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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Never saw Minas Morgul as Hell - surely a dreadful place, but if there were a Hell in the story, then I think that it would be located somewhat closer to Barad Dur.

Well, heck, alatar, hell is an expansive place. Dante's has several levels and Milton's has a capital city (Pandemonium).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

Well, I can certainly see why you did not participate in Fordim's Canonicity thread, lmp. My point here was to consider Tolkien's comment and relate it to his work rather than to Lewis's as is often done. For much of LotR, I think Tolkien handles his allusions to his faith very much in keeping with his avowed intention. For me, he creates a secondary world of great awe and splendor, with the delight being that his allusions ask for readers such as yourself and myself to intuit that fuller meaning. I think this is a crucial aspect of Tolkien's art, that he choose deliberately to veil some things. In doing so, he places certain demands on his readers. He expects them to become very active readers, seeking out patterns, consistencies, putting things together. To my mind, he is an author who holds out greater rewards for readers who are creative rather than passive.

To that end, this chapter of the Cross Roads disappointed me because it destroyed that secondary world. The imagery, symbols, descriptions, became too obvious. Do I discount Tolkien as a superb writer for that? Hardly. I cannot think of one writer who does not at times fall from the hight of his or her talent. Authors are, after all, human, and humans are on this long defeat.

Like you, I have recently been reading about Tolkien's World War I experiences and that likely helped me on this reading place some of the characteristics of the felt experience here. Yet I don't think they are intended to suggest that experience, to lead readers to say, yes, this was what it was like in the trenches. The experience supplied "information" which, together with Tolkien's literary and religious experience, went into the cauldron here to describe this long march.

Why did I refer these descriptions to Hell? Because--and this was even as a child--I understand the evil in LotR as an absence of goodness, a complete and utter separation from those things which Galadriel, Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Sam stand for. Anyone who grew up reading Victorian literature as I did knows Tophet and Moloch's Valley of Hinnon, and Milton and Dante too. The cultural milieu is inescapable--even if one wanted to. While the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses hell as a place of punishment for those who have chosen to reject God, Pope John Paul II discussed hell more in terms of estrangement from God. It is this concept which informs my reading. That it differs from yours should not be the grounds for innuendo about the lack of integrity in other readings.

Originally Posted by davem

Isn't this simply the nature of Faerie - both good & evil are incarnate in that world rather than simply moral concepts. LotR isn't a 'realistic' novel, but a fairy story - which is why its so relevant (& why so many 'realistic' novels are not).

I clearly was not clear in my explanation! My point here was not to deny the role of good and evil in Faerie but to suggest that, for me, because of the way this chapter is written (and came to be written) this particular part of LotR destroyed the secondary world for me by bringing the references from the primary world too directly to mind. I don't have this response to other chapters we have already discussed; I don't object to good and evil in Lothlorien or Moria. My point is I guess an aesthetic one rather than a narrative one. This is why I found Son of Númenor's distinction between evangelical and eucatastrophic so interesting. SoNo generated an explanation from Tolkien's own ideas. And it was that creativity which prompted my reply here.

EDIT: cross posted with SpM and Lal!

[Mithalwen]

To put a slightly contrary point (surprise, suprise ), I was a believer when I first read the books and am now am definitely not (and this has not affected my love of the books btw), however I think it may be possible for people to be inherently evil (for want of a better word).

A couple of years ago, I attended some lectures and workshops given by an eminent criminal psychologist and while in many of the cases examined you could argue nature v. nurture indefinitely the cases I found most disturbing were those where the criminal behaviour could have biological factors. One is the vastly disproportionate number of men in prison who have two y chromosomes against the general population. While some argue that the slightly freaky appearance this gives leads to alienation and so an increased likelihood of becoming criminally antisocial, I don't think the genetic factor can be discounted completely : there is that more common genetic defect that vastly increases your chances of winding up in gaol, the Xy combo .... Men with an extra y chromosome are statistically more likely to become violent killers, women with an extra x chromosome are merely extra girly girls who on no account should be allowed to drive cars ( I might as well offend absolutely everyone while I am at it) .... I think there could be something in it.

Scarier were these kids with abnormal brainwaves - they were unbelievably violent and destructive so much so that even family members feared for their safety, and family pets were killed without seeming malice or remorse.

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

All this is a long way of saying that the concept of evil is not exclusive to religion.
*confusing self now*

[Formendacil]

I can believe that there is an influencing factor in that criminals have a greater tendency towards having an extra X chromosome (in men). However, I cannot believe that this necessarily makes them criminal. An extra chromosome means a different physical makeup, which make them uncomfortable in society. Is the fact that more of them tend to go into crime a sign that such men are inherently criminal, or that such men tend to feel unaccepted in normal society, and thus tend to leave it? Either way, I'm not sold.

And then with regards to brainwaves, I will admit to know next to nil on the subject, but I wonder. Are the brainwaves present AFTER the evil sets in (and thus as an effect of it), or are they there BEFORE (and thus the cause)?

If you apply the same reasoning to the orks, one wonders: the orks seem inherently evil. Is this a result of their "culture", which forces them into evil, which modifies their brain so that they are "conditioned" to be evil? Or is it something that they are born with, making them automatically evil?

I also find it interesting that Hell is being read into Minas Morgul...

SpM and Lalwende have both admitted to being not-exactly-active religious-wise, and some others, such as alatar, are self-confessed as not coming from the same religious stock as the good professor.

Now I am a Catholic. Anyone looking at my current signature should be able to read this and say "duh! you're Catholic". What's more, I am a well-educated in the Catholic faith, and actually believe everything taught in it. So I believe that single priests are good, male-only priests are fine, that Hell actually exists, and no, contraception is wrong. In other words, exactly the same religion that Tolkien himself professed, quite strongly, throughout his entire life.

Now, I am not trying to inflame anybody with my firm Catholicism. I am simply setting up for my point, which is this: I find it rather amazing that I, whose religious background is the same as the author's, did not read this religious application into Minas Morgul.

Yes, it was more than a decade from Tolkien's death until my birth. Yes, it was a lot longer from his childhood until mine. Yes, I have not got the EXTENSIVE training that he had in pagan mythology. All the same, Catholic beliefs have not changed in 50 years. Some of the Disciplines have, some of the emphasis has, but none of the basic doctrines. So how is it that Tolkien, who consciously revised The Lord of the Rings as a Catholic work, didn't raise any flags in my mind in this chapter? Ever.

It's something to think about, don't you agree?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I can believe that there is an influencing factor in that criminals have a greater tendency towards having an extra X chromosome (in men). However, I cannot believe that this necessarily makes them criminal. An extra chromosome means a different physical makeup, which make them uncomfortable in society. Is the fact that more of them tend to go into crime a sign that such men are inherently criminal, or that such men tend to feel unaccepted in normal society, and thus tend to leave it? Either way, I'm not sold.

And then with regards to brainwaves, I will admit to know next to nil on the subject, but I wonder. Are the brainwaves present AFTER the evil sets in (and thus as an effect of it), or are they there BEFORE (and thus the cause)?

I did actually mention the alienation thing in my post. As for the brainwaves it may be the result of oxygen starvation at birth. The more I learn about psychology, the more you realise how much we are affected by the biology and chemistry of our brain. While the casue and effect is debatable it does add a different slant if there is a possibility of evil having a bio-chemical aspect.

While I am evidently not catholic, I have studied the reformation, worked in Catholic schools, have Catholic friends, read both Vatican 2 and The New Catholic Catchechism (I was helping someone with some research), and I would say that there have been some changes since Vatican 2 which may or may not be significant....

Also as a point of fact Tolkien was baptised Anglican....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on?

And from this point on, Tolkien's writing style changes, becoming more heavy and ponderous, or biblical, as it has been termed. He is here beginning to move on from the struggles of the journey to the struggles of the great deeds, battles and sieges. More symbolism could well be a natural result of trying to write in such a high flown style; there is more use of hyperbole and ever grander descriptions are needed as the days get darker and the battles harder. It is a way of emphasising the importance of what all the characters are engaged in. Tolkien had to show that the battle with Shelob was worse than the battle with the Balrog, that the Battle of the Pelennor Fields was worse than the battle of Helms Deep. He was building up the momentum by making the language more dense and noble.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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.

Thinking again about whether a place can be inherently evil, a 'Hell', I thought of Auschwitz, if its right to use this as a comparison I do not know, so I apologise if that does offend anybody. The place remains of course as a memorial and reminder, but when operative, was it the place that was evil or what the place was used for? What was done there was more evil than anything we might imagine, and even now, the symbols of the train tracks which go nowhere else and the chimneys are incredibly powerful symbols of evil. But is it the place itself that is evil, or what was done there that is evil? What I am saying is that a deed can be an evil deed, or an intention can be an evil intention, but can a place be evil? Even if we say that by being in such a place it might inspire a person to commit evil acts, is that the fault of the place or something within the person?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one, but if I did then I could definitely agree or disagree that Minas Morgul was Hell. As it is, it may or may not appear so to us as readers; and the fact that we can each interpret that vision ourselves actually makes it effective writing. Remembering that it is the Tower of the Moon, it ought also to have shifting characteristics, and it seems to have these if we can all read it differently.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

All this, if it is ever proved has great repercussions - morally and legally can people be punished for things which are not their fault? But the wider community has to be protected and if someone is biologically destined to kill do you let them walk the streets until they do?

Scientists are always trying to explain evil deeds, and the nature/nurture debate always rears its head. Someone may have certain hormonal or mental disabilities which statistically may make them more likely to commit crimes, but statistics are also often misleading and contradictory. The hormonal imbalances which are seen in x percentage of criminals may seem to be the cause of their crimes, but it may instead be lack of proper medical and social care which leads people to be disaffected and hence commit crimes.

The law does take this into account. If a criminal is found to have acted under diminished responsibility then they are charged and dealt with accordingly. We can't do much more than that, as where does it stop if we start looking at probabilities?

But what is evil anyway? We automatically label a murderer as evil, but what about the greedy chief executive who siphons assets until the company goes bust and all the workforce are sacked and plunged into poverty? Or the company which buys cheap produce from third world countries where the workers are treated badly?

Evil of course is more defined in the moral structure of Arda, but even there it pays to be careful and not too presumptious about a person. Gollum is plainly untrustworthy and unstable, but Gandalf knows that he is also not entirely evil; he shows that inherent evil is not quite so easy to define as we might think.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Scientists are always trying to explain evil deeds, and the nature/nurture debate always rears its head. Someone may have certain hormonal or mental disabilities which statistically may make them more likely to commit crimes, but statistics are also often misleading and contradictory. The hormonal imbalances which are seen in x percentage of criminals may seem to be the cause of their crimes, but it may instead be lack of proper medical and social care which leads people to be disaffected and hence commit crimes.

The law does take this into account. If a criminal is found to have acted under diminished responsibility then they are charged and dealt with accordingly. We can't do much more than that, as where does it stop if we start looking at probabilities?

.

Once again I would point out the caveats in my original posts......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Once again I would point out the caveats in my original posts......

And I apologise for not recognising that! I just could not help myself but put in the causal link between the disability and the negative consequences, it's an occupational hazard. And I have to confess, disability issues are a bit of a hobby horse.

Another idea - if Hell is symbolised (for some) by certain places in Middle Earth, what is also interesting is that there has already been a Hell, the one created by Morgoth. This one was destroyed yet another one has been created which has to be destroyed. Will this continue throughout the history of Middle Earth? The story The New Shadow in HoME seems to hint at this, and interestingly it would be a Hell created by Men. So each Hell would be created by powers increasingly more 'weak' or earthly. And together with this, the 'Heaven' of Middle Earth becomes increasingly less magical along with the destruction of each Hell. The Middle Earth of the Third Age is a little less magical than Beleriand, and the Fourth Age ME is a little less magical than the Third Age ME, with the departure of the Elves. As time passes by it seems Middle Earth would eventually become like our own world where both Hell and Heaven are somehow diminshed and at times, indistinguishable.

[littlemanpoet]

I wasn't clear before.

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is realtively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 213 and subsequently) ... The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die ...... It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyond the measure of mortal kind.

Religion is (usually formal) human activity in response to the perceived supernatural.

Tolkien hesitates to call it religious, but does not stop from doing so. The Elves seem gifted to make everyday created stuff supernaturally potent, be it food, rope, clothing, boats that don't sink, swords that reveal the presence of enemies; even in the Third Age.

But why does Tolkien call this "religious"?

Is it because it's supernatural? Or is it because it's consciously Catholic in the revision? Which reminds me of another thread I haven't found in a while, "Consciously So in the Revision".

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The Elves seem gifted to make everyday created stuff supernaturally potent, be it food, rope, clothing, boats that don't sink, swords that reveal the presence of enemies; even in the Third Age.

Would disagree. What exactly did the Elves of the Third Age create that would surpass (in greatness units? ) something created in the Second or First? The swords, Rings, lembas etc are created earlier. One may bake a new batch of lembas, but the recipe is still the same as it ever was.

Was Aragorn's sheath for Anduril created? Was Anduril created anew or simply just Narsil 2.0?

Even Arwen, the Evenstar, did not rival Tinúviel.

My take on the elves regarding rope, boats and other 'well-made' items is just that - after sitting around pondering and experimenting with rope weaving/design/use for 3-4 thousand years one tends to end up with a well-made product. That and we would have to include a little extra- or super- natural input into the same as we are considering elves.

And if you're tutored in the same by some Elf who's seen Aman...

[davem]

Thinking about it, doesn't LotR start to become more & more loaded with 'symbolism' from this point on? Mordor is depicted as Hell on earth, with, at its heart, a place of supernatural fire, Minas Tirith is referred to in terms which make it seem a physical 'echo' of the Heavenly City, the Eagle's song, as Shippey has pointed out bears striking similarities to the psalms of the King James Bible both in style & wording - 'Sing ye people of the Tower of Guard...The Black Gate is thrown down, & your King has passed through & he is victorious. And he shall come again & dwell among you all the days of your lives'...etc. We also have (Shippey again) the fact that the Fall of Sauron takes place on March 25th - the old date of Easter, etc, etc. Not to mention Frodo's passing into the West, which may or may not symbolise his death, depending on how you choose to read it....

It may be significant that this 'turn' in the narrative takes place after the encounter with Faramir - in fact it could be argued that this 'turn' occurs at the moment in Henneth Annun where the Rangers turn to face West before eating. Something is 'invoked' there which seems to become active in the story, which take an increasingly symbolic turn from then on, moving away from the 'pagan' to the 'Christian', from 'myth' to 'Religion'. Its almost like we experience 'Incarnation' from this point, as things which up to this point have been merely history & legend become real & present. Sam's discussion of Story seems to refer to this, when he talks about the Star Glass containing the Light of the Silmaril borne by Earendel. We've gone from 'myth' to 'reality' all of a sudden. The 'Holy' Light of the Silmaril, the Light of the Two Trees, suddenly blazes forth in fact from the hand of Frodo the Hobbit. He holds forth the Light of the Trees in the Darkness of Cirith Ungol, & once again we're back to 'primary world' religious emblems - 'The Light Shines in the Darkness, & the Darkness has not overcome it.'

Yet, if Middle-earth was this world in ancient times, & if, as Tolkien believed, Christianity is True, why would such things not be present in some form in Middle-earth? What I'm getting at is, the forms, the 'outward signs' of Religion certainly do not belong in Faerie (or in the historical period before they came into being) but the 'facts' those forms & emblems refer to, if they are True must exist there, if Faerie itself is at all True.

(Davem takes refuge in his sig, in case he's just contradicted himself....)

[littlemanpoet]

The Eagles' words being reminiscent of King James English may have more to do with the state of early 17th century English than biblicality of language; I wonder what the Psalms would sound like if they were translated verbatim from Davidic Hebrew to modern English, or to King James English?

In Letter #210, Tolkien critiques the abortive Zimmerman screenplay of the late 50's. One interesting statement made by Tolkien in this context is:

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is realtively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind (my bold). This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 213 and subsequently.

There is a footnote to 'III 213', which runs like so:

The lembas had a virtue without which they would long ago have lain down to die ...... It fed the will, and it gave strength to endure, and to master sinew and limb beyondn the measure of mortal kind.

The word "religious" is used in the first quote, and perhaps explained in the second. Is lembas a religious emblem, or not?

I especially appreciate the reference to "veiled", as one or more of you have used it, for our discussion has served to reveal to me that emblems of religion (Catholic and ancient mythic) seem to be scattered all over LotR, but veiled. Which raises my original question perhaps in a fresh way. Is it perhaps a matter of craft rather than either/or?

[alatar]

Great posts all - too much to take in.

Originally Posted by davem

Yet, if Middle-earth was this world in ancient times, & if, as Tolkien believed, Christianity is True, why would such things not be present in some form in Middle-earth? What I'm getting at is, the forms, the 'outward signs' of Religion certainly do not belong in Faerie (or in the historical period before they came into being) but the 'facts' those forms & emblems refer to, if they are True must exist there, if Faerie itself is at all True.

One way to 'fit' the ME history with our own plus stay consistent with Christianity, one can set the Fourth Age in BCE then assume that the ME history has been blurred a bit during repeated transcriptions. As assumedly the events in ME did not happen in the Middle East (but in Europe?), then Biblical references to the crowning of Aragorn, Gondor, Elves etc can be easily be accounted for as these weren't part of the 'world' at that time. For example, does the Bible refer to events in China?

And reading the various posts made me see a similarity between the ME and Christian Bible history. In each, one goes from an ancient time of worldy Paradise to a more modern age where miracles (meaning what we would consider to be miracles) are less common, human lives are shortened and intervention by the Divine is more subtle if existent. Knowledge, meaning the kind that would seem divine in nature, is also decreasing - one does not see anyone building Orthanc or making Palantiri in the Third Age.

Evil too is in a slide, becoming more human in form as time passes.

I would say, from a naturalistic pov, that the reverse has taken place in our reality/world. Surely there were golden ages in the past, but we now live longer, have more technology and knowledge (but not wisdom ). One thing is the same though; the intervention of the Divine is less apparent than in the past.

And a few post scripts:

Males are XY and females are XX (with a few exceptions, of course). I'm a skeptic (it's my religion). And I believe in genetic predisposition, not genetic predeterminism, meaning that most things aren't 'on/off' but are a spectrum ( a 'normal' bell curve) where one can have a greater or lesser predisposition to a trait.