No Sun or Moon

[littlemanpoet]

In the beginning of Middle Earth there is no sun or moon, and it is the Two Trees that give light to the world - or at least to Valinor.

My question: Where did Tolkien get this idea from? I have not read many of the HoME series: does it say anywhere in the many publications of the histories of Middle Earth?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Trees specifically, LMP? My knowledge of mythology doesn't stretch much further than Norway, but they had light before the Sun too -- it came from the original fire in the world.

Reminds me of the Ricky Gervais joke, about God creating the universe in the dark.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, trees are what Tolkien puts in there.

What strikes me is that there are ancient mythologies across the world that record a time before the sun was in the sky. I suppose Tolkien must have known about these?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I do not know anything about the mythological roots of the the Trees, and I can't remember anything ever being said about them in the HoMEs/Letters I've read so far, but I do dimly recall that Tolkien was trying to portray the Sun as a flawed source of light (cf. Ecclesiastes's 'life under the sun').

[littlemanpoet]

Fascinating, Nilp. Every little tidbit of information I pick up on this adds up to some incredible stuff. There is an interdisciplinary school of thought that is researching a new paradigm about the history of our solar system, such that the earth was not always as near the sun as it is now but had other sources of light to sustain life. In it, "life under the sun" is understood as a "second best" condition after cataclysms that ruined the original situation.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What strikes me is that there are ancient mythologies across the world that record a time before the sun was in the sky. I suppose Tolkien must have known about these?

Like in Genesis? You (and Tolkien) may have come across this...

Originally Posted by Moses in Genesis 1:3-5

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Originally Posted by Moses in Genesis1:14-19

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

But there's nothing on trees.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

As one learning Hebrew I feel I HAVE TO point out a slight mistake...

Originally Posted by alatar

Moses in Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day..

Actually, the Hebrew reads "Yom Ekhad", "Day One". The rest of them are labeled 'second', 'third', 'fourth' and so on. 'One' is absolute, 'first' is comparative. <--- closests to geeky glasses...

But, yes, you are right, light came before the sun even in Genesis. Though it is not unique even amongst mesopotamian creation narratives. The root word, in Hebrew, is “אור” (Or) which means; to ‘become light’, ‘shine’, ‘be enlightened’, ‘kindle’ and ‘light’. The word is also used to mean; ‘glorious’.
The obvious question is ‘where is the light coming from?’ because we, as yet, do not have the sun. In Jewish mysticism, a lot is said about this light. Some say it is ‘the light of ultimate awareness’. It is given all sorts of attributes, such as being a thousand times brighter than the sun and allowing someone to see across time. What I find most interesting (and this is why I think it is relevant), is that the definition 'to enlighten' is expounded upon in a few writings. That this light is not like visible light, but rather, the light of knowledge. Again, I do not think this idea is restricted to Jewish Mysticism. The idea is that, before the sun, there was a time of 'enlightenment' where knowledge was abounding.

I think this ties in with the idea that there is some sort of 'Golden Age'. The time of the lamps is one that brings the trees that are like living mountains. They never appear again. The time of the Two Trees brings forth many things of beauty, not least, The Silmarills, which are never equaled. This narrative device of a Golden Age is prominent in a lot of Tolkien's work. The Sun and Moon ages are 'normal', whereas the Lamps and the Trees represent a time immemorial, where wisdom was fresh and things were different.

This idea of time before the sun is an interesting one.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

As one learning Hebrew I feel I HAVE TO point out a slight mistake...

Actually, the Hebrew reads "Yom Ekhad", "Day One". The rest of them are labeled 'second', 'third', 'fourth' and so on. 'One' is absolute, 'first' is comparative. <--- closests to geeky glasses...

You will want to let those who collated the NIV, KJV and NKJV. The NASV states it as "one day" and "a fourth day."

And your thoughts regarding 'enlightenment are interesting. Never saw that light before.

This idea of time before the sun is an interesting one.

It comes up frequently when discussing Genesis between those that read it as a literal seven day creation and those that see it as more poetic/allegoric.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

In Jewish mysticism, a lot is said about this light. Some say it is ‘the light of ultimate awareness’. It is given all sorts of attributes, such as being a thousand times brighter than the sun and allowing someone to see across time. What I find most interesting (and this is why I think it is relevant), is that the definition 'to enlighten' is expounded upon in a few writings. That this light is not like visible light, but rather, the light of knowledge. Again, I do not think this idea is restricted to Jewish Mysticism. The idea is that, before the sun, there was a time of 'enlightenment' where knowledge was abounding.

Oh! This comes up in Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Like in Genesis? You (and Tolkien) may have come across this... ..... But there's nothing on trees.

On the contrary: there are two trees: one a tree of life, one a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

On the contrary: there are two trees: one a tree of life, one a tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Excellent! Right under my nose and I didn't even see it. And those trees were illuminating too - at least in some sense.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill

But, yes, you are right, light came before the sun even in Genesis.

Not only in Genesis. It's in many myths around the world, as Alatar relates. Mesopotamian, Mesoamerican, Nordic, Oriental, Greek, Egyptian, etc.

Originally Posted by Hookbill

The obvious question is ‘where is the light coming from?

Indeed. Tolkien's answer was "the Two Trees". Genesis is not the only source for the tree archetype though. The Norse have Yggdrasil. There may be other myths that feature something like it, maybe not a tree..

What's fascinating is that from many myths around the world, the light before the sun comes from what is called, depending upon the ancient culture, "the great sun", "the unmoved mover", "the polar sun", and so forth. The "great sun" is always at the north pole, and it is always associated with the planet Saturn. Which begs the question, "were they all equally nuts, or was earth's sky different within human memory than it is now?"

Obviously, Tolkien didn't pick up on this Saturnian theme. On the contrary, he located his evil persona, Morgoth, in the frigid North instead.

Originally Posted by Hookbill

I think this ties in with the idea that there is some sort of 'Golden Age'

This again is common to all ancient myths, when the earth produced abundantly, there was no sun, and there was no extreme of hot and cold. All of these cultures' myths share so many inexplicable traits like this, yet they knew nothing of each other. It suggests, strongly, that something was going on that we have forgotten about, or perhaps ignore, calling it "superstition" while not really understanding it.

Tolkien obviously knew a lot about different myths, especially the Norse, Finnish, and Greek, and perhaps Celtic. It comes as no surprise that he incorporated much of the ideas and archetypes from them into Middle Earth.

What I do find intriguing is that in his later years he wanted to try to "correct" his early stories to fit the current structure of the solar system. I think this was a mistake because it is to presume that the solar system always was as it is now. Fact is, it's littered with shrapnel and disarray as if it has been a war zone of some cosmic kind: asteroid belt, comets, various moons and planets with striations crisscrossing them; planets rotating oddly, unstable atmospheres - all of which should not exist in a solar system unchanged for billions of years.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Trees specifically, LMP? My knowledge of mythology doesn't stretch much further than Norway, but they had light before the Sun too -- it came from the original fire in the world.

The flame imperiahable?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Interesting thought, Eönwë. The flame imperishable was more central, though, as opposed to the fire and ice of Norse mythology. But there's another thread for that, started by Rune, which is very interesting.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Interesting thought, Eönwë. The flame imperishable was more central, though, as opposed to the fire and ice of Norse mythology.

Remind you of anyone in the sil?

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

[He] is clad in ice and crownd with smoke and fire; the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold

Or perhaps the lamps in BoLT (No! I just packed this book.)

edit: sorry, Elempi, I wrote this before you said that, and just forgot to press the post button.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Going through the Christian beliefs, there was no sun before it was created in Genesis(duh), so the light that was there had to come from somewhere else. The Bible (to my knowledge) doesn't have any reference to what light was before the sun, but Tolkien could've gotten this particular idea from another source like was mentioned before or he could have gotten an idea from nowhere and that could have sparked his imagination to go somewhere else with it. But wherever he got the idea for the two trees, Tolkien probably had to change it somewhat...

[alatar]

This link has a huge list of creation myths from all over the globe. It reminded me that in Greek mythology, the sun (Apollo) and the moon (Artemis) are not born until well after Gaia's been though some ages. Marduk fought Tiamat before making the sun and moon from its corpse. Coyolxauhqui, moon goddess, was created/born before the sun-god Quetzalcoatl.

It would seem that light before the sun and moon is somewhat common, but from trees?

*Note that the moon is not a light source but just a big reflector.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by alatar

This link has a huge list of creation myths from all over the globe.

Did you notice this?

Originally Posted by wikipedia, Alatar's link, on the Ainu people

When the animals who lived up in the heavens saw how beautiful the world was, they begged Kamui to let them go and live on it, and he did. But Kamui also made many other creatures especially for the world. The first people, the Ainu, had bodies of earth, hair of chickweed, and spines made from sticks of willow. Kamui sent Aioina, the divine man, down from heaven to teach the Ainu how to hunt and to cook.

Sounds familiar....hmm....

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil, why the human mind and human society only?

Also, let me clarify: I am not saying "the myths are true". I'm writing fiction about that myself. I am suggesting that ancient cultures described to the best of their ability (what we choose to call mythology) something that really happened in the sky of their time, which we find almost impossible to believe because what they described is not what we see now.

As for "across all myths", I misspoke. There are ancient cultures respected for their highly accurate recordings of the night sky, namely Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Babylon, where these strange similarities crop up. These, by the way, are starting points.

The heart of the dying sun god story comes from mesoamerican cultures: Mayan and Aztec.

I understand the scientific method and what you say about theories contradicted by new evidence. What I'm talking about, however, is an entire paradigm issue by which certain theories are not even allowed to be considered by those who hold scientific power in universities. Kind of like the literati who refuse to accept Tolkien's works as good literature because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what good literature ought to be.

On general relativity, are you saying the theory has been put to rest in some cases but not others, or that it has been put to rest completely? Being a theory about general relativity, I do believe I am correct in understanding that it purports to account for all forces in relation to each other: gravity, electromageticsm, weak and strong forces (of some kind), and that in relation to each other, no force can be infinite precisely because it must BE in relation to the other forces. If that is incorrect, how?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I agree with what you say, lmp! for the ancient people their gods were real and their actions mattered to them; understanding the nature of their gods may well help them understand their own function. Or something like that...

The sky is an interesting thing. For many ancient religions, the sky was the place where the gods dwelt. The mighty Ziggurats of Mesopotamia stretch up into the Heavens and are believed to have acted as portals for the gods to ascend and descend. It is not only the Creation poem of Genesis that describes it as dividing the waters above from the waters below. It seems to act as a sort of shield against the heavenly waters. Indeed, the Hebrew word for what we call 'the firmament' actually means, literally, a 'beaten metal plate' usually armour. In some traditions (especially Egyptian), mountains are said to hold the sky up. Indeed, some Egyptian texts suggest that the sky was considered to be made of a sort of iron of which pieces often fell to earth. It is not uncommon for the sky to be made before the sun. Often the Sun is a watcher of the skies and the earth. Horus of Egypt is a good example.

I think we all need to remember that Tolkien was one who loved the myths and legends. Science and cosmology were not his forté, so we can't expect them to be his prominent motifs in Middle Earth. We can argue over how true these myths are, but in the end, will that really get us close to what is going on in Middle Earth? Tolkien said in an interview that Middle Earth was our world but at 'a different level of imagination'. I think this is the point. The human imagination is always looking for explanations for the world around us; what better way than to tell stories? We can't assume that all ancient people were just mindless idiots, they had more sense than we often think. Ideas and the progress of stories is only stopped by those greedy for power for themselves. Stories have power, and if you control the stories, you have a lot of control over people. That way tyranny lies. It is therefore interesting to look at some nomadic myths which go through lots of changes, often based on what they see and experience. Many of the tales of the Torah may well be such; Nomads' tales passed from generation to generation.

Urm... I think I'm heading off on a tangent here...

The sun is an important figure to humanity. It gives our little planet more than 90% of its energy. As it is the dominant figure in the sky, I suspect that those who looked around and saw that the world wasn't exactly perfect, made some sort of connection. Perhaps this is where the idea of a pre-sun time came from; the desire to return to a state of none-corruption.
This is mostly guesswork, you understand...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Also, let me clarify: I am not saying "the myths are true". I'm writing fiction about that myself. I am suggesting that ancient cultures described to the best of their ability (what we choose to call mythology) something that really happened in the sky of their time, which we find almost impossible to believe because what they described is not what we see now.

Again, I think that we agree somewhat. The science of the ancients was the best that they could do at that time; also, the writings etc that we have from those ancient days may be a subset of what was known. As far as we know, someone somewhere wrote about germ theory, but the papyri were destroyed in the drowning of Númenor (though I doubt it ).

As for "across all myths", I misspoke. There are ancient cultures respected for their highly accurate recordings of the night sky, namely Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Babylon, where these strange similarities crop up. These, by the way, are starting points.

It occurred to me a possible reason why 'light' is created before the sun. Those of you up and outside earlier enough in the morning (when you are waiting for the morning paper at the end of your driveway...) may have observed that it becomes light before the sun rises. Some maybe the ancients were just explaining what they observed, which if you assumed a flat earth...

What I'm talking about, however, is an entire paradigm issue by which certain theories are not even allowed to be considered by those who hold scientific power in universities.

Such as? Note that if there exists a scientific cabal, they have yet to allow me to join. Not saying that this is what you mean, but if you want to add 'supernatural' to the mix, then science becomes useless, though a cushy job if you can get it. Why does the moon orbit the Earth? The god created it that way, so we're done and so can go for ice cream (which sounds like a good idea). If a god, by definition, can do anything - even violate its own laws - then what's the use?

Kind of like the literati who refuse to accept Tolkien's works as good literature because it doesn't fit their narrow view of what good literature ought to be.

Not exactly. The Soviets practiced Lysenkoism and ignored the works of Mendel. Was it just subjective opinion? Did they just prefer red to blue, or think that vanilla ice cream was capitalistic? No, using the wrong 'science' - Lysenkoism was a belief based on faith and not evidence - people starved.

On general relativity, are you saying the theory has been put to rest in some cases but not others, or that it has been put to rest completely? Being a theory about general relativity, I do believe I am correct in understanding that it purports to account for all forces in relation to each other: gravity, electromageticsm, weak and strong forces (of some kind), and that in relation to each other, no force can be infinite precisely because it must BE in relation to the other forces. If that is incorrect, how?

First, nothing in science is *ever* put to rest. One of science's strong points is that it constantly tests itself (sure, sometimes the establishment isn't too happy about the new and so tries to squash things, but doesn't this take place everywhere humans are involved?), constantly trying to disprove theories. Scientists do not assume that what's true today will be true tomorrow. Not that there won't be some carryover, as usually ideas are refined and not always thrown out, but, in the end, more information leads to more understanding.

Think that this is why people don't 'get' science. How much more comforting - even to me - to think that everything is known, all is well and someone is minding the shop. How annoying and even scary to know that what you think you know may not be how things truly are.

On the other hand, note that gravity is a theory. If, and the day will come (see below), this theory is modified or overturned, you won't go floating off into space.

Regarding Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: This site should make your head hurt. At issue is how to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. So far, much has been conjectured but nothing proven. How will it all pan out? Don't know, but what I find amusing is that, one day a thousand years from now some person will dust off a 2008 physics book and look and laugh.

"I can't believe they thought that the universe was..."