Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (and Seventh?) Ages

[Galadriel55]

Is this thread inspired by your in-depth research into Tolkien calendars over on the Password thread?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

6th Age: 1AD to present. We know this one.

Oh, but that is the most interesting endpoint, because we can actually decide that one without significant historical bias! Aside from Ages ending, rather than beginning, as you rightly note, the endpoint also is determined by the living people of that time. They are not determined post-factum by historians digging through old scrolls in Rivendell's or Gondor's libraries. This is the opposite of the retrospective way we tend to define historical periods in our world. The retrospective method carries bias: we judge events not by their immediate significance, but by their historical impact as it was relayed to us; and with our judgement we bring our modern-world-influenced criteria, which, much as we try, would not match up perfectly with the criteria of a person living thousands of years ago.

Which brings me to two points. Firstly, we, the people alive now, are in power to determine the boundary between the 6th and 7th Ages. Yes, we might not be the perfect generations for it, but we are probably close enough to still feel the impact of the Age change and to at least judge it with Age-appropriate values. So, do we assume we are in the 7th Age, or has that switch not flipped yet? If we are still in the 6th Age, then the discussion is moot because the critical events have not yet happened. So for the purpose of empty but entertaining speculation, can we assume that we are in the 7th Age now? Then we can go hunting for the endpoint of the 6th. Looking somewhat retrospectively, you could argue for a pattern of increasingly large scale wars in Europe and elsewhere from the 1800s up until WWII, and relative change in the organization of the world afterwards. However, the argument against that is that I am myself speaking with historical bias, and if the end of a horrific massive world-destroying war with promised peace to come was to be marked as the end of an Age by the people living then, it would have already been done after the Great War; the reason I do not agree is because I know that WWII is to follow not even a lifespan later, but you couldn't know that in 1918. What other major recent (well, "recent") world-changing events are there that could mark the change of an Age? ...Surprisingly, it took me this many mentions of it in one post to think of the current pandemic (*facepalm*). But the beginning of a new lifestyle imposed by an illness does not sound like the end of an Age, because it is not an ending and because it is negative (as William notes, the legendarium Ages end something bad to leave something hopefully more good). You could argue that we have witnessed the end of normal socialization, but I would rather not start an Age on such a pessimistic note and as a participating living individual actively vote against this choice. Nobody starts an Age with the Black Breath.

But the second implication that comes of trying to dissociate from the hindsight perspective is that neither the birth nor the death of Christ can mark the change of an Age, because from the perspective of the 1AD and 33AD people, there was no world-changing event. The significance we give to these events would not be given by the people living even just in Jerusalem itself, forget about the rest of humanity. While the significance is undoubtable to us in the far future (heck, we even count our years from it, humanity at one point really did decide Nativity was an Age-turning point!), there was nothing world-shakingly remarkable about it from the perspective of Christ's contemporaries. The world did not believe an Age ended, or began.


Having gone through this exercise, I now realize that we traditionally mark our Ages more by beginnings rather than endings. The start of warm climate; the beginning of European migration; the start of agriculture; the invention of some tool or technique, be it iron forging or the printing press. We put more emphasis on what makes a lasting impact with ripples to our present, we don't naturally judge it by things that ended and thus did not reach us. We still have some endings mixed in there: a fall of an empire, an end of slavery. But to my non-expert eye, it seems that we are missing quite a lot of endings. If our history was like Middle-earth history, our Ages would be punctuated by things like Neanderthals dying out or something. We call the Renaissance that because of what happened over the entirety of the time period and what followed, not because it marked the end of the Middle Ages. But it would be the opposite way around if we were to call the Ages out "in real time", so to speak: an end is more immediately recognizable than a beginning, because beginnings need time to evolve into significant change.


Saying all of that, I would be very happy if someone came up with an argument to reconcile the prospective and retrospective divide, or give some good counter-examples for the retrospect bias. My head would hurt a lot less if I could go back to thinking of Jesus as the start of an Age. But would equally be interested in hearing if you know of any examples when we as a society did call an Age-change in real time and it wasn't just people screaming about nothing.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Is this thread inspired by your in-depth research into Tolkien calendars over on the Password thread?

I knew when I started having to look up Middle Quenya trivia that it was going to be a strange experience...

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Saying all of that, I would be very happy if someone came up with an argument to reconcile the prospective and retrospective divide, or give some good counter-examples for the retrospect bias. My head would hurt a lot less if I could go back to thinking of Jesus as the start of an Age. But would equally be interested in hearing if you know of any examples when we as a society did call an Age-change in real time and it wasn't just people screaming about nothing.

I can fix Jesus for you, provided you're happy to accept the Resurrection as the Age-turnover - and provided you're happy to stop thinking of the living for a bit. In the Catholic view - which, as Tolkien was writing, I think we have to allow as "true" for this discussion - the day between the crucifixion and resurrection was the Harrowing of Hell. I had to check, but the Catholic version is indeed that Christ released all the righteous souls who had died before him from their torment, and let them into heaven. As a "dark angel is overthrown" moment, they don't get much more significant.

As you say, this wasn't exactly widely commented-on at the time - but Catholicism claims a line of authority going back to the disciple Simon Peter, who presumably would have known. Okay, it took 300 years for Christianity to become prominent in the Roman Empire - but how long did it take for anyone inland to become aware of Beleriand's fall? It doesn't have to be everyone knowing.

From a "northwest of the Old World, east of the Sea" perspective, I'll also note that only ten years separate the crucifixion and the Roman invasion of Britain. Alas, poor Hobbits...

On to the Seventh Age... from a Biblical perspective, a plague - or rather, beating one - might be more likely than you'd think. Pestilence is one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, right? Defeating a Horseman seems significant enough to end an Age - which would make the turnover either Jenner's invention of vaccination in 1796, or Fleming's discovery of penicillin in 1928 (per Pratchett & Gaiman).

I would be inclined to go for the former, as 1796 also marks the point the Industrial Revolution really took off. The first high-pressure steam engine was built in 1797! This is very much an "ending/beginning" moment - the (or a) year when humanity finally broke free of the chains of nature.

Of course this is a very parochial and British viewpoint, but we are discussing Tolkien... ^_~

Working from this hypothesis (which Tolkien probably would not have come up with, safe to say), what do the Age lengths look like?

1: uncounted+590
2: 3441
3: 3021
4: 2201*
5: 2073*
6: 1763
7: 225 and counting

*Shifting to the formation of the Middle as the date here, to get the lengths to line up better and take into account the fact that the Fall of Numenor wasn't the end of the Second Age - the defeat of Sauron was, which happened after Gondor and Arnor were established.

~

The problem is that any more literal approach requires finding someone we can all agree is either a fallen angel in disguise, or a servant thereof. And, like, Hitler... but Tolkien was pretty dismissive of Hitler, and more inclined to think of the Great War. Given that the weapons of both wars are certainly Orc-work, it's also hard to view anyone involved in the same light as Aragorn, Gil-Galad, or Earendil.

Napoleon might be a viable contender - he certainly changed the world map, laying the ground for the formation of unified Germany, Italy, and America (by selling Louisiana). He took control of France in 1799, right about the same time as the Jenner vaccine - which leads to the amusing notion that he might actually be the grand heroic figure in this scenario! I bet Tolkien would have loved that...!

(I'm digging rather deeper than necessary into this aspect of the thing, because I'm mildly peeved to discover that Tolkien uses the word "iron" a lot in the Silm, and it's throwing off my Mesolithic Beleriand efforts.)

EDIT: Neanderthals, interestingly, died out around 40,000 years ago. The Long Timeline would place that right around the raising of the Lamps and the beginning of the Spring of Arda, which regrettably probably makes them creations of Melkor, animated by his will and perishing when he was banished.

hS

[Zigûr]

Interesting thread as usual Huinesoron

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The problem is that any more literal approach requires finding someone we can all agree is either a fallen angel in disguise, or a servant thereof.

And Professor Tolkien considered the end of the Third Age to be the end of "incarnate evil" (as opposed to the evil that Men do), as WCH has said. Thus it would presumably take on less personalised forms.

Napoleon might be a viable contender

As an amateur student of Napoleonic history I feel like Bonaparte is far too mixed a figure to be either a servant of evil or a hero. However, Professor Tolkien did say that the successive leaders of Gondor would be like "Denethor or worse"; I feel like "Great Man history" doesn't mesh with a Tolkienian concept of ages, as he seemed to see the future as ever-blander mediocrity. I'm not sure we even get to slot Caesar, Alexander and the like in here, although the Gondor-Egypt concept does make the idea of a Ramesses or similarly significant pharaonic figure appealing.

I was going to suggest "abolition of slavery" or similar as an evil defeated, but it seems to me that the ends of Ages were the defeats of "similar, just lesser" evils, which did not really make the world a better place (in fact they tended to accelerate decline), just saved it from uncontested demonic tyranny for another few thousand years. So if successive Ages have ended in similar ways, it's difficult to say; it's so much harder to see. Professor Tolkien did dislike empires though, so their collapses might have merit: "I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!))" (Letter 53); "I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians" (Letter 77). Perhaps there's something there? I'm inclined towards Galadriel55's view of the Great War as an Age-turning moment.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I was going to suggest "abolition of slavery" or similar as an evil defeated, but it seems to me that the ends of Ages were the defeats of "similar, just lesser" evils, which did not really make the world a better place (in fact they tended to accelerate decline), just saved it from uncontested demonic tyranny for another few thousand years. So if successive Ages have ended in similar ways, it's difficult to say; it's so much harder to see. Professor Tolkien did dislike empires though, so their collapses might have merit: "I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth (grr!))" (Letter 53); "I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians" (Letter 77). Perhaps there's something there?

In which case... the Great War. Multiple empires were broken up when it ended, notably the German and Ottoman; Ireland won its independence from English rule; and it was only a few years later that Britain's Dominions (Canada, Australia etc) were formally given the right to set their own foreign policy. You also have the establishment of the League of Nations (the proto-UN), which marks the beginning of a move towards international cooperation in non-military fields. (Well... sort of.)

It also feels right to make 1919 the end/start of an Age in a Tolkien context. Along with Christ, it's certainly the most plausible for him to have been thinking of (much more so than the smallpox vaccine!). And it's got the 'accelerated decline' element, too: the First World War marked the final end of the knightly/warrior form of battle, and enshrined the dominance of 'Orcish' mechanised war. A grim end to the Sixth Age, but the ends of the First and Second weren't particularly rosy either.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Zigûr

As an amateur student of Napoleonic history I feel like Bonaparte is far too mixed a figure to be either a servant of evil or a hero. However, Professor Tolkien did say that the successive leaders of Gondor would be like "Denethor or worse"; I feel like "Great Man history" doesn't mesh with a Tolkienian concept of ages, as he seemed to see the future as ever-blander mediocrity. I'm not sure we even get to slot Caesar, Alexander and the like in here, although the Gondor-Egypt concept does make the idea of a Ramesses or similarly significant pharaonic figure appealing.

And at this end of history, we are taking a more critical view of 'heroic' figures from our past. Was Alexander a glorious unifier, or a subjugator of ancient nations? He brought Egypt under Greek rule, establishing the Ptolemeic dynasty which would eventually yield it to Rome... there are no historical figures of the heroic nature of Aragorn, Gil-Galad, Earendil. For that, you have to turn to stories - Beowulf, Arthur at his best, the warriors of the Norse sagas...

Which, I suppose, was Tolkien's point all along. If Middle-earth was real, it was a time when the things we now tell in stories were actually true.

hS

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

In which case... the Great War. Multiple empires were broken up when it ended, notably the German and Ottoman; Ireland won its independence from English rule; and it was only a few years later that Britain's Dominions (Canada, Australia etc) were formally given the right to set their own foreign policy. You also have the establishment of the League of Nations (the proto-UN), which marks the beginning of a move towards international cooperation in non-military fields. (Well... sort of.)

Indeed. I think I took too long editing my previous comment! (see the end of what I said before as I updated) I definitely think it has some resonance as a significant moment.

This might also tie in to the idea of more ambiguous individuals in the "modern" era; we also have more ambiguous conflicts. It's no longer the free peoples of the West versus the Shadow; it's "we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring" (Letter 66) shades of grey.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Indeed. I think I took too long editing my previous comment! (see the end of what I said before as I updated) I definitely think it has some resonance as a significant moment.

From a "Legendarium is real" perspective, it all feels a bit on-the-nose; but from a "mindreading Tolkien" angle, I agree that the Great War is probably the answer.

Jumping back into the pseudohistory side, I've just learned of the Varna Necropolis, on the shores of the Black Sea (or Sea of Nurn, if you prefer; the right-angle bend of the southern Carpathians makes that undeniable). It dates to 4600-4200 BC, right on the button for the end of the Third Age (my date was 4241 BC), and includes the oldest known gold treasure in the world.

It also includes this chap:



He's the highest-status burial in the necropolis, and may be the earliest known elite male burial in the world. He carries a war adze/mace, and is positively covered in gold.

I really want to go go full Schliemann and claim this is the body of King Elessar himself, but that's obviously ridiculous. Elessar fought with a sword, and would have been buried with his crown, not a huge gold necklace. Also, this body was buried in Mordor.

Obviously, it's the skeleton of Sauron Himself.

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

the day between the crucifixion and resurrection was the Harrowing of Hell. I had to check, but the Catholic version is indeed that Christ released all the righteous souls who had died before him from their torment, and let them into heaven. As a "dark angel is overthrown" moment, they don't get much more significant.

Although it's not something the Church says much about these days, it would have been known to any medievalist, and especially to a Middle English scholar like Tolkien since it features prominently (and dramatically) in Piers Ploughman.

Which then turns to the theory of Aragorn as Christ-figure, specifically as Christ-the-King*: What does Aragorn do but descend into the abode of the accursed Dead, bring them out with him, and by releasing them restore to them the Gift of Men?

_________________
* Frodo (who "dies" on Mt Doom and returns to life**) is Christ-the-sacrificial-lamb or Suffering Servant; Gandalf (who literally dies and returns) is Christ-the-Priest

** In the first draft, Frodo's coma lasted for - wait for it - three days.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I really want to go go full Schliemann and claim this is the body of King Elessar himself, but that's obviously ridiculous. Elessar fought with a sword, and would have been buried with his crown, not a huge gold necklace. Also, this body was buried in Mordor.

Very, very minor side-quibble: Elessar most certainly would not have been buried in his crown because: a.) he wasn't buried and b.) Eldarion would worn the crown.

Regarding the first point, it is entirely possible he could have been buried at a later date to avoid tomb-robbers (the orkish work of <i>The New Shadow</i> perhaps?).

But, regarding the second, the crown had been made in the reign of Atanatar Alcarin, replacing one that had been used since Isildur's day. As epochal a king as Elessar was, it would not have been "buried" with him, but would have been used for his heir. The reason, I presume, that it was brought to him at the time of his own coronation from Rath Dínen is because Eärnur left no heir, so the crown was left with the last king till the arrival of the new.