The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Prior to this, the Trinity was just one of many ideas.

Really?

I am somewhat skeptical. Quote me one early Christian father who didn't believe in the Trinity who was NOT condemned as a heretic.

Furthermore, remembering the mystery of Unity and Trinity, remember that while Catholics believe in a three-person God, they are still believing in "The One" God. While Eru is specifically referred to as "The One", where does it say that He is One Person? For all that we know, He could be Three Persons.

[Lalwendë]

Yet this was how Christianity did develop in its early years, until 325 when the Nicene Creed (which I spelled incorrectly ) established the 'nature of God' as a Trinity. After then, yes, many will have been murdered as heretics. There's a good link here which explains some of the early history, though there's vast amounts of early Christian history on the net which goes into this more deeply.

Since this afternoon, I've discovered that other Christian faiths which are unitarian (small u) include Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and certain Pentecostal churches. The essential difference between trinitarians and unitarians is that while the former worship Christ as a deity, as an aspect of God, the latter do not, but he is just as important. Both still worship God, he just feels a bit different.

Well, my position is still that we don't know that Eru is Three or One. I would say that for Eru to be a trinity then we would have to have seen a Messiah on Arda in order for that to happen. There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... ), so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared? That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

Maybe this is why Tolkien didn't want to see emblems of religion in fantasy! He knew we'd start arguing!

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

There may be a Messiah at some point in the future, but there hasn't been one as far as we know (unless maybe we start pondering Gandalf... )

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

so Eru is still One in terms of the timeframe of Arda we know about. In terms of our world I'm sure people did not start to become Christians before Christ appeared?

Yes, but once that's conflating two issues. Christian theology (excluding the unitarian sects you mentioned) holds that God was always a trinity, even before there were any Christians.

That there has not yet been a Messiah could even hint that Arda is a Judaic world, though as I don't know enough about that, I'm not going to nail my colours to the mast on that opinion!

I think that the "Athrabeth" is rather strong evidence that Tolkien considered, at least at one time, the incarnation of God to be a definite part of Arda's future. Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

[bilbo_baggins]

You leave a thread for one day, and everyone decides to reply to it.... Now I look like a nobody.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Of course, while Gandalf may be a kind of Messianic figure, he is emphatically not a "person" of God.

May I ask what you mean by a "person" of God? Technically Gandalf is of the Valar, which are of Eru, so Gandalf is of Eru, indirectly. He isn't of the God in this world of course, because as has been shown so vigorously, Tolkien's world is not an actual picture of ours.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Of course, there is also a Messianic tradition in Judaism.

And Judaism holds that the Messiah has yet to come, so it could correlate to LoTR rather more easily than mainstream Christianity.

To beg a question that I don't think has come up is if all the emblems of religion that come up in the books (like the colors and facing the west, and even mentions of afterlife) are intentional? Some are, when he revises to make sure he does not include overtly heretical thoughts, but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

And, yes, I'm baiting.

b_b, Esq.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by bilbo_baggins

but are all the connections made because he wanted them in? Or perhaps he couldn't have them out?

Some are [because he wanted them in], some were unconscious. Per isntance, serpented banner of the enemy might have been intentional, the colour of the banner (though in accordance with the whole picture) might have been accidental. But one can never be sure. Why is it Samurai Jack wears white, whilst Aku is the darkness itself? Conventions?

Some other interesting things to take a look at:

Green as representation of Evil (by Joy)
Tolkien spirituality... a hint of buddhism? (by THE Ka)
The Role of Fate in Middle Earth (by Mithadan)
The Downfall of Númenor (by Mithadan)
Was Eru a Sadist? (by Bombadil)
Ten Commandments for Middle Earth (by Aerandir Carnesir)
Is there any hope of Redemption? (by The SaucepanMan)
Descent into Hell!!! Rarrr!...Well, sort of... (by Lush)
Science and Faith in Middle Earth (by Fordim Hedgethistle)
Forever? (by Son of Númenor)
Nebulous "It" and Absolutes (by Dininziliel)
Finrod, Andreth, and the coming of Eru (by Angry Hill Troll)
Seven Deadly Sins in Middle Earth (by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh)
The Yin and the Yang of it (by Kaiserin)
Inherent Evil (by Lord of Angmar)
Inherent Evil (by mhoram)
The Gift of Men and Atrabeth (by Voronwe)
The Ring and the Cross (by Manwe Sulimo)
Tolkien - Evolutionist or Creationalist? (by Lotessa)
Hope and Hopelessness (by Estelyn Telcontar)

[Bêthberry]

I would like for now to move away from the questions of intentionality and return to the intial framing of the topic from littlemanpoet and Son of Númenor's first reply.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they?

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

Tolkien asserted that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy.... or something to that effect (I may not have this worded or remembered quite right).

It certainly works very well in LotR. It was one of his primary criticisms of the works of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (fellow "inklings").

Do you agree or disagree that the emblems of religion don't belong in fantasy?

What were Tolkien's reasons for discluding them? Which reasons were valid back when he wrote? Are they still valid now?

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

Tolkien's assertion about emblems of religion having no place in fantasy could be linked to his dislike for allegory. Fantasy, Tolkien deemed, should have the ultimate purpose of lifting its reader to 'eucatastrophe' -- something along the lines of a state of pure revelation and joy. It would be hard for readers of different faiths to attain such a state with overtly Christian (or Muslim, Jewish, etc.) symbolism penetrating the narrative. I for one agree with Professor Tolkien; if Arwen's banner for Aragorn had a cross emblazoned on it, or if Gondor's seven stars were Stars of David, I think I would be automatically inclined to view Middle-earth as an allegorical rather than a purely fantastic world, and its purpose as evangelical rather than eucatastrophic.

I am going to consider these posts in light of a particular chapter, the 'Journey to the Cross-Roads" chapter of Book IV.

I have in the Chapter by Chapter discussion explained my reading about this chapter but I think that I can also apply my thoughts fruitfully here. I am also going to take lmp's "emblems" and use the concept more widely, to include symbolism of a particular sort. I hope this would not be taking his thoughts too broadly for what he initially intended.

In this chapter, Tolkien gives little dialogue, with the main action being the hurried and harried trek of Sam, Frodo and Gollem from the respite of Henneth Annûn towards the fateful steps of Cirith Ungol. Despite their fears, they are undiscovered and nothing happens, not even the dreadful pull of dark Mordor upon Frodo and the Ring, which begins the next chapter.

What this does is highlight the description Tolkiens offers of the geography and the terrain. It is brought to the fore as the primary topic of the chapter. That description depends very much upon darkness and upon a day that does not dawn but subsists witha sickly brownish smudge and then darkness. Some of the detail may in fact have derived from Tolkien's experience in the trenches of World War I, when the incessant guns and smoke cast a grey pallor over the sky.

Yet the predominant words are darkness and evil. Evil is repeated several times, to the point that even the road is called evil. Clearly the imagery is building towards the culmination of Minas Morgul as hell. However, because the description is so dominant in this chapter, it seems--at least to me--that Tolkien has here moved to close to allegory. All the imagery pertains so closely to that of the traditional iconography of hell that I move out of the fantasy world of Middle earth and into the primary world of Tolkien's faith. I think Son of Númenor's point about evangelical versus eucatastrophic pertains particularly well to this chapter, unlike most of the rest of LotR.

In its most extreme example, this occurs in the statement that a road can be evil. This is at least the fourth use of that word in as many pages.

He [Gollem] would not rest on the ground so near the evil road ...

The basis for this statement, and the rest of the description of Mordor as a land of incarnate evil lies in the theological concept that evil can be incarnate in a person or being. This is a philosophical or theological position and one which not every reader will ascribe to. Those who don't will, I suggest, have difficulty with this chapter because it highlights the description. Rather than being suggestive, as Tolkien I think wisely argues elsewhere, it becomes literal fact.

Coupled with this particular use of darkness, black and evil is the obvious symbolic import of the setting sun shining on the vandalised head of the statue of the king, with the even more symbolic portent of the ring of white flowers.

I think Tolkien was at least partly aware of the difficulty in writing this chapter, given his very interesting decision to give Sam a meaningful dream. I would argue, then, that this chapter demonstrates the validity of Tolkien's argument against allegory and against explicit religious symbols in fantasy. It destroys the artistry of the sub-created world by depending too much upon the iconography of the artist's primary world. Tolkien bore the truth of his idea in his own writing.

[littlemanpoet]

Bêthberry, reading your post was the first time I ever cognated Minas Morgul as hell. Are you certain that it's Tolkien allegorizing and not you? Is there somewhere in Tolkien's Letters that he refers to Minas Morgul or Mordor as his depiction of hell? The only adjective Tolkien uses for the vale of Minas Morgul in the Letters, that I could find, was "dreadful". I'll give you that MM is hellish, but that's as far as I can go.

I admit that I cannot come at this from the same space as some of you (I almost said "objectivity" instead of "space", but who are we kidding? None of us are really objective about this topic), because I was born in, raised in, and still practice, the same faith as Tolkien; so some things are apparently "home" to me that are alien to other readers.

That said, I find it interesting that you admitted that Tolkien's vision of Minas Morgul seemed to have come from his experience in WW1; in my recent reading of the chapter, I had the same thought. So did you cognate Minas Morgul as hell in your very first reading, Bêthberry? Did others of you? If you did, then this section did function for you as a disenchanting emblem of religion. I suspect that Tolkien had no such intention, but wrote this out of who he was just as much as every other part of LotR. A writer with integrity cannot be blamed for that which his readers bring to his work. Not that I think anybody's accusing Tolkien of lack of integrity; I'm just trying to point some things out; with limited success, I'm sure.