Of another world

[alatar]

Originally Posted by lmp

This is a cause of confusion. They knew that they were naked. This expresses negative self-consciousness. "Nakedness" refers to the symptom of the deep rooted state of Adam and Eve having cut themselves off from communion with God, realizing that their disobedience had caused their shame. They had stained the image of God in themselves, and they had unleashed in themselves the seed of every evil known to humanity. Sexual desire had been corrupted into lust, which is wanting to take without giving the requisite commitment that such taking entails in God's order. Et cetera.

Nice post, lmp. You answer my question and point out yet again what I'm seeing. Living in a culture where persons are typically dressed modestly, you have people thinking about Adam and Eve and how crazy it was when they realized that there weren't wearing the latest in fig fashion. This is how these persons see the text as they do not look through the eyes of Adam or Eve, but through the eyes of their own experience. Would eyes from a more primitive culture see this? I think that you rightly state that it was more of a spiritual nakedness that was the cause of shame, but your understanding of the text is more mature and thoughtful.

And I can understand when you say that life must live on the path set by an omniscient Creator, as what else can it do, but as 1/3 of the angels fell, as Adam and Eve fell, I question if God does not want at least some of His creations to take the road less travelled.

Eru was generous to Aule.

[Lalaith]

I don't think that Tolkien did, other than perhaps in Tom Bombadil's comment about "the dark when it was fearless", portray a prelapsarian Arda. (Of course, I'm going by the Sil here and he may well have written other versions, so maybe HoME readers can prove me wrong) But in the Sil, Arda was marred by Melkor before any sentient life appeared.
I always assumed the Maia who joined Melkor = Fall of the Angels.

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood?
(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

[Kath]

Mithras says 'No salvation unless & so does Jesus.

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

[Aiwendil]

Perhaps, davem, this is more fact than promise.

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

[Kath]

Fact or promise, one could say the same things about Mithras. If you read Jesus's statement as a "fact" and Mithras's as a "promise", that is you, not the texts.

Indeed but this very argument is based on opinions and how you read it. I don't actually think that, it's just an opinion and I was welcoming opposing ones.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Atlantis/Numenor, of course, but what about parallels between Numenor and the Flood? (I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood.

You read about a local 'flood' and see the Noachian deluge. Númenor was wiped out by a tsumani-like wave. Survivors escaped on a multitude of ships, not an Ark, and they did not have to carry all species of fauna back to Middle Earth. There was no mountaintop landing, no dove, no waiting for waters to recede. No rainbow at the end of the road.

And yet you, me and others see Genesis 6 in the Akallabêth.

Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

Animals are under man's dominion, and so I guess are of no consideration. They are not infilled with souls like we see in Arda. And at least in Arda babies are born 'not guilty.'

Re Tolkienian deluges, it's not just Numenor of course. The breaking of Arda during the Valar-Melkor battle must have involved thousands of innocents perishing.

Like I said, at least in Arda there are true innocents. I leave the last words to Eowyn and her quote regarding dying on swords.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

And for myself, getting back to the original question, I am most interested in (1) Tolkien's use of Elves in reference to the Atlantis legend, and (2) the many legends of sea-faring peoples who came from advanced cultures to northern Europe and delivered their wisdom and culture to the indigenous. There are the Milesians who came to Ireland, which may be the inspiration for that old Historia Britonum (please correct me someone, I know I just murdered it) which has the Trojans establishing Britain. In like manner, Tolkien has the Numenoreans come from the sinking Isle to establish their culture in Gondor and Arnor. What grabs my attention is the disconnected legends of the Irish and the known history we have of Asia Minor, giving us on one hand the folkloric "Milesians" and on the other, the citizens of Miletus, just a hundred or so miles south of Troy, which surely was just as affected by the fortunes both good and ill that befell Troy, and sent whole citizenries to their ships to find harbor in far-off ports anywhere from Carthage to Asturia to Brittany to Ireland to the Shetlands. And then there is the legend of the Fomori from the north ... there's that thing of the north again ... which puts me yet again in mind of Tolkien's choice of Morgoth in northern Thangorodrim. But now I'm wandering all over the folkloric map.....

Where would Tolkien's mythology be without a Great Flood? Most mythologies seem to have flood stories, so why should his be any different? Perhaps all these Great Floods originate from ancient memory of real floods, of Tsunami, of previous meltings of the polar ice caps and maybe times when meteorites have struck the earth and caused massive global flooding? I'm sure that there is something in the idea that British Atlantis myths such as Lyonnesse spring from the time the islands were cut adrift by the creation of the English Channel. There are also stories that in Roman times, the Scilly Isles were once one big island, which may even have been joined to Cornwall at some point.

There seem to me to be some direct parallels between the Tuatha De Danaan and the Elves. The land of Tir Na Nog could be reflected in Valinor, although this could also be an underground kingdom according to Irish folklore.

Apparently the Milesians are not the same as the Greek/Aegean people. These incomers to Ireland may have come from Spain. Although new archaeological evidence has shown that Ireland did not suffer from waves of invasion as some of the histories and myths state; in the main, Irish DNA has remained unchanged for millenia. This has also dispelled the myth that the Celts were invaders from Europe; it seems that Celtic culture spread, but not the people. Maybe a lot of the Irish tales of 'invaders' go incredibly far back, right to the times when farming cultures took over from hunter/gatherers, maybe even to when modern Man took over from Neanderthals?

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

(I must say, I agree with the reservations davem and others have expressed about Adam and Eve and the serpent, but what I find really difficult getting to grips with, is the Flood. Even if we could accept that all humanity, even new born babies, were irredeemably evil, except for Noah and co, what about all the animals? Did they have moral sense and thus commit evil and deserve to die?)

I feel the same! I can only accept a God who is Good. But Tolkien's personal view of God and his works was of a very cruel God. He himself lived through scenes of slaughter and senseless killing, and it does seem that he indeed struggled to come to balance his Faith with his experiences during the 1920s. From his writing it does become apparent that he accepted a God who did allow people to die needlessly, one who demanded blood sacrifices. In that respect, I think Tolkien would have accepted the biblical Flood as simply God's work.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm often uncomfortable with tales that ancient Greeks 'founded' British cultures. Evidence does not prove this in any way, and I often wonder if it was an attempt by scholars to impose a Classical 'nobility' onto the history of the Britons and Celts. All the evidence to suggest that these islands had a rich culture anyway are there for all to see in the huge amounts of Megalithic remains to be found all over the islands.

My comments here are quite tangential to the main argument. Concommitant with this tale of classical source was the British sense that they are the 'new chose people', the new Israelites.

Dash me if I can find all the sources to support this claim now. Memory tells me it is part and parcel of Milton's works but I've lent out my (personally annotated) copy of Paradise Lost. Possibly the idea arose from the story that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to England. (no, no, not to be confused with the Da Vinci Code.) Then there is Blake's quietly affirming hymn about Jerusalem being refounded on England's green and pleasant land.

Anyhow, I guess I am simply pointing out that a group of people can create many different myths of origin, many of which bear little resemblance to the historical fact of the peoples who 'founded' the societies which tilled the land and hunted the animals and timbered the forests and left the barrows for others to discover.

[davem]

I suppose the interesting thing about the Flood from a Tolkienian perspective is not the Biblical connection (which was most probably inspired by the Gilgamesh story), but Tolkien's own 'Atlantis' complex, which was also 'inherited' by one of his sons - Michael?

This is fascinating to me - the concept of an inherited 'dream'/fantasy. Tolkien uses the idea in his time-travel stories. It doesn't seem to have any personal reference - though I suppose a Jungian could put forward a theory along the lines of him being overwhelmed by the contents of the Collective, or Mythic, Unconscious.

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Unless we are to understand that there were really two (or possibly more) floods - but then how come the Bible only mentions one - & of a totally different sort ? What we seem to have is an account of a flood which rather 'confirms' the 'truth' of the various Pagan versions of the Myth - Plato's in particular.

Odd....

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its a powerful image, but not a Biblical one (Alatar has pointed out the significant differences). This makes me wonder about the Biblical inspiration behind Tolkien's Legendarium generally. Tolkien could have had a Great Flood in his work which matched the Biblical account, but he didn't - instead he went for the 'Pagan' version - 'Atlantis' destroyed by an angry Deity.

Its another example of Tolkien being able to tie his Legendarium more closely into Biblical 'history' but choosing not to. Only Numenor is annihilated, not the whole of Middle-earth. Its as if he is deliberately avoiding Biblical parallels. If his theory that Myths are 'distored' versions of Biblical Truth why would he do this?

Of course, the easy answer would be that he was creating a Myth himself & because all Myths are 'distortions' he felt his own Myth should be as 'distorted' as all the others. Yet we know that his approach was to try & discover 'what really happened'. So the problem arises - if he was attempting to tell the 'real' Truth of the ancient past, is writing about a devastating flood which changed the whole world, why doesn't his account echo the Biblical account more precisely?

Whilst surfing the Net this morning I came upon a reference to this very point of the Legendarium's parallels with Christianity. I don't have HoMe X, so I can't verify the context and idea.

The relevant passage:

Originally Posted by Damien Casey, fn 12

In constructing his mythology Tolkien was concerned not to paralleled the Christian biblical story too closely lest his tale parody Christianity . Commenting upon an imaginative dialogue between an elf and a woman on the nature and destiny of human beings Tolkien questions whether it is already "(if inevitably) too like a parody of Christianity. Any legend of the Fall would make it completely so?" J.R.R. Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring. The History of Middle Earth Volume 10, edited by Christopher Tolkien, (London: Harper Collins, 1993) 354.

This I find fascinating, for it suggests that Tolkien had a poetics of parody in his head even if he did not articulate it on paper. (Oh what would he say of REB?) He also clearly was aware of how similar or not to make his work to the Bible.

Perhaps those who have HoMe X can elaborate?

The article I was reading: The Gift of Ilùvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision