Imagine no religion

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I've always felt grateful to Professor Tolkien for largely keeping his own personal religious -- i.e., animist -- beliefs out of his published literary creations. Perhaps this reflects the rigorous criticism that he regularly solicited and received from his great friend and colleague, the atheist C. S. Lewis. At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood. Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I've always felt grateful to Professor Tolkien for largely keeping his own personal religious -- i.e., animist -- beliefs out of his published literary creations.

Last time I checked, he was a Catholic. But I think I get what you mean by animist - if you're trying to extrapolate his personal beliefs from his work, traces of animism can certainly be found there (e.g. Old Man Willow, Caradhras...); but that may be largely inherent in the mythological form he chose, and I'd be wary to simply label the man himself as an animist based on that.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Perhaps this reflects the rigorous criticism that he regularly solicited and received from his great friend and colleague, the atheist C. S. Lewis.

... whom Tollers converted back to Christianity. Just saying.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood. Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

Oh boy. Talk about a mumak in a porcelain shop. Not that I entirely disagree, but wording it like that may lead to ... interesting responses.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

First, from The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion, by Sir James George Frazer (1922):

The very beasts associate the ideas of things that are like each other or that have been found together in their experience; and they could hardly survive for a day if they ceased to do so. But who attributes to the animals a belief that the phenomena of nature are worked by a multitude of invisible animals or by one enormous and prodigiously strong animal behind the scenes? It is probably no injustice to the brutes to assume that the honor of devising a theory of this latter sort must be reserved for human reason.

Second, just to clear up a point of terminology, I followed the supplied link to the Wikipedia definition of "Animism," where I found:

According to religious scholar Robert Segal, Sir Edward Tylor saw all religions, "modern and primitive alike," as forms of animism.

I agree completely with this usage of the more comprehensive term "Animist" in preference to the parochial and sectarian manifestations of received religious rituals that many people unconsciously assume when they -- loosely -- use the term "religious." "Catholic" or "Druid" makes no significant difference -- just a minor theological squabble about the number of invisible animist spooks involved. I don't think I need to further belabor the point.

More importantly, as opposed to the "one enormous and prodigiously strong animal" school of animism, rather than the "multitude of invisible animals" school -- sometimes referred to as Monotheistic Animism vs Polytheistic Animism -- Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one. According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

More importantly, as opposed to the "one enormous and prodigiously strong animal" school of animism, rather than the "multitude of invisible animals" school -- sometimes referred to as Monotheistic Animism vs Polytheistic Animism -- Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one. According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual groveling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Is 'all of the above' a valid answer? We have Eru. We have Fangorn and trees with souls. Animals speak and can be spoken to. Legolas reports the rocks of Hollin remember elves of ages past. Even if part of the spirit of Eru doesn't echo in everything, arguably a part of the spirit of Morgoth might. Simply saying 'everything has a soul' might easily start a discussion as to the nature of souls in Tolkien's world. Such a discussion would be inconclusive I expect. Anyway, one might argue that elements of monotheism, pantheism and animalism are present.

I would also suggest that both forms of magic exist. If one has a potent enough fea, one can draw on one's own strength and do stuff. Gandalf, as a maia, has such strength. Aragorn, in his healing and his prophecy, has such strength as well though how he manifests it is limited. There are times when various characters speak the names of the Valar in supplication.

The word I might use to describe Tolkien's world with respect to magic and religion would be 'complicated.'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

According to Frazer's monumental study, both the magician and the priest claim to believe in unseen animal -- or animated -- spirits (One or several) who they claim make the observable world work as it does. Both claim to believe that the magician and the priest can sway these animal spirits -- or spooks -- to make things turn out the way the magician or the priest want. They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination. I leave it to the interested reader of The Hobbit and/or The Lord of the Rings to determine which form of animist behavior best describes Tolkien's Middle-earth: Magical or Religious.

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

You say that "the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments".
Where in the books is that found? "Spells" are used by people who either, as Gandalf, have an innate ability to affect the physical environment, or, like the Witch-king, have so submerged themselves in the identity of those with innate power that they are able to "borrow" it. Spells are used in the books to affect the physical environment and further the cause of the caster, but I know of no instance in which they are used to "compel, or coerce" a higher power to do one's bidding.

Then, on the "religious" side, you say "the priest believes that only his ritual grovelling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe."
Likewise, I see no instance of that. The original premise of this thread was in fact that it is difficult to find any organised, ritualistic divine worship in the books. The sole exception is, as has been noted, the Númenóreans and their "Satanistic" Morgoth-cult. Crying to Elbereth for help in times of need may be considered a prayer, but there is no ritual involved, and it is done by anyone who feels the need for it, like Frodo and Sam. There is no priest to serve as an intermediary between the Middle-earth denizen and the Valar. The Valar themselves are intermediaries between the Children and the Creator.

As blantyr said, "complicated" does seem to be the watchword here.

[Pitchwife]

First, about the Frazer quote and a bit off topic, I suspect animals (at least domesticated ones) don't need to speculate about gods or spirits because they have us; and no doubt they quite often think that the gods must be crazy.

Second,

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

I agree completely with this usage of the more comprehensive term "Animist" in preference to the parochial and sectarian manifestations of received religious rituals that many people unconsciously assume when they -- loosely -- use the term "religious."

Well, I don't, mainly because if you say all religions are animistic, you make the words animist and religious synonyms, and thus one of them redundant - unless you mean that there are also forms of animism that are not religious; and it seems you do mean that when you say:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals

But only a few lines above you said:

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Professor Tolkien opted -- in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings -- for the creation of a "Magical" world instead of an Animist or "religious" one.

- again using animist=religious as synonymous and opposed to magical.
See why I prefer to use the term in a narrow sense?

Third, no need for the bolding. We can all read and recognize a distinction without having it shoved in our faces.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Going by those parameters, it doesn't appear that LOTR fits the bill for "Magical" or "Religious".

Which, if I understood him right, is more or less what TMT was originally saying before he entangled himself in the intricacies of terminology.

About the eagles - I think you may be right that they were sent more for the Númenóreans benefit than the Valar's. Remember the Three Houses of the Edain originally were dissenters from Morgoth worship (as per Adanel's Tale in the Athrabeth); the Valar may have feared that their descendants might relapse if left to themselves (and surprise, they did!), so they felt a need to remind the Númenóreans "We're watching you." And I think it's no coincidence that the last warning omen from the West in the days of Ar-Pharazôn was a cloud of eagles - "The eagles of the Lords of the West are at hand!", no longer as witnesses, but in wrath.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

They differ, however, in that the magician believes that he can compel, or coerce, the Spook-or-spooks to do what he commands through spells and enchantments, while the priest believes that only his ritual groveling and begging can convince the Spook-or-spooks to look favorably upon him and his tribe instead of some other priest or tribe. Therein lies the distinction between "Magic" and "Religion" -- both forms of Animism, but differing in their advertised ways of dealing with the unseen Big-Animal or host-of-little-unseen-animals -- none of which exist outside the fanciful human imagination.

It would be very easy to build a cynical political model of how religion works, with or without actual magical powers by gods and priests. Perhaps the congregation provides power through worship needed by the gods and priests. Perhaps the congregation can coerce the gods through groveling and begging. Perhaps the prayers are compulsive, that the gods might have to act. Perhaps a god who does not respond to requests just doesn't get worshipped. Perhaps the priests are in it to maximize their own power, using the congregation and the gods equally. One could create a cynical scheme where all parties involved are asking 'what's in it for me', and acting in a selfish fashion.

One could create such a system of religion, but I don't think the above is at all what Tolkien did with Middle Earth. There is no priesthood trying to optimize their own power and influence. The Valar have an abundance of power, have no need to demand or coerce worship. The divinities seem more or less sane and rational, though hardly perfect and ideal. I have no sense that they would respond well to groveling or begging. Quite the contrary, they seem ready to let ordinary beings handle thing by themselves the majority of the time. Individuals in extreme situations might appeal to the Valar, but the sense that I get is that you don't bother them for little stuff. Even then, you might sort of let them know there is a problem by quickly invoking their Names, then do the best one can with or without their help.

I can see both wizardly and religious magic in Middle Earth. I do see an abundance of fea all over the place: Valar, elves, humans, trees, rocks, weather and most everything in between. One might apply various words used to describe human religions to Middle Earth, but I wouldn't expect to be able to neatly pidgin hole things.

But the notion that one should grovel and beg to manipulate the Valar… That just doesn't feel right. Whether one is writing fan fiction, role playing or holding a academic discussion, that just doesn't feel like the way to gain their sympathy or support. I'd recommend performing a great heroic deed or two. If you can't sing as well as Lúthien, I'd avoid the groveling and begging.

[Galadriel55]

I want to bring up one passage from The Sil:

And seeing no better hope, [Fingon] cried to Manwe, saying: "O King to whom all birds are dear, speed now this feathered shaft, and recall some pity for the Noldor in their need!"
His prayer was answered swiftly.

There is prayer in times of need, but still no mention of an organised worship system.

[Almesiva Moonshadow]

No religion means no cruch on Sunday so...YAAAAY!

[blantyr]

They might not have priests, but there are a lot of cultures in Middle Earth with minstrels and songs. When Frodo and Sam woke in Ithilin, one of the first major tasks was writing the tale of nine fingered Frodo and the Ring of doom. When Frodo stopped in Rivendell, there was the Hall of Fire. When the Fellowship reached Lorien they had the elves singing songs of the late Mithrandir. Even in the Wild between Bree and Rivendell, Sam knew a few verses telling the story of Gil Galad.

I'd suggest that histories are told in song. Part of the role of the song is to illustrate good and evil. What choices must a hero face, and what have been the consequences in the past?

There is a large difference between a minstrel and a priest. Yet, if there is some universal agreement on the nature of good and evil, a tradition of story telling in song, in keeping alive lessons learned from past mistakes, might well be present.

[Morthoron]

The power of song is very evident throughout Middle-earth history. Or perhaps the better term is "songs of power", which is evidently a theme that intrigued Tolkien. We're' not talking merely singing, but a method used to summon power by beings with innate power themselves, or lesser beings that use an agent in combination with song (Frodo with the phial of Galadrial or Aragorn with athelas).

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

Let us not forget old Tom Bombadil who taught the hobbits a "rhyme" with which to summon him for aid and his weapon against the Barrow Wight, a song. Goldberry's singing also seems to bring a golden light around the hobbits on their arrival at the doorstep to the House of Bombadil.

Note: This is not to resurrect the "Bombadil is Eru" argument.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The power of song is very evident throughout Middle-earth history. Or perhaps the better term is "songs of power", which is evidently a theme that intrigued Tolkien...

From the Music of the Ainur, to the battle of Finrod and Sauron, to Luthien and Morgoth, songs of power weaved a spell throughout Arda.

I do not in the least doubt or intend to diminish the role of song in projecting magic. Many of the greatest spell casters in the histories are singers rather than users of words and gestures.

Still, an ordinary minstrel, a singer of tales with no occult abilities worth mentioning, has a role in keeping alive myth and perpetuating moral standards. When Frodo and Sam awoke in Ithilin after Mount Doom, one of the first things on the agenda was singing the tale of nine fingered Frodo and his ring. Sam in the Wild between Bree and Rivendell sang a bit of the tale of Gil Galad. Then there was the Hall of Fire. One has song for the telling of tales as well as song for the projection of power.

I have an impression that the free peoples of the Third Age were much less likely to muck things up than their First or Second Age counterparts. An awful lot of the First and Second Age stories were tragedies. The Great in their greed, arrogance and pride were apt to muck things up big time, often involving everyone in loss and sorrow.

Perhaps some of the 'goodness' in the free peoples was 'programming,' the creators who sang them into being in the First Music made them to be decent people. If part of the tradition of goodness is taught, I would not underestimate the histories told in song or perhaps epic poetry that kept old traditions alive and reminds folks of what can happen if the wrong choices are made.

In many real world cultures, it is up to the priests to keep the old tales alive and make sure the moral lessons aren't lost. In Middle Earth, while there is no organized church hierarchy or codified clerical laws, the singers might be doing some part of what the priests might do in different sort of culture.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

At any rate, and as numerous others have noted, Tolkien's studied ambiguity towards -- if not indifference to -- religious practices in his fictional Middle-earth make this fantasy world more universal and acceptable in its appeal, particularly since historic religious traditions -- especially the Single Spook variety -- tend mostly to function as atavistic amplifiers of tribal xenophobia, more often than not engendering fear and loathing of the dreaded "OTHER" than any sort of benign impulse towards human brotherhood.

I don't believe you could call Tolkien "indifferent" on the subject. How do you explain the overt worship of Eru, the Prime Creator by the Númenóreans? Or the fact that, according to the UT essay Cirion and Eorl, Cirion named Eru in witness to the oaths taken by him and Eorl, and that

[Cirion's] oath astounded those who heard it, and filled them with awe, and was alone (over and above the venerable tomb) sufficient to hallow the place where it was spoken.

Footnote 44

Why did naming Eru in the oath "hallow" the spot, unless the god himself heard the oath, and approved?

As to the last bit of your quote, all I'm going to say is that I do not agree with the basic premise, but that is not a discussion for this forum.

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Religion in Middle-earth would only have made bad things worse, so kudos to Professor Tolkien for letting the good things get along well enough -- as they usually do -- without this unnecessary encumbrance.

I daresay there are some readers who see the workings of 'religion' in the books, whether you do or not, and for them that is one of the 'good things' in itself.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I don't believe you could call Tolkien "indifferent" on the subject. How do you explain the overt worship of Eru, the Prime Creator by the Númenóreans? Or the fact that, according to the UT essay Cirion and Eorl, Cirion named Eru in witness to the oaths taken by him and Eorl, and that...

I daresay there are some readers who see the workings of 'religion' in the books, whether you do or not, and for them that is one of the 'good things' in itself.

I second this. If waving a staff or speaking a word of command are techniques to gather or focus 'magic', uttering the name of a Valar seems a valid technique as well. I see the hymns sung to Elbereth as prayer, and not vain ones. I see the inclusion of a Valar's name in a prophecy or curse as a way of raising the stakes.

Yet, I do note there are few if any characters that might be described well as 'priests.' One might on occasion invoke a Valar's name in supplication, but there doesn't seem to be a clerical hierarchy of representatives claiming to speak for the Valar or advocate for their will.

We might want to say that there are few to no religious institutions in comparison to historical cultures, but that the Valar are somewhat akin to Gods and that prayer is not a futile exercise.