That good night: gift or punishment?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it general knowledge, and for some reason I just can't find the same (laziness, perhaps ), but do all humans receive the Gift, meaning the escape from the confines of Arda or to be with Eru? Or is this limited to the virtuous and obedient? Would Denethor, Bill Ferny, the Mouth of Sauron etc all escape?

All humans receive the Gift of Death (although it seems to be much delayed in some more than others), but what happens to the spirits of Men after the departure from Arda... who knows?

Tolkien indicates that release from Arda is a welcome thing for those who have lived good lives: Beren, Luthien, Elros, Aragorn... But I don't recall any statements about those who weren't so good. Certainly the Mouth of Sauron dies (and so receives the Gift of Men), but we are not told if his lot in the afterlife is comparable to that of Beren or Luthien, say.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

"To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure."

What better gift than the adventure of a lifetime?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

This will again seem like I'm on my hobby horse, but I think we have to restrict ourselves to the way in which death can be seen as a 'gift' within the context of Middle earth. In Middle earth there is no account of what happens to men after death

Ah, davem, it seems like a high time to bring my own mount of choice to race you in this Derby. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with discussing inside the ME bounds, I have several bones to pick, and maybe even gnaw at with you

Per instance, why should not we see Death as a punishment and a gift at the same time? Even not drawing in Primary World references, Atrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth hints at possibilities of viewing it thus, as, you no doubt, remember, as seen here

Indeed, it is a Punishment – severance of the body and soul, which was not originally designed, is a pain in itself. It is a gift, gift of freedom, for unless the soul should be let go, the whole combination goes under Morgoth. Whatever lies beyond (and is unknown or unkown fully), is an option better to becoming thrall to him. Besides, whatever comes from Eru, is considered to be for the good of his Children (stated as such by Finrod, so far for textual evidence):

If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy

Indeed, the whole existence is His gift, as Eru is free and has no need to give:

Note 1 to AFaA

The Eldar held that Eru was and is free at all stages

Brief aside concerning the kind of freedom Men have:

Originally Posted by davem

Men are not bound by the Music, so can change the world, in a way that other races/beings cannot, they can therefore 'think outside the box'

Last time we’ve been through this, I have had another option. I stand by it still: the freedom (of will) of all rational beings lies in the choice they are given, as the ultimate Freedom is with Eru:

'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Therein lies the story: given the same ruler of Good and Evil, all Children should measure with it their actions in similar way, and the freedom is in the process of measurement, not in different ruler. But one can not measure the same length with same ruler and come out with differing numbers? There is nothing special about humans in this respect apart from the mode of their death. But death is not their freedom per se, it is their fate! And according to Finrod’s guess (and that being only textual evidence withing ME so only reliable source) it is through their death that they bring change. Add to that vague references to probable Incarnation of Eru made in the same conversation, and you get another option for a Death to be a gift: it is a gift of Freedom (from Morgoth) right now, but in the future, it may become the gift of Creation (of the new world – Arda Remade). So it is gift now and greater gift potentially. (hum, 2gifts-1punishment=1gift? but that’s just a prank, do not heed )

Let's draw some logical chains:

1. According to Andreth, Men were designed to be immortal eternally, not bound by Arda’s fate.
2. Since separation of fëa and hröa is thought to be unnatural, in back reasoning, they were meant to lift the matter along with their spirit to some new level of existence
3. They fell. Death came as a release for them from Morgoth (so is the Gift in itself), but as it brought [unnatural] separation of fëa and hröa, it is at the same time a punishement. But the ‘gift part’ of it is greater – it a) grants them freedom from Morgoth b) makes their fate ‘fulfillable’, though modifies the mode of its achievement c) promises ‘third thing and greater’ – Eru Himself entering His own creation (Incarnation) and remaking of Arda

Even if Morgoth hoped for the outcome of the Man’s Fall when he contrived it to benefit him, and even if it was Morgoth’s design to have human fëar separated from their hröar (assuming he was aware of their fate and thus was planning to disrupt the Plan), he was defeated by the general principle (And thou, Melkor, shalt see...). That gives Finrod ground for joy, as he exclaims:

This then, I propound, was the errand of Men, not the followers, but the heirs and fulfillers of all: to heal the Marring of Arda, already foreshadowed before their devising; and to do more, as agents of the magnificence of Eru: to enlarge the Music and surpass the Vision of the World!
For that Arda Healed shall not be Arda Unmarred, but a third thing and a greater, and yet the same.

And, since Men, despite they did fall, are still set on the task, and if the means of fullfilling it is their death as opposed to whatever the original design planned, than Death is a Gift! Is not it enough for the death stand of its own (as a gift) withing the secondary world?

Analogy (warning: quite a crude one) I’m nearsighted. Spectacles I wear are my punishment, as they rub the bridge of my nose red at times, I keep on forgetting them in the bathroom, my sporting activities are restricted to jogging or swimming, as the playing of football or tennis bears certain risks of getting them shattered right on my face. But, and grave ‘but’ at that, they are more Gift and blessing for me than a suffering, as with these on, I can see, thus fullfilling the destiny my eyes were devised for, unless the Fall in the face of my crystalline lens’ bad behaviour came about!

Originally Posted by davem

Maybe that is the reason death is called a 'gift' - not death itself but the role they have within Arda of which death is a part - a central, essential, part, but a part nonetheless. Death is the means by which they fulfil their role.

Yes, yes and yes! Your ‘maybe’ caused the whole previous paragraph, all in all

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by HI

(hum, 2gifts-1punishment=1gift? but that's just a prank, do not heed )

I think there's actually a point there...somewhere.

Originally Posted by HI (again)

Even if Morgoth hoped for the outcome of the Man's Fall when he contrived it to benefit him, and even if it was Morgoth's design to have human fëar separated from their hröar (assuming he was aware of their fate and thus was planning to disrupt the Plan), he was defeated by the general principle (And thou, Melkor, shalt see...).

Now here's the contradiction on Morgoth's part. I see that as long as Men would stay alive, there is a chance for him to sway them over to his side and keep them from Eru. But why in Arda did he resort to killing Men during the Battles of Beleriand? Seems to me Sauron knew better - he urged the kings of Numenor to sail West to pursue immortality.

[alatar]

Did I miss something in the Silmarillion in regards to the 'Fall' of mankind?

And, to be a bit silly, Eru allows humans to escape the confines of Arda in order that they might escape the fate of being the subject of a movie sequel by Peter Jackson and company; something that in time even the Powers may envy ("Hmmm, just how can we make this Silmarillion story more exciting...let's make it 10 jewels, add a back story of a romance triangle between Manwë, Varda and Melkor, leave out that Eru guy as he's not really important to Tolkien's main theme, add a few belching Dwarves and we might just have a hit! ").

And now back to the serious discourse.

[obloquy]

What you may have missed, alatar, is called Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, and it is found in HoMe X.

H-I: When reading the Athrabeth, did you not get the impression that Andreth was reporting a belief that was not necessarily true? It seemed to me that she was relating a myth that was held by Men out of envy of the Elves. It has been a while since I've read it, now; however, as I recall, Finrod did not swallow her revelations on Man's fall whole.

[Lalwendë]

Thinking around the issue of whether death is punishment or gift, what happens to Men who do not die? Who are these Men? There is Earendil, but he is fated to ride in his ship for ever - and he is half-Elven. The Ring Bearers are permitted to travel to the Undying Lands but we do not know what their fate might be. Tuor is the only known figure who does become immortal as the Elves are immortal, and this is speculative.

Who else gives up the gift of Death? The Nazgul. These were once mortals, but now they are fea without a hroa, they are houseless spirits. This is a reversal of what happens when a mortal dies, that their fea leaves the earth; instead, the Nazgul remain, but without their bodies.

In the following words, spoken to Eowyn, it seems that the WK is talking of a choice she can have, a choice between simple death, or something else:

A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.'

What is interesting also in these lines is that the WK makes mention of 'the houses of lamentation'. Is this some kind of alternative Halls of Mandos? A place where, instead of fea and hroa being brought together again, they are permanently separated? If death is Eru's gift, then it might logically follow that Morgoth/Sauron might seek to take that gift away. For them to simply kill Men is no punishment at all, they must keep Men alive in some way.

So in this sense, Eowyn is either extremely brave or utterly foolish to stand in his way. In a very real sense, she could face a fate worse than death.

I remember Eomer of the Rohirrim saying many months ago that these lines were chilling, and they are! If we think of what the Nazgul are, and of what happens to the Ringbearers (at first living hale lives like Bilbo but then declining into wretched figures like Gollum), their fate is horrible enough, but from what the WK says, this can be done by other means. Whether done slowly or quickly, it still seems disturbing. It does bring to mind the horror of the Oblation Board in His Dark Materials and what they do to the children and their daemons.

So, apart from the odd example of Earendel, and the possibility that Tuor escaped 'Death', the only mortals we know about who escape death are the Nazgul and anyone they might send to 'the halls of lamentation'. It seems that death is indeed a gift from Eru looked at in these terms.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Did I miss something in the Silmarillion in regards to the 'Fall' of mankind?

And, to be a bit silly, Eru allows humans to escape the confines of Arda in order that they might escape the fate of being the subject of a movie sequel by Peter Jackson and company; something that in time even the Powers may envy ("Hmmm, just how can we make this Silmarillion story more exciting...let's make it 10 jewels, add a back story of a romance triangle between Manwë, Varda and Melkor, leave out that Eru guy as he's not really important to Tolkien's main theme, add a few belching Dwarves and we might just have a hit! ").

And now back to the serious discourse.

Dredging up a VERY old (but timeless) thread to note how 100% spot on alatar's assessment of Peter Jackson's adaptation methods were: he just didn't know it would be The Hobbit!

Since I'm here, I'll add to what Bêthberry says in the second to last prior post:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Maybe this is why Tolkien omitted a Fall in his mythology?

Namely, I'll clarify that Tolkien omits showing the Fall in his mythology. That Men have some dark, shameful past is quite clear in the Silmarillion texts showing the arrival of the Edain in Beleriand--it's just that Tolkien doesn't dwell on what that was, at least not there.

The Athrabêth does the exact opposite of that, which is why though I find it fascinating, it's a text that I'm wary of. In other words, the Athrabêth is Tolkien doing for Middle-earth's theology what the Myths Transformed texts would do for Middle-earth's cosmology: attempt to make it more consistent with the world as we know it (well, with the world as Tolkien would claim to have known it, anyway).

Given Tolkien's claim that The Lord of the Rings is "about Death and the desire for deathlessness," this is a theme likely to be ever fruitful, not least because Death and the desire for deathlessness are ever in tension in reality as in fiction. And while fiction may be a way of understanding reality, Tolkien's fiction is certainly not a simplistic way of trying to work out this particular issue.