Inevitability of death (revisited)

[Pitchwife]

This is getting rather complex, so, one thing after the other:

1. Seasons
If I remember my astronomy correctly, seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, which makes the two hemispheres receive more or less sunlight in longer or shorter periods at different points of our orbit around the Sun. I guess you can explain seasons in a geocentric Flat World model by having the Sun move around the Earth at varying distances - but no Sun, no seasons.
How did plants in Middle-Earth grow without sunlight? Intriguing question... To be sure, Nogrod did well to remind me early in this thread that Tolkien was creating a mythology (not writing science fiction), and any attempt to make it agree with modern science is bound to run into problems sooner or later (as the Professor found out himself). Hence, Legate, your idea of things being 'just the way they look' (no cells, no microbes, no photosynthesis) does have a certain charm. On the other hand, Arda is supposed to be our world, and I can't help thinking that the plants and animals must have been more or less of the same kind as ours.
Anyway:

you make the Sun and Moon the things that caused the plants to wither fast and grow fast. Not sure if that's the right thing to claim.

I don't see why not. Leave alone the Moon, but I seem to remember several statements by Tolkien (not that I can find a quote right now) saying that all things in Middle-Earth changed swifter in the Age of the Sun. Remember Letter no.131 to Milton Waldman:

A marked difference here between these legends and most others is that the Sun is not a divine symbol, but a second-best thing, and the 'light of the Sun' (the world under the sun) become terms for a fallen world, and a dislocated imperfect vision.

2. Hunting, Gathering and Agriculture
We know that the Elves practised agriculture. The Silmarillion mentions the fields of Valinor, gold beneath the tall wheat of the Gods, and the feast during which Melkor and Ungolianth killed the Trees was a harvest festival.
We also know that they hunted. Celegorm, for example, was a great hunter who often followed Orome's horn in Valinor - not just for a pleasant ride, I suppose (remember Huan!). In Middle-Earth, Thranduil's folk in Mirkwood hunted as well, see The Hobbit.
And we certainly know they did breed in Valinor! Finwe's children were born there, and their children too. Laws and Customs among the Eldar tells us, however, that the Elves had few children, and those mostly early in their married lives, so I don't think they had an over-population problem.

3. Death and Arda Unmarred
This is still the question that puzzles me most and made me start/revive this thread in the first place. I think I've finally found a quotation myself that demolishes my initial misconception (from the Athrabeth, Finrod speaking):

'For you speak of death and [Melkor's] shadow as if they were one and the same; and as if to escape from the Shadow was to escape also from Death.
But these two are not the same, Andreth. So I deem, or death would not be found at all in this world which he did not design but Another. Nay, death is but the name we give to something that the has tainted, and it sounds therefore evil; but untainted its name would be good.'

So it seems that death (or something like it) was part of Eru's original design after all - and we're all free to try to imagine what death untainted would have been like. Anyway, I take it Finrod is talking about death in general, not just the death of Men, but that may be just me - sorry, Legate, I find the idea of a world where nothing dies but Men rather chilling. Wouldn't it be even harder to accept and come to terms with death in such a world than it is in ours? To quote two lines from our German poet Günter Eich (my translation):
Who would want to live without the comfort of trees?
How good to know they, too, partake of dying!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

If I remember my astronomy correctly, seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, which makes the two hemispheres receive more or less sunlight in longer or shorter periods at different points of our orbit around the Sun. I guess you can explain seasons in a geocentric Flat World model by having the Sun move around the Earth at varying distances - but no Sun, no seasons.
How did plants in Middle-Earth grow without sunlight? Intriguing question... To be sure, Nogrod did well to remind me early in this thread that Tolkien was creating a mythology (not writing science fiction), and any attempt to make it agree with modern science is bound to run into problems sooner or later (as the Professor found out himself). Hence, Legate, your idea of things being 'just the way they look' (no cells, no microbes, no photosynthesis) does have a certain charm. On the other hand, Arda is supposed to be our world, and I can't help thinking that the plants and animals must have been more or less of the same kind as ours.

You see, the problem is - Arda is supposed to be our world, yet at the same moment, it is not really our world. Just because there are some things that work differently - some quite obvious ones. One really cannot take it for granted that Arda is our world, because there are conflicts. But I agree that it is also not good, especially when Tolkien emphasises that so strongly, that Arda is not our world. I think what may help us is some middle road: just taking it that Arda is this world in some other Age, but an Age when - note! - many things were different. Of course: continents had different shapes etc., but also, when trees could grow without light. I leave that to the biologists among us, simply put, if one of them wanted to deal with that, he could say that the trees eventually adapted to the sunlight and the chorophyle and whatever stuff inside them accepted the function of permitting photosynthesis, whereas before that, it did not have as much meaning, and the trees grew just based on something else, now one may start speculating about catching some rare vapors from the air with the leaves etc., just it proved later far more energetically advantageous to gain the benefit from the Sun. Or whatever you like.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

So it seems that death (or something like it) was part of Eru's original design after all - and we're all free to try to imagine what death untainted would have been like.

Well, I believe the main difference would be that Morgoth's shadow wouldn't be cast upon the *perception* of death - that is, Men wouldn't fear it, but they would embrace their destiny and continue their designed path, outside Ea (something which the Elves too would come to envy in time).

Anyway, I take it Finrod is talking about death in general, not just the death of Men

I believe not, I think Findor was specifically talking about Men, since they were a named target for Morgoth, who wanted to have them as his slaves, through fear and manipulation.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Well, I believe the main difference would be that Morgoth's shadow wouldn't be cast upon the *perception* of death

My thoughts exactly. Death untainted would be neither terrifying nor repulsive. Finrod in the Athrabeth, once again:

[...] to love the body and yet scorn it, the carrion-disgust: these things may come from the Morgoth, indeed.

You're right about the context of my earlier quote, of course: both Finrod and Andreth are primarily concerned with the death of Men. Yet, to me Finrod's words or death would not be found at all (my emphasis) sound like he has something larger in mind.

I would have liked, at this point, to delve a little into the theological implications of death as part of Eru's design (death as the Gift of Ilúvatar vs death as 'the wages of sin'), but discovered that this has already been discussed at length and brilliantly here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11971 Talk about re-inventing the wheel...

Anyway, I think we have to consider that the Children were introduced into the Music with the Third Theme, after Melkor had already spread discord; so their very nature, as designed by Eru, was a reaction, on Eru's side, to Melkor's initial marring of the Music.
(Side-thought: did Eru create the Children in Melkor's despite? That is, did He, being aware of Melkor's obsession with matter and his desire to dominate it, deliberately create beings consisting of a union of fea and hroa - matter and spirit - , knowing that whatever Melkor might do to their hroar, he would never be able to completely dominate their fear?)

P.S. to Legate:

Arda is this world in some other Age, but an Age when - note! - many things were different

I'd like to emend this to this world in an imaginary (or imaginable) Age, when many things were different from the way we know them to have been in the true past of our world (rather unelegant, but more precise). - Don't get me wrong: while it can be fun to speculate about the biology and other sciences of Arda, my peace of mind certainly doesn't depend upon it. Actually, I subscribe to everything you said about scientific explanations in the 'Enchantment or advancement' thread. I'm quite happy to accept trees growing (and even blossoming) without light as a given fact; and if they have to be explained somehow, I prefer a mythologic explanation ('they grew in the dark because Yavanna made them for the dark') anytime to a mock-scientific explanation ('they used a different kind of chlorophyll that enabled them to photosynthesize starlight').

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I would have liked, at this point, to delve a little into the theological implications of death as part of Eru's design (death as the Gift of Ilúvatar vs death as 'the wages of sin'), but discovered that this has already been discussed at length and brilliantly here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11971 Talk about re-inventing the wheel...

I would certainly encourage you to do so . A board where a topic is discusses in one, and only one, thread, is pretty much a dead board

Anyway, I think we have to consider that the Children were introduced into the Music with the Third Theme, after Melkor had already spread discord; so their very nature, as designed by Eru, was a reaction, on Eru's side, to Melkor's initial marring of the Music.

As far as I know, this is one of the main themes of discussion on most Tolkien boards. My personal position is that correlation does not mean implication. Though the appearance of the Eruhini was correlated with Melkor's actions, I strongly believe that the former originates purely in Eru's primary/initial intention. The purpose of the Children in creation, especially that of Men, is to take governance over Arda, to be, more or less, in the central spot of all the Universe, with everyone else fading into the background. If the purpose of Men is to replace everyone else as central players, then Melkor himself couldn't have been their source cause, since it means that by a rather unplanned action he determined the fate of valar and maiar, to a very fundamental degree. Eru excludes such a posibility, that anyone could alter his designs in his spite.

[Pitchwife]

You're right, of course, to insist on Eru's absolute freedom at any given point. However, as he introduced the Children into the Music after Melkor's discord, I like to think he may have adapted his design of their nature so as to counter the effects of the discord and enable them to fulfil his purpose in a world marred in the making. Or maybe not - if he knew what Melkor was up to all along, he didn't need to adapt his design. But this is touching on the problem of divine providence vs free will, which is another can of worms.

As for re-inventing the theological wheel, as you've so kindly encouraged me to do, the crux of the biscuit is this:
Christian theology (at least the Catholic tradition I was raised in) tends to regard death as 'the wages of sin' - i.e. a lamentable consequence of the Fall, to be redressed by Christ's incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection (hence 'death, where is thy sting'); implying that if Adam & Eve had not sinned and fallen, they might have lived forever.
(Genesis itself is sort of ambiguous about this question; on the one hand, we have

you are dust, and to dust you shall return

(Gen 3:19 - God proclaiming judgment on Adam after the Fall); on the other hand (Gen 3:22-23):

Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' - therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden

According to this, God banished Adam & Eve to prevent them from gaining immortality - which seems to mean they didn't have it before.)

For Tolkien, however (as far as we can judge from his writings), death was something completely different, namely 'the Gift of Ilúvatar': meaning, as I understand it,
1. part of the nature of Men as designed by Eru, regardless of any sin they may have committed, and
2. something that may have been tainted, but untainted its name would have been good (see above); which I take to mean that even if it's been tainted, it's still the best way for Eru to achieve the good he has in mind for Mankind.
To me, none of this sounds like orthodox Christianity. Now we know that Tolkien himself claimed LotR to be a thoroughly Christian book ('consciously in the revision', etc.) - which makes me wonder whether
a) there's any kind of loophole in Christian theology that allows for Tolkien's view of death to be considered as orthodox, or
b) this is a case of the truths of his heart prevailing over the truths of his faith.

(Athrabeth, with its story of the Fall of Men and preview of the Incarnation, looks like a late attempt by the Prof to make his mythology conform to the Christian tradition; but while it's certainly an interesting and touching piece of writing, I'm not sure that he was quite satisfied with it himself - or why else would he have said that parts of it sound like parodies of Christianity?)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

1. part of the nature of Men as designed by Eru, regardless of any sin they may have committed, and
2. something that may have been tainted, but untainted its name would have been good (see above); which I take to mean that even if it's been tainted, it's still the best way for Eru to achieve the good he has in mind for Mankind.
To me, none of this sounds like orthodox Christianity. Now we know that Tolkien himself claimed LotR to be a thoroughly Christian book ('consciously in the revision', etc.) - which makes me wonder whether
a) there's any kind of loophole in Christian theology that allows for Tolkien's view of death to be considered as orthodox, or
b) this is a case of the truths of his heart prevailing over the truths of his faith.

One thing that should probably be noted about Tolkien's comment about the LotR being a consciously Catholic work in the revision is that this comment does not claim to apply to the Silmarillion, which is where the Creation of the World and the Fall of Man has its recounting. As far as the LotR is concerned, these two subjects are left pretty much untouched. And as far as those two subjects go, they were written, and little changed thereafter--especially the Music of the Ainur, back in the Book of Lost Tales era.

Of course, it is also true that Tolkien saw LotR as part of a cohesive legendarium with the Silmarillion, but it strikes me as a bit unfair to look for the same sort of theology in both works given the different times in which they were written. While it is true that the Silmarillion was substantially continued after the completion of the LotR, it was mostly a rewriting of what had already been written, and the few radically new parts (that aren't expansions of old tales, such as the Narn i Chín Húrin) ARE, in fact, typically attempts to reconcile the old Silm with a new, different, worldview. The "Athrabeth" is certainly the main theological attempt, but I think it could be argued that the attempted cosmological changes involved in the Melkor essays included in Morgoth's Ring (HoME X) could be considered in the same light, though their focus is more on reconciling with a different physical worldview--that of the round world.

It is interesting, perhaps, that this revision to reconcile with a round world (the "real world") coincided with an attempt to reconcile with a Christian world (again, for Tolkien, the "real world"). I think it is also worth noting that while these changes proved to be almost too much to handle for the Silmarillion, there is really very little about them that would not be manageable for the LotR, barring perhaps a bit of the Appendices--meaning that the LotR is, in at least one sense, fundamentally reconcilable with the "real world"--Christian and round.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

the Silmarillion, which is where the Creation of the World and the Fall of Man has its recounting

Creation, yes; Fall, no (unless you include Adanel's story in the Athrabeth). All we are told about the prehistory of Men in the published Silmarillion are vague rumours about a shadow the Edain sought to escape - as is to be expected from the elvo-centric perspective of the work.

And as far as those two subjects go, they were written, and little changed thereafter--especially the Music of the Ainur, back in the Book of Lost Tales era.

Not quite so. Remember, this thread is about Tolkien's attitude towards death, especially the concept of death as the Gift of Ilúvatar - of which, IIRC, there is little trace, if any, in BoLT. (Actually, BoLT has some very curious and rather primitive ideas about the post-mortal fate of Men - including, unless my memory deceives me, those damned by Mandos being ferried to Angband for torture; not to forget the post-mortem deification of Túrin and Nienóri and Túrin's role in the Last Battle, which survived to reappear in several later stages of the Legendarium.)
Unfortunately, I don't own the relevant volumes of HoME, so I can't pinpoint when the idea of the Gift first appeared. When was the first version of the Ainulindale after that in BoLT written, and does it contain anything of the sort?

Anyway - while I admit that I've taken a rather diachronic approach in my arguments, I don't think I've been unfair to Tolkien. The concept of death as the Gift is present (though not prominent) in LoTR - Appendix A, The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen:

For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive.

So my questions do pertain to LotR, not only to the Silmarillion and later writings.

You're right, of course, about the intention of Athrabeth and the late essays in Morgoth's Ring. Whether or not the Silmarillion would have been improved by the changes Tolkien projected is a question of taste - I, for one, prefer the making of the Sun and Moon from the last blossom/fruit of Telperion and Laurelin.

the "real world"--Christian and round

No comment.

Raynor: Felix peccatum and felix culpa - yes, of course; but felix mors???

the coming of Christ in christianity which is uniquely important not just for humans but for all creation[my emphasis, Pw], and the fulfillment of the role of creation in Ea through Men and their gifts

Please elaborate.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Or maybe not - if he knew what Melkor was up to all along, he didn't need to adapt his design.

Well, I'd like to go with this idea tbh, since it is coherent with the concept of the all-knowing, all-powerful god.

Christian theology (at least the Catholic tradition I was raised in) tends to regard death as 'the wages of sin' - i.e. a lamentable consequence of the Fall, to be redressed by Christ's incarnation/crucifixion/resurrection (hence 'death, where is thy sting'); implying that if Adam & Eve had not sinned and fallen, they might have lived forever.
...
a) there's any kind of loophole in Christian theology that allows for Tolkien's view of death to be considered as orthodox

The original sin is also viewed in another way: felix pecata, the happy fault, that will require the presence of Christ.

"O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

a line from the traditional Western Rite hymn of praise intoned by the deacon during the Easter Vigil. This was also invoked by theologians, such as Thomas d'Aquino, to explain how a greater good can be brought through the existence of evil. Tolkien too in his Letters shows a similar view:

Originally Posted by Letters, p. 76

All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects.' No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitatis. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success – in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.

I think this is the joining point of the two views on death. Tolkien took liberty in exploring the subject of death from another angle, but maintaining the basic principles, humans predestined to die by design no matter what, and the situation of humans born in sin is a pre-condition for something much greater (the coming of Christ in christianity which is uniquely important not just for humans but for all creation, and the fulfillment of the role of creation in Ea through Men and their gifts).