should weigh his actions against the utmost possibility of his powers, all along the road to whatever proved the breaking point.

Letter #246: to Mrs. Eileen Elgar (drafts). September, 1963.

Frodo has succeeded because he was lent 'grace': his inherent powers were amplified by divine will so that he could succeed in his quest; but even in this letter, Tolkien is walking a tightrope between Providence and free will, because he makes the amount of divine assistance only make up the difference between the power required to do something and the chosen instrument's inherent ability to do it. If Frodo had fallen short of his utmost powers, the grace appointed to him would have been insufficient, and his quest would have failed.

Originally Posted by Raynor

My position is that in a complete reign of evil there exists no free will, and therefore no ennoblement or sanctification. The same would be true for Arda if evil wins, or for any extent of this hypothetical reign - Ea or beyond it.

You seem to be suggesting that Sauron or Morgoth can institute a complete reign of evil if successful. Are you sure that this is possible in Tolkien's universe? Surely for that to happen Absolute Evil, with which Tolkien denied having any dealings, would have to establish absolute power over Arda in despite of Eru, which your own quotation from the Athrabeth ("He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves") refutes. What Tolkien meant in this quotation is, I think, that no individual is capable of preventing the fulfillment of Eru's will, not that an individual cannot refuse Providence. Providence is the assistance received in the struggle to fulfill the divine will as its instrument, such as was granted to Frodo as described in Tolkien's letter quoted above. Providence can always find another instrument, just as the refusal of Faramir's dream, and the replacement of him with Boromir still results in the reduction of Sauron. How matters would have transpired had Providence been heeded no-one can tell.

Furthermore, given its context and the general tone of the Athrabeth, I should say that this quotation also suggests that no-one can wrest Arda from Eru's ultimate authority. At another point, Finrod says:

'... Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him.

'More: even if Melkor (or the Morgoth that he has become) could in any way be thrown down or thrust from Arda, still his Shadow would remain, and the evil that he has wrought an sown as a seed would wax and multiply. And if any remedy for this is to be found, ere all is ended, any new light to oppose the shadow, or any medicine for the wounds: then it must, I deem, come from without.'

HME X, Athrabeth, p. 322

Tolkien himself once wrote to his son during the Second World War:

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'... All we know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always the soil for unexpected good to sprout in. So it is in general and so it is in our own lives.

Letter #64 to Christopher Tolkien, 30 April 1944. Emphasis mine

So nobility and sanctity are always important, if not vital, even in defeat. Moreover, Eru is considered capable of himself entering Arda to fight Melkor for control of it. In any case I just can't see how even Morgoth could rob another spirit of its free will, which is an inherent part of its nature as laid down by Eru. Even he has to resort to trickery and manipulation to get characters to do his will.

Wikipedia was not my source, not that it matters. You should look at the very post you yourself linked, since among the meanings appears "great, high courage", "great courage", which is similar to what I quoted, and which refutes your previous statement that "in no way does [ofermode] equate to the Northern ideal of courage, particularly as expounded by JRRT".

I'm sorry for suggesting that. I lost my temper. Yes, I did miss that interpretation, which has indeed been put forward and quoted by Gneuss in his article. Then again, it appears at the beginning, where Gneuss identifies meanings that editors and other interpreters have put forward as a prelude to his main argument. That argument thoroughly refutes any such interpretation, since it reveals that it is not supported by linguistic evidence, only personal feelings about a text's meaning. Even were this not so, I would argue that "great, high courage" and "great courage" are not "supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form", which is far more eulogistic even than that already insupportably positive meaning. Similarity is not enough in this field; only exact correspondence of meaning will do, owing to the different nuances of meaning that two phrases invariably offer. As it happens, 'great courage' is the least supportable meaning for ofermod anyway, since the only evidence for it is a gut feeling that the Maldon poet would not have applied a term implying sinfulness to the hero of his work. As you will have noticed from the rest of my post, in all other situations in which the word occurs it does not mean 'courage', 'great courage', even 'over-courage' (in Old English ofer- is a prefix that denotes excess), but 'pride'. The sinful pride of Satan or the impenitent sinner. This is the interpretation that has the most linguistic evidence behind it, although it is still not a closed matter.

"Supreme martial honour; boldness in the highest form" goes beyond the tenuous evidence and into the realms of fiction. Rico Abrahamsen has no qualifications in the field of Old English literature, and the chances are that he misremembered some old criticism or outdated research. Certainly he gives no citation, which is absolutely vital even if one makes no more than a vague reference to the Anglo-Saxonist equivalent of the Balrog wings debate. Without a reference to follow up, I can't respond to an argument, only a statement that is clearly not based on a full understanding of the issue, so my exasperation with the argument falls entirely on Abrahamsen's undeserving head. He did after all admit that the debate about ofermod was not an appropriate discussion for his paper, and the whole matter is a side-issue to his arguments.

The idea that ofermod can be used as shorthand for the Northern heroic theory of courage has no currency or validity whatsoever. This is what I meant by the phrase 'in no way does it equate to': if a word equates to an idea then they are interchangeable, and the one may stand for the other. Ofermod was never used in that way during the Anglo-Saxon period, and it has never been so used by any modern scholar. Since the theory itself is not widely known outside medieval literary studies, I'll give a very brief synopsis.

One of the most important themes identified by scholars in Anglo-Saxon poetry, a theme which extends beyond England throughout the Germanic world, is a particular approach to martial courage which is taken to be uniquely northern. In one introduction to the idea, Catherine O'Brien O'Keefe wrote:

The ethos of heroic life pervades Old English literature, marking its conventions, imagery and values. The touchstone of that life - as represented in Old English literature at least - is the vital relationship between retainer and lord, whose binding virtue is loyalty. Continuing loyalty is ensured in the lord's giving of treasure. Through gifts of worth, a lord enhances both his own reputation and that of his retainer, and he lays upon his man the obligation of future service. In the transaction of the gift, the object given - ring, armour, horse or weapon - becomes the material reminder of the retainer's reciprocal obligation, when war service or vengeance is required.

Katherine O'Brien O'Keefe: 'Heroic Values and Christian Ethics' in Godden and Lapidge ed. The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1998). pp. 107-8.

This idea of reciprocal loyalty and obligation runs through the whole corpus of Old English literature. Its phraseology and imagery are adopted into Christian works such as Andreas and Genesis B, into riddles and maxims from the Liber Exoniensis and into elegiac poems such as The Wanderer; and Tolkien followed W.P. Ker in singling out The Battle of Maldon as exemplary of the concept. At its most pronounced, the northern heroic theory of courage could demand retainers' very lives in defending or avenging their lord, but this sacrifice would always be bound up in the giving and receiving of gifts and reciprocal responsibility. Hence Tolkien says of it

The words of Beorhtwald [in The Battle of Maldon] have been held to be the finest expression of the northern heroic spirit, Norse or English; the clearest statement of the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will. The poem as a whole has been called 'the only purely heroic poem extant in Old English'. Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity, and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put in the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards, only loyalty upwards.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: Ofermod in Tree and Leaf (HarperCollins, 2001).

This was not a theory that was necessarily put into practice, but it does form a key element in the Anglo-Saxon literary world-view: the idea that heroic conduct is bound up in concepts of mutual loyalty and responsibility between fighting men. This is the Northern Theory of Courage: loyalty to the absolute limit of endurance and beyond, but carrying so many cultural overtones that one word could never sum it up. There can never be an equality of meaning between this concept and a single word of Old English, although many of them are directly related to it. Certainly if there were such a correspondance it would not be one that carries the negative connotations of ofermod; and all of the linguistic evidence points to it having this negative sense, no matter how many others it may also possess. When it comes to Tolkien, though, there is even less excuse for formulating such an equation. Tolkien flat-out stated that ofermod means 'pride':

To fela means in Old English idiom that no ground at all should have been conceded. And ofermod does not mean 'overboldness', not even if we give full value to the ofer, remembering how strongly the taste and wisdom of the English (whatever their actions) rejected 'excess'... But mod, though it may contain or imply courage, does not mean 'boldness', any more than Middle English corage. It means 'spirit', or when unqualified 'high spirit', of which the most usual manifestation is pride. But in ofer-mod it is qualified, with disapproval: ofermod is in fact always a word of condemnation. In verse the noun occurs only twice, once applied to Beorhtnoth, and once to Lucifer.

The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son: ofermod (Tree and Leaf, footnote to p.146

Whatever the word and the theory respectively mean, to Tolkien ofermod (ofermode is the dative form, and the convention is to use nominatives when discussing words) meant 'pride' and the Northern Heroic theory of courage was exemplified by a man in whom pride was at its lowest. There is no way that he would conflate these two ideas in his writings, and I can think of no instance in which he does.

obloquy: These are great points; but if we take the speculations of the Athrabeth to their logical conclusion, the Elves and some of the Edain hold to some belief in the incarnation of Eru. Tolkien seems to have been unhappy with the obvious connection with the Christian story of the incarnation of Christ, but the parallels are striking. Could it be that Eru incarnate would be vulnerable to physical injury and death in the same way as was Christ? Would he have to obey the same physical laws as all inhabitants of Arda if he came into his own creation? The Athrabeth points out that Eru would need to be at once inside and outside Arda, thus being divided and presumably reduced in potency in the incarnate form; so it bears consideration that perhaps Eru incarnate could be stabbed in the back and physically killed.